Saturday, October 31, 2009

Legend Of Atlantis - Dawn Of The Gods
(Thule, Illuminati, 2012, Shambala, Ufo, New Age)

Part 1

Part 2

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Gods of the New Age (1984)

The Best Video on the New Age Movement ever made. An eye-opening film of the Yoga Meditation, Eastern Mysticism, PsychologiaI Therapy, Self-Help, Mind Control and much more... Expores the eerie world of ego-maniacal gurus and their western counterpats, New Agers. The definitive work. Explores its birth, its invasion, and its effect on western society. It explores the pagan roots of eastern mysticism, meditation, yoga, and more. An eye-opening expose of the New Age movement. Shows how it was conceived in the early 1960's at a planning session by Hindu gurus in India as a means of converting Americans to Eastern mysticism. The seemingly innocuous devices used range from Yoga meditation to a belief in reincarnation. We are given an extraordinary inside glimpse into cult mentality and mindless obedience, and we see how an outright attack against traditional American beliefs has been successfully launched, not only from Hindu missionaries, but from unsuspecting Americans who have accepted the surface manifestations of this religion as trendy and fun. The film covers the chilling parallels between the belief structure in today's New Age subculture and that in Hitler's Third Reich two generations ago. 1 hour 43 minutes.' With explosive facts, it explains why yoga, meditation, psychologiaI therapy and self-help are turning millions to a pagan worldview. This film expores the eerie world of ego-maniacal gurus and their western counterpats, New Agers. In a series of exclusive, candid interviews, we share the thoughts of "master" and witness the blind devotion and mindless obedience of "disciple." Gods of the New Age takes us from a clandestine, early sixties planning meeting held by Indian gurus to today's dignified U.S corridors, American schoolrooms and Christian churctes. The film uncovers the chilling paralels between today's Western culture. and the similar climate that bred Hitler's Third Reich a generation ago! "This is the most powerful Christian documentary I have ever seen!" --Rabi Maharaj, author of "The Death of a Guru"
Related Posts with Thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

5th Dimension Ghosts

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Ghosts Of The Underground

Watch Ghosts Of The Underground in Educational  |  View More Free Videos Online at

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Monday, October 26, 2009

What the Bleep Do We Know!? (2004)

"'WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!' is a radical departure from convention. It demands a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed, not even dreamed of since Copernicus. It's a documentary. It's a story. It's mind-blowing special effects. This film plunges you into a world where quantum uncertainty is demonstrated - where neurological processes, and perceptual shifts are engaged and lived by its protagonist - where everything is alive, and reality is changed by every thought." -
Related Posts with Thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Consciousness Is the Ground of All Beings – Dr. Amit Goswami PhD

Amit Goswami PhD
Amit Goswami is a theoretical nuclear physicist and member of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics since 1968, teaching physics for 32 years. After a period of distress and frustration in his private and professional life starting at the age 38, his research interests shifted to quantum cosmology, quantum measurement theory, and applications of quantum mechanics to the mind-body problem. He became best known as one of the interviewed scientists featured in the 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Goswami is also featured in the recent documentary about the Dalai Lama entitled Dalai Lama Renaissance, and stars in the newly released documentary "The Quantum Activist"

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Does Quantum Physics Prove God?

Does Quantum Physics Prove God?

Contributors: Corey W. deVos and Ken Wilber

This conversation sheds clarity on a very confused notion in the area of spirituality today—namely, the "tao of physics" and all its variations, as exemplified by the recent film What the Bleep. So what relationship, if any, does God actually have with quantum physics?

Corey W. deVos

Corey W. deVos is the Writer, Content Producer, and Webmaster of Integral Life and Integral Naked, as well as Managing Editor of  He has worked for Integral Institute since Spring of 2003, and has been a student of integral theory and practice for over a decade.

This question has to do directly with the relation of modern quantum physics and spirituality. In effect, does modern physics prove God? Does the Tao find proof in quantum realities?
Answer: "Categorically not. I don't know more confusion in the last thirty years than has come from quantum physics...."
Ken goes on to outline the three major confusions that have dominated the popular (mis)understanding of the relationship of physics and mysticism.
#1: Your consciousness does not create electrons. Unlike Newtonian physics, which can predict the location of large objects moving at slow speeds, quantum physics only offers a probability wave in which a given particle, like an electron, should show up. But here's the funny thing: it is only at the moment that one makes the measurement that the electron actually does "show up." Certain writers and theorists have thus suggested that human intentionality actually creates reality on a quantum level. The most popular version of this idea can be found in the movie What the Bleep Do We Know?!, in which we "qwaff" reality into existence.
Ken suggests this is both bad physics and bad mysticism. As for the former, in his book, Quantum Questions, Ken compiled the original writings of the 13 most important founders of modern quantum and relativistic physics, to explore their understanding of the relationship of physics and mysticism. Without exception, each one of them believed that modern physics does NOT prove spiritual realities in any fashion. And yet each of them was a mystic, not because of physics, but in spite of it. By pushing to the outer limits of their discipline, a feat which requires true genius, they found themselves face to face with those realities that physics categorically could not explain.
Likewise, none of those founders of modern physics believed that the act of consciousness was responsible for creating particles at the quantum level. David Bohm did not believe that, Schroedinger did not believe that, Heisenberg did not believe that. That belief requires the enormous self-infatuation and narcissism, or "boomeritis," of the post-modern ego, and Ken goes into the possible psychology behind all of that.
#2: Quantum vacuum potentials are not unmanifest Spirit. The immediate problem with the notion that certain "unmanifest" or "vacuum" quantum realities give rise to the manifest world, and that the quantum vacuum is Spirit, is that it immediately presupposes a radically divided Spirit or Ultimate. There is Spirit "over here," manifestation "over there," and it's only through these quantum vacuum potentials that Spirit actualizes manifestation—with Spirit set apart from manifestation.
"In terms of actual real physics or actual real mysticism, they were incorrect on both counts. And the marriage of bad physics and sloppy mysticism has been a nightmare...."As the great contemplative traditions agree, true nondual Spirit is the suchness, emptiness, or isness of all manifestation, and as such leaves everything exactly where it finds it. Nondual Spirit is no more set apart from manifestation than the wetness of the ocean is set apart from waves. Wetness is the suchness or isness of all waves. By identifying Spirit with quantum potential, you are actually qualifying the Unqualifiable, giving it characteristics—"and right there," Ken says, "things start to go horribly wrong, and they never recover. These folks are trying to give characteristics to Emptiness. They therefore make it dualistic. And then things get worse from there...."
#3: Just because you understand quantum mechanics doesn't mean you're enlightened. Physics is an explicitly 3rd-person approach to reality, whereas meditative, contemplative, or mystical disciplines are explicitly 1st-person approaches to reality. Neither perspective is more real than the other, but each perspective does disclose different truths, and you cannot use the truth disclosed in one domain to "colonize" another. The study of physics, as a 3rd-person discipline, will not get you enlightenment; and meditation, as a 1st-person discipline, will not disclose the location of an asteroid (or an electron). The "content" of enlightenment is the realization of that which is timeless, formless, and eternally unchanging. The content of physics is the understanding of the movement of form within time, i.e. that which is constantly changing. And if you hook Buddha's enlightenment to a theory of physics that gets disproved tomorrow, does that mean Buddha loses his enlightenment?
Ken goes on to suggest that what might be influencing quantum realities is not Suchness per se, but bio-energy or prana, which may be the source of the crackling, buzzing, electric creativity that so many theorists have tried to explain at the quantum level. Of course, it remains to be seen exactly what further research does and does not support.
Related Posts with Thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Rethinking relativity: Is time out of joint?

by Rachel Courtland

EVER since Arthur Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe off Africa to measure starlight bending around the sun during a 1919 eclipse, evidence for Einstein's theory of general relativity has only become stronger. Could it now be that starlight from distant galaxies is illuminating cracks in the theory's foundation?

Everything from the concept of the black hole to GPS timing owes a debt to the theory of general relativity, which describes how gravity arises from the geometry of space and time. The sun's gravitational field, for instance, bends starlight passing nearby because its mass is warping the surrounding space-time. This theory has held up to precision tests in the solar system and beyond, and has explained everything from the odd orbit of Mercury to the way pairs of neutron stars perform their pas de deux.

Yet it is still not clear how well general relativity holds up over cosmic scales, at distances much larger than the span of single galaxies. Now the first, tentative hint of a deviation from general relativity has been found. While the evidence is far from watertight, if confirmed by bigger surveys, it may indicate either that Einstein's theory is incomplete, or else that dark energy, the stuff thought to be accelerating the expansion of the universe, is much weirder than we thought (see "Not dark energy, dark fluid").

The analysis of starlight data by cosmologist Rachel Bean of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, has generated quite a stir. Shortly after the paper was published on the pre-print physics archive, prominent physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena praised Bean's research. "This is serious work by a respected cosmologist," he wrote on his blog Cosmic Variance. "Either the result is wrong, and we should be working hard to find out why, or it's right, and we're on the cusp of a revolution."
If it is wrong, we should be working hard to find out why, but if it's right, we are on the cusp of a revolution

"It has caused quite a furore in astronomy circles," says Richard Massey of the Royal Observatory Edinburgh in the UK. "This paper has generated a lot of interest."

Bean found her evidence lurking in existing data collected by the Cosmic Evolution Survey, a multi-telescope imaging project that includes the longest survey yet by the Hubble Space Telescope. COSMOS, which detected more than 2 million galaxies over a small patch of sky, takes advantage of gravity's ability to bend light. Massive objects like galaxy clusters bend the light of more distant objects so that it is directed towards or away from Earth. This effect, called gravitational lensing, is at its most dramatic when it creates kaleidoscopic effects like luminous rings or the appearance of multiple copies of a galaxy.

The sky is also dominated by the distorting effects of "weak lensing", in which intervening matter bends light to subtly alter the shapes and orientations of more distant galaxies, creating an effect similar to that of looking through old window glass. Since galaxies come in all shapes and sizes, it is difficult to know whether the light from an individual galaxy has been distorted, because there is nothing to compare it with. But by looking for common factors in the distortion of many galaxies, it is possible to build up a map of both the visible and even unseen matterMovie Camera that bend their light.

The weak lensing technique can also be used to measure two different effects of gravity. General relativity calls for gravity's curvature of space to be equivalent to its curvature of time. Light should be influenced in equal amounts by both.

When the COSMOS data was released in 2007, the team - led by Massey - assumed these two factors were equivalent. Their analysis revealed that gravitational tugs on light were stronger than anticipated, but they put this down to a slightly higher concentration of ordinary and dark matter in the survey's patch of sky than had been predicted.

To look for potential deviations from general relativity, Bean reanalysed the data and dropped the requirement that these two components of gravity had to be equal. Instead the ratio of the two was allowed to change in value. She found that between 8 and 11 billion years ago gravity's distortion of time appeared to be three times as strong as its ability to curve space. An observer around at the time wouldn't have noticed the effect because it only applies over large distances. Nonetheless, "there is a preference for a significant deviation from general relativity", says Bean (
Gravity's distortion of time appeared to be three times as strong as its ability to curve space

At this stage, it's hard to say what would happen if the deviation from general relativity was confirmed. Cosmologists have already considered some modifications to general relativity that could explain the universe's acceleration (see "Not dark energy, dark fluid").

Yet finding a deviation when the universe was less than half its current age is odd - if general relativity had broken down at some level, the signs should be most dramatic more recently, long after the repulsive effect of dark energy overwhelmed the attractive powers of gravity some 6 billion years ago.

Most astronomers, including Bean, are cautious about the results. "Nobody is yet betting money that the effect is real," says cosmologist Dragan Huterer of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Various other explanations, like a bias in the technique used to estimate the distances to galaxies, now need to be ruled out.

Although COSMOS photographed a deep patch of sky, it was fairly small by the standards of modern surveys. This opens up the possibility that this region might be anomalous, notes Asantha Cooray, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Irvine. "You could have a massive galaxy cluster that could boost your weak lensing signal up. Or by random chance you could have more dark matter," says Cooray, part of a team that analysed other survey data taken with the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope in Hawaii and found no hint of a departure from general relativity. "The only way to take that into account is to look at data in a larger field."

Future projects will scan the sky over much wider areas and collect images of many more lensed galaxies. For example, the Dark Energy Survey is poised to start surveying the sky from 2011 and will build up an even more precise picture of how light has been bent over the course of the universe's history.

Whether these surveys find the effect or not, Bean hopes that her paper will generate more interest in the idea of using weak lensing to test general relativity. "I'm not putting my flag out there and saying this is a real thing," Bean says. "We need to look at more data sets. This is really just the first stage for trying to test gravity in this way."

Massey agrees: "At the moment we're in the mode of just trying to hack into general relativity to find the chinks in its armour, to find any places where it might not be working." Not dark energy, dark fluid

Dark energy could be weirder than we thought. Evidence that over large distances gravity exerts a greater pull on time than on space (see main story) might not necessarily suggest that the theory of general relativity is wrong. It could instead be a sign that the universe's acceleration may require a more exotic explanation.

The simplest way of explaining the universe's acceleration is to invoke a cosmological constant, originally proposed by Einstein to allow the universe to remain the same size in the presence of matter. This describes a universe filled with uniform, outward-pushing energy. But there are other possible explanations for acceleration.

One idea is that the entire universe exists on a membrane, or brane, floating inside an extra dimension. While matter will be confined to three dimensions, gravity could be leaking into this extra dimension. When the universe becomes large enough, this gravity could interact with matter in the brane, to produce acceleration on large scales.

A deviation could also be a sign that dark energy is a more complex "fluid" that exerts varying pressures in different directions. The snag is that telling the difference between a more exotic form of dark energy and a modification to our understanding of gravity could be tricky.

"If we were to detect a departure," says cosmologist Alessandra Silvestri of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, we might not be able to tell whether there is a flaw in general relativity or just evidence that dark energy is "some sort of fancy fluid".


Related Posts with Thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Edgar Mitchell Q&A

Edgar Dean Mitchell, D.Sc. (born September 17, 1930) is an American pilot, engineer, and astronaut. As the lunar module pilot of Apollo 14, he spent nine hours working on the lunar surface in the Fra Mauro Highlands region, making him the sixth person to walk on the Moon.
Related Posts with Thumbnails
Bookmark and Share

Bob Dean's presentation, European Exopolitics Summit,
Barcelona, 25 July 2009

Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 23, 2009

Project Camelot

Our purpose is to provide a vehicle for researchers and whistleblowers to get their stories out.
We produce in-depth video interviews, made available free of charge. We also present written analyses and other research. Click here for links to all our material.
Increasingly, we've been receiving standalone messages (on or off record) from inside sources, some of which which will be presented on the page below.
Our focus is an investigation into (but is not limited to) the following: extraterrestrial visitation and contact, time travel, mind control, classified advanced technology, free energy, possible coming earth changes, and revealing plans that exist to control the human race. Click here for more about our mission.
Please scroll down for our Updates and Camelot blog...

Bookmark and Share

Project "Camelot" interviews Bob Dean: the Coming of Nibiru

Robert Orel Dean (born 1929), also known as Bob Dean, is a retired Command Sergeant Major in the US Army, who became notable in UFOlogy circles after he claimed to have viewed "Cosmic Top Secret" documents detailing alien activity on Earth. He now lectures in ufology around the world and has been described as 'an elder statesman of the UFO community'

Dean has appeared many times on radio, TV documentaries and at conferences discussing the subject of UFOs and Extraterrestrial life.

Dean is also notable for having successfully sued his employer under anti-discrimination laws on the ground that they were treating him unfairly because of his belief in UFOs.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Thursday, October 22, 2009

UFO Files: top 10 UFO sightings

A list of 10 of the most famous UFO incidents in history and how the authorities explained them.

One of several documented cases of triangular craft seen and recorded over Belgium during the 1990s during one of the most famous UFO "flaps" of the last 30 years.

By Sasjkia Otto

Newly-released Ministry of Defence files, documenting around 800 UFO sightings between 1981 and 1996, suggest that a US spy airplane could account for a number of British UFO reports. Some of the most notorious alien sighting have been explained away by scientists but mystery surrounds others:
1. 1947 Roswell crash: UFO proponents claimed that the US military had captured a crashed alien aircraft. This well-publicised, controversial incident became a pop culture phenomenon.
Explanation: the US military maintained that it had recovered debris from an experimental high-altitude surveillance balloon belonging to a classified programme named “Mogul”.

2. 1947 Kenneth Arnold case: the press coined the term “flying saucer” after this American businessman and pilot claimed he had seen nine objects flying in a chain near Mount Rainier, Washington. Arnold described them as saucers skipping across water.
Explanation: The US Air Force formally listed the case as a mirage.

3. 1952 Washington, D.C. flap: this series of UFO reports was accompanied by radar contacts at three separate airports. Country-wide headlines spurred the formation of the CIA Robertson Panel.
Explanation: the US Air Force suggested that a temperature inversion - in which a layer of warm, moist air covered a layer of cool, dry air closer to the ground - had caused radar signals to bend and give false returns.

4. 1957 Levelland case: police investigated numerous motorist reports of engines stalling when encountering a glowing, egg-shaped object. Motorists claimed that their vehicles had restarted after the "object" had left.
Explanation: an air force investigation concluded that an electrical storm had caused the sightings and vehicle failures.

5. 1966 Westall encounter: more than 200 students and teachers at two schools in Melbourne allegedly saw a UFO that descended into a grass field. The object then ascended over a local suburb, according to reports. Witnesses still gather for reunions.
Explanation: Australian Skeptics, a non-profit organisation which investigates paranormal and pseudo-scientific claims by using scientific methodologies, believed that the object was an experimental military aircraft.

6. 1967 Shag Harbour crash: a large object crashed into Shag Harbour, Nova Scotia.
Explanation: The Canadian Department of National Defence officially classified this sighting as unsolved following a naval search and investigation. The Condon Committee, which investigated UFOs at the University of Colorado, failed to resolve the case.

7. 1976 Tehran incident: A UFO was believed to have disabled the electronic equipment of two F-4 interceptor aircraft as well as ground control equipment. The Iranian generals involved said on public record that they had thought the object was extraterrestrial.
Explanation: UFOs: The Public Deceived, a book by Philip Klass, claimed that witnesses saw an astronomical body - probably Jupiter - and pilot incompetence and equipment malfunction accounted for the rest.

8. 1986 São Paulo chase: around 20 UFOs were seen and detected by radar in various parts of Brazil. They reportedly disappeared as five military aircraft were sent to intercept them.
Explanation: Geoffrey Perry, a British space researcher, attributed the incident to debris that were ejected by Soviet space station Salyut-7 and re-entered Earth’s atmosphere around central-western Brazil.

9. 1989/1990 Belgium wave: around 13,500 people claimed to have witnessed large, silent, low-flying black triangles. Around 2,600 filed written statements describing what they had seen. The frequently-photographed wave was tracked by NATO radar and jet interceptors and investigated by Belgium’s military.
Explanation: Renaud Leclet, a French ufologist, believed some of the sightings could have been explained by helicopters.

10. 2008 Turkey video: a night guard at the Yeni Kent Compound claimed he had videotaped multiple UFOs over a period of four months. Reported witness confirmations spurred claims by Sirius UFO Space Science Research Center it was the “most important images of a UFO ever filmed”.
Explanation: Turkish scientists claimed it was a computer-animated hoax.


Bookmark and Share

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Into the Eleventh Dimension

 The quest for a theory linking all matter and all forces led physicists deep into hyperspace, where they got horribly lost. But suddenly the way ahead has become clear, says superstring theorist.

Dr. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, best-selling author, and popularizer of science. He’s the co-founder of string field theory (a branch of string theory), and continues Einstein’s search to unite the four fundamental forces of nature into one unified theory.

by Michio Kaku

Is there a Final Theory in physics? Will we one day have a complete theory that will explain everything from subatomic particles, atoms and supernovae to the big bang? Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life in a fruitless quest for the fabled unified field theory. His approach has since been written off as futile.

In the 1980s, attention switched to superstring theory as the leading candidate for a final theory. This revolution began when physicists realised that the subatomic particles found in nature, such as electrons and quarks, may not be particles at all, but tiny vibrating strings.

Superstring theory was a stunning breakthrough. It became one of the fastest growing and most exciting areas of theoretical physics, generating a feverish outpouring of thousands of papers. Then, in the early 1990s, progress seemed to grind to a halt. People became discouraged when they failed to find the answers to two key questions: where do strings come from, and is our Universe among the many solutions of superstring theory? But now the Internet is buzzing again as papers pour in to the bulletin board at Los Alamos National laboratory in New Mexico, the official clearing house for superstring papers.

The trigger for this excitement was the discovery of "M-theory", which may answer those two vital questions about superstrings. "I may be biased on this one, but I think it is perhaps the most important development not only in string theory, but also in theoretical physics at least in the past two decades," says Harvard physicist Cumrun Vafa. M-theory led John Schwarz of Caltech, one of the founders of superstring theory, to proclaim a "second superstring revolution". And it inspired a spellbinding three-hour lecture by another leading exponent,Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey. The aftershocks of the breakthrough have spread to other disciplines, too. "The excitement I sense in the people in the field and the spin-offs into my own field of mathematics...have really been quite extraordinary," says Phillip Griffiths, director of the Institute for Advanced Study." I feel I've been very privileged to witness this first hand."

In one dazzling stroke, M-theory has come close to solving superstring theory's two long-standing questions , leaving many theoretical physicists (myself included) gasping at its power. M-theory, moreover, may even force string theory to change its name because, although many features of M-theory are still unknown , it does not seem to be a theory purely of strings. Other strange beasts seem to emerge, including various types of membranes. Michael Duff of Texas A&M University is already giving talks with the title " The theory formerly known as strings".

"Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size" - Albert Einstein

M-theory does not prove the final correctness of superstring theory. Not by any means. Proving or disproving its validity may take years more. But it still marks an astonishing breakthrough. Remember that some of the finest minds of this century have been stumped by the problem of creating a "Theory of Everything". Einstein summed up the problem when he said: Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size." The tail" is what we see in nature , which can be described by the four fundamental forces -gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. The lion is the ultimate theory that will unify them in one short equation.

Today, physicists believe that the first force, gravity, can be described by Einstein's general relativity, based on the smooth warping of the fabric of space- time. This is an elegant theory that describes the macroscopic world of black holes, quasars and the big bang. But gravity has stubbornly refused to unite with the other three forces , which are described by quantum theory. Here, instead of the smooth fabric of space-time, we have the discrete world of packets of energy, or quanta.

The form of quantum theory that goes furthest in describing matter and its interactions is the Standard Model, which is based on a bizarre bestiary of particles such as quarks , leptons and bosons (see Diagram). The Standard Model may be one of the most successful theories in science, but it is also one of the ugliest. Its inadequacy is betrayed by some 19 arbitrary constants not derived by any kind of theory that have to be put in "by hand" to make the equations work.

Capturing the "lion", which unites these two great theories, would be a crowning achievement for physics. But while Einstein was first to set off on this noble hunt, tracking the footprints left by the lion, he ultimately lost the trail and wandered off into the wilderness.

Crazy departure
Today, however, physicists are following a different trail-the one leading to superstring theory. Unlike previous proposals, it has survived every blistering mathematical challenge ever hurled at it. Not surprisingly, the theory is a radical-some might say crazy-departure from the past, being based on tiny strings vibrating in 10-dimensional space-time.

"The subatomic particles we see in nature are nothing more than different resonances of the vibrating superstrings"

To understand how going to higher dimensions can help to unify lower dimensions, think back to how the Romans used to fight wars. Without radio communications and spy planes, battles were horribly confused, raging on many fronts at the same time. That's why the Romans always leapt into "hyperspace"- the third dimension-by seizing a hill- top. From this vantage point, they were able to survey the two-dimensional battlefield as a single, unified whole.

Particle Jigsaw
Missing: the Standard Model works well, but still has big gaps. Could superstrings complete the picture?

Leaping to higher dimensions can also simplify the laws of nature. In 1915, Einstein changed completely our notion of gravity by leaping to the extra dimension of time. In 1919, the German mathematician Theodor Kaluza added a fifth dimension and in so doing unified space-time with Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. This triumph was largely forgotten amid the frenzy of interest generated by quantum mechanics. Only in the 1980s did physicists return to this idea to create superstring theory.

In superstring theory, the subatomic particles we see in nature are nothing more than different resonances of the vibrating superstrings, in the same way that different musical notes emanate from the different modes of vibration of a violin string. (These strings are very small-of the order of 1035 metres.)
Likewise, the laws of physics -the forces between charged particles, for example-are the harmonies of the strings; the Universe is a symphony of vibrating strings. And when strings move in 10-dimensional space-time, they warp the space-time surrounding them in precisely the way predicted by general relativity. So strings simply and elegantly unify the quantum theory of particles and general relativity. Better still, gravity is not an inconvenient add-on. "Unlike conventional quantum field theory, string theory requires gravity," Witten has said. "I regard this fact as one of the greatest insights in science ever made."

But, of course, all this takes place in 10 dimensions. Physicists retrieve our more familiar 4-dimensional Universe by assuming that, during the big bang, 6 of the 10 dimensions curled up (or "compactified") into a tiny ball, while the remaining four expanded explosively, giving us the Universe we see. What has consumed physicists for the past ten years is the task of cataloguing the different ways in which these six dimensions can compactify. Their task has been especially difficult because mathematicians have not worked out the topology and properties of these higher-dimensional universes. The physicists have had to blaze the trail and invent entirely new areas of mathematics. These efforts have revealed millions of compactifications, each of which yields a different pattern of quarks, electrons and so on.

As we have seen, the first frustrating problem with superstring theory is that physicists do not understand where strings come from. To make matters worse, there are five string theories that unify quantum theory with relativity. This is an embarrassment of riches. Each competing theory looks quite different from the others. One, called Type 1 string theory, is based on two types of strings : "open strings", like short strands with two ends, and "closed strings", in which the ends meet to form a ring. The other four have only closed strings. Some, such as Type 2b, generate only left- handed particles, which spin in only one direction [Ref I.Asimov "Left Hand of the Electron"]. Others, such as Type 2a, have left and right-handed particles.

Today's excitement has grown from the finding that if we postulate the existence of a mysterious M-theory in 11 dimensions we can show that the five competing string theories are actually different versions of the same thing. Like a Roman general surveying the battlefield from the third dimension, physicists today stand on the hilltop of the 11th dimension and see the five superstring theories below, unified into a simple, coherent picture, representing different aspects of the same thing.

Tracking lion
The first step towards this advance came two years ago when Witten and Paul Townsend of the University of Cambridge showed that Type 2a string theory in 10 dimensions was equivalent to M-theory in 11 dimensions with one dimension curled up. Since then, all five theories have been shown to be equivalent. So at last physicists know where superstrings come from : they originate in the 11th dimension from M-theory.

M-theory also predicts that strings coexist with membranes of various dimensions. For example , a particle can be defined as a zero-brane (zero-dimensional object). A string is a one-brane, an ordinary membrane like a soap bubble is a two-brane, and so on. (Using p to represent the dimension of the object, one wag dubbed this motley collection "p-branes" ) When these p-branes vibrate or pulsate , they create new resonances , or particles, which were missed in earlier formulations of superstrings. The name "M-theory" was coined by Witten: M perhaps stands for "membrane" or the "mother of all strings", or possibly "mystery" Take your pick.

To see how this all fits together, imagine three blind men hot on the trail of Einstein's lion. Hearing it race by, they give chase and desperately grab at it. Hanging onto the tail for dear life, one feels its one-dimensional form and loudly proclaims, "It's a string. The lion is a string." The second man grabs the lion's ear. Feeling a two-dimensional surface , he calls out "No, no, the lion is really a two-brane." The third blind man, hanging on to the lion's leg, senses a three-dimensional solid, and shouts , "You're both wrong. The lion is a three- brane !" They are all right. Just as the tail, ear and leg are different parts of the same lion , the string and various p-branes appear to be different limits of M-theory. Townsend calls it "p-brane democracy".

The acid test for any theory is that it must fit the data. No matter how original and elegant superstring theory is , it will stand or fall on whether it describes the physical Universe. Either it is a Theory of Everything, as its advocates hope , or it is a theory of nothing. There is no in-between. So theoretical physicists must answer the second question : is our Universe, with its strange collection of quarks and subatomic particles, among the solutions of superstring theory? This is where it runs into an embarrassing problem, which is that physicists have been unable to find all its four-dimensional solutions. The mathematics have been fiendishly difficult-too hard for anyone to solve completely.

In general, there are two types of solutions. So far, only the first class, called "perturbative" solutions have been found. Across all branches of physics, theorists faced by an equation they cannot solve reach for well-established ways to find approximate solutions. In superstring theory, millions of these perturbative solutions have been catalogued. Each one corresponds to a different way in which to curl up 6 of the 10 dimensions. However, none of them precisely reproduces the pattern of quarks , leptons and bosons in the Standard Model, although some come close.

"M-theory solves entire classes of problems that were previously thought to be unsolvable . It even gives us valuable details of quantum effects In black holes"

So, many believe that the Standard Model may be found among the second class of solutions, the "non-perturbative" solutions. But non-perturbative solutions are generally among the most difficult of all solutions in physics. Some physicists despaired of ever finding non- perturbative solutions of superstring theory. After all, even the non-perturbative solutions of simple four-dimensional theories are completely unknown , let alone those of a complicated 10-dimensional theory.

How does M-theory help to solve this intractable problem? The answer lies in a startling tool called "duality". Simply put, in M-theory there is a duality, or simple mathematical relationship , between the perturbative and non-perturbative regions. This allows us at last to take a peek at this "forbidden zone".
To see how duality works, consider Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism , for example. Physicists have known for decades that if they interchange the electric field E and magnetic field B in Maxwell's equations , and also swap the electric charge e and magnetic charge g, then the equations stay the same. That is, nothing happens to Maxwell's theory if we make the dual transformation: E«B and e«g.

Hidden theories
In fact, in Maxwell's theory, the product e times g is a constant: so small e corresponds to large g. This is the key. Suppose an equation includes a mathematical function that depends on g2 and which cannot be solved exactly. The standard mathematical trick is to approximate a solution with a perturbation expansion: g2+ g4 + g6... and so on. So long as g is less than 1, each successive term in the series is smaller than the last, and the overall value converges on a single figure.

But if g is greater than 1 then the total gets larger and larger, and the approximation fails. This is where duality comes in. If g is large, then e is less than 1. Using perturbation , we get the series e2+ e4 + e6 which gives a sensible value. Ultimately, this means that using perturbation on e can solve problems in the non-perturbative region of g.

Duality in Maxwell's theory is rather trivial. But in M-theory, we find another duality: g«1/g. This relationship, though simpler, turns out to be incredibly powerful. When I first saw it, I could hardly believe my eyes. It meant that a string theory defined for large g, which is usually impossible to describe using present-day mathematics, can be shown to be equivalent to another type of string theory for small g, which is easily described using perturbation theory.

Thus, two different string theories can be dual to each other. In the non- perturbative region of string theory was another string theory. This is how, in fact, we prove the equivalence of all five string theories. Altogether, three different types of duality called S, T and U have been discovered , which yield an intricate web of dualities linking string theories of various dimensions and types. At an incredible pace , physicists have now mapped almost all the solutions and dualities that exist in 10, 8 and 6 dimensions.

Before M-theory, finding the non-perturbative solutions in these dimensions would have been considered impossible. Now the problem is trivial. For example , let us say that two theories A and B are dual to each other in 10 dimensions. If we compactify both theories in the same way, then we obtain theories A' and B'. But now we know something new: that A' is also dual to B'. Thus, the non-perturbative behaviour of A' is given by B'. By elaborating this process, we get an almost complete understanding of the different possible universes down to 6 dimensions. Thus, M-theory solves entire classes of problems that were previously thought to be unsolvable. It even gives us valuable new details about quantum effects in black holes.

But there are many loose ends. For example, what precisely is M-theory? So far, we only know fragments of the theory (the low-energy part). We are still waiting for someone to come up with a full description of M-theory Last year, Vafa shocked physicists by announcing that there may be a 12-dimensional theory lurking out there, which he called "F-theory" (F for father).

More important, we are still far from mapping all the dualities of four dimensions. If everything works out as hoped , we should find that one of these four- dimensional universes contains the Standard Model and thus describes the known Universe. But there are millions of these solutions, so sifting through them to find the one we are after will take many years.

So will the final theory be in 10, 11 or 12 dimensions? According to Schwarz, the answer may be none of these. He feels that the true theory may not have a fixed dimensionality, and that 11 dimensions only emerge once we try to solve it. Townsend takes a similar view, saying, " The whole notion of dimensionality is an approximate one that only emerges in some semiclassical context."

So does this means that the end is in sight-that some day soon we will be able to work out the Standard Model from first principles? When I put this question to some leading physicists in this field they were still cautious. Townsend likened our present state of knowledge to the old quantum era of the Bohr atom, just before the full elucidation of quantum mechanics. "We have some fruitful pictures and some rules," he says. "But it's also clear that we don't have a complete theory."

Witten, too, believes we are on the right track. But he says we will need a few more "revolutions" like the present one to finally solve the theory. "I think there are still a couple more superstring revolutions in our future, at least," says Witten. "If we can manage one more superstring revolution a decade , I think that we will do all right." From Harvard, Vafa adds: "I hope this is the light at the end of the tunnel'. But who knows how long the tunnel is?"
Personally, I am optimistic. For the first time, we can see the outline of the lion , and it is magnificent. One day, we will hear it roar.


Bookmark and Share

Monday, October 12, 2009

Mouse 2.0: Microsoft's multi-touch mouse prototypes

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Mitsubishi's modular, scalable OLED display goes 155-inches at CEATEC, could go way bigger (video)

Something tells us that whenever we do round two of our Time Square signage Engadget Show, Mitsubishi's modular OLED display will be amongst the highlights. Aimed at outdoor applications (but obviously ready for your living room), the scalable prototype shown here at CEATEC was 155-inches in size. The wild part, however, is that it could grow infinitely larger -- at least in theory. The whole panel that you notice from afar is crafted from smaller OLED blocks that snap together like a puzzle; the more you add, the larger your screen can be. Unfortunately, resolution is still relatively low and longevity is a definite concern, but if you can manage to stand a few feet back, the result is simply stunning. Hop on past the break for a new take on "immersive."

Bookmark and Share

MU Researchers Create Smaller and More Efficient Nuclear Battery

Mizzou scientist develops a powerful nuclear battery that uses a liquid semiconductor
Story Contact(s):
Kelsey Jackson,, (573) 882-8353

COLUMBIA, Mo. – Batteries can power anything from small sensors to large systems. While scientists are finding ways to make them smaller but even more powerful, problems can arise when these batteries are much larger and heavier than the devices themselves. University of Missouri researchers are developing a nuclear energy source that is smaller, lighter and more efficient.

“To provide enough power, we need certain methods with high energy density,” said Jae Kwon, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at MU. “The radioisotope battery can provide power density that is six orders of magnitude higher than chemical batteries.”

Kwon and his research team have been working on building a small nuclear battery, currently the size and thickness of a penny, intended to power various micro/nanoelectromechanical systems (M/NEMS). Although nuclear batteries can pose concerns, Kwon said they are safe.

“People hear the word ‘nuclear’ and think of something very dangerous,” he said. “However, nuclear power sources have already been safely powering a variety of devices, such as pace-makers, space satellites and underwater systems.”

 His innovation is not only in the battery’s size, but also in its semiconductor. Kwon’s battery uses a liquid semiconductor rather than a solid semiconductor.

“The critical part of using a radioactive battery is that when you harvest the energy, part of the radiation energy can damage the lattice structure of the solid semiconductor,” Kwon said. “By using a liquid semiconductor, we believe we can minimize that problem.”

Kwon has been collaborating with J. David Robertson, chemistry professor and associate director of the MU Research Reactor, and is working to build and test the battery at the facility. In the future, they hope to increase the battery’s power, shrink its size and try with various other materials. Kwon said that the battery could be thinner than the thickness of human hair. They’ve also applied for a provisional patent.

Kwon’s research has been published in the Journal of Applied Physics Letters and Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. In addition, last June, he received an “outstanding paper” award for his research on nuclear batteries at the IEEE International Conference on Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems in Denver (Transducers 2009).

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, October 10, 2009


Joseph P. Skipper

According to my email feedback, it appears that quite a few viewers are interested in the mysterious dark hole or cavern on Mars recently reported from the MRO imaging a few weeks ago. The above first image is the official science data MRO browser compatible image without any enhancements in it by me. All I've done is put some labels in it and reduced its size by only 10% to better fit this reporting page. As you can see, it is merely a round dark spot in an otherwise fairly level looking terrain but it has apparently generated quite a bit of interest and also debate.
It is the latter factor that has drawn my opinion and two cents into this as viewers keep wanting me to comment on this. I have been reluctant to do much with this because at my first glance this subject matter appeared to be too inconclusive in nature. Further, it appeared to be something that I might likely wind up reporting about nothing but image tampering on. I'm tired of doing that and, believe it or not, I try to avoid that where I can. On the other hand, viewer persistence caused me to take a closer look and so what follows is my small contribution to this issue.
The truth is that this is not a new discovery in the MRO imaging but a discovery originally made but poorly seen in the older Themis imaging now perhaps confirmed by the current much higher resolution MRO imaging. The mysterious dark spot you see above in the MRO imaging is speculated to be a dark hole in the Mars terrain that is so large and deep that very little light is reflected back out of it. It is suppose to be about the length of a football field across which would roughly be about 100 yards. It is actually just one of seven such pits or holes discovered in the Themis imaging and they are known collectively as the "Seven Sisters" and this site is the smaller of those They are all named and this one in the MRO imaging is named "Jeanne."
The Seven Sister evidence reportedly exists on the exterior flanks of the Arsis Mons volcano system terrain elevation. This is one of three volcanos oriented in a linear line and the three together are known as the Tharsis Montes and exist on what is known as the Tharsis Rise and of course the region in general is known as the Tharsis Region. Arsis Mons is the second largest volcano system on Mars with nearby Olympus Mons being the largest by far as well as the largest known in the Solar System dwarfing anything on Earth.

The above second image shows the general Tharsis Region with the mentioned volcanoes pointed out with labeling. Note also that the general area of the "Jeanne" cavern or pit is outlined in a box. The rough patch of terrain in the lower right corner of the image is the western end of the great colossal crack system on Mars. Obviously, this general area has been very geologically active in the past.
The "Jeanne" pit is definitely not an impact crater because the pit surroundings show no presence of an ejecta field. If this discovery is real, it is thought by some scientists to be a site where the top of some huge underground cavern formed in hard strata has collapsed and fell in leaving this hole or "skylight" in the cavern roof. I'm reminded that something that acts very much like this are what are known as "blue holes" here on Earth but these sites are usually submerged in water and their surviving cantilevered partial roofs are partially supported by that water. Obviously these pits proximity to the volcano system geology give some added support to the scientific giant hole speculation because such huge underground caverns could have been formed due to the past subterranean volcanic activity.

The above third image is the same dark hole taken from the MRO imaging but this time from the official large file size high resolution image and again has no clarification work in it by me. As you can see, it accentuates the dark hole but at the same time subdues the detail in the surrounding terrain via light color over-saturation and haze. It's sort of like the shell and pea misdirection con game. When I see that happen, I always start getting suspicious because it suggests the possibility that someone wants us to look at the hole and nothing else. Dark blank areas standing out in such sharp contrast to their obscured surroundings are great for stimulating speculation about the subject they want you to focus on but ultimately lead no where. I'm also reminded that such misdirection is just fine in some quarters.
I must tell you that I have examined this dark area very closely. In my opinion, the dark area is not shadow but a inky dark application. It will not respond to lightening even a tiny bit as true shadow normally would, at least to some small degree. Now don't get me wrong, there may very well be pit here but its interior appears to me to be blotted out by an application. Why? Well I can't know that with certainty.
Also, what little can be seen of the interior wall of this pit just doesn't add up. If it is a cantilevered wall tapering back away from the hole edge, what little of the interior vertical wall thickness we can see is just too thin to support itself if it tapers back out of sight under the roof into a very deep cavern in a way that might swallow up all light and that is the only kind of geology that could explain not reflecting back any light at all. If there was any slope at all downward in this pit, including straight down or with a lesser taper back away from the opening, we should still be able to see some of it in shadow here and yet it isn't there. This brings me back again to the likelihood that the dark area itself is an artificial application and not shadow at all.

Then there is the above fourth image which is merely the third image with clarification work in it by me to bring out the terrain detail at the expense of the dark "pit" area detail. As you can see, now that we can see the terrain better, it takes on a whole new aspect and the direction of interest is shifted as well to a wider scope inclusive of the terrain.

The above 5th and last image is an enlargement of the upper right sector of the fourth image. It demonstrates a closer view of the unusual terrain details and, since it pretty much speaks for itself, there's not much more that I can add to it.
Now I don't claim to know conclusively what we are looking at here but, if it is geology, it is certainly some of the strangest looking terrain geology I've ever seen, including on Mars. In fact, although I'm sure that most scientists would say that this is just a lava flow field appearing in many multiple folds, I just don't think that we're looking at geology with these organized uniform patterns repeating themselves over and over gain in the thousands. Further, the fact that this kind of highly interesting surrounding terrain evidence was not just officially ignored but obscured is troubling and suggestive of a hidden agenda to say the least.
Now, among the things that don't add up, consider the sunlight direction. If we assume that this is a pit or hole, then the coloration around the edge of the hole indicates that the sun angle is coming from the lower left to the upper right as demonstrated by the brightness on the hole's upper right thin interior wall surface. Yet, look at the rougher appearing terrain in the upper left of the image. Note that what little shadow is formed there denies this scenario. On the other hand, if the original object here was an elevated form rather than a pit with 99% of it covered over by a inky dark application except for just a little perimeter edge material, then the sun angle would be coming from the opposite direction upper right to the lower left illuminating the tiny portion of the elevated formation's base left out of the application. Further, what little darker shadow is present in the rougher upper left terrain tends to agree with this scenario.
The question then becomes what is really going on here? Has someone not only hidden some rounded and huge elevated form here with a dark inky application conforming to most of its dimensions but have they also done so in such a way that it points thinking and analysis subtly in the exact opposite direction (down rather than up) of what is really present there? When one sees a dark inky round spot in the terrain and the terrain detail is thoroughly obscured and one trusts the source visuals implicitly, one automatically thinks in terms of a hole and subsequent analysis tends to run with that concept just as these trusting scientists have done. But, is the pea really under that particular shell? Are we being manipulated?
Just for the sake of argument, try this scenario on. What if there was a big elevated round dome here sitting on top of a elevated artificial rocky base and also sitting within a sea of surrounding super dense special bred biological life as a food supply and/or a research site? Suppose that dome was reasonably clear due to MRO's advanced resolution imaging and geometric objects could be visually seen inside it making it a prime candidate for the now more advanced tampering software to easily see and recognize as a candidate for its applications. So what happens is an elevated form is not only eliminated, it becomes a pit and the telling terrain detail gets obscured. Think about it.
The bottom line is that there is insufficient evidence of any of this one way or the other as to whether this is truly a pit or originally an elevated form. Except for the strange looking terrain that I suspect is more "suggestive" of some form of strange dense biological life than inanimate geology, the fact is that what ever is most telling here evidence wise has been visually eliminated by intent. The only thing that the less trusting of us are left with is the strong suspicion that we've been had and that the Mars dark hole scientific speculation may be off the mark with this particular evidence.
That kind of ambiguity may be disgusting and unacceptable to those of us longing for a little simple straight forward truth in planetary exploration but, even if the down versus up misdirection tactic and perception doesn't work with everyone, the resulting ambiguity alone will do just fine as a second choice for those who promote secrecy. Just trust us, we know what is best for you!
DOCUMENTATION This link takes you to the NASA official 5/28/07 public release with caption text of the basic MRO image of this discovery. Note that only the distant browser compatible image is available here. This link takes you to the official site for the release of the raw science data imaging. Both the browser compatible 1.3 MB and full size 441.2 MB images are available here as well as some statistics. This link takes you to the an enlarged browser compatible version of the image without the need to download the full size 441.2 MB image. This link takes you to the discovering scientists statements with regard to what they interpret as a dark hole or cavern skylight. This link takes you to the useful online encyclopedia discussion of the Mars Arsia Mons volcano geology that also includes links relating to the Seven Sisters discovery sites associated with it.

Bookmark and Share
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


View My Stats