electromagnetism

solas

sorry PSI, couldn't resist giving this the once over. If it turns out that this thread is more suitable in biology or science feel free to move it.
I refer you to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1807166&highlight=quartz#post1807166

PSI wrote:

keu wrote:

oh..and out of my own curiosity, as a scientist psi, can you explain a little about electromagnetism, can it generate power that is observable or take form (become visible)?

To quote Leonard McCoy "I'm a Doctor not an electrician" and its somewhat related in this case.

Seriously though, the answer is possably - the human brain contains biogenic material such as magnite (a black mineral form of crystaline iron oxide) and there is a growing field of study in biomagnetism and electromagnetic therapies (that is if electromagnetic impulses in general disrupt our own electrophysiology sufficiently to cause disease, is there an energy signature that might heal or renew cells (hence the star trek quote).

Most of our neurological pathways are based on a loosely termed "electric system" and bone is being shown to be electrical in nature. The bone matrix is a biphasic (two-part) semiconductor.

Whether we can conciously or unconciously project such electrical signatures is another matter, but many established scientists have proposed that the biomagnetic properties of the brain may be sufficient to generate an signal, especially in times of distress but the exact science of this would be the realm of a neurophysacist, which I am not.


There was also work in the 70's, in Russia claiming that cell cultures could transmit disease by electromagnic means by way of a quartz medium. Cells were grown independantly on either side of a quartz window and one side was infected with a viral payload. Shortly after, the second flask of cells demonstrated the symptoms of infection. I'm highly dubious about this but if you are interested (and want to take the discussion forward, please start another thread), here is the reference and a link.

V.P. Kaznacheyev et al, "Distant Intercellular Interactions in a System of Two Tissue Cultures," Psychoenergetic Systems, Vol. 1, No. 3, March 1976, pp 141-142.

Electromagnetism (or it's affects) are consdiered significant in terms of the paranormal, (which is why I'm questioning the subject here) it just seems that scientific theory on the subject is in short supply. Given that the link provided doesn't stand up under intense scrutiny, I'm wondering how much of it is valid.

So, how much do we know about electromagnetism?
Is he suggesting the "Paranormal channel" referred to is a property of electromagnetism?
Do living beings emit electromagentic waves?
Is there evidence which supports the existance of gravitational waves (outside of lisa

Sorry for all the questions, I'm stupid at science
although I would like a reference point to start from on the topic of electromagnetism.

oops, basically are the properties of electromagnetism inconclusive at this stage?

6th

Hi Solas,

I know i've been pushing this book alot but check out

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743234936/qid=1141820158/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/203-4765825-0483934

I have just lent my copy to Stevenmu, once i am in a position to discuss the book and its topics with someone else who's read it i am sure i will gain a better understanding of the subject.

I've always accepted spirits as a fact because of my many experiences, this book doesnt make me question that they are real but does give me alot to think about with regards with whats exactly they may be and how the interact with our enviroment.

It a short book (which i am in no way involved with) that is only about 200 pages, and could be read in a week. When Stevenmu if finished i can easily pass it on to someone else, however i recommend people with an interest in the paranormal get theirs hands on a copy, even if you interest doesnt go as far as to want to be a paranormal investigator.

6th

solas

cheers Dub.
I know we've discussed electromagnetism in relation to the paranormal before and to be quite honest I'm at the stage in life where I intuitivly "know" that the nature of electromagnetism is responsible for (or can be used to explain) much paranormal phenomenom, I don't question the existance of it anymore, (from ghosts to telepathy) however, proving it is another matter. (literally)
I would really like to see some hard evidence demonstrating the science of biomagnetism or some other such related subject which proves conclusivly that there is an active relationship between us and the properties of electromagnetism.

sounds easy right?

6th

solas wrote:

I would really like to see some hard evidence demonstrating the science of biomagnetism or some other such related subject which proves conclusivly that there is an active relationship between us and the properties of electromagnetism.

sounds easy right?

Check out this:

http://www.hfml.ru.nl/froglev.html

And please, its 6th

solas

who other than the dutch could come up with flying frogs? fun an all but its a demonstration of diamagnetics, I'm looking for something a little more organic.

stevenmu

Woohoo, I love these kind of threads, I was just thinking last night that we hadn't had one in ages and that I should find a way to start one (I know sometimes I get a bit carried away with my pseudo-scientific ramblings, so stop me if I'm getting too psuedo and not enough scientific).

The first thing that comes to mind is an experiment I saw on the discovery channel a few years back. I can't find the specific one but I'm pretty sure it was carried out by Michael Persinger, wired has a good article about a very similar experiment he carried out here. Anyways, in this particular experiment he was trying to see if UFO abuction stories could be explained by electromagnetic fields. People would be locked in a small chamber on their own. After they were convinced that they were alone in the room, the lights would be put out and they would then be subjected to very weak electromagnetic fields. I can't remember the figures, but a very high percentage of people became convinced that they were not alone in the room, that they could sense someone else in there, despite knowing that the room was empty to begin with and that no one could have entered without them knowing about it.

This says 2 things to me. The first is that we can somehow detect electromagnetic fields and our subconcious can process this and pass information regarding it to our concious minds. The second, is merely speculation on my part, but if our subconcious can interpret an EMF as a 'presence' in a room this suggests to me that it does so because it is used to interpreting certain types of EMF as a presence. i.e. if there actually is a person in a room our subconcious detects an EMF from them and learns to recognise that type of EMF as a person, then if it detects a similar EMF it can extrapolate that it's coming from a person, even if there is no person there.

I'm sure I'll have more to add when I get my thoughts in order and read through some of 6th's book.

6th

stevenmu wrote:

.... if our subconcious can interpret an EMF as a 'presence' in a room this suggests to me that it does so because it is used to interpreting certain types of EMF as a presence. i.e. if there actually is a person in a room our subconcious detects an EMF from them and learns to recognise that type of EMF as a person, then if it detects a similar EMF it can extrapolate that it's coming from a person, even if there is no person there.

So all these purposely immited EMF are merely mimicking a natural and possibly "paranormal" phenomenon?

Having read this article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3046179.stm ) a few years back, I though that though the scientists expalined that peoples reactions where merely due to electromagnetic fields they didnt consider what may be causing these pitches in fields? Its an interesting read,

6th

Zillah

But the problem with that logic is that the "sense of presenc" that a medium might report is not what we all feel when around other normal living people. I hope that made sense.

6th

Zillah wrote:

But the problem with that logic is that the "sense of presenc" that a medium might report is not what we all feel when around other normal living people. I hope that made sense.

Actually its all about how we interpriate the feeling i.e i like the tast of chocolate but if you ate a piece of the same chocolate would you taste the the exact same thing?

If you know that feeling you get when you know someone in looking at you, maybe someone on a bus staring at the back of your head, its almost like you can feel them looking at you.

The same way some people see colours, we all know that colours are different wave lengths, yet some people are colour blind, each persons ability to see hear and feel things is slightly different. As i said in another thread penguins acan see ultraviolet. Maybe some people have the abilty to "see" these electromagnetic fields?

Children, who are known for experiencing more paranormal goings on - as discussed here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054880553 , are phsyically capable of seeing things older people can not due to the fact the as we get older, the lens of the eye thickens and slowly loses its flexibility leading to a gradual decline in its flexibility leading to a gradual decline in our ability to focus on objects.

6th

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

But the problem with that logic is that the "sense of presenc" that a medium might report is not what we all feel when around other normal living people. I hope that made sense.

I'm not sure it is all that different. First of all when we know that someone is there through our normal senses I think this totally overshadows any emf information our subconcious picks up, so we can ignore that type of situation for comparison. I'm sure we're all familiar with the feeling you're being watched, or suddenly feeling as if there's someone behind you, and turning to find that actually being the case. Sometimes it can be a a disturbing or shocking sensation, or sometimes it can be a warm reassuring one if it turns out to be a friend or loved one, someone who should be close to you. I think this is quite close to what a medium/psychic would feel when they sense a presence. Of course there would be some differences, mediums/psyhics, being people who have trained themselves, or are more naturally able, to listen to their subconcious and pick out information from it, would get more information than the rest of us. They would also be more likely to be ready for the sensation and more used to expreiencing it and not react physically like most of us which of course distracts us from what we sense.

I'd imagine there would also naturally be some differences in the fields created by ghost and living people.

Dublin6th wrote:

Having read this article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3046179.stm ) a few years back, I though that though the scientists expalined that peoples reactions where merely due to electromagnetic fields they didnt consider what may be causing these pitches in fields? Its an interesting read,

That's an good read alright, I thought it was especially interesting that it was the fluctuations in EMFs that seemed to be associated with the paranormal more so than the strength of the fields. Persingers research seems to indicate the same, that different patterns produced different effects. I'm not really sure what I'm trying to say here, but it all seems to me to be linked to resonance and to lead into the spiritual idea of vibrations and frequencies. I'm also starting to think that it's not the EMFs themselves, or the fluctuations in them, that are really signifigant but perhaps some currently unknown energy, the effects of which can be seen in the EMF fluctuations. I suppose orgone comes to mind but I don't really know anything about it. I'll try and put this idea together in some kind of properly organised ramble.

Zillah

If I recal there was a guy who did some experiments that proved statistically that people can sense by unknown means when they are being observed. I can't remember his name, but we had a whole discussion about all of this not too long ago.

Stevenmu, I sense you will remember this.

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

Stevenmu, I sense you will remember this.

Yep, it took me a minute but I do now. I think the term used was 'remote sensing'

solas

what steven said. Thats pretty much how I figure it works, would be great to have some actual experiments which conclusively demonstrate how it works.

This says 2 things to me. The first is that we can somehow detect electromagnetic fields and our subconcious can process this and pass information regarding it to our concious minds. The second, is merely speculation on my part, but if our subconcious can interpret an EMF as a 'presence' in a room this suggests to me that it does so because it is used to interpreting certain types of EMF as a presence. i.e. if there actually is a person in a room our subconcious detects an EMF from them and learns to recognise that type of EMF as a person, then if it detects a similar EMF it can extrapolate that it's coming from a person, even if there is no person there.

From experience, this requires some effort on behalf of the "sensee", notably adjusting their own emf to recieve signals.

Sometimes it can be a a disturbing or shocking sensation, or sometimes it can be a warm reassuring one if it turns out to be a friend or loved one, someone who should be close to you. I think this is quite close to what a medium/psychic would feel when they sense a presence. Of course there would be some differences, mediums/psyhics, being people who have trained themselves, or are more naturally able, to listen to their subconcious and pick out information from it, would get more information than the rest of us. They would also be more likely to be ready for the sensation and more used to expreiencing it and not react physically like most of us which of course distracts us from what we sense.

I'm not speaking as a professional but in times past when I was "attuned" to sensing energy, it wasn't limited to having to be in the physical presence of someone, as is the case with the internet. I find that interesting in itself.

m also starting to think that it's not the EMFs themselves, or the fluctuations in them, that are really signifigant but perhaps some currently unknown energy

I think this goes back to the original question, what kind of information do emf's transmit and are these signals more than just a variety of wavelengths, or perhaps the patterns of those wavelengths contain more information than we can currently perceive. (biomagnetics might be able to provide some insight into that field of understanding)

stevenmu

solas wrote:

I'm not speaking as a professional but in times past when I was "attuned" to sensing energy, it wasn't limited to having to be in the physical presence of someone, as is the case with the internet. I find that interesting in itself.

Interesting. Assuming you don't think that the information is transmitted over the internet, which I think is very unlikely, would you feel that that the information is always there and that communicating with a particular person over the internet somehow focuses you on theirs in particular, or perhaps tunes you into their particular frequency/wavelength ?

I think this goes back to the original question, what kind of information do emf's transmit and are these signals more than just a variety of wavelengths, or perhaps the patterns of those wavelengths contain more information than we can currently perceive.

That's a good question, we're all familiar with information transmitted using electromagnetism in the form of TV and radio pictures. With radio quite simply the variations in frequency or amplitude of the waves are picked up, amplified and used to vibrate the speakers creating sound. TV pictures are a little more complicated in terms of timings and stuff, but basically the same principle. EMFs are also used with computers to transmit information through a wide range of technologies. Computer technologies often also vary the wave forms (shape) and phase of a signal to squeeze more information into the same amount of signal. In all cases a certain wave pattern means a certain thing, and can be interpreted to mean the same thing by any device picking it up at any time from any source.

I would suspect that waves from natural sources (humans, ghosts, whatever) would be much more subjective in nature. I would see them as working similar to body language in that the overall picture and context is much more important than the individual gestures. I don't know if we could ever say get a printout of a particular wave pattern picked of from a person and attach a particular meaning to it. I think we would have to look at all the patterns together as a .. well .. bigger pattern, in much the same one would read tarot cards or interpret a dream, taking the individual elements and their meanings and seeing how they fit in with the whole picture. In a sense this is what Persinger is doing from the opposite direct, by exposing people to particular patterns and measuring their reactions to them. Ideally though it would be done the other way around, i.e. reading the patterns being given off by someone and comparing that to their mood/thoughts/health etc. I think I'd did come across something like that before (possibly done at Stanford), I'll see if google can dig it up.



edit: just reading over that I can see I didn't really answer your question at all, that has to be the best way I've ever said "I don't know"

solas

steven wrote:

Interesting. Assuming you don't think that the information is transmitted over the internet, which I think is very unlikely, would you feel that that the information is always there and that communicating with a particular person over the internet somehow focuses you on theirs in particular, or perhaps tunes you into their particular frequency/wavelength ?

It's not that I don't think the information isn't transmitted via the internet, its the fact that I didn't have to be physically in the same room as an individual and, essentially (theoretically) recieving those signals over a distance of 5000 miles via a keyboard.

stormkeeper

solas wrote:

It's not that I don't think the information isn't transmitted via the internet, its the fact that I didn't have to be physically in the same room as an individual and, essentially (theoretically) recieving those signals over a distance of 5000 miles via a keyboard.

I've done this a fair amount of times. I've picked up how people have felt from 400 miles away, as well as a few people from 4000+ miles away. I'm not freaked out by it, though I am somewhat surprised at how accurate I am.

stevenmu

solas wrote:

It's not that I don't think the information isn't transmitted via the internet, its the fact that I didn't have to be physically in the same room as an individual and, essentially (theoretically) recieving those signals over a distance of 5000 miles via a keyboard.

I'm sure you don't want to get bogged down in this, so I'll just explain quickly why I don't think it's via a keyboard that your recieving the information and you can take it or leave it. When you type out a message and send it to someone, your computer breaks it down into individual pieces called packets. Each packet has the address of the recipient attached (among other things) and a message fragment. Your computer sends the packet up your phone line to a router at your ISP. This router may be connected to 4 or 5 (or more) other routers. It reads the address information in your packet, decides which of the routers connected to it is the best one to send it to, and then essentially creates a new packet containing your message fragment. A message could easily make 10 or 20 'hops' before reaching it's recipient where the packets are reassmbled back into the message you sent. The point being that the packets which reach the destination are not the ones which left your computer.

I think it's much more likely that we're all connected, all of the time and that information is being exchanged between us all all of the time aswell. When you're talking with somebody over the net that simply focuses you into their information, in much the same way randomly generated coordinates can target people to the right location for remote viewing.

Remember you said something before about ideas travelling at the speed of light, and I could never understand what you meant ? I think I do now.



Anyway, back on topic, I've been sorting out some bookmarks and came across some stuff you might want to look at

Gravity Waves:

Wired
New Scientist 1
New Scientist2
American Anti-Gravity

and I think you may also be interested in the Electric Universe theory:

Wired
Wikipedia
The Electric Universe
Thunderbolts


I know I have better stuff on gravity waves somewhere, I'll post it up if I can find it.

Zillah

The whole "we're all connected infortionally all the time" idea is actually some what supported by quantum theory and similar fringe fields of science. The subjectivity of distance and seperatness are really becoming interesting issues.

(OT: Damn you and your wikipedia links! You had me spend the last hour browsing through a dozen related articles!)

EDIT: And with much loling I'll point out that your thunderbolts link connects to a Baseball team

stevenmu

oops, Thunderbolts link fixed.

Yeah, entanglement (another wikipedia link), or "spooky action at a distance." as Einstein called it, is really interesting. It provides a potential scientific basis for many psychic "effects", or at least sets a precedent as a similar phenomenon.

solas

well, I didn't mean transmitting signals via the keyboard literally, (r in an electronic way) just using it as a way to describe the only apparant physical connection with people several thousand miles away.

steven wrote:

Remember you said something before about ideas travelling at the speed of light, and I could never understand what you meant ? I think I do now.

like , at the touch of a button?
them classes must be very enlightening.

cheers for the links, lots to keep me occupied for a while.

stevenmu

I've been meaning to put up a blog for a while with my ideas related to this kind of stuff to try and organise them a bit better. I still have to add in all the paranormal/spiritual connotations but if anyone wants a read (and either a good laugh or a headache, I'm not sure which is more likely) here's a link.

Zillah

stevenmu wrote:

I've been meaning to put up a blog for a while with my ideas related to this kind of stuff to try and organise them a bit better. I still have to add in all the paranormal/spiritual connotations but if anyone wants a read (and either a good laugh or a headache, I'm not sure which is more likely) here's a link.

I have some feedback on your ideas if you like...

The only major criticism I'd have would be the bit:

Einstein describes the universe as being composed of a space-time fabric. This idea wasn’t new and had been around for probably thousands of years, it was previously referred to as the “ether” but iirc Einstein didn’t like to use that word because it’s often used by various spiritual beliefs.

Ether is not a compatible concept with modern physics. The ether was described as a luminiferous medium through which light waves could travel. After many experiments it has been proven that no such medium exists. This is the crucial difference between Einstein's spacetime universe and "ether", in space time light does not need a medium in the way that sound does. In that way it is entirely unlike an ether universe. Light is a wave without a medium.

As far as I’m concerned particles don’t care if we can measure their exact locations or not, the fact that we are unable to measure their exact location, does not mean they do not have one. I completely reject this aspect of quantam mechanics.

Thats actually part of wave particle duality. It states that until a particle's location is confirmed, it has no location. Not that it can never have a location, just that for all intents and purposes it is said to not exist at a point in space. This is in fact the basis of quantum computing. Normal electrical computers can have "on (or 1)" and "off (or 0)", while quantum computers could have a third state "maybe".

There is another possible explanation for this kind of behaviour. Both relativity and quantam theory try to explain particles as being seperate entities which sit within the ether. This kind of thinking requires each particle to cpmposed of ever smaller particles or strings(3). To me there’s a much simpler, more obvious approach. I see particles not as entities which exist in their own right sitting in the ether, but as waves or fluctuations of the ether itself.

This is where the ether trips up your logic. Space/time is not a medium in the way you are thinking of ether, its not like air or water.

Astronomers use this effect to estimate the distance to far away stellar bodies. I believe this effect happens because as an object moves through the ether it compresses and distorts it (essentially gravity waves (6)).

The manner in which they measure astronomical distances is known as red/blue shift. An object that is flying towards us compressed the light wave, making it more red, while an object going away stretches it out, making it a little more blue. Its to do with the light wave frequency, not the space it travels through.

I also love entaglement, I believe its the theoretical basis for instantaeous communications over any distance. Like in Star Trek

Kernel

Let there be light.

^^ Amazing and fundamental description from the Old Testament which we are finding to have more and more significance with the founding of the universe. Truly, God was not playing dice.

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

I also love entaglement, I believe its the theoretical basis for instantaeous communications over any distance. Like in Star Trek

Not to mention transporters and replicaters.


The rest of your points really depend on space-time not acting as a medium (I'll try and deal with some of them individually in another blog post so we don't take this thread too far OT), I'd love to know what experiments prove it does not, I can't think of any way that could be tested.

Zillah

The experiment essentially went along these lines:

Imagine you are on a boat in a river, and a friend is on another boat twenty feet to the side. You then send a wave through the water towards him, and he receives it and measures exactly how and when it arrives. Because the boats are moving through the water, there will be a lenghtways delay on the wave. The wave stays with the medium, it doesn't move with the boats.

Here, I'll draw a quick picture to illustrate. See attachments.

So, to bring it back to light, the boats are two people on earth, and the river is the ether through which the earth moves. The wave in the water is a light ray, or laser. In this way they can confirm that light is not dependent on a universal medium, as they confirmed that there was no sidewards shift.

I hope I explained myself well enough for that to make sense. This experiment was done, in I think, the 1800s. A long time ago anyway.

stevenmu

Hmmm... that caused a bit of pause for thought. There are some problems with that experiment though. First it assumes that the ether would move relative to the two observers. I'm not sure if this would be the case or at least that it would happen to a noticeable degree, particularly in a relativly large gravity well such as the earths.

edit: bear in mind that the ether is, fluidic is probably the wrong word, dynamic maybe better. It would be pulled along with the movement of the earth, and also a large portion of the earths movement, the expansion of the universe, is thought to be space itself expanding, not actuall movement.


Secondly, and more tellingly, it assumes that measurements of straightness are correct, that the measurements would be taken 'outside' the ether. If the ether were indeed moving relative to the two observers then the means of measuring where to aim the laser (or wave through the ether) would be affected just as the laser is.

waves2.jpg

That is, when the sender is aiming the laser using the 'stick' in the image, for it to appear to him that the stick is pointing directly at the equivelent spot on the target boat, he in fact would be pointing it forwards and it would be curving back to the correct spot (when observed from outside that frame of reference). The laser would follow the same path. This does not apply to the original boat example because the measurement of the straight path between equivelent points on the boats is made outside the medium of the water and is unaffected by it's relative movement.

edit: I believe this would be the case both with my idea and conventional relativity

Zillah

stevenmu wrote:

Hmmm... that caused a bit of pause for thought. There are some problems with that experiment though. First it assumes that the ether would move relative to the two observers. I'm not sure if this would be the case or at least that it would happen to a noticeable degree, particularly in a relativly large gravity well such as the earths.

If by ether you mean space/time, then no, it doesn't move with the earth. Because Earth doesn't move the universe, and it doesn't stretch an infinately long ring of space/time around the sun. Massive quantities of matter (like collapsing stars, ie blackholes) can fold space into a point, but the effect earth has on space/time is relatively minor.

the expansion of the universe, is thought to be space itself expanding, not actuall movement.

No...space is infinate. Think about it like this. There are several possibilities with space and its limits.

1 - Space stretches on forever.
2 - Space doesn't stretch on forever and ends in a literal barrier.
3 - Space doesn't stretch on forever and is in fact pulled into a circular shape by the combined gravity of the universe.

They ruled out option 3 with calculations only a decade or so ago, and I don't think you're proposing #2.

Secondly, and more tellingly, it assumes that measurements of straightness are correct, that the measurements would be taken 'outside' the ether. If the ether were indeed moving relative to the two observers then the means of measuring where to aim the laser (or wave through the ether) would be affected just as the laser is.

That is, when the sender is aiming the laser using the 'stick' in the image, for it to appear to him that the stick is pointing directly at the equivelent spot on the target boat, he in fact would be pointing it forwards and it would be curving back to the correct spot (when observed from outside that frame of reference). The laser would follow the same path. This does not apply to the original boat example because the measurement of the straight path between equivelent points on the boats is made outside the medium of the water and is unaffected by it's relative movement.

edit: I believe this would be the case both with my idea and conventional relativity

Im having trouble following this paragraph. You seem to be speaking about something that sounds a bit like relativity.

For example, the earth's gravity has a slight bending effect on the local space. Which means that when they aim a signal at a sattellite they need to aim a bit off-target to account for the bent space so the signal will arrive at the correct location.

If you take that into account on the light/ether experiment its not really a factor, the distances involved are so miniscule as to make relativity irrelevant. And even if it was a factor, they're aware of it and could account for it in the experiment.

EDIT: That last bit was just some ramblings I feel may be related to what you were saying, but to be honest Im not sure what you were getting at.

6th

Zillah wrote:

.....No...space is infinate. Think about it like this. There are several possibilities with space and its limits....

Actually we dont have any idea weather space is infinate or not, we're guessing at best so there are alot more than several possibilities we just cant conceive of them .... so everyone repeat after me we dont know everything!. Even the whole language we use to speak about these things, our very understanding of life, is based on concepts created by ourselves.

Of course i understand that we have to do this and its based on what we know at this point. its all philosophical at best.

We cant even figure out how we work.

6th

Saruman

I thought it was accepted that space is not infinate.. after all you cant accept the big bang and the fact the universe is expanding (that one can be proved) without believing in the fact that the universe went from something very small to very big and is getting bigger.. that in itself would suggest a limit to its size would it not??

Zombrex

Saruman wrote:

I thought it was accepted that space is not infinate.. after all you cant accept the big bang and the fact the universe is expanding (that one can be proved) without believing in the fact that the universe went from something very small to very big and is getting bigger.. that in itself would suggest a limit to its size would it not??

As far as i know the current theory is that the universe eventually loops back onto itself.

Its hard to visualise since we can't imagine an object in 3D space that actually does that, but think of it like a game of Asteroids, where if you go off the screen at the top you reappear at the bottom (of course to the ship you don't suddenly jump to the other side, it appears like you are still travelling forward). Or think of walking around a sphere. You travel in one straight direction but end up where you started. So the universe is infinate but not limitless. There is no edge, but there might be a finite size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Shape_of_the_universe

It also keeps expanding but, its not really expanding into anything. Everything in the universe, including the atoms in your body, are expanding away from everything else. Think of it as blowing up a balloon. If you pace dots on the balloon and blow it up the dots expand away from each other, and also expand themselves. Everything is moving away from everything else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Expansion_and_age.2C_and_the_Big_Bang_theory

Of course this is all before you get into the multi-verse....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Multiverse

my head hurts ...

stormkeeper

You can also factor in different planes of existence if you want to bring in the multiverse...

I know this is from a game, but it does reference the multiverse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape


Edit: I remember getting into a discussion about Dungeons & Dragons, with regards to planes of existence. I'm not sure where the planes of existence came from, but it does kind of tie in all the same...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape:_Torment


Then youhave the actual terminology for planes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_%28cosmology%29

stevenmu

Wicknight wrote:

my head hurts ...

Already ? You haven't even got to the good part yet

Our concept of size, distance, beginning and end all stem from Euclidian Geometry. It is thought that the universe could in fact exist as some form of Non-Euclidean Geometry such as hyperbolic, altough it would appear to us living with in it that it is in fact a euclidean universe. The way hyperbolic geometry works is probabl best illustrated by MC Escher's Circle Limit drawings, I think Circle Limit IV is probably appropriate. Looking at the drawing from our external euclidean perspective the angels seem to get smaller and closer together as they get towards the edge of their 'universe' tending towards an infinite number of angels, infinitly small and infinitly close together. From the angels perspective however they see themselves in a euclidean geometry just as we see ourselves. Each angel is the same size as the angel next to it, and the same distance away.

This allows us to have a finite bounded expanding universe which is infinite from within.

Zombrex

stevenmu wrote:

Already ? You haven't even got to the good part yet

Our concept of size, distance, beginning and end all stem from Euclidian Geometry. It is thought that the universe could in fact exist as some form of Non-Euclidean Geometry such as hyperbolic, altough it would appear to us living with in it that it is in fact a euclidean universe. The way hyperbolic geometry works is probabl best illustrated by MC Escher's Circle Limit drawings, I think Circle Limit IV is probably appropriate. Looking at the drawing from our external euclidean perspective the angels seem to get smaller and closer together as they get towards the edge of their 'universe' tending towards an infinite number of angels, infinitly small and infinitly close together. From the angels perspective however they see themselves in a euclidean geometry just as we see ourselves. Each angel is the same size as the angel next to it, and the same distance away.

This allows us to have a finite bounded expanding universe which is infinite from within.

Oh look, my brain is oozing out my ears ...

Zillah

stevenmu wrote:

Already ? You haven't even got to the good part yet

Our concept of size, distance, beginning and end all stem from Euclidian Geometry. It is thought that the universe could in fact exist as some form of Non-Euclidean Geometry such as hyperbolic, altough it would appear to us living with in it that it is in fact a euclidean universe. The way hyperbolic geometry works is probabl best illustrated by MC Escher's Circle Limit drawings, I think Circle Limit IV is probably appropriate. Looking at the drawing from our external euclidean perspective the angels seem to get smaller and closer together as they get towards the edge of their 'universe' tending towards an infinite number of angels, infinitly small and infinitly close together. From the angels perspective however they see themselves in a euclidean geometry just as we see ourselves. Each angel is the same size as the angel next to it, and the same distance away.

This allows us to have a finite bounded expanding universe which is infinite from within.

Gah...

I don't have time to go through all that at the moment but suffice to say I saw a documentary not long ago in which they ruled out the possibility of space being circular as there is insufficient matter(and therefore gravity) to do so. As for the rest of it, I'll take a look when I get home.

6th wrote:

Actually we dont have any idea weather space is infinate or not, we're guessing at best

I think a great many physicists would take a lot of offense having their life's work dismissed as "guessing". They can build mathematical models for the universe based on what we know, which is more than you might think.

EDIT:

Saruman wrote:

I thought it was accepted that space is not infinate.. after all you cant accept the big bang and the fact the universe is expanding (that one can be proved) without believing in the fact that the universe went from something very small to very big and is getting bigger

Well theres the question of matter expanding outwards, and the theres the space through which it travels. Im almost certain that space goes on indefinately as there isn't enough gravity to pull it back inwards. If someone could reference an answer either way that'd be cool. But there is a limit to how far the matter in the universe has gone.

6th

Zillah wrote:

.....I think a great many physicists would take a lot of offense having their life's work dismissed as "guessing". They can build mathematical models for the universe based on what we know, which is more than you might think.....

I might be the worlds best lego sculptor but if i put the knowledge of lego i have together with what we "know" about aliens - the 7 foot alien model i make isnt anymore likely just because i've applied something complicated to it?

Zillah

Do you mean to imply that Physicists like Stephen Hawking and Einstein know as much about the nature of the universe as you do about aliens? Because thats grossly insulting to some very hard working and intelligent people.

Zombrex

dublin6th wrote:

I might be the worlds best lego sculptor but if i put the knowledge of lego i have together with what we "know" about aliens - the 7 foot alien model i make isnt anymore likely just because i've applied something complicated to it?

No, but based on newtonian physics you can work out to a few millimeters what happens to a car when it hits a brick wall, with out having to drive a car into a brick wall. You don't have to "guess" what happens.

Same applies to models of the universe. You can apply princples to different methods to see what is likely and unlikely. There might be variables that you are unaware off (for example it is harder to work out the crash of a car if you don't know mass of certain parts of the car), but your model will still be more than a guess.

6th

Wicknight wrote:

No, but based on newtonian physics you can work out to a few millimeters what happens to a car when it hits a brick wall, with out having to drive a car into a brick wall. You don't have to "guess" what happens.

Same applies to models of the universe. You can apply princples to different methods to see what is likely and unlikely. There might be variables that you are unaware off (for example it is harder to work out the crash of a car if you don't know mass of certain parts of the car), but your model will still be more than a guess.

Ok was can work out what happens to a car lets say and apply the same logic, but its easy to base it on something we can touch and see, i'm not saying any of it is wrong all i am saying is that there are lots os things that science rules out ie spirits because they dont fit in with what we currently claim to "know".

And Zillah, I didnt say I knew about aliens .. i said i know about lego. Are you suggesting we take it that "everything" Eistein said is correct because he was smart?

Anyway this has really gone off the topic of electromagnetics ... sorry OP!

6th

Zombrex

dublin6th wrote:

Ok was can work out what happens to a car lets say and apply the same logic, but its easy to base it on something we can touch and see

Well things just build upon one another. People aren't just coming up with wild theories about the universe, it is all based on logic and maths that in turn is based on evidence and experiment. For example you can use the experiement of measuring the speed of a canon ball falling to earth to work out how galaxies rotate around each other.

You say you can't form a theory on aliens just because you build one out of lego. Thats very true. But you can form a theory about lego, the properties and nature of lego, and the likelyhood that an alien could exist or have evolved completely out of lego (I think we would agree, unlikely).

Replace "lego" with "biology" or "chemistry" and you can start to see how knowing about biology, physics and chemistry etc allow science to model the likelyhood or possibility of something like an alien, or a ghost.

dublin6th wrote:

I'm not saying any of it is wrong all i am saying is that there are lots os things that science rules out ie spirits because they dont fit in with what we currently claim to "know".

Well thats true. But then you seem to be implying it is misplaced arrogance or faith in the scientific method that does that. It isn't really. One of the requirements of science is that you don't assume or guess about something you know little about. Thats a good thing, not arrogance

I often get the sense from supporters of paranormal activity such as ghosts etc that they believe science is choosing what to accept and what not to accept, and that they are choosing unfairly. So science chooses to accept things like black holes which are tentative theories at best, but ignore or dismiss things like "ghosts" despite tons of eye witness accounts. Supports of ghosts would say their is far more evidence for ghosts than something like a black hole or the multiverse, so why won't science accept that they exist or at least acknowledge that there is something beyond our current understanding taking place that deserves serious exploration.

The problem with that view point is that it goes against some of the fundamentals of science and scientific theory. Science won't accept something just because we are told it is happening, be it a black hole, creationism, gravity or ghosts. Science didn't accept the theory of relativity just because Einstien told us it was happening. Likewise with paranormal events. Science isn't going to accept they are happening just because people say they are happening. And as such it isn't going to change its theories of what we do know just because they don't fit with concepts like ghosts. That would go against one of the fundamentals of science itself.

GuanYin

Ok guys. This has gone just a little too far off topic.

We're not here to debate the limitations of science or the use of science. Off to science/humanities etc with you for that.

Son Goku

Oh god, physics misconceptions galore. Let's start with the OP and electromagnetism.

So, how much do we know about electromagnetism?

A lot, in fact I would say our knowledge of it is perhaps the most complete of phenomena in science. Our current theory of electromagnetism, called Quantum Electrodynamics explains all observed electromagnetic phenomena to with at least a trillionth of a percent.

Do living beings emit electromagnetic waves?

Yes, very weak long-wave radio.

And moving on to the rest of the thread:

Let there be light.
^^ Amazing and fundamental description from the Old Testament which we are finding to have more and more significance with the founding of the universe. Truly, God was not playing dice.

No we aren't. Light didn't exist until several minutes after the Big Bang. Photons aren't capable of existing at certain temperatures.

As far as I’m concerned particles don’t care if we can measure their exact locations or not, the fact that we are unable to measure their exact location, does not mean they do not have one. I completely reject this aspect of quantum mechanics.

Then you'd be wrong. The uncertainty principle makes a statement about the complimentary nature of momentum and position.
A definite position cannot, in any way lead to a definite momentum and vice-versa. Not because we can't measure accurately enough but because of the way matter is a distribution at the atomic scale.

Actually we don’t have any idea weather space is infinite or not

The CMB has Octavian notes in its spectrum, this was the first piece of evidence that the universe connects back to itself. Although from the patterns we know it connects in a complex manner.
You have to understand that with 960 physics departments around the world doing both theoretical and experimental work in this regard for the last 100 years, there might be more known about it than you think.

It is thought that the universe could in fact exist as some form of Non-Euclidean Geometry such as hyperbolic

No, it's known that the universe can exist as some form of Non-Euclidean Geometry and is naturally hyperbolic. Gravity is a direct manifestation of Non-Euclidean Geometry.
(In fact that is all gravity is)

GuanYin

Ok. Can we PLEASE keep this on topic.

I appreciate the posts, I really do, but lets keep this in the realms of the paranormal.

No more warnings.

6th

I'm the first to admit that this has gone off topic and i've done it myself. However it is all relevant to the paranormal because I'm quite sure that in the end it is all explainable, not to say that everything fits into our current understanding.
The whole idea of this topic is to take a scientific look at what "ghosts" may be and how they interact with "this world".

I am reading a great book at the moment - "Will Storr vs The Supernatural". Here is a small section from it, obvious I cant type the whole thing out but there is alot in this book thats leads to this quote and follows on from it.

Physician Stuart Hameroff and his partner Dr Roger Penrose are world experts in the study of conscioiusness. And the work that they are doing now might end up changing the way we view existance forever. Because they do believe that the mind and the body are seperate things. Their research has led them to believ that our souls exist on the tiniest, most fundamental level of the universe - the quantum level........ There are things, I learned, called "microtubules". These minute contraption live in the base of our brains and act as on-board computers, containing the information and processes that are the very essence of ourselves - our souls, in other words. But thats not the really incredible thing. The truely tectonic-rocking break through that Hameroff and Penrose have made is this: when our system shuts down - when we pass away - the information thats held in our microtubules doesnt die. It cant, you see, because its part of the quantum level, which is the most basic level in existance. its the level on which the very fabric of the universe - matter, energy, space and time - exists. And, whats more, when they drift free of our microtubules, these little specks of soul dont seperate and float apart: a process called quantum entanglement keeps them bunched together. So, if its correct, this elegant nugget of extreme science does appear to show that the mind and the body are seperate things - and that they can exist independently. Our brains, these men claim, do not create consciousness. They just channel it, like a television picking up a station

If this is off topic, please just let me know before deleting it, as i dont want to have to type it out again!

6th

Son Goku

psi wrote:

Ok. Can we PLEASE keep this on topic.

I appreciate the posts, I really do, but lets keep this in the realms of the paranormal.

No more warnings.

The OP however is asking an almost directly scientific question.
I'm not being a smart-ass, but I actually don't see anyway of responding without using actual physics.

So, how much do we know about electromagnetism?
Is he suggesting the "Paranormal channel" referred to is a property of electromagnetism?
Do living beings emit electromagentic waves?
Is there evidence which supports the existance of gravitational waves (outside of lisa

Sorry for all the questions, I'm stupid at science
although I would like a reference point to start from on the topic of electromagnetism.

oops, basically are the properties of electromagnetism inconclusive at this stage?

Aside from the question in bold, everything else is a direct query about scientific knowledge. Even the question in bold is about what somebody is saying rather than the paranormal.

The actual question "basically are the properties of electromagnetism inconclusive at this stage?" is directly physical.

In essence, I don't understand any other way I can respond except to discuss electromagnetism.

Again I'm not being smart, but how should I respond?
I'm willing to discuss the paranormal, but we also have to discuss how well understood electromagnetism is and what it can do.

GuanYin

That fair enough Son Goku, except we're getting into a physics debate on a tangent issue.

I'm happy so long as its related to the orginal point and EM.

Son Goku

psi wrote:

That fair enough Son Goku, except we're getting into a physics debate on a tangent issue.

I'm happy so long as its related to the orginal point and EM.

Ah, okay, cool. Thanks.

Son Goku

So, how much do we know about electromagnetism?

Basically, we know more about it than any other phenomena in science. The current theory of electromagnetism is called Quantum Electrodynamics.

Do living beings emit electromagentic waves?

Very long wavelength ones, yes.
However these electromagentic waves have almost no energy what so ever.

Is there evidence which supports the existance of gravitational waves

No, there is only evidence from LISA and similar facilities world wide.

basically are the properties of electromagnetism inconclusive at this stage?

Not really, I pretty much think we've closed the book on the fundamentals of EM as a force in its own right.

Basically there is little room in EM for the unexplained.

Kernel

Son Goku wrote:

No we aren't. Light didn't exist until several minutes after the Big Bang. Photons aren't capable of existing at certain temperatures.

Isn't light simply electromagnetic radiation?

Zillah

EDIT: I misread something. Here's a fun link!

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

kernel wrote:

Isn't light simply electromagnetic radiation?

There is nothing simple about light. Light is one of the most fundamental and baffling things in the universe.

Kernel

Zillah wrote:

There is nothing simple about light. Light is one of the most fundamental and baffling things in the universe.

Indeed, I shouldn't have used the 'simple' adjective, but light is believed to be electromagnetic radiation in the spectrum visible to our eyes, a very important property of the universe and result of the big bang.

In fact, so much so, that the biblical passage 'Let there be light', is fundamental to the structure of the universe, so I defend my earlier statement Son Goku.

BTW, it's bugging me but has anyone watched that documentary on Light, and the history of the scientific knowledge of light? It was on recently on C4 I think? Anyone know the name?

EDIT: It wasn't Light Fantastic - the BBC documentary... it went from the early philosophers to the arab scientist Alhazen, and beyond to Einstein.....

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

EDIT: I misread something. Here's a fun link!

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Good link, thanks. I have Penrose's "Road To Reality" book, I've been meaning to read it for a while, I didn't think he'd be into that kind of thing.



Since I started the whole off-topic bit I better add something back in.

The Institute Of Noetic Sciences (IONS appropriatly enough) has a good site with an online magazine Shift. They do their own research and articles on lots of other stuff. The have a searchable Digital Library that you can search for keywords like 'EMF' or 'electromagnetic' and it'll turn up enough articles to keep anyone busy.

Some more miscellaneous links

Our Conscious Mind Could Be An Electromagnetic Field

The brain's electromagnetic field is not just an information sink; it can influence our actions, pushing some neurons towards firing and others away from firing. This influence, Professor McFadden proposes, is the physical manifestation of our conscious will.

The Cemi Field Theory

Can the cemi theory account for telepathy?

No, I'm afraid not. The em field outside the head is far too weak and it is highly unlikley that any other brain could detect it, and still more unlikely that the other brain could decode the em field information that was encoded by your brain (which i think is a good thing).

Awww

The Nature of Consciousness iUniverse online book, which is kind of an awkward format to read, by Susan Pockett. Looks kind of interesting though.