The British have essentially had a complete mental breakdown because of this! (they couldn’t handle the power of the Sun).
No offence Israel, but I’m coming to Tel Aviv… to Jerusalem, and I’m going to get Biblical on your arses! 😀
“For the first time in human history, the power of the Sun has been brought down to the surface of planet Earth”
“The most important discovery since fire”
I have NEVER been so serious of anything in my life… Israel, take all those Quantum Physics books and (don’t burn them) but put them to one side for a moment… take physics back one hundred years and start a fresh… read Randell Mills’ work… read The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics… study it in depth, from it’s inception, it’s history, it’s continual evolution… the background to hydrino energy… the implications it has in EVERY of discipline of science (and philosophy).
This discovery is the greatest in recent human history… anyone that grasps it, and understands it, masters it, can propel technology and science forward in ways we can not yet imagine.
EVERYTHING from energy, physics, cosmology, chemistry, genetics, molecular biology, drug development, ‘anti-gravity’, synthetic materials, electronics… there is NOTHING this is not going to effect… aviation, space exploration, mineral extraction, medicine…
I’ve exhausted myself… I don’t know what else to say. Israel… apply your best and brightest to this, whilst everyone else is pursuing ‘Quantum’… you will emerge as the technological powerhouse of the next hundred years… a technological superpower… unrivalled and untouchable. (sorry to those that disagree but there are military applications, I imagine Israel is already thinking the same!)
It’s the greatest gift you have since… … the Ark of the Covenant! 😀 (you can build yourself a new one! A 21st century Ark of the Covenant!)
Other inventions/patents from Dr Randell Mills ranging from genetic sequencing to selective drug delivery to Resonant magnetic susceptibility imagine (ReMSI)… the guys a genius!… https://www.google.com/search?q=randell+mills …
“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”
£1302.00 … for a one day conference! No wonder these people rule the world!
Leadership in a climate of disruptive change
18 March 2019 – 9:30am 5:30pm
Chatham House, London
Energy Transitions 2019
New Actors, New Technologies, New Business Models
18 March 2019 – 9:30am to 5:30pm
Chatham House, London
A global shift in the energy sector is under way with the rise of renewable energy sources spearheaded by their dominance of investment in the power sector. This is leading to disruptive change as the greater deployment of renewables and many associated technologies, such as storage, are challenging existing business models and threatening the market dominance of the existing actors. At the same time investment in fossil fuels has stabilized, as a slowdown of the financing of coal has been balanced by modest increases in spending in upstream oil and gas.
New global trends, electrification of new sectors such as transport and heating, along with the provision of modern energy services to over a billion people lacking access could further disrupt the energy sector, and the future impacts of these transitions on global energy security and sustainable transitions globally remain unclear.
Therefore, now, more than ever, it is critical that policy-makers and business leaders re-evaluate current and future strategies for delivering the domestic and international energy transition. The fourth annual Chatham House Energy Transitions conference will examine the new drivers of change, focusing on how different economies and industries can make the shift to a low-carbon energy future. Key questions to be explored include:
What will incentivize an acceleration in decarbonization and drive low-carbon innovation?
How can new technologies be deployed to transform grid interaction and enhance connectivity?
What are the implications of the changing policy environment for low-carbon investment?
How do disruptive shifts in the energy sector affect the prospects for enhancing access to clean, safe and sustainable energy in developing countries?
The Chatham House Rule
To enable as open a debate as possible, this conference will be held under the Chatham House Rule.
Achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting temperature increases to ‘well below’ 2°C requires environmental leadership to rapidly emerge within the world’s centres of economic policymaking: treasuries, finance ministries and ministries of economy and business.
Plenary Session at the Waddesdon Club 2018 annual meeting
The urgency of climate change dictates that the next generation of leaders must deliver the economic transformation needed; these individuals need to understand how climate and environment challenges will affect their time in power and define their legacies.
The Waddesdon Club is Chatham House’s response – through engaging future leaders, it seeks to equip them with the necessary tools, concepts, language, and capacities for influence needed to advance a mainstream economic agenda for climate change and sustainable development. Core to this approach is an annual retreat at Waddesdon Manor, offering a unique opportunity for participants to deepen their knowledge; widen their peer network, including meeting leading international experts; and share their respective perceptions, experiences and ideas on climate change issues.~
Previous Waddesdon Club Retreats
The inaugural Waddesdon Club retreat was held in October 2016 with a broad focus on the importance of low-carbon industrial strategies in mobilizing capital for low-carbon investment, driving down technology costs, fostering innovation and phasing out high-emitting activities.
The second Waddesdon Club retreat took place in early 2018, with a discussion on the practical policy challenges of managing the green economy transition. Expert speakers highlighted the role of international institutions in shaping norms, policies and financial flows. Participants addressed the need for a vision that brings together poverty alleviation, tackling inequality and addressing climate change for a just transition amidst rapid decarbonisation.
Achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting temperature increases requires strong environmental leadership within economic policymaking. In October 2016, Chatham House used the unique setting of Windmill Hill to convene future leaders in finance and economy ministries from across the globe. The self styled ‘Waddesdon Club’ aimed to enhance understanding of climate and environmental challenges and ensure consideration within policy making at the highest level.
Organised by the Energy, Environment and Resources department and the International Economic departments at Chatham House the ‘retreat’ was attended by leading economic policymakers and experts from the fields of climate science, energy and finance. Utilising the inspiration of Windmill Hill, itself a celebration of the conservation and environmental work pursued by the Rothschild Foundation, attendees shared knowledge on the current political and economic context and explored the intersections of environmental and economic policymaking. With the long term aim of supporting economies to respond more effectively to global change, the event identified recommendations for future discussion.
In order to enhance attendees’ experience and support effective communication, a dedicated mobile app was developed for the event. Co-created by Chatham House and digital tool provider, Lumi, the app allowed real-time updates and feedback as well as being an on-going resource which supports the implementation of ideas discussed at the event.
Chatham House plan to continue the momentum built through the first Waddesdon Club with future events at Windmill Hill.
“Quantum Physics is a fairy tale! Like a pretty, perfect looking magical castle in the distance… but when you finally get up close and inside… it’s a dark deceptive trap that you can never escape from!… … And it’s about to collapse!”
From David Harriman’s course “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics,”…
Below is a series of lectures, David Harriman’s series, “The Philosophic Corruption of Physics/Reality.” Herein, he walks us through the history of physics and how the Kantian philosophy subverted the science.
“I love the way this guy pronounces ‘Kant’… it’s like the posh English way of pronouncing…
“Okey dokey Danny Boy!”
“Quite fitting though really!” 😀
“Anyone that knows me personally, knows I am literally like a little boy when it comes to this one! … X-Men comics! Anyone? No? GUESS WHO MY FAVOURITE X-MAN WAS!” 😀
“And still is?”
“GAMBIT! Well… I’m more inclined towards Magnetos Brotherhood these days”
In the 21st century, physicists, mathematicians and theoreticians have turned to supercomputers in their quest for the ‘Unified Theory’ of physics. Supercomputers have been used in every field from cosmology, Astro-physics, particle physics, to the search for the elusive ‘dark matter’ (which Mills has identified as ‘hydrino’). Thus far each effort (as far as I’m aware) has been based on the ‘Standard Model’ of physics, and as of yet produced no concrete results, new theories or confirmation of existing ones (I.e. Standard Model).
Why not use a supercomputer to test Mills’ GUT-CP model of atomic structure, and of the Universe? Mills has almost single handily built an entirely new model of physics, of the atom and electron… and has thus far proven to be far more accurate than the Standard Model and Quantum Mechanics. Millsian software (as discussed previously) is a perfect example of the accuracy of his model in regards to molecular structure and calculating bond energy transfers. GUT-CP has predicted everything from the accelerated expansion of the Universe to recently confirmed ‘gravitational’ waves.
One such effort in the search for ‘dark matter’, ‘new physics’ and the fundamentals of particle physics & cosmology is the GAMBIT Collaboration project. GAMBIT is The Global And Modular BSM Inference Tool, and is made up of a collection of researchers from scientific intuitions worldwide, using the supercomputer Prometheus (amongst others) in the search for dark matter and a unified theory.
GAMBIT narrows the hiding places for ‘new physics’
The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences “Is it possible for today’s apparatus to detect the elementary particles of ‘new physics’ that are capable of explaining such mysteries as the nature of dark matter or the lack of symmetry between matter and antimatter? To answer this question, scientists from the international GAMBIT (Global and Modular Beyond-the-Standard-Model Inference Tool) Collaboration have developed a set of software tools that comprehensively analyse data collected during the most sophisticated contemporary experiments and measurements.” “Although almost a century has passed since Zwicky’s discovery, it has not been possible to investigate the composition of dark matter to this day, nor even to unambiguously confirm its existence. Over this time, theoreticians have constructed many extensions of the Standard Model containing particles that are to a greater or lesser extent exotic.”
The following article from Physics World explains GAMBIT, the history of the ‘discovery’ of ‘dark matter’ and the subsequent search for it’s identity’. When supercomputers go over to the dark side “Despite oodles of data and plenty of theories, we still don’t know what dark matter is. Martin White and Pat Scott describe how a new software tool called GAMBIT – run on supercomputers such as Prometheus – will test how novel theories stack up when confronted with real data”
“Unexpected scientific paradigm shifts, where reality turns out not to be as we believed, can be just as exciting and perplexing. One such dramatic change in perspective has been the dawning realization over the last few decades that “ordinary” matter accounts for just a fifth of the matter in the universe, with the rest made of a mysterious “dark” matter. Physicists love unsolved problems, and they don’t come much bigger than working out the nature of this dark stuff.
If a blockbuster movie is ever made about the discovery of dark matter, the next decade may well be the climax. New data from experiments such as CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are telling us more about what dark matter can and cannot be, while the recent discovery of gravitational waves reminds us that even century-old theories (general relativity in this case) can be spectacularly confirmed in the blink of an eye”
GAMBIT project suggests theoretical particles are too massive for LHC detection “The idea of the GAMBIT Collaboration is to create tools for analyzing data from as many experiments as possible, from different areas of physics, and to compare them very closely with the predictions of new theories. Looking comprehensively, it is possible to narrow the search areas of new physics much faster, and over time also eliminate those models whose predictions have not been confirmed in measurements,” explains Dr. Marcin Chrzaszcz Verification of the new physics proposals takes place in the GAMBIT Collaboration as follows: Scientists choose a theoretical model and build it into the software. The program then scans the values of the main model parameters. For each set of parameters, predictions are calculated and compared to the data from the experiments. “In practice, nothing is trivial here. There are models where we have as many as 128 free parameters. Imagine scanning in a space of 128 dimensions—it’s something that kills every computer. Therefore, at the beginning, we limited ourselves to three versions of simpler supersymmetric models, known under the abbreviations CMSSM, NUHM1 and NUHM2. They have five, six and seven free parameters, respectively. But things nonetheless get complicated, because, for example, we only know some of the other parameters of the Standard Model with a certain accuracy. Therefore, they have to be treated like free parameters too, only changing to a lesser extent than the new physics parameters,” says Dr. Chrzaszcz.
The GAMBIT Project website gives the following explanation – “Welcome to the GAMBIT homepage. GAMBIT is a global fitting code for generic Beyond the Standard Model theories, designed to allow fast and easy definition of new models, observables, likelihoods, scanners and backend physics codes.”
Thus far, ALL previous efforts with GAMBIT and Prometheus have led to dead ends (like all of modern QM physics), but it is worth noting that all previous efforts using Prometheus have been built upon or have expanded upon THE STANDARD MODEL!
What if this code, or at least these supercomputers where used for Mills’ GUT-CP and hydrino model? Entering a theory based upon Classical Laws? Expanding upon Newton, Maxwell equations… essentially used to enter ALL of Mills 30 year research, theories, predictions and equations… tested against known observables in the Universe?
I believe the results of doing so would be extraordinary accurate compared to all previous attempts, and would be the beginning of creating a computer model/simulation of the Universe to such a degree of accuracy never before witnessed in mathematics, particle physics, Astro-physics and cosmology… essentially the beginning of creating a computer simulation of the history of the Universe, past, previous ;o, present and future… A COMPUTER SIMUALTION OF THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!
(as well as confirming hydrino as dark matter, the expansion/contraction of the Universe, gravitational waves and causes etc.)
Surely if all these Quantum Physicists, Astro-physicists and cosmologists are saying Mills is fundamentally wrong… take a risk and run it on a supercomputer such as Prometheus (fitting name considering!)… take a GAMBIT!
“The intro to the awsomest cartoon ever! I’m going to walk down the aisle to this theme!”
“The application of unlimited, unbounded energy are only constrained by human imagination, ingenuity and ambition” – Dr Randell Mills
Brilliant Light Power Terraforming Application Video
(The music! 😀 … No dolphins? 😦 )
“We need to start terraforming the planet in a positive and beneficial way for the sake of the survival of our species and all life on Earth… because at the moment we’re terraforming Earth like General Zod!… Take California for example, severe drought and water shortages, catastrophic wild fires… … although when those fires reached Rupert Murdoch’s home, I was privately thinking ‘swings and roundabouts!’… … but we could create a global paradise of abundance if we utilised this technology correctly”
Hydrino energy is high density, cheap, non- polluting, safe, and deployable anywhere in the world…
Obviously Brilliant Light Power and hydrino energy has the potential to eradicate the burning of ALL fossil fuels globally, thereby cutting global carbon emissions to ZERO!
Hydrino technology can also replace ‘renewable’ energy sources such as solar and wind farms, which would potentially take up millions of square miles of the Earths landmass to host. There is no radioactive or chemical waste, or any pollution of any kind.
But also Dr Mills and Brilliant Light Power envision a world where the use of ‘hydrino’ technologies will be used to transform the planets most inhospitable wastelands and arid regions into ‘lush, liveable, crop-producing expanses’ whilst ‘also preventing drought in already cultivated areas such as California.’
A recent article unveiled plans by scientists to transform areas of the Sahara into a lush rainfall region with abundant greenery. Although the plan utilises a combination of wind turbines and solar panels, it highlights the possible ways in which future clean technologies will be used to positively alter and transform the Earths landscape.
I believe much more research should be conducted and careful consideration taken into the idea of transforming certain regions of the Earth, using hydrino power only. As pointed out in following article, transforming such areas as the Sahara may have unintended consequences for other regions such as the Amazon rainforest, and Atlantic ocean marine life… 8 Craziest Mega-Engineering Projects That Could Rework Earth “For one, sand from the Sahara is carried into the air, across the Atlantic, and deposited in South America. The rich dust that falls from the sky, and the rain storms caused by that dust picking up moisture during it’s transoceanic journey both fertilize the Amazon rain forest. No desert, no dust. No dust, no rain forest. During that journey, the dust also feeds a variety of sea life.”
Brett Holverstott mentions in his talk, in regards to how hydrino energy has the potential to help alleviate, if not eradicate :-
Ice cap melting
The dying of marine life
Being deployable in the third world
The cutting down of the Amazon rainforest
Global city smog
Construction of river dams
… amongst numerous other potential environmental benefits.
I also believe our new understanding of atomic structure and molecular physics (Millsian), could pave the way for new cleaner technologies and sustainable materials in industries other than energy. These may include :-
– Plastics and materials
– Food and crop growth
– Fertilisers and agriculture
– Mining and mineral extraction
– Methods for cleaning up past environmental damage (plastics, carbon emissions, nuclear and toxic waste), essentially reversing the damage already caused by the Industrial Revolution.
“The application of unlimited, unbounded energy are only constrained by human imagination, ingenuity and ambition” – Dr Randell Mills
“Before we venture out into the stars, looking to terraform other planets… maybe we should take a look back at our own and try and reverse the damage we’ve done here” – Danny Hurley
Robert Senftleben: Terraforming Planet Earth
Large parts of the surface of our planet have been devastated by human activity. Terraforming on a human scale is needed to bring these landscapes back to life. The knowledge and technology is there, and you can learn how to use it and participate.
EXCELLENT TED TALK!
How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
“Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes — and his work so far shows — that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.
Update (13/09/2-18) ;D Gaia 2.0 (Timothy M. Lenton, Bruno Latour – University of Exeter)
“A time-honoured theory into why conditions on Earth have remained stable enough for life to evolve over billions of years has been given a new, innovative twist.
For around half a century, the ‘Gaia’ hypothesis has provided a unique way of understanding how life has persisted on Earth. It champions the idea that living organisms and their inorganic surroundings evolved together as a single, self-regulating system that has kept the planet habitable for life—despite threats such as a brightening Sun, volcanoes and meteorite strikes. However, Professor Tim Lenton from the University of Exeter and famed French sociologist of science Professor Bruno Latour are now arguing that humans have the potential to ‘upgrade’ this planetary operating system to create “Gaia 2.0”. They believe that the evolution of both humans and their technology could add a new level of “self-awareness” to Earth’s self-regulation, which is at the heart of the original Gaia theory. As humans become more aware of the global consequences of their actions, including climate change, a new kind of deliberate self-regulation becomes possible where we limit our impacts on the planet. Professors Lenton and Latour suggest that this “conscience choice” to self-regulate introduces a “fundamental new state of Gaia—which could help us achieve greater global sustainability in the future. However, such self-aware self-regulation relies on our ability to continually monitor and model the state of the planet and our effects upon it. Professor Lenton, Director of Exeter’s new Global Systems Institute, said: “If we are to create a better world for the growing human population this century then we need to regulate our impacts on our life support-system, and deliberately create a more circular economy that relies—like the biosphere—on the recycling of materials powered by sustainable energy.” The original Gaia Theory was developed in the late 1960’s by James Lovelock, a British scientist and inventor. It suggested that both the organic and inorganic components of Earth evolved together as one single, self-regulating system which can control global temperature and atmospheric composition to maintain its own habitability. The new perspective article is published in leading journal Science on September 14, 2018. It follows recent research, led by Professor Lenton, which offered a fresh solution to how the Gaia hypothesis works in real terms: Stability comes from “sequential selection” in which situations where life destabilises the environment tend to be short-lived and result in further change until a stable situation emerges, which then tends to persist. Once this happens, the system has more time to acquire further properties that help to stabilise and maintain it—a process known as “selection by survival alone”. Creating transformative solutions to the global changes that humans are now causing is a key focus of the University of Exeter’s new Global Systems Institute.”
“I actually emailed Roger Penrose with this last year.”
“Did you get a response?”
“No… but then he is ‘Sir’ Roger Penrose, and what we know of the Queens Knighthood list, is it reads like a God damn sex offen..
“Drop it Danny Boy!”
Recent observations made by both the Planck observatory and the BICEP2 South Pole telescope, indicate possible remnants of a previous Universe. This possible indication has been interpreted by a number of physicists in different ways, but Roger Penrose of Oxford University believes what is being seen in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data, are radioactive swirls dubbed ‘Hawking Holes’, thus being proof of a previous Universe existing prior to this present one, in what he and his colleagues call the “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC).
(It is worth noting these conclusions are drawn mainly from the data from the Planck observatory, and raw data from the BICEP2 is still to be released)
Radioactive swirls in the cosmos may rewrite the origin story of the universe “The idea is called “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC), and what it asserts is that, rather than starting from a big bang, the universe continually expands and contracts, each time leaving behind tiny bits of electromagnetic radiation that remain as the process occurs over and over. The late Stephen Hawking predicted tiny dots of radiation, which others call ‘Hawking points’, left over from this cycle.”
These Swirls of Light Could Be Signs of a Previous Universe Existing Before Ours “Penrose’s CCC model was developed as an answer to a curious imbalance between measurements of our early Universe’s temperature and the state of order we might expect. According to him, this imbalance could be accounted for by the death of a pre-existing universe that was there before the Big Bang. Oscillating universes come in a few different forms, depending on your choice of model. Some suggest the Universe is destined to fall back in itself one day.”
This observation, and it’s interpretation caught my attention, because according to Mills’ GUT-CP, we live in an ‘Oscillating Universe’, eternally expanding and contracting over a period of a trillion years or so (give or take). According to Mills, the Universe is in a continual state of expansion from 9 billion light years to 312 billion light years, and then contraction phase back (every 450 billion years). This process happens because, during expansion phase (or ‘annihilation’), matter is converted directly into energy (through various ‘hydrino’ chemical and nuclear processes throughout the Universe, including our own Sun), which causes spacetime to expand everywhere throughout the Universe.
NOTE – Dr Randell Mills successfully predicted the acceleration of the expanding Universe in his model prior to it’s discovery. He was also the first to successfully predict gravitational waves in to his model.
After the Universe has expanded to it’s peak radius (312 billion light years), and the engines of the expansion phase have ‘run out’ so to speak (stars, supernovas, neutron stars etc.), and most of the Universes matter has been converted into energy… the Universe will then begin it’s contraction phase and the process is reversed. Radiation will create particles, which in turn create atoms, converting ‘dark energy’ into matter, thus contracting spacetime everywhere throughout the Universe.
“The conversion of matter into energy causes spacetime, and thus the universe, to expand, since light has inertial but no gravitational mass. The acceleration of the expansion of the presently observed universe was predicted by Mills in 1995 and has since been confirmed experimentally. Mills predicts that the universe expands and contracts over thousand-billion year cycles.” – Brilliant Light Power
It is important to note that The Big Bang Theory is just that… a theory, and no direct evidence for it has ever been put forward. The idea was based upon the fact that the Universe was expanding (prior to knowledge of it’s acceleration, which should in turn discount the theory). Many physicists and cosmologists throughout the 20th century questioned the theory, and by early 21st century a vast array of evidence has slowly accumulated to discount it.
– Reiss 1998. Hubble date showed that the Universe was NOT decelerating as predicted by the Big Bang Theory, but actually accelerating. Unknown to most in science, Mills had successfully predicted this two years prior in GUT-CP model. (this is when the idea of ‘dark’ matter’ came to the forefront of physics in order to account for this surprising observation).
– Space Circles Are Proof of a Pre-Big Bang Universe? (2010) Recycled-universe theory “works on paper,” but details missing, critics say.– 3 Theories That Might Blow Up the Big Bang (Steinhardt and Turok) “Steinhardt and Turok—working closely with a few like-minded colleagues—have now developed these insights into a thorough alternative to the prevailing, Genesis-like view of cosmology. According to the Big Bang theory, the whole universe emerged during a single moment some 13.7 billion years ago. In the competing theory, our universe generates and regenerates itself in an endless cycle of creation. The latest version of the cyclic model even matches key pieces of observational evidence supporting the older view.”
“We weren’t looking for cycles,” Steinhardt says, “but the model naturally produces them.” After a collision, energy gives rise to matter in the brane worlds. The matter then evolves into the kind of universe we know: galaxies, stars, planets, the works. Space within the branes expands, and at first the distance between the branes (in the bulk) grows too. When the brane worlds expand so much that their space is nearly empty, however, attractive forces between the branes draw the world-sheets together again. A new collision occurs, and a new cycle of creation begins. In this model, each round of existence—each cycle from one collision to the next—stretches about a trillion years. By that reckoning, our universe is still in its infancy, being only 0.1 percent of the way through the current cycle.The cyclic universe directly solves the problem of before. With an infinity of Big Bangs, time stretches into forever in both directions. “The Big Bang was not the beginning of space and time,” Steinhardt says. “There was a before, and before matters because it leaves an imprint on what happens in the next cycle.”
– As Holverstott states in ‘Randell Mills and the search for Hydrino energy’, numerous ‘ancient’ structures are being discovered throughout the Cosmos that seem to predate the accepted 13.6 billion years ‘beginning’.
~Including a ‘quasar that is 13 billion light years away, yet powered by a black hole about 2 billion times the mass of the Sun’ (Mortlock 2011).
~A star smaller than our own Sun, which has almost no trace of elements heavier than hydrogen or helium, with a ratio of helium lower than that theoretically created in the big bang. Dubbed ‘The Star That Should Not Exist’(which is so sweet! :D)
– More recently a gargantuan black hole found in 2013, again throws doubt upon the notion of nothing in our ‘known’ Universe existing prior. I believe many more objects and structures will be found in the coming years and decades that will support Mils’ GUT-CP and his ‘Oscillating Universe’ Model.
– Young black hole had monstrous growth spurt Super-massive object found in early Universe tests theories of cosmic evolution. “A black hole that grew to gargantuan size in the Universe’s first billion years is by far the largest yet spotted from such an early date, researchers have announced. The object, discovered by astronomers in 2013, is 12 billion times as massive as the Sun, and six times greater than its largest-known contemporaries. Its existence poses a challenge for theories of the evolution of black holes, stars and galaxies, astronomers say.”
Mills model of an Oscillating Universe is NOT to be confused with other models such as the Big Bounce or CCC, which are still based in Quantum Models such as string or M theory… this is a truly original, more eloquent and simpler model, that has been arrived at through a classical understanding of atomic structure and gravitational forces (i.e hydrino model).
For further details see… Summary Of Randell Mills’s Unified Theory (Holverstott)
During a 2015 conference on theoretical cosmology at Princeton University, Roger Penrose, a pioneer in the field of mathematical physics, was asked to speak on a panel about the origin of the universe. For decades, the leading theory had been that, during roughly the first trillionth of a trillionth of a nanosecond following the Big Bang, there was a single period of extremely rapid expansion, known as inflation, that formed the universe we observe today.
“I was pointing out major flaws with the theory of inflation. Nobody commented on that at all.”
When it was Penrose’s turn to speak, however, he wanted no part of that dogma. Instead, he reiterated his belief that the theory of inflation was false, and he proposed that the universe could instead be better described by an alternative theory,conformal cyclic cosmology, which posits that our universe continually alternates between periods of expansion and contraction. In Penrose’s formulation, the universe as we know it began not so much with a bang but with a bounce.
As Penrose recalls, few people in the audience seemed to pay him any attention, and those who did shot back with ridicule, murmuring their disbelief. “I was pointing out major flaws with the theory of inflation,” he says. “Nobody commented on that at all.” Inflation had secured such a strong foothold in the physics zeitgeist, it seemed, that even one of the world’s most accomplished theorists couldn’t chink its armor.
Today, Penrose and other physicists who seek to rewrite the narrative of how the universe began continue to face an uphill battle. To many of them, the dismissals and rejections feel more personal than scientific, driven by an academic job culture that penalizes risk taking. They worry that — for young professionals especially — the quest to unravel the deepest mysteries of the early universe will take a backseat to a far more mundane pursuit: career survival.
By many accounts, inflation is a hugely successful theory. Conceived nearly 40 years ago by Alan Guth, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), it provided some of the first plausible answers to longstanding riddles about the universe. It explained the so-called flatness problem (how the universe ended up just dense enough to keep from flying apart, but not so dense that it collapsed under its own gravity) and why the universe looks uniform instead of patchy. According to University of Oxford astrophysicist Jamie Farnes, “you can kind of think of inflation as smoothing out the universe in the same way that blowing up a balloon smooths out all the creases in the rubber.”
According to its critics, however, not everything about inflation is so smooth. In early 2017, physicists Abraham Loeb, Anna Ijjas, and Paul J. Steinhardt argued in Scientific American that proponents of inflation were essentially gaming the system: Whenever an astronomy observation disagreed with one of the theory’s predictions, theorists simply added new wrinkles to their models to make them fit the data. With every new wrinkle, the theory became more complicated and, in the eyes of Loeb and company, less plausible. “Inflation is such a flexible idea that any outcome is possible,” they wrote, concluding by calling it an “empty theory.”
A few months later, Guth and 32 other prominent physicists, including the late Stephen Hawking, published a rebuttal, defending inflation as a testable, evidence-based theory that had produced numerous successful predictions. But many critics weren’t convinced.
Among those critics is Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany. In her view, a lot of people certainly want inflation to be the answer, and it’s gotten to the point where “people keep repeating statements that are obviously wrong.”
In Penrose’s formulation, the universe as we know it began not so much with a bang but with a bounce.
One example, she says, is the idea that inflation solves the flatness problem. Hossenfelder points out that there is no mathematical reason why the universe needs to be flat, so in a way, inflation is solving a problem that never existed. She says there are other explanations and that “the people who understand inflation know this perfectly well.” However, Hossenfelder says that doesn’t stop the “disturbing” pattern of promoting inflation, saying, “if you talk to them about it, they will admit that [this and other assertions] are wrong, but they keep repeating them anyway.”
But not every supporter of inflation is so philosophically entrenched. Xingang Chen, an early universe cosmologist at Harvard University, began his career at MIT working under Guth, the father of inflation himself. But lately, he’s begun to seriously explore the alternative theories. Among them are a class of cyclic universe theories — Big Bounce models, if you will — including the one that Penrose proposed at Princeton. Introduced in the 1950s, Big Bounce theories predate inflation and are championed today by prominent physicists like Steinhardt and Neil Turok. Another contender is string gas cosmology, proposed in the 1980s by cosmologists Robert Brandenberger and Cumrun Vafa, which attempts to explain the expansion of the primordial universe using the equations of string theory.
Ask Chen, and he’ll tell you those alternative theories aren’t perfect either. For one, they are more complicated and less elegant than inflation theory. And in physics, Occam’s razor — the idea that simpler answers are more likely to be correct — generally holds sway. Chen still believes that inflation is the most plausible theory of how the universe came to be. But at the same time, he recognizes that alternative theories like the Big Bounce and string gas models can explain all the same observations that inflation can. Strictly speaking, there’s nothing special about inflation.
And, yet, inflation reigns. On ArXiv, the leading repository for physics research papers, articles mentioning cosmological inflation outnumber those mentioning cyclic cosmology and string gas cosmology by approximately 14 to 1. A search of a National Science Foundation grants website finds that, of the roughly 2,000 projects actively funded under the agency’s physics and astronomy programs, three dozen mention cosmological inflation in their project descriptions. None mention string-gas or cyclic cosmology. (In an email, Keith Dienes, the NSF’s program director for theoretical astrophysics and cosmology, said the agency funds “a lot of string cosmology as well as ‘alternative cosmological theories,’” though three of the four examples he cited do not appear to have early universe cosmology as a primary focus.)
As Hossenfelder sees it, this ideological convergence around inflation is indicative of a culture that’s become overly risk-averse in its publishing, hiring, and funding practices. She’s critical of this because “you get a lot of people who start producing [inflation] models that really don’t help you with anything,” and they do it because “you can get it published.”
“It has become very politicized,” Hossenfelder contends. “This is particularly pronounced in the United States, where people are really worried about their funding.” The anxiety is evident, she says, in the way scientists talk about securing money for their research.
Penrose agrees. “The competition at the universities is horrendous,” he says. “You’ve got to get a job.” But, he adds, the people doing the hiring are the ones who believe in these fashionable ideas.
At the end of the day, Ijjas says, challenging the mainstream “shouldn’t be impossible — but it’s okay if it’s hard. Because it should be hard.”
Indeed, today’s theoretical physicists are fighting for crumbs from an increasingly shrinking pie. NSF program director Dienes says there’s one combined budget for theoretical particle physics, cosmology, and high-energy physics, approximately $13 million dollars a year, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the total allocation for research in mathematical and physical sciences. Only a fraction of that $13 million goes to theoretical cosmology.
Ijjas, a theoretical physicist at Princeton and one of the coauthors of the controversial 2017Scientific American article, is one of a handful of young theorists who have won funding to study an alternative theory of the early universe. But her funding came from the privately-run Simons Foundation, and even then only after the ideas — pertaining to Big Bounce models — were mature enough to be supported with high-level computations.
Ijjas says that, as a young researcher, there has to be a balance between risk-taking and conservatism. At the end of the day, she says, challenging the mainstream “shouldn’t be impossible — but it’s okay if it’s hard. Because it should be hard.”
When Penrose thinks back to that 2015 conference at Princeton, he recalls that at the end of the panel, a colleague stood up to comment on the field of cosmology as a whole — where it was headed and what was left to learn. As Penrose remembers it, the moderator’s message was that “there’s nothing new,” and “we really know fairly well everything … There’s a few things we can look at, but we’ve got the general picture.” It was the projection of certainty in the statement that bothered Penrose, who continues to argue that inflation is “a hugely artificial theory” — and that the physics community doesn’t afford the space, professionally or personally, to explore alternative ideas.
Hossenfelder captures the sentiment in a thought experiment. “Imagine you would want to come up with an entirely new explanation for the physics of the early universe,” she says. “This would mean that you would have to sit down for like, say five years, you know, do a lot of thinking, do a lot of reading, do a lot of calculations, and in these five years, there would probably not be much coming out of this.”
And then comes the rub, because “if you tried to do this,” she says, “you would be unemployed after two years, and that’s the end of that.”
Jessica Romeo is a freelance science writer based in New York City. She is currently an editorial intern at Popular Science. Her work has appeared in Scholastic Science World, Scientific American, and Smithsonian Magazine.
George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are undoubtedly two of the 20th century’s best and most influential directors and screenwriters. Rarely did these two collaborate, but the first time they did, they brought to life one of the greatest adventure series of all time – Indiana Jones.
What is it that draws us to Indiana Jones and his archaeological adventures? Is it the quest for hidden treasures? Is it the thrill of uncovering the secrets of our long lost past? Or is it the ridiculously life-threatening situations into which he inevitably stumbles? Probably all of the above. And more.
But for some people, watching Indiana Jones isn’t enough. Jim Barfield is a firefighter and a criminal investigator from Oklahoma, with a passion for the Bible, and a fascination with the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the Copper Scroll, which unlike the other dead sea scrolls, is not a literary work, but rather a list of places. But not just random places, places where supposedly, buried in the ground are various items of gold and silver. In other words, a bonafide treasure map.
So in a sense, today on the podcast we’re joined by a real-life Indiana Jones. Here to tell us the story of the Copper Scroll is Jim Barfield.
An award-winning investigator discovered the secret to the most treasure laden and mystifying map in history. Artifacts from the Tabernacle of Moses, sacred possessions from Jerusalem’s Temple and massive treasures listed on the Copper Scroll chill prophecy experts, electrify historians and enrage the financial elite. The potential of this mysterious and illusive discovery also holds the most frighteningly unpredictable influence on Middle Eastern and world stability. After a 2400 year absence, the moment the world lays eyes on “the Ark of the Covenant,” the universe will change.
The Ark of the Covenant has not been seen since the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. 2600 years, however, has not been long enough to kill the curiosity or exhaust the imagination of the many who ponder the Ark’s fate. The burning question is how something so holy and central to Jewish worship could disappear without explanation. The Babylonian’s detailed list of stolen Temple items makes no mention of the Ark; the Bible offers no resolution on whether the Ark was stolen, lost, or destroyed. The Copper Scroll is the first archeological discovery that sheds light on the issue and could even lead to the Ark’s recovery.
The Copper Scroll is an anomaly in the Dead Sea Scroll Collection. Found in 1952, like the other scrolls, the Copper Scroll was found in a cave near the ruins of Qumran and was thus attributed to the Essenes. As its nickname implies it is a scroll written on thin copper sheets. Unlike the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Copper Scroll has no literary or religious content; it is an inventory of sixty-four obscure locations where gold, silver, and other treasures are said to be hidden.
Most scholars would deny any direct connection between the Copper Scroll and the Ark. Admittedly, the Ark is not directly mentioned in the Scroll. However, there is a common scholarly assumption that the contents that are listed in the Scroll came from the Jewish Temple. The Copper Scroll describes a hoard of precious metals and coins estimated to be worth around two billion dollars today. The only place in ancient Israel that would have had access to so much wealth was the Temple treasury. Jews in the land and in the Diaspora had brought substantial wealth to the Jewish temple through regular free-will offerings.
In addition to temple tithes, the Scroll refers to other movable temple items like ‘dedicated vessels,’ ‘consecrated’ items, and priestly garments. Temple vessels are referred to in at least three sections of the Scroll and priestly ephods are named once. According to Copper Scroll expert B. Pixner, the fourth section of the Scroll references the Breastplate of the High Priest. In the twenty-sixth section of the Scroll, the scribe uses the same Hebrew word for “pitcher” that is almost exclusively used for the Qalal, the urn which held the ashes of the Red Heifer. Albert Wolters, a professor of Religion and Theology in Ontario who focuses on the Dead Sea Scrolls, makes an argument that the proper translation for the last hiding place of the Copper Scroll reads “the Cavern of the Shekinah.” Shekinah when used in the Bible designates the Divine Presence as it inhabits the Tabernacle (Exod. 40:35) and the Temple in Jerusalem.
There seems to also be a more cryptic reference in the Scroll to the Ark. According to the translation of John Allegro, the first person allowed to study the Copper Scroll, the text opens with: “In the desolations of the Valley of Achor, under the hill that must be climbed, hidden under the east side, forty stones deep, is a silver chest, and with it, the vestments of the High Priest, all the gold and silver with the Great Tabernacle and all its Treasures.” Mishkan is the Hebrew word used for the Wilderness Tabernacle, the Tabernacle that the Israelis carried during the forty years of wandering and the contents of which were later transferred to the Ark.
The prevailing opinion in Copper Scroll studies is that, like the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Copper Scroll dates between 150 BCE and 70 CE. Logic would follow that the Scroll is referring to second Temple treasures secreted away before the Roman invasion. If this theory stands, then the Copper Scroll likely has no connection to the Ark since the Ark was absent from the Second Temple.
A less popular—but no less interesting—theory is that the Copper Scroll treasure is from the First Temple and was removed by Temple guardians before the Babylonian invasion. The scroll would likely have been hid in a cave during the Babylonian exile. The idea that the Copper Scroll could be a precursor to the Dead Sea Scrolls has some credibility given its unique Biblical language. The Scroll’s script and word construction has eluded many paleographers (experts in ancient script) because it is unlike any of the other Dead Sea Scrolls or texts from the suspected period of production. Some passages have paleographic dates around 70 CE, but other passages date back 700 years earlier.
Vendyl Jones—an explorer who has devoted thirty years to studying the Copper Scroll—and Jim Barfield—a retired fire marshal who believes he has cracked the code on the Copper Scroll (see my Copper Scroll articles from the last two issues)—believe the Second book of Maccabees and two other extra-Biblical texts give the background to the Copper Scroll.
II Maccabees tells the story of the prophet Jeremiah receiving a divine warning about the Babylonian invasion to come. Jeremiah took the sacred Temple treasures—including the Wilderness Tabernacle, the Ark and its contents, and the Qalal—and hid them in a hollow cave near Mount Nebo (Deut. 34:1). After Jeremiah sealed the entrance his followers complained they could not find the site. Jeremiah replied “the place shall be unknown until God gathers His people together again and shows His mercy.”
In 1922 an eighteenth century writing called Emeq HaMelekh written by Rav Hertz, an authority on oral Torah, was found in Amsterdam. In Emeq HaMelekh, Hertz goes into detail describing the mission directed by the prophet Jeremiah to hide the Ark and other sacred things. Hertz wrote that seven years before the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, five holy men “concealed the vessels of the Temple and the wealth of the treasures that were in Jerusalem.” Once the guardians hid the objects they inscribed the inventory and secret locations on a Luach Nehoshet (copper plate). Emeq HaMelekh warns that the Temple items will “not be discovered until the day of the coming of Moschiach, son of David.”
As his source, Hertz cited in his introduction a Tosefta Mishnayot (Rabbinic writing) which was unknown to modern Talmudists until twenty years ago. In 1990 proof of the Tosephta Mishnayot surfaced in an 8th century genizah (document deposit) recovered from Cairo, Egypt. Though the genizah document predated Emeq HaMelekh by a thousand years, it gave the same story as Rav Hertz about the Temple rescue operation, named the same five holy men, and referenced the copper plate.
Could the Copper Scroll now sitting in a museum in Jordan be the Luach Nehoshet? The possibility is tantalizing. Excluding Jones and Barfield, however, few Copper Scroll experts have given the connection any merit—mostly because archeologist frown upon using ancient literary texts to aid in finding artifacts.
Even still, outside of a Hollywood movie studio, never before has there been a treasure map that held this kind of promise and suspense. The Copper Scroll may be our closest witness to the Ark’s fate. Watch Raiders of the Lost Ark one too many times and you can not put down the sneaking suspicion that if the Ark is ever meant to be found it will be the Luach Nehoshet—not Prof. Indiana Jones—that leads us to it.
Jim Barfield believes the Ark of the Covenant is in Qumran, the area of the Judean Desert where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. In 1952, a fragile scroll made of copper was discovered in a cave above the Dead Sea at Qumran. The Copper Scroll is materially unique in that it was written on thin, hammered copper, rather than the less durable papyrus or parchment, which were the materials used for all of the other scrolls. Jim Barfield, founder and director of The Copper Scroll Project, believes he has found in the enigmatic Copper Scroll the key to the location of the cave where the Ark of the Covenant is hidden, along with the Tabernacle in the Wilderness and the Altar of Incense. The Copper Scroll, he believes, also shows the locations of 56 additional sites where vast hoards of sacred treasures are buried — including tons of Temple items made of gold and silver from the Temple of Solomon.
Readers of the Old Testament are familiar with the Ark of the Covenant, the sacred golden chest carried by the Israelites during their wanderings in the desert and finally placed in the temple built by King Solomon. The 1981 adventure/fantasy film Raiders of the Lost Ark by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas introduced a Hollywood version of the Ark to a much larger global audience outside the Jewish and Christian traditions. That movie ends with the Ark disappearing in a large crate, along with thousands of other similar crates, into a huge U.S. government warehouse.
The Ark did indeed disappear, but not following World War II, as Hollywood portrayed, and not into a top-secret warehouse. There is much dispute among scholars and researchers about when, and by whom, it was removed from the Temple. Some believe it was taken to Babylon, following the Jewish-Babylonian War, which culminated in 586 B.C. with Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II plundering and destroying Jerusalem, slaying most of the Israelites, and taking most of the survivors into captivity. Others hold that the Ark is in Aksum, Ethiopia, or that it is buried in a tunnel under the Temple, or that it is in a cave beneath Golgotha (also known as Calvary), the hill on which Jesus Christ was crucified. At any rate, it has been “missing” for well over two millennia, its location known only to God.
Jim Barfield believes it is in Qumran, the area of the Judean Desert where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. In 1952, a fragile scroll made of copper was discovered in a cave above the Dead Sea at Qumran. The Copper Scroll is materially unique in that it was written on thin, hammered copper, rather than the less-durable papyrus or parchment, which were the materials used for all of the other scrolls. Jim Barfield, founder and director of The Copper Scroll Project, believes he has found in the enigmatic Copper Scroll the key to the location of the cave where the Ark of the Covenant is hidden, along with the Tabernacle in the Wilderness and the Altar of Incense. The Copper Scroll, he believes, also shows the locations of 56 additional sites where vast hoards of sacred treasures are buried — including tons of Temple items made of gold and silver from the Temple of Solomon.
The clues provided in the Copper Scroll, Barfield says, are reinforced by the ancient account of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremias) in the Second Book of Maccabees, which recounts that Jeremiah removed the Temple treasures from Jerusalem before the city fell to Nebuchadnezzar. The account in II Maccabees reads:
You shall also find it set down in the dispositions made by the prophet Jeremias, that he bade the exiles rescue the sacred fire, in the manner aforesaid. Strict charge he gave them, the Lord’s commandments they should keep ever in mind, nor let false gods, all gold and silver and fine array, steal away their hearts; with much else to confirm them in their regard for the law. And here, in this same document, the story was told, how a divine oracle came to Jeremias, and he must needs go out, with tabernacle and ark to bear him company, to the very mountain Moses climbed long ago, when he had sight of God’s domain. A cave Jeremias found there, in which he set down tabernacle and ark and incense-altar, and stopped up the entrance behind him. There were some that followed; no time they lost in coming up to mark the spot, but find it they could not. He, when they told him of it, rebuked their eagerness; Nay, said he, the place must remain ever unknown, till the day when God brings his people together once more, and is reconciled; then, divinely, the secret shall be made manifest. Then once again the Lord’s majesty shall be seen, and the cloud that enshrines it; the same vision that was granted to Moses, and to Solomon when he prayed that the great God would have his temple on earth; Solomon, the master of wisdom, that in his wisdom offered sacrifice to hallow the temple he had made.
Utilizing the copper scroll, the Book of Maccabees, and other ancient sources, Barfield has created a map of Qumran depicting where he believes the 57 Temple treasure sites are. In 2009, he was able to put his theories from the copper scroll to the test. With the help of a member of the Israeli Knesset, he and his team were allowed to conduct a survey of four of the sites utilizing advanced scanning detector technology that allowed them to see 50 feet below the surface of the ground. According to Barfield, their detector showed “massive amounts” of nonferrous metal objects in precisely those locations. This, he says, is an exciting confirmation to him that they are on the right track. He is confident that the objects depicted by the detector are indeed the much-sought-after Temple treasures. Most exciting of all, he says, were the detector readings for the cave location where he believes the greatest treasures, including the Ark of the Covenant, are hidden. That’s where the detector gave off the biggest readings for nonferrous metals, indicating to him they had found the Ark and the other most important gold and silver Temple objects.
Jim Barfield has been to Israel 15 times in the past 11 years in efforts to advance the Copper Scroll Project’s mission, which he says is to “Help the Nation of Israel recover the items of the Copper Scroll.”
Barfield was not surprised that his initial approaches to Israeli authorities and archeologists were met with skepticism. Besides being an outsider, without the archeological credentials and experience of other noted authorities in this field, there are tremendous political sensitivities and rivalries involved that complicate any excavation effort. “The political and religious ramifications of this are huge,” he told The New American in a recent telephone interview. “The Palestinians certainly don’t want anything like this that would confirm Israel’s historical claim” to the area.
In addition to the Palestinians, there are also influential Israelis who are opposed to the project. Some are opposed to it because they fear a discovery of this sort would lead to increased Arab-Israeli tensions and an increase of attacks by the Palestinians against Israelis. Other Jews, says Barfield, particularly the wealthier, non-religious classes, see it as a threat because they fear it would lead to greater religious fervor among the Jews and a clamor to build a third temple, which they oppose.
Our video interview with Barfield embedded above was conducted in 2016. However, because of political instability in Israel at the time and security concerns, he asked us not to post it at that time. Since then, he says, the Copper Scroll Project has made enormous strides. “On our last visit to Israel — in September last year — we had a very good meeting with a top Israeli archeologist and a high official in the Israeli government,” he told The New American. The official from the Israeli government, when presented with all of Barfield’s evidence, became very interested and supportive.
Jim Barfield has worked on the Copper Scroll Project for more than a decade. He has experienced many delays, setbacks, and roadblocks, as well as more than his fair share of detractors. He freely admits to getting impatient and discouraged at times. However, he firmly believes that, ultimately, God is in control of world events, and he intends to remain faithful to what he believes is God’s calling for him in this historic effort. The Ark of the Covenant will be revealed “in God’s good time,” he says. “It might not be Jim Barfield whom He uses to reveal it, but that’s not what’s important — I’m not important. What’s important is that I faithfully carry out His will for me, as I understand it.”
We, at The New American, take no position on the validity or accuracy of the findings and claims of Jim Barfield and the Copper Scroll Project. Whether or not he has truly discovered the Ark of the Covenant will likely only be revealed by time — and a shovel. However, we were intrigued enough with the subject to do this interview and report. We believe our readers may find it intriguing, if not fascinating, especially in light of the recent developments concerning President Trump’s focus on Jerusalem.
We have to define ‘consciousness’… what makes a being conscious? What makes a number of molecules and chemicals conscious? What defines higher levels of consciousness? How the Universe creates consciousness, becomes self aware…
(it needs explaining, because there are HUGE differences in levels of consciousness amongst human beings of supposedly the same species…
‘an epoch will come when they disclaim kinship from us, as we have disclaimed kinship from the monkeys’
Paul Davies thinks combining physics and biology will reveal a pattern of information management
All the brain cells of life on Earth still cannot explain life on Earth. Its most intelligent species has uncovered the building blocks of matter, read countless genomes and watched spacetime quiver as black holes collide. It understands much of how living creatures work, but not how they came to be. There is no agreement, even, on what life is.
The conundrum of life is so fundamental that to solve it would rank among the most important achievements of the human mind. But for all scientists’ efforts – and there have been plenty – the big questions remain. If biology is defined as the study of life, on this it has failed to deliver.
But enlightenment may come from another direction. Rather than biology, some scientists are now looking to physics for answers, in particular the physics of information. Buried in the rules that shape information lie the secrets of life and perhaps even the reason for our existence.
That, at least, is the bold proposal from Paul Davies, a prominent physicist who explores the idea in his forthcoming book, The Demon in the Machine. Published next week, it continues a theme of thinking that landed Davies the $1m Templeton prize for contributions to religious thought and inquiry.
As director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University, Davies is well placed to spot the next wave that will crash over science. What he sees on the horizon is a revolution that brings physics and biology together through the common science of information.
“The basic hypothesis is this,” Davies says. “We have fundamental laws of information that bring life into being from an incoherent mish-mash of chemicals. The remarkable properties we associate with life are not going to come about by accident.”
The proposal takes some unpacking. Davies believes that the laws of nature as we know them today are insufficient to explain what life is and how it came about. We need to find new laws, he says, or at least new principles, which describe how information courses around living creatures. Those rules may not only nail down what life is, but actively favour its emergence.
To understand what bothers Davies, consider a hypothetical device: a life meter. Wave it over a sterile rock and the dial stays at zero. Wave it over a purring cat and it swings over to 100. But what if you dunked it in the primordial soup, or held it over a dying person? At what point does complex chemistry become life, and when does life revert to mere matter? Between an atom and an amoeba lies something profound and perplexing.
Davies suspects that information is the answer because it seems increasingly fundamental to both physics and biology. In recent years, physicists have shown that information is more than the bits and bytes that course through computers. Information can be converted into energy, for example, such that physicists now build little information engines and information-powered refrigerators, if not with the appearance their names suggest.
Similar machines are found in biology. Constructed from proteins, they chunter away inside living cells where they manipulate information at the nanoscale. “What we’re seeing in the lab is these two worlds colliding in a very practical way,” he says. “The physics is really connecting with the biology and that’s why I think we’re on the verge of this great new revolution.”
Davies believes that life will turn out to bear telltale patterns of information processing that distinguish it from non-life. Few people would argue that a computer is alive no matter how the ones and zeroes zip around inside it. What Davies suspects is that life exploits, and arises from, particular patterns of information flow.
“When you look at a living system, the way information is managed is very far from random. It will show patterns that could lead us to a definition of life,” he says. “We talk about informational hallmarks and these might be used to identify life wherever we look for it in the universe.”
It is not always easy to convert speculation into science. One of the hurdles Davies raises is the difficulty in describing biological information in terms of mathematics. It is a necessary move if new laws of life are to have any meaning. “I really think we need new physics to understand how information couples to matter and makes a difference in the world,” he says.
Find these new rules and the future could look very different. Davies anticipates “digital doctors”, who will analyse information flows in cells to spot aberrant patterns driven by early cancers and other diseases. When pathological patterns are found, they could be corrected through some form of molecular shiatsu, he suggests.
Most radical, though, is Davies’s proposal that any laws of information that shape life might favour its emergence too. Under this scenario, life would not arise on habitable planets by random chance but would be nurtured by “biofriendly” rules. It is the kind of teleological argument that many scientists reject, but one that Davies cannot help finding attractive.
“People often say that the probability of life forming by chance is so low there must have been intelligent design or a miracle. I find that anathema,” he says. “Religious people have got to move on and get away from the idea that there’s a superbeing who fits it all up. What I find more congenial and much more intellectually respectable is the notion of fundamental laws of organisation that turn matter into life – a life principle built into the laws of the universe.”
He concedes: “It is wishful thinking because at this stage I can’t demonstrate it. But if we live in a universe in which the emergence of life is built into it in a fundamental way then then we can feel more at home in the universe. It’s no substitute for a caring superbeing watching over us. It won’t help us deal with the problem of death, and it doesn’t help in a moral crisis, but it would certainly be more comforting than to believe we live in an empty, sterile universe.”
Before leaving Britain for posts abroad, Davies worked under Fred Hoyle, the maverick former director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University. Davies concedes that his one-time mentor helped him to keep an open mind in science. Hoyle was a brilliant academic but among his more fanciful proposals was that flu pandemics were spread by viruses that rained down on Earth from passing comets.
“He was one of these curious people who did some really great things and then some really crazy things,” Davies says. “What I did learn from Fred was not to be afraid of wild thinking.”
then we can feel more at home in the universe. It’s no substitute for a caring superbeing watching over us. It won’t help us deal with the problem of death, and it doesn’t help in a moral crisis, but it would certainly be more comforting than to believe we live in an empty, sterile universe.”
A new theory, which centres on information, is providing some answers in this lucid but speculative exposition
In 1943 the great physicist Erwin Schrödinger, of both-dead-and-alive-cat fame, gave a series of lectures at Trinity College Dublin, published the next year as his book What Is Life? He supposed that genes must take the form of a “huge molecule” containing a “miniature code” to direct the subsequent development of the organism. Francis Crick and James Watson, inspired by Schrödinger’s work, later proved him right when they, along with Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, discovered the structure of DNA.
But Schrödinger’s central question remains unanswered. There is still no agreed-on definition of what life is, let alone how it started. Maybe, some suggest, there are biology-specific laws of nature that we have yet to identify. Indeed, Schrödinger himself argued that “living matter, while not eluding the ‘laws of physics’ as established up to date, is likely to involve ‘other laws of physics’ hitherto unknown”.
One fashionable approach now in biology is to suppose that these laws have something to do with “information”. In the age of mechanical inventions, it was thought that animals were like marvellous clockwork machines, and the entire universe was a sort of fabulous Meccano construction designed by God. Now we are in the information age, it seems obvious to us that the human brain – even, in some theorists’ view, the cosmos as a whole – must be a computer, and that information itself somehow underlies reality. The conceptual problem here is that the idea of “information” makes sense only in the context of an observer for whom something out there, in the indiscriminate jumble of the world, counts as information. Before life exists, there cannot be any such thing as information.
It is to the credit of the physicist Paul Davies, then, that in this brilliantly vivid little book he is careful to remind the reader that such uses of “information” should be bracketed with provisos, even as he shows what we can do with them. It seems irresistible to say, to begin with, that cells “signal” to one another chemically, or that flocking birds and shoaling fish are exchanging “information” with their neighbours about speed and direction. But things get a lot weirder when Davies applies to biology ideas from thermodynamics and the mathematical theory of information.
The “demon” of the title is Maxwell’s Demon, named after a thought experiment by the 19th-century Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell. Imagine a box of gas with a partition containing a tiny door. A supernatural intelligence could open the door to let fast-moving particles go one way and slow-moving particles the other. This would eventually result in two different temperatures of gas either side of the partition, reversing entropy and enabling work to get done free.
The big idea is that nature itself might take advantage of the superefficiency of a demonic approach to information, and understanding the information flow in organisms might be the missing part of our scientific jigsaw puzzle. Davies proceeds to explain the maths of cellular autonoma, the ridiculously fine-tuned machinery of the cell and the workings of the “hive mind” in social insects.
The information flow in genetics, too, is far more complex than once thought, a point piquantly illustrated by some perverted worm-botherers. These researchers discovered that by cutting the head and tail off a worm and applying electricity – which disrupts the information flow in regrowth – you can get a worm with a head at both ends. If you then cut that worm in half, just for lolz, you get two new two-headed worms, even though they have exactly the same DNA as the original one-headed worm.
The informational approach, in Davies’s elegant and lucid exposition, is extremely promising, but it remains highly speculative, as he himself laudably emphasises while offering his own final thoughts on consciousness (as “integrated information”), and the possibility that “laws of nature” themselves evolve through time. Perhaps, he adds, these laws might, in some way not yet understood, be inherently “bio-friendly”.
This is a maverick idea, but not a new one. The philosopher Thomas Nagel was widely ridiculed by scientists a few years ago when, in his book Mind and Cosmos, he suggested that there might be “teleological” laws ensuring that consciousness would arise in the universe. Teleology – the ancient idea that things strive towards a purpose – is not now respectable, and Davies himself refers to it as a “problem” to be avoided. And yet right at the end of this book, he suggests that “the emergence of life, and perhaps mind, are etched into the underlying lawfulness of nature”. That idea is nothing if not teleological – which is no good reason, by itself, to think it untrue.
Timo Hannay explores a study of life that takes up where Erwin Schrödinger left off.
The Demon in the Machine: How Hidden Webs of Information Are Finally Solving the Mystery of Life Paul Davies Allen Lane (2019)
Biology, long the domain of qualitative theories and experimental subjects that refuse to do the same thing twice, is now thoroughly data-driven. Propelled by the twentieth-century revolutions in molecular biology and computing, its emphasis has shifted from observing and describing to sequencing and calculating. In the process, biology has increasingly become like physics — a development that has caught the attention of quite a few physicists.
One such boundary-transcending thinker is the cosmologist and writer Paul Davies. His latest book, The Demon in the Machine, presents a case that information is central not just to doing biology, but to understanding life itself. He follows in esteemed footsteps. In 1943, the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger delivered a landmark series of public lectures at Trinity College Dublin. Published the following year as What Is Life?, it explained many principles of molecular genetics — a decade before the structure of DNA was discovered (see P. Ball Nature 560, 548–550; 2018).
As a quantum theorist, Schrödinger was particularly struck by the observation that atoms, although profoundly unpredictable, can form highly ordered systems. Furthermore, those systems persist for long periods and even replicate, thus seeming to evade the second law of thermodynamics, which states that total entropy, or disorder, can only increase.
This classic account serves as Davies’s starting point. As a cosmologist, however, his principal question arises from a consideration not of the irreducibly small, but of the incomparably large. If life exists elsewhere in the Universe, Davies wonders, how can we recognize it? Searches for signs of liquid water, organic chemistry or certain atmospheric gases (such as oxygen, carbon dioxide or methane) make sense given the characteristics of the one ecosystem we know, but to accept these as the essence of life seems to him (and me) desperately narrow-minded.
Davies claims that life’s defining characteristics are better understood in terms of information. This is not as absurd as it may seem. Energy is abstract, yet we have little trouble accepting it as a causal factor. Indeed, energy and information are closely related through entropy.
Davies explains this connection by referring to Maxwell’s demon. Victorian physicist James Clerk Maxwell’s celebrated thought experiment features a hypothetical miniature beast perching at an aperture between two containers of gas, where it allows only certain molecules to pass, depending on their kinetic energy. The demon can thus create a temperature gradient between the containers: a reduction in overall entropy, apparently breaking the second law of thermodynamics. The resolution to this paradox seems to lie in the fact that the demon must gather information about the properties of each molecule, and for this it requires a recording device, such as a brain or a miniature notebook. When its storage space eventually runs out, the information must be deleted, a process that necessarily produces an increase in total entropy.
From this perspective, living systems can be seen as composed of countless such ‘demons’ (proteins and other cellular machinery) that maintain local order by pumping disorder (often in the form of heat) into their surroundings. Davies adroitly brings Schrödinger’s account up to date by way of Claude Shannon’s information theory, Turing machines (universal computers), von Neumann machines (self-replicating universal constructors), molecular biology, epigenetics, information-integration theories of consciousness and quantum biology (which concerns quantum effects in processes from photosynthesis to insect coloration and bird navigation).
Such disparate threads might seem like unpromising material from which to weave a coherent narrative. But Davies does so admirably, with only occasional forays into areas that feel slightly out of place. One such is the brief account of his work on cancer, which he sees less as an example of broken cellular machinery and more as a regression to an earlier evolutionary state, when single-celled organisms responded to adverse conditions by replicating.
What practical difference does it make to see life as informational? We don’t yet know, but can speculate. For one thing, if the essential characteristics of life are entropic, extraterrestrial searches based on chemistry could be misguided. It might be more useful to look for phenomena such as ‘anti-accretion’ — in which matter is regularly transferred from a planet’s surface into space. Earth has experienced this since the 1950s, when the one-way traffic in asteroids and meteorites plunging into the globe was finally counteracted by the launch of the first artificial satellites. Arguably, such situations are not merely consistent with the presence of life, but almost impossible to explain in any other way.
Moreover, a definition of life that depends on its informational characteristics rather than its carbon-based substrate could force a reappraisal of our attitudes towards artificial systems embodied in computers. We are already beginning to treat these as companions; might we eventually come to see them as living creatures rather than mere imitations? With apologies to Charles Darwin, there is grandeur in this view of life.
As well as having eclectic interests, Davies is iconoclastic and opinionated. Although certainly no believer in a vital force distinct from physics or chemistry, he has little time for reductionism, believing that life cannot be fully explained in terms of lower-level laws (such as the second law of thermodynamics), even in principle. In a final nod to Schrödinger — who believed that a proper understanding of life might reveal “other laws of physics hitherto unknown” — Davies closes by arguing that biology might yet contain deep lessons for physics. This is highly speculative and, in my (biologist’s) view, probably wrong. But this is not a criticism. On the contrary, if only more of us were wrong in such thought-provoking ways, we might more readily uncover the truth.
DENTON, Texas, May 28, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — In the preceding releases, dated May 20 and May 24, 2019, we outlined studies by the Italian American scientist Sir Ruggero Maria Santilli (http://www.i-b-r.org/Dr-R-M-Santilli-Bio-1-10-18.pdf) and other scientists on the apparent confirmation in physics and chemistry of Einstein’s argument that quantum mechanics is an ‘incomplete theory.’ In this news release, we outline studies on the need for a ‘completion’ of quantum mechanics for consistent treatments of new clean energies and basically novel technologies.
Santilli states: “I never accepted quantum mechanics as a ‘complete’ theory because quantum mechanics has ‘no time arrow’ and, therefore, cannot consistently represent irreversible energy releasing processes. After learning during my graduate studies that quantum mechanics is characterized by time reversal invariant Lie algebras, I did my Ph. D. thesis in 1965 on their ‘completion’ into irreversible Lie-admissible algebras (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-54.pdf) with related irreversible dynamical equations.”
Following various academic positions, in September 1978, Santilli joined the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University under DOE support to conduct innovative research in new clean energies. In that context, Santilli introduced the most general known realization of irreversible Lie-admissible algebras characterized by generalizing and differentiating the conventional product “ab” between number, functions, into the product of a and b to the right, a>b = arb, from the product of b and a to the left, a<b = asb, where r and s are arbitrary, positive, numbers, functions or matrices. The new multiplications, permitted the construction of new mathematics known as ‘hadronic mathematics to the right and to the left’,’ with corresponding ‘completion’ of quantum mechanics and chemistry into irreversible coverings known as hadronic mechanics and chemistry, where energy releasing processes forward in time are represented with ordered products to the right, while processes backward in time are represented with ordered products to the left. Different values of r and s assure irreversibility. Scientific and industrial applications to new clean energies were initiated only thereafter. The reversible isomathematics, isomechanics and isochemistry used in the preceding two releases are recovered for r = s= T > 0. Quantum mechanics and chemistry are recovered identically for r = s = 1 (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/elements-hadronic-mechanics.htm).
Santilli states: “I believe that our inability to achieve controlled nuclear fusions despite the investment of billions of public funds is due to inconsistencies in their treatment with time reversal invariant 20th century sciences. By contrast, at the U. S. publicly traded company Thunder Energies Corporation (http://thunder-energies.com/), we are attempting nuclear fusions that, when represented with the new irreversible sciences, appear to have no harmful radiation or waste (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/hypercombustion-2019.pdf).”
When asked how irreversible processes may verify Einstein’s argument, Santilli states: “It appears that Einstein’s objections to quantum mechanics are verified in the scattering region of ongoing high energy particle collisions. Quantum mechanics is valid during the acceleration of protons in hadron colliders. However, quantum mechanics cannot be valid at the impact of protons against a target due to the irreversibility of the scattering. Einstein’s argument appears to be verified in the interior of high energy scattering regions due to their extreme densities approaching that of black holes under which quantum uncertainties and other laws are clearly inapplicable. The importance of Einstein’s argument, as well as its lack of general acceptance by the academic community for about one century, are illustrated by the need for a revision of ‘experimental results’ in high energy scattering experiments due to currently missing irreversible contributions.”
Einstein’s Objections to Quantum Mechanics Get Industrial Confirmation in Chemistry
DENTON, Texas, May 24, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — In the preceding release, dated May 20, 2019, we outlined studies by the Italian American scientist Sir Ruggero Maria Santilli (http://www.i-b-r.org/Dr-R-M-Santilli-Bio-1-10-18.pdf) and other scientists on the confirmation in physics of Einstein’s view that quantum mechanics is an ‘incomplete theory.’ The confirmation was based on the need to ‘complete’ quantum mechanics to achieve a representation of the neutron synthesis from the hydrogen in the core of stars since such a representation is not possible with quantum mechanics.
While accepting the historical value of the discoveries permitted by quantum chemistry, Santilli never accepted the notion of molecules based on the 20th century valence electron bonds because it is essentially a ‘nomenclature’ due to the lack of representation via equations. In fact, according to quantum mechanics and chemistry, valence electrons should repeal each other due to their equal charges and cannot possibly attract each other to form molecules.
According to Santilli, this insufficiency is evidence on the need for a ‘completion’ of quantum chemistry along Einstein’s argument. Jointly with his studies on the completion of quantum mechanics, while being at Harvard University under DOE support, Santilli initiated in the late 1970s long term research on the ‘completion’ of quantum chemistry into a form admitting an attractive force between identical valence electrons.
The biggest difficulty was the need of ‘completing’ 20th century mathematical methods for point particles in vacuum, into a form representing extended electron wavepackets in deep mutual penetration, also called entanglement. These efforts produced the ‘completion’ of 20th century mathematics into the novel isomathematics and the consequential ‘completion’ of quantum chemistry into isochemistry. The new methods did achieve in the late 1990s a strongly attractive force between identical valence electrons, (see the 2001 monograph http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-113.pdf).
The lack of completeness of quantum mechanics and, therefore chemistry, is Einstein’s most important prediction because of far reaching implications in all sciences. In this second and in the third release we shall indicate the importance of Einstein’s prediction for the solution of our alarming environmental problem. In fact, the achievement of an attractive force between valence electrons, and the ensuing more accurate representation of molecules, are permitting the development by the U. S. publicly traded company Thunder Energies Corporation of the novel HyperCombustion (patent pending) for the combustion of fossil fuels without appreciable carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and other combustible contaminants in the exhaust. In Santilli’s view, these environmental advances could not be possible via quantum chemistry due to the the ‘nomenclature’ character of its valence bond, with ensuing lack of treatments via equations verifiable with experiments (http://www.thunder-energies.com).
When asked to indicate how his novel valence bond verifies Einstein’s vision of classical determinism, Santilli states: “When electrons are members of atomic clouds, their point-like approximation is correct, quantum mechanics is valid and classical determinism is impossible. By contrast, when entangled wavepackets of valence electron pairs bond themselves to form molecules, their extremely small mutual distance is fixed and can only be terminated via ionization processes. Hence, the strong valence bond between extended electrons appears to approach Einstein’s classical determinism. When in the core of stars, the same extended electron pair comes closer to classical determinism due to surrounding large pressures. Finally, when inside a black hole, the same extended electron pair reaches full classical determinism, in my view, for the evident reason that the local pressures and density are so big to prevent any motion.” For details, visit the PubRelCo interview http://www.galileoprincipia.org/santilli-confirmation-of-the-epr-argument-chemistry.php. Santilli is available to discuss additional developments toward the solution of our environmental problems.