3,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: neobooks
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Deutsch
We have a lot planned for this book and, as always, in addition to scientifically verifiable questions, we are also looking for answers to questions that cannot really be asked because there are no tangible answers to them. One could also go ahead and consider this pointless or attribute it to God, which amounts to the same thing. Nevertheless, we have taken pleasure in not only boldly and simply dealing with it anyway, but we have also dared to go into ever greater detail about how we imagine this world works. So we are cheeky and a little arrogant. But as long as we find no audience among the general public, we can do what we want, and that is what we are doing here. Nevertheless, our answers to the questions that must not be asked are based on the findings of physics. It is the type of physics that is generally accepted and propagated today, with its results and theories. And we also adhere to the findings of the last few centuries; we do not invent our own answers. We base our arguments on physical findings, but our interpretations and conclusions are somewhat different. We find them more appropriate and more coherent. From this verifiable but modified world view, we then draw our far-reaching conclusions, which unfortunately, in the end, can only be verified within ourselves, if at all.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 733
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Ähnliche
The Matter
The Consciousness
from
Christian Hermenau
Content
Inhalt
Introduction
1. Galactic mass sinks
2. Galileo's hay cart
3. Excessively heavy masses
4. Preferably mathematically idealised
5. Space-time curvature
6. Geodesics
7. Swimming in the void
8. Quantum physics determines our thinking
9. Roger Penrose and consciousness
10. Microtubules and quantum physics
11. If the room is energised
12. Can AI save physics
13. Formulas as filters of the world
14. The disrespectful observer
15. Success or truth?
16. Do particles tell each other stories?
17. Charge is equal to gravity
18. Consciousness, a powerful instrument
19. Higgs boson or matter exchange
20. The secret of stable Orbital
21. And of course the Lagrange formalism
22. Is our universe mathematical or networked
23 Mathematical universes, analytical formulae
24. Entanglement states and local networks
25. On the impossibility of chance
26. Everything must come about by itself
27. A sense of rightness
28. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
29. Insanely high random numbers
30. A squishy lump of slime
31. Children master the ability to interpret
32. The stable numbers
33 The invention of death
34. Complex beings as masters of order
35. The number of processes per second
36. The ability to evaluate
37. Real objects for the brain
38. Analytical formulas are not the world
39. All bodies need stories
40. The heart cell
41. The ideas of the virtual world
42. More than all individual parts
43. Our seemingly superior spirit
44. Does he have manners
45. 9 ½ months
46. Attention and awareness
47. Mainstream, conspiracy, populists
48. Superfluous in case of doubt
49. Mechanical automatisms or consciousness
50. Structures in living resonance
51. Low-level consciousnesses
52. The three great offences
53. Time also changes for beings
54. Possibilities of the networks
55. Induce life
56. Excitatory pyramidal cells
57. Boring wasteland
58. Retarded potentials
59. The world is different in structure
60. Have we understood the universe ?
61. Matter, an extraordinary substance
62. A perfect spirituality?
63. The world of information
64. A bus without a driver
65. Only a single consciousness
66. Ingenious and insane
67. The interface in the brain
68. The trivialisation is breathtaking
69. See, hear, speak, feel
70. The lie
71. conclusion
Reference/Index
Introduction
We have a lot planned in this book and, as always, in addition to the scientifically verifiable questions, we are also looking for answers to questions that cannot actually be asked because there is no tangible answer. You could also go and call it pointless or call it God, which amounts to the same thing. Nevertheless, we have taken a liking to it, not only brazenly just dealing with it anyway, but we have also dared to go into more and more detail about what we imagine this world to be like. So it's cheeky and a little arrogant. But as long as we are not heard by the general public, we can do what we want and that is what we are doing. But despite all this, our answers to the questions that must not be asked are already based on the findings of physics. It is the kind of physics that is generally accepted and propagated today, its results and theories. And we also adhere to the findings of the last few centuries. We don't invent answers either; we also base our arguments on the findings of physics, only the interpretations and consequences are slightly different. We find them more fitting and more coherent. We then draw our far-reaching conclusions from this verifiable but altered world view, which unfortunately can only be verified within ourselves in the end. If at all.
But we also start small and don't want to write the end before the beginning, even if we can no longer remain as structured in our many explanations and attempts to find the answers as if we only stick to the material world. They are just possibilities that are coherent in themselves, which we will look at again and again from different perspectives and we just don't know and can only try to get close to what is meaningful. Something like this is not so easy and therefore not organized in a self-contained book structure.
1. Galactic mass sinks
There are questions and findings in astronomy and physics that confuse us. For example, what does a galactic black hole look like, what do you experience when you stand on the edge of such a somehow mentally created construct?
It's something that could possibly interest anyone, especially the mind-boggling bizarre absurdities that could occur there according to physics, if only one could ever travel to such a special place. Probably everyone would be gripped by the creepiness that emanates from such an eerie transition at the edge, you don't have to be a physicist for that.
But the figures alone, which are more or less known with certainty, are so incredible, so unimaginable that, according to common sense, such places should not and cannot exist. It goes beyond our imagination and, as always, we react to such things with impassive pragmatism. We accept it, even mostly believe that the figures are correct, but can't really do anything with them.
Astronomical observations tell us that such mass sinks can have dimensions of many billions of solar masses. Yes, that's right, in such a place, or better: in the region, there can be accumulations of matter of many billions of masses that exceed the weight of our sun by this factor. Such results are not found by holding a mass meter to it and measuring the deflection, but, how could it be otherwise, indirectly, from the movement pattern, the distance, i.e. probably the redshift and the associated general formulae. This is actually a very, very simple process if you have the appropriate high-tech, sophisticated equipment, the high-performance computers and the corresponding programmers. And of course, if all the things we have thought up are correct. So the difficulties lie with the secondary infrastructure, not with what comes out at the end, but conversely, just one single variable, the total mass, is not particularly challenging. For the uninitiated, the value is hugely impressive, but nothing more. But there are many other things that impress us, and other sizes also have something unimaginable about them. But since we are all very well educated, we also know how culturally significant this knowledge of the world is. That's why we go further and draw our conclusions. If there really are such supposed black holes of this size, then the conditions there are relatively moderate. For example, the density of such mass sinks is closer to that of water than that of the known neutron stars.
In contrast to the moderate, familiar densities, such as that of water, neutron stars have such high matter densities that there is no more free phase space even for the windy electrons and they are therefore forced into the nucleus, so that there are only neutrons left. Neutron stars are the last stable equilibrium stage before the collapse to a black hole. Before this happens, however, physicists imagine that the neutrons in such a star are sometimes close together, without any freedom. Mind you, this is how the researchers imagine it pragmatically and quite simply. Here, too, only a few global numerical variables dominate events. No matter how many objects are involved, changes are only made to a few edges. What is really impressive are the enormous mathematical transformations and calculations that are necessary for this.
Physicists are very simple thinkers, there is no other way to find the laws of nature. However, they are very good at this. If there is a regularity lurking somewhere in the chaos of reality, they discover it immediately. Almost like sleepwalkers, they track down the sober material connection.
2. Galileo's hay cart
Even the great Galileo Galilei, one of the people in the history of mankind who introduced a new way of looking at nature, did not see, like everyone else, when observing a hay cart, how this large cart brought a huge amount of dry, fragrant hay from the fields to the barn in a simple and fast way, but he saw something that only we humans are actually capable of, a movement through space, and only this one movement, nothing else.
This undoubtedly sounds like a significant ability, after all, as I said, only people in the great outdoors can look at bodies and abstract them so wonderfully detached from all details and emotions. Some of us are even particularly good at it. Only we can count up to a hundred objects among living beings, no matter what they are.
But let's not get too carried away, because it's actually more of a weakness than a strength. Those who are particularly good at abstracting, who have a particularly good eye for clear, simple information, find it correspondingly more difficult to deal with all the confusing floods of information that come at us. Objectively speaking, everyone would agree that the brain's greatest achievement is to cope with these floods of data. Recognising these patterns and images, being able to assess the future from the present. After all, in the opinion of the researchers, our brain is only so complex in order to cope with its peers, not to fall for the intrigues and lies, but certainly also to have this overwhelming experience.
There is probably a reason why people are only good at one or the other and why the majority of people still find it difficult to deal with the rules and calculations of mathematics, despite a great global mathematisation of humanity. All those who are not so good at maths but can cope with a complex environment should be happy, even if they are more in tune with the rest of nature, including the higher animals. In fact, this ability to limit oneself to the objective and essential is more likely to be seen as a disorder; autistic people would be happy if the world were much simpler. Mathematicians and physicists are also looking for a simple, ordered world, as it only exists in an idealised form, but not as our reality is.
But just as so many things are twisted in us humans, it is precisely this ordered, abstract mathematical world that has prevailed and, through technology, has led to us dominating the earth today, seemingly being able to do whatever we want. Only slowly, after long epochs of the sober, clear structures of the industrial age, is diversity and complexity returning to our everyday lives, but now a technical material complexity, not a living diversity. Mathematical structures of order create control and power over others. They are actually the means that make these devastating wars possible.
As is so often the case, it is precisely those people who come across as kind and friendly, who can't hurt anyone and only want the best, who give others violent means to cement their position of power.
This also applies to mathematicians, who actually sit in their ivory towers thinking about logic problems. They have changed the world more with their harmless calculations than all the warlords, although their only wish was that their ideas and theories would bring them fame and recognition. They themselves did not see the potential, they only saw the beauty and elegance of the formulas that could suddenly describe so many things with this tight corset.
And it is not just like the formula E= m c², without which the researchers would not have put all their energy into nuclear fission, but it is the control that we are given a little more control over with every rational, logical connection.
How is anyone supposed to recognise from the many individual movements where the journey is going? However, if we can summarise ever larger quantities of particles, it is very easy to predict what will happen at a certain level, where the structure as a whole will move.
This is how Galileo developed the world of inertial systems and their transformation equations. Although these calculations only worked so perfectly and marvellously on paper and not one of the real movements resembled them, including the hay cart pulled by two horses, he was so successful with his abstract theory that these formulas are still taught at university today. A timeless connection that was later refined by Einstein. There is a great attraction in relying entirely on the exact formulae. They radiate so much calm, so much reliability and, as I said, only with you in tow can we continue to develop technology with your large structures and your small devices.
A seemingly limitless process, this interplay of material theory and practical realisation. Only limited by the resources of raw materials and, in the case of theory, by the laws of physics. This is how we believe, this is how we are moulded, this is how we grow up.
This has not always been the case. Throughout human history, people have always believed in the miraculous, the inexplicable, in magic. It was only with the industrial age, and especially in modern times, that we believe more in the god of logic and rationality than in spirits and souls. Not all of us, but the influence of everyday life is massive. We don't want to condemn this either, nobody wants to be stoically exposed to the rigours of nature, without electricity and all the technical achievements, but instead feeling the depth of the universe again. Development does not stand still and that is a good and right thing.
3. Excessively heavy masses
But we are digressing more and more, we actually wanted to talk about galactic black holes. After all, we have already come so far that we have to think of the matter in the very large structures more like that of water than that of superheavy bodies. In the same way, we could also believe that the density increases more and more towards the centre simply because of the gravitational pressure, just as when we dive into the depths of a swimming pool, the gravitational pressure increases in proportion to the depth. But it's not that simple. Gravity decreases rapidly towards the centre, because only the mass up to the body counts, and it decreases with the third power of the radius. So it is not the inner particles that contribute to the pressure in the centre, but only the outer ones. In the case of our compact black holes, it doesn't play a particularly large role; overall, the body is quite small in relation to its mass and the mass concentrations still remain high. Galactic black holes have dimensions that can be larger than the Pluto orbit. In this case, however, the value of the gravitational acceleration is comparable to that on the Earth's surface. Let us now assume that a collapse did not occur and that the matter remains stable for some reason. Then it also applies here that the gravitational pressure decreases constantly inwards due to the gravity. The pressure only increases because the mass as a whole contracts. The outer areas press on the interior. According to this, the gravitational acceleration at the edge of an almost galactic black hole would be approximately that of the Earth and the average density would be that of water. Higher towards the inside, lower towards the outside. However, the average density does not play a major role if it exceeds all values in the deepest interior and the matter there begins to collapse. This is because it is always the case for black holes that all the matter is in a singularity and then, of course, the gravitational acceleration of a galactic black hole continues to increase towards the centre. The closer to the centre, the greater the value and the square. As we can see, our thinking is also twisted when it comes to galactic black holes. We always find the impossibility there.
Ok, the physicists focus on the curvature of space. We rely on the communicative exchange. Since this is extremely high and there are an infinite number of particles, it generally doesn't seem to make any difference. The exchange is then so dense that it can be treated like a curved field. However, there are differences and these can be seen, for example, in black holes.
Let's take another trip, because we like to play mind games so much. When we say that the average density of these galactic black holes is that of water, the experts naturally smile, because this does not prevent the matter inside the black hole from increasing exponentially. And exponentially means, with such large objects, nothing for a long time, and then closer to the centre beyond all limits. Nevertheless, we somehow have the feeling that this is not happening, especially with these oversized mass accumulations. It is enormously important that, more or less, these mass monsters are filled evenly with matter in the liquid state, rather than there being a noticeable difference between the inside and the edge. A large or excessive density means that there are few possibilities for freedom. It is important to realise that water, and even more so the density of solids, is already very high compared to other densities in free space. In the case of conductors and semiconductors, the electrons are already in a Fermi range in which the electrons are pressed into bands, precisely because most quantum states are occupied and the electrons can no longer find free spaces in the phase space. This also exerts a pressure. We then find this Fermi pressure as a massive counterforce in the neutron stars.
All well and good, this only applies if the formulae are correct and also apply to the extreme condition, but also, which is something similar, if the particles also behave as they should. As classically trained physicists, we assume that masses bend space and that the particles move along this space without permanent contact or contact with other particles. Of course, we immediately realise that this is diametrically opposed to our idea and we almost wonder how the two movements can have comparable results at all. But if the particles actually move as predicted by classical quantum mechanics, then the subsequent process is of course also such that no matter what the initial state was, whether solid or gaseous, the pressure inside increases. The only thing that counteracts the collapse of matter would initially be fusion, and later Fermi energy, but with more and more mass flowing in, there is also a mathematical and physical limit to this. Whether we like it or not, according to all classical quantum mechanical and relativistic knowledge, the end will come at some point. And if the general formulae are correct, then all we have to do is find an object in the starry sky that has sufficient mass and we can assume that there is a black hole there. We then do not need to check whether this mass is also located within a region of space, because if there is no state of equilibrium, the mass will collapse. It's just a question of when, not if, it does.
But we always claim that the formulae are good, but only valid for certain contexts. Or what would be even worse, the approach is wrong. Just as in geometry the point and the line have to be introduced, they are simply defined, in physics there are also basic assumptions that are postulated. Unlike in mathematics, where nothing has been changed for thousands of years in terms of points or the structure of numbers, physics repeatedly goes through crises before concessions are grudgingly made to nature. And yet we are still not really in safe waters.
4. Preferably mathematically idealised
Physics is currently experiencing another of its profound crises when it comes to the fundamentals. Nothing really seems to fit, and experiments everywhere are only barely confirming the theories. More and more often, however, new discrepancies are being found which, if you don't close your eyes, indicate that things don't fit. Worse still, it's not just the subtleties that need to be readjusted, but that the whole theory is at an end. It can't go any further.
The devices are getting better and better, the analyses and evaluations are becoming simpler and more comprehensive, but the results are disappointing. It has gone so far that physicists are almost desperately wishing for such a contradiction, which would then clearly confirm that one of the major theories is really wrong. Because without this, no one in today's physics establishment is strong enough to bring down one of the pillars of the temple.
The crisis does not affect physics as a whole; on the contrary, it is still unbeatable in all application-related research and developments. But not when it comes to what it is particularly proud of, the fundamentals.
For example, we may well be able to find clear signals of life on exoplanets with our technical physical devices, but this still does not explain why the galaxies are spinning too fast.
Nowadays, as in all other areas of modern life, high-performance computers are used for all physical measurements and for analysing the flood of data - how could it be otherwise? Physicists are definitely up to date. Societies are becoming more and more networked, we are getting better at it and the networks are becoming more and more complex. In the meantime, the next step is to use AI to outsource more resources that were previously the sole preserve of humans. All that remains is for quantum computers to process an unimaginable amount of data records in the shortest possible time. It is impossible to imagine our world without the many networks, but in basic physics we stubbornly cling to the analytical formulae, even though we actually know very well that there are no continuous fields or homogeneous spaces, only the exchange of particles with each other, i.e. the fine-meshed networks.
Of course, if we go and make particles quasi point-like and if physicists then go and make particles ambiguous, as in the Copenhagen interpretation, describing their movement through space as soundless or contactless, then we have once again adapted nature to mathematical formulae. Then all that remains is a homogeneous, curved space that bends in the gravitational field of a massive body, but this does not describe reality.
In our opinion, there are countless connections and exchanges, and at every contact the two exchange particles are together for a tiny moment. No one knows where this is, perhaps here, perhaps there or halfway. This happens in the first third of each cycle section. In the second third, it is far away at the edge of the universe together with the opposite particle and only in the third third is it on its orbit through space. So it's an intellectual madness that nevertheless makes sense and, we hope, correctly describes reality. But as I said, it is not only in the classical formulae that nature is constantly idealised in order to be able to grasp it well mathematically. In the law of gravity, for example, we also start from the centre of mass in order to be able to describe the movement correctly, not from the many individual connections of the mass particles. However, even the theory of relativity makes assumptions that do not exist. Firstly, it assumes a gravitational field that does not exist, then this field should curve continuously, which is of course only important for mathematics, and then it assumes that gravity pours evenly into space, not that it can only work itself off on masses. Nothing can flow into the void just like that. In a further step of overconfidence, how could it be otherwise, these general relationships between space and energy are then transferred to the entire universe.
And here, too, we have to make assumptions, such as that space is isotropic and homogeneous. However, this is a steep assumption that contradicts everything that can be observed by anyone looking at the night sky. Sure, the universe is very old and researchers only demand this condition at great distances. But if you also take that into account, it still doesn't look like homogeneity and isotropy. Our universe is simply too structured, with too many large and very different objects that are not evenly distributed. The fact that more than just one warm gas has developed is astonishing, because at worst we should not have expected more. After all, such simple things only develop from such simple formulae and initial conditions.
This is precisely the dilemma: if you build a universe from simple, clear and easily comprehensible elementary objects, you only get very simple solutions. You find clarity, elegance and symmetry. Something like this delights physicists and to some extent mathematicians, but for everyone else you first have to explain with stories what is so special and amazing about it, because it is not immediately so. It may be astonishing what has been discovered and the structure of the numbers, all the complicated calculations and equations are indeed overwhelming, but they only reveal a part of the whole, which on the one hand is enormously important for our culture, it makes us humans the rulers of the world, but on the other hand the really special, significant part does not lie in the mathematical part, the rules of which can be grasped so well and elegantly. If, for example, the world were exactly mathematical, there would, as I said, be nothing special and, of course, no life. And that would not only be a pity, it would make all the difference. The incomprehensible thing is not the vagueness of atoms or the fact that time is changed by masses, but how this living interplay with so unbelievably many elements can seemingly function so effortlessly.
5. Space-time curvature
But we had actually stopped at the black hole and the fact that if matter cannot ignite the fire of nuclear fusion or the Fermi state is exceeded, there is no going back. According to physicists, dead matter would continue to contract. And since, according to quantum mechanics, objects do not really have an expansion, the space where all the colourful matter remains can be very, very small. If the theorists had their way, we would actually have a point-like mass here. But not so much because it makes sense, but because they want it and can imagine it in the same way as we can with the quasi-black hole that consists only of water. It suits them just as well as we can make good use of our liquid state. Because, if they are right, this would also prove that the universe is correct with the mathematical approach and that you can then find more and more rabbits just by reshaping solutions. Unfortunately, nothing in this universe is simple, not even the elementary particles. And that's why not only a singularity is nonsensical, but also the fact that the elementary particles have no expansion. Well, and then we are left with the fact that everything else about the black hole is also wrong. In the area of these huge mass sinks, the information does not disappear, on the contrary, the matter does not continue to contract because gravity only works on the masses. Then the contacts remain in large numbers, and when there is no longer enough space inside, it is directed more and more towards the outside.
Here's a completely different argument: If information does not disappear, but instead is exchanged faster and faster, resulting in ever more interesting and significant information that is eager to be implemented, these data pools are almost bursting with knowledge and are pushing towards matter that is far away, where relevant information can be implemented.
Even those who think this goes too far have to admit that in a universe in which particles are massively exchanged and in which particles are not soberly pragmatic, a completely different universe emerges than a mathematically physical one. A knowing universe would never just doze away for billions of years.
Another factual argument is that masses only ever work their way around masses. This is also something that is not consistent with the theory of relativity. But, and we should not forget this despite all the euphoria about Einstein's masterpiece, this best theory of gravity is a global theory. It makes statements about large bodies of mass and can hardly be refuted. But what Einstein did, incidentally a theoretical physicist like so many other theoretical physicists who tried something similar with formulae, he equated the energy momentum tensor with the four-dimensional space tensor of mathematics. There is a complete purely mathematical theory of space in general, i.e. all abstractly possible forms of space, with every number of dimensions, and there is a very general form of what makes things move, the momentum and the energy. Also purely mathematical. The idea has long been that scalar energy has something to do with time and the momentum vector with space in its abstract interpretation. Einstein's conclusion was to equate these two tensors, the energy-momentum tensor of physics and the spacetime tensor of geometry, via a constant, purely theoretically. This approach actually worked and was confirmed in countless experiments, but only ever globally and all phenomena, such as the excessive rotation of galaxies or these countless structured bodies, could not be explained. It is significant that no one links these discrepancies to the theory of relativity. And then, of course, it is easy to say that it is the best proven theory, as some people do to signal how convinced they are of the theory or of Einstein's genius. We humans simply cannot be objective. Regardless of whether it is true or not, the theory of relativity has brought mankind much further. But now we have listened long enough to this theory and the many stories it has told, such as time dilation and the curvature of space. We should now put it to one side and concentrate on the basics again.
Because, of course, they are not fields that correspond to space, which can then still be continuously curved. This is not possible, space is not maths. In any case, maths is too simple to do justice to reality. If so, then we have these networks of particles, which are much more complex and difficult to grasp in detail and which all together exert something like an attraction. This can then be described with a good approximation as a curvature of space. Nevertheless, this is something quite different. Even if it generally has no effect on the calculations. Not in the case of large masses and their normal movements.
Furthermore, gravity does not flow into space, but an exchange always happens immediately. And incredibly often, with incredibly many particles, which is why the theory of relativity works so well with large masses such as suns. However, if the exchange can only take place via masses, and the masses are no longer distributed as homogeneously as in galaxies, then the gravity moves along the masses in the spiral arms and not in the spaces in between, which naturally leads to a greater force of attraction. The rotation must therefore be correspondingly higher, especially towards the edges, so that a state of equilibrium is established. Yes, one could almost believe that if matter is more alive than expected, gravity would shift more towards the edges because the concentration of matter in the centre would be so high. After all, we argue that everything that moves at the speed of light must be seen from the perspective of the individual particles. This in turn means that at the speed of light, the jump from the quantum's point of view is spaceless and timeless, and that the quanta then immediately see where they arrive, or even better, they can only start when there is an end. If we look at the process in this focussed way, then we could also go straight to the point and claim that it is not a quantum that is exchanged, but the particles themselves are together for a very short time. This would be the only way to explain why there is no sign of fatigue in the quantum. As if space were doing nothing to the quantum, not even guiding it on a curved path. This, in turn, is very significant, because here again we are biting on granite. The curvature of light, for example at the sun during a solar eclipse, helped the theory of relativity to achieve a major breakthrough. It is probably just as impertinent to claim that it is not true as this: There are no black holes.
Of course, we are not claiming that light appears to move along curved paths, but that gravity does not influence light. Not with large masses and not with an ordinary lens. What we are claiming is that the reason for this is far more complicated. The two exchanging particles do not find each other by chance. An electron is excited and sends a quantum somewhere in space and this moves through the gravitational field without tiring until it accidentally encounters an electron - no, that's not how we imagine it. With the mathematisation of nature, too much chance has found its way into the formulas. No, networked systems also find each other. It works differently than with the fuzzy quantum mechanical particles, but it also works. After all, we have a conservation of momentum and energy that is apparently very strictly adhered to. Together with the permanent exchange and the resulting networking, the result is not a jumble where every particle loses track, but rather something like a mobile phone network where you dial a number and immediately reach the other person. If the mobile phones, like the particles, are not switched off in between. This means that the network always knows where the person you are looking for is. In fact, the place or time doesn't matter, which is why people often ask on their mobile phones where you are at the moment.
And now comes the first thing that is different from our perception of reality. We assign a trajectory to the quanta. It is our perception of it, although we cannot experience it through anything. A quantum, and even more so a graviton, cannot be observed en route. Of course, if it doesn't really fly that far, you can't measure it either. The other question, and this is more difficult, is why it appears to move in spaces curved by masses. However, this question is also similar to the question of why two very specific particles exchange in the first place. Since none of these enormous networks can penetrate, we cannot, like so many things, answer this specifically for a pair of particles. In the same way, this apparent curvature effect arises from the arrangement of the network and here the way the masses are arranged plays a role, so it is more global and even more difficult to understand.
Nevertheless, let's give it a try.
6. Geodesics
According to the theory of relativity, an exchange particle of gravity or charge moves along geodesics. Geodesics are the shortest connection between two bodies, not only from a purely spatial perspective, but also from a spatio-temporal perspective. This means that the quanta do not take any detours. The trick is that the three-dimensional space and the time dilation are combined and the shortest connection in these four dimensions is not a straight line. A body would fall force-free along this path in the gravitational field of a mass. If we drop a ball from a tower, it falls towards the earth, it does not make a curve. But even a ball on a very long air cushion track without friction would roll forever without any forces and it would not move in a straight line. If it were travelling in a straight line, it would slow down more and more because the earth would move further and further away. It would be as if it were rolling up a mountain and gaining potential energy at the expense of its kinetic energy.
Bodies have a mass, they attract each other gravitationally. Light has no mass, so it should not be attracted. This is why light does not move around a large mass in a curved path because it is attracted, but because this is how the space-time field works. It is the shortest connection to get from one place to another. If the light travelled in a straight line around the large mass, it would come much closer to the mass, time would slow down there and the beam would arrive later. If the ray travelled in a wider arc, it would arrive later because the path is longer. So, the geodesic is the optimal way to get to us as quickly as possible.
Light classically always seeks the shortest connection, which is not always a straight line. The rays of light therefore move along the geodesics, not because a geodesic is attracted, but strictly speaking because it is the shortest connection. From the quantum point of view, the exchange is immediate and direct. If it were to make a small diversion, i.e. fly in a straight line, it would have contact with the large mass, but as it does not do this, the mass does not realise that a beam of light has flown past it. There is only one way in which this is possible. And just as only we in our world attribute a spatiotemporal position to the quantum that the particle does not even see, we give it a direction that it only knows in our world view. The position is blurred and the direction is blurred, the physicists make that much of a concession to the quantum, but it has to be somewhere and it has to fly in some direction, so it fits in perfectly with the slit experiment, but they wouldn't go so far as to say that this path and direction don't even exist.
For us, the statistical randomness comes solely from the impossibility of predicting which two particles are about to exchange. This would require penetrating the entire network, which is even more impossible than capturing a thought in a brain cell. So in our world there is a finite process time, we know something like processes and therefore space and distance, as we have already mentioned many times. Now, in a further step, there is also the fact that space is not homogeneously filled with masses, but that the particles that belong together at a certain point in time are moving. And not just towards or away from each other, but in all directions, including transversely. If it was previously impossible to predict which particles would react when, then it is even more difficult to predict what the direct connection looks like, i.e. the geodesic, because the many collisions with other particles, which also run in all directions, destroy any overview. From our point of view, the complexity is incalculably high. Not at all from the particles' point of view. They know when it is their turn and where they are, also because there is a conservation of momentum and energy and no particle in our universe has disappeared for even the smallest moment.
The moment two particles exchange, for example via a photon, we know what the geodesic looks like and if we wait long enough, we can see where the photon arrives. We then deduce the geodesics indirectly. We see the beginning and end and the large mass in between. Then we know the speed of light and compare the geometrically linear path with what the path should have looked like according to D'Alembert's principle of least displacement. Since the path then fits and the trajectory follows a curved path, we assume that this is the correct path. Here, too, we do not see the course of the path, but project it there. Of course, a practical check reveals that the starlight in the solar eclipse appears to come from a different location because we only draw straight lines in geometric optics. This means that something like a lens effect can occur with a very compact body, resulting in a magnification. Everything is only virtual, just as with a magnifying glass the magnified image is only created in us, is purely virtual. In our reality, everything must be straight with light. But even with gravitational lenses, the image not only appears to be magnified, but you can also recognise more details.
With a magnifying glass, the image is only created virtually within us, but we can still see more than before. The resolution is higher. And it is somehow significant that there is no difference in magnification with electric beams or gravity. Even if we have the feeling from our world view that the light is influenced in the lens or in the gravitational field, this has not happened. Otherwise, the light in the lens would have to slow down and each colour would have to be different, and the beam curved in the gravitational field would also have to slow down and each colour would have to be different. In the case of electromagnetic waves, one could assume that the electric fields influence the light as it passes through matter, as electromagnetic waves consist of an electric and a magnetic field that are perpendicular to each other. But this is only one picture of how light works, albeit a very old one. In fact, the beam of light travels in a straight line in the glass body and light is not slowed down by the gravitational field, although this is a little more complicated because the gravitational field is not so homogeneous.
But while we're at it. According to science, the speed of light is slower inside a glass body than outside it. This can be recognised by the Refraction, where the speed suddenly slows down and the oblique beam bends. However, the speed then remains constant in the glass. What is even more astonishing is that after the calculation, the old speed is restored when the beam leaves the body. This fits in perfectly with frictionless wave optics, but not with our assertion that light only knows the beginning and the end. Because at least at the transitions, from optically thinner to optically denser, the tangible world does have an influence on the light quantum, doesn't it?
We also claim here that the quantum only knows the beginning and the end, i.e. something very simple, but which is very complicated in our world. In our world, there is a process time in between, i.e. an extremely large number of time processes of which the quantum is unaware. Time is running for us, but not for the quantum. But the movements through three-dimensional space also continue. So countless space movements, criss-crossing. This world is so special because it is so finite and countable. Something that the quantum does not recognise. Neither a spatial direction nor a passage of time. Only these two perspectives. In our view of the world, the world of experience is large and multifaceted; in the quantum, it is the network of who is in contact with whom. Sometimes one is very simple and the other unpredictable and sometimes vice versa. For us, the vast quantities of particles are all beautifully resolved and move at finite speeds; we see the many slow movements at rest, but know absolutely nothing about which particles are in contact with each other in the network. This is not a problem at all for the particle world and the quanta, as it results from the inner network. A world of particles among themselves in which space or time plays no role. Or rather, in which the particles have absolutely no idea how far apart their contacts are. The contact is simply there.
So when we describe the refraction, we see the process entirely from our world view. From the particles' point of view, they don't know that their path was refracted. They are not interested in what we think the path should have been, they don't know anything about it either. Nevertheless, both extremes must come together in the present. We project a path between the beginning and the end that only exists virtually and the particles belong to a network that we don't want to know about. We believe that the particles exchange information purely by chance, where the particle view sees a higher complex connection. For us, the real big world exists very concretely and for the particles the network makes sense, it may even contain intelligence and consciousness. When you look at it in this way, you quickly think of waves and particles; here too, everything depends on the form of description. Depending on how we pose our question to nature, the solution is very different. One time it is about the propagation in space, i.e. something more holistic, the other time everything is focussed on the point where the particle is, its compact mass or momentum energy. Then we learn very little about the overall context. Nevertheless, we claim that our approach goes much further. We give an explanation for the dualistic description and the differences are much more irreconcilable. The wave particle character is somehow also related to the single particle or photon, it is more concrete, even though the probability wave can be quite spread out. With our particle, our point of view, we either have all space, stable and eternal, or an incredibly large network in which anything can happen, including intelligent consciousness processes. So it's more like comparing body and mind. If we go one step further, then our view could be a purely physical one and the one that only has to do with exchange, the purely spiritual one. Both come together in the masses in the particles. It is possible that the first mathematical description shows that these exchange frequencies can be described well using wave mechanics and the second, the physical part, using the particle image. We do not know. We just think that if it is to come to life, we need something more comprehensive than just the simplified forms of mathematical approaches. And then, if there has to be more thinking and consciousness, we first need a thinking, then the building blocks that are changed and only as a third we get the living that can then change the random bodies in an unprecedented way and accelerate evolution. And this first thinking is not us. We are already the product of what has been thought up. So we have to look for where such a more or less pure thinking can be and how it can have a global influence on large-scale masses. For example, developing suns, the periodic table of elements, then solar systems in which the conditions are favourable for life. All big tasks.
Taking this further, it always leads us back to the galactic black holes. They are the place where influence can be exerted on the entire galaxy, for example via the jet streams, which exert a global mechanical influence on the bodies within them due to their sheer mass. If something has been thought up here, there is still the best chance of realising this idea. But for this to happen, the matter simply must not disappear behind an event horizon.
7. Swimming in the void
Imagine we were standing on the edge of a really big galactic black hole, for example that of the Virgo supercluster. The big question is then, for us it is the question of all questions: would there be an eerie emptiness, a nothingness of gigantic proportions, a deep darkness into which we would be drawn? Or could we stand there or even swim, enveloped by a light warmth and a faint, a very faint mild glow that comes from the depths of this area of space?
There are worlds in between these two Ideas.
If the matter does not collapse under its mass, it would be perfectly possible to stand there normally. The matter there provides stability, the gravity is more like that on Earth. Together with the radial force caused by the rotation, nothing there would tear you apart or suck you in, but rather draw you irrevocably inside. It would have something wondrous, something strange, but this place would not fall out of the world, out of the fabric of space and time. The radius is slightly larger than that of the event horizon and the density would not become unbearably high towards the centre. The electrons are not pushed into the nucleus, so the distance between the particles is small, but comparable to our rocky world. Nuclear fusion is not necessary to maintain equilibrium. But the reason is not because the particles themselves are less attracted to each other. We believe that the reason why the gravitational forces inside are becoming weaker and weaker is because they are increasingly focussing on the outside. This is something that happens with every mass concentration, but it only leads to very small deviations. It has already been measurable during swing-by flights of probes. Also, the astronomical constant changes with time or the distant probes Voyager 1 and 2 do not find themselves exactly where they should be. These are all discrepancies that are very small but fit in well with the calculations. These are small things that can easily be doubted, as we are talking about extremely precise measurements that have many uncertainties. But in the case of galactic dimensions, it is the same value by which Newton's law of gravity has to be modified. And in the case of black holes at the latest, this acceleration value is so significant that it prevents matter from collapsing. As I said, the reason for this is that particles must at least maintain contact with the edge, with the opposite particle. Even if quanta do not use the space in between, it must not be blocked by another particle. Otherwise, these intermediate particles would be the end and not the edge particle. However, if matter were to behave and concentrate more and more like mathematical particles, then at some point the way out would be blocked. As there is a lot of space between the particles and they are all moving, it takes a very long time before every possibility is blocked. So, the masses can become very large. Due to the Pauli principle, which states that no state can be occupied twice, there is a classical upper limit, which for neutron stars corresponds to about one and a half times the mass of the sun. Classically, this would be the end, but we claim that even much earlier, i.e. from the very beginning, the particles gradually move their contacts outwards to distant particles with each mass concentration.
Of course, this is not measurable with small masses. After all, everything with small masses is difficult to test. If we wanted to test the force of gravity on Earth, we would have to know the exact mass, mass distribution and radius precisely. Which is not possible with the necessary precision.
It is a different matter when a probe comes out of the sun's centre of gravity system and picks up momentum at the earth's centre of gravity system. In this case, deviations can occur that are one billionth of the acceleration due to gravity, but these are noticeable during such manoeuvres. The probes are metres away from where they should be. The movements of the probes indicate the real gravitational fields. The calculations only refer to Newton and the change in the law of gravity is not taken into account.
We claim that we would not see this effect with electrical forces. Charges always seek their exchange as close to each other as possible and preferably always with the same partner. Charges are sober and empty and in favour of proximity. They can also make very, very distant contact, as with the light of distant stars, but this is really extremely rare compared to normal contact. Even if this small percentage is what makes the world visible to us in the first place.
What would our spirit be without light and without noises?
Both together open up an unimaginable world of experience that would not be possible otherwise. Hearing only works at close range and is directly related to the movement of molecules. Vision is completely different, as we can directly experience and visualise the charges of others. It should not go unmentioned that we also assume in our structure that we are receiving a quantum packet. It is important to mention that the truly individual electrical exchange, which can also be described and recorded very well with a field in electrostatics, is far too small for us to be able to measure it in isolation. It lies in the same effective range as gravity. In comparison, two charges are infinitely stronger in their force of attraction because they are constantly exchanging to an unimaginably high degree. Always towards the same counterpart. You can see how strong such forces are when the atoms in crystals are extremely stable in relation to each other. We can then use them to build bridges or hang heavy loads over very long, very thin steel cables. And we can do this over long periods of time. As we can see, this is a marvelous way to shape our world. We could now develop the idea that if the electrical forces are so strong and sometimes far-reaching, they could also transmit light in this way. A quantum is then a basic electrical component, the smallest object of transmission. In other words, an exchange. But as just mentioned, this is not the case. If that were the case, then it would be easy to find and measure the components of gravity. A quantum of light is actually a packet. The two exchanging particles are in contact for an eternity compared to a single contact. If two distant electrons have found each other and then for the duration of a quantum leap from one level to another or back, all in the visible range, then this transition takes about 500 nanoseconds for blue-green light, for example. We assume that a general short contact seconds to 10-19 seconds, so what we can measure is amplified 500 to 5000 billion times. The possible transmission energy is then in the electron volt range. Although this is still very small in our macroscopic world at 10-19 joules, the special properties of charges make it possible to build measuring devices that are extremely sensitive and can easily measure energies in the eV range.
It all looks very different with masses. To be able to measure something comparable, we would have to take two masses weighing 100 million tonnes instead of individual charges and move them back and forth briefly in the nanosecond range. If the masses are larger, such gravitational waves would be stronger or the oscillating motion could also be smaller. In other words, black holes that have been shaken could be considered. But as I said, the measuring instruments for such gravitational waves are also much more difficult and complex to build than for charges.
We see that even if there is no difference in the strength of the individual exchange, only in the fixation on either two specific ones or on all possible ones distributed in space, this makes all the difference.
And you can see something else. This difference is not small, but huge and apparently well thought out. From a purely statistical point of view, something like this would be a very rare result and would either lead us to a God, which is a dead end, because we would then learn nothing more, or to multiverses, or to the in-between that there have already been many universes, but that there must also be a mind that makes a selection. On closer inspection, the idea of two forces that are on the one hand so similar in their effect and on the other hand completely different, because of this small difference, has something ingenious about it with the orders of magnitude we are dealing with. If we wanted to construct a universe, we couldn't do it any better. On the contrary.
The idea is apparently so sophisticated that in our simple way of thinking with small numbers, we have not come up with the real solution. We can calculate things, but we don't know why they are the way they are. Conversely, this means for us that there may have already been many universes, even an infinite number, but still not much would happen without a special additional essence.
That is why the idea of the multiverse is only problem-solving if it actually exists in the same large number as the size of the improbability, and this actually goes beyond all limits. To illustrate how improbable the random appearance of life is, the image is used that there are also an infinite number of Earths and that a historical event would have been completely different on another Earth. And not only that, everything is realised down to the last detail. Hitler would have won the war on one of these earths, or we ourselves exist quite often and our lives always take a different course.
Infinity is simply not possible, but it is still complete nonsense. We can only deduce one thing from this: the probability that only our earth, with us as life on it, comes into being is so improbable that even mathematically high dimensions of randomness are not sufficient as an explanatory model. There is no better way to illustrate how absurdly high the statistics for such randomness are than with the illustrative pictures of the idea of multiverses.
8. Quantum physics determines our thinking
But now we have already strayed a long way from the subject of galactic black holes. At least we were able to use this excursion to find out whether we can really rely on science in every detail. And here we realise that we need to be much more cautious and it may well be that things are not quite so easy to calculate with black holes either and that we should perhaps, like Einstein himself, have doubts about the existence of such real entities.
So we continue to assume that the world does not disappear at the edge of such a galactic black hole, something like that just doesn't make sense and if you think about it more deeply, it doesn't have to be. It is really only the mathematical approach that suggests such a thing, and for all my love of the theory of relativity, that is too simplistic. It can be used to calculate very well over a wide range, but when things become more complex, considerable deviations become apparent that are related to the oversimplified approach. We should not overuse these good theories, because it is quite clear that nature cannot be treated like abstract numbers!
