Monday, March 17, 2014

Proof of the Big Bang


A stunning discovery made at a research station in Antarctica indicates that Albert Einstein was right about the nature of the universe

Gravity waves picked up by the Bicep2 telescope at the South Pole (above) vindicate Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity Photo: AP
The most epoch-making discoveries can be made in the unlikeliest of places. The smoking out of the elusive Higgs boson, perhaps the greatest recent milestone in fundamental physics, took place in 2012 under the serene and agreeable pastures of the Franco-Swiss border, home to Cern’s muscular atom-smasher, the £8 billion Large Hadron Collider.
Now another team of scientists, this time American and operating a £12 million telescope in the considerably less clement surroundings of the South Pole, has announced the discovery of what may figuratively be described as the fingerprint of God.
The importance of this finding, announced yesterday afternoon at an excited press conference at Harvard University, cannot be overestimated; one leading physicist has gone so far as to describe it as “one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time”. The phrase “Holy Grail” is being bandied about, and there is talk of the most certain shoo-in for a Nobel Prize for decades. The researchers, headed by Prof John Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, appear to have found the very echoes of creation.
The announcement confirmed that the Bicep2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarisation) telescope at the Amundsen-Scott polar base in Antarctica had found conclusive evidence for the existence of gravity waves, colossal ripples in space-time that pervade today’s universe and which were formed when the cosmos was just 10 to the minus 35 seconds old – a length of time shorter than it would take the Starship Enterprise to cross from one side of a grain of sand to another.
If this is confirmed, it will be the final experimental vindication of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. It will show once and for all that the notion that our universe began with a colossal explosion of matter and energy 13,978,000,000 years ago – the Big Bang – is correct.
But the implications are more profound even than that. The existence of gravity waves is the “smoking gun” for the controversial theory of cosmic inflation, the idea that right at the start of the universe, nearly 14 billion years ago, everything underwent a colossally fast period of expansion – the “B of the Bang”, if you like.
If cosmic inflation, which we need in order to explain several weird facts about our universe, is correct, then this provides strong support for the notion of the “multiverse”; the idea that what we see when we look up at the night sky is but a gnat on the back of the elephant that is the true totality of creation.
The existence of gravity waves is strong evidence that “our” universe may not only exist alongside an infinite number of parallel worlds, but may itself be infinite in extent, containing endless copies of our galaxy – and indeed our world and you and me – located countless trillions of light years apart.
That is a lot of inferences to make from a discovery at a modest research station on the icy wastes of Antarctica. So what exactly has Bicep found? Before the discovery was made, theorists speculated that the violent, faster-than-light ripping apart of the fabric of space that took place during the Big Bang must have left the universe ringing like a bell, rippling with gigantic waves billions of light years long.
The colossal forces of inflation caused the fabric of space-time – a concept introduced by Einstein as a way of reconciling gravity, motion and time – to start wobbling, like the surface of a sea subjected to an earthquake. One objection to relativity was that no one had evidence that violent events can make gravity form waves like this. Now they have.
The telescope did not “see” gravity waves directly. Instead it looked at photons – particles of light – that have travelled to Earth from a time when the universe was a ball of hot plasma and just 400,000 years old. As these antique photons crossed the vacuum of the cosmos, they were pulled and squeezed by the peaks and troughs of gravity waves, much as a boat is thrown up and down as it crosses a stormy sea. This caused the packets of light to polarise – align in certain directions – in a way that you would not expect them to do if they had crossed space unperturbed by gravity waves. It is these slight attenuations that have been discovered by the Bicep team.
According to Prof Andrew Jaffe, a cosmologist at Imperial College London, this is – almost – proof that inflation theory is correct. “Inflation is the only way we know of to produce gravitational waves in the early universe,” he says, adding that although there are other possible explanations, they are “less compelling”.
And why do we need inflation? It was first proposed in the early 1980s by cosmologists led by Andrei Linde and Alan Guth (who were at the press conference yesterday, looking very happy) to explain some problems with the original Big Bang idea.
The main one is that deep space looks much the same in every direction. There are no gigantic “gaps” – no galaxies in some places and agglomerations in others – which is what you would expect if you had a simple explosion of matter and energy. Instead, the idea behind inflation is that right at the start of the “Bang”, a period of unimaginable, hyper-fast expansion, billions of times faster than light-speed would smooth out the unevenness, much in the way that pulling on a crumpled sheet will make it flat and even.
The implications of inflation are mind-boggling. Few cosmologists believe that if inflation happened it would have produced a universe only as big as the one we can see. The observable “edge” of our universe, the so-called “Hubble Volume”, is a sphere of space about 93 billion light years across, containing maybe half a trillion galaxies, each containing roughly the same number of stars (altogether about as many stars as there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth). A magnificent entity.
But that vast ensemble only encompasses the parts of our universe close enough for light to have reached us since the Bang. Inflation suggests that the original expansion created a volume of space-time much, much bigger – according to some equations, infinite. And the most extraordinary thing about inflation is that as you rip apart space you create matter and energy. Not only is our universe probably infinite in size, but it is studded with an infinite amount of stars and galaxies.
Prof Max Tegmark, a Swedish physicist at MIT, is a leading proponent of the “multiverse” hypothesis, which states that our universe is just a tiny part of a much grander mass of parallel worlds. “It’s a bad day for multiverse sceptics, now that the smoking-gun evidence for inflation has been found,” he said yesterday. “Alex Vilenkin, Andrei Linde, Alan Guth and others have shown that inflation generically predicts a space that is not merely large but infinite, teeming with duplicate copies of our civilisation living out countless variations of our lives far, far away.”
This is exciting stuff, but many questions remain. We still don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, or even if this question makes sense. We do not really know what drove this cosmic inflation, nor if it is related to the mysterious “dark energy” that continues to drive apart the galaxies (albeit more slowly) to this day.
And on a more profound level, we do not know what the purpose, if any, of our universe is; or what role, if any, life like ours plays in it. We still do not have an answer to the late Douglas Adams’s “Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything” (to which he gave the sarcastic answer: “42”).
But the fact that we have, in just a few short centuries, gone from knowing almost nothing about the immense vastness in which our planet sits to hearing the very echoes of the Big Bang is remarkable. Quite the most extraordinary thing about our universe is that we can begin to understand it at all.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Existence, Consciousness and Bliss

from newindianexpress.com




Published: 08th March 2014 07:32 AM
Last Updated: 08th March 2014 07:42 AM
The nature of the eternal is infinite being, the nature of being is self-awareness and all-awareness of consciousness, the nature of conscious being is conscious force aware of its self and its action, the nature of conscious self-awareness is infinite bliss.
Identity is the first truth of existence; division is the second truth; all division is a division in oneness. There is one Existence which looks at itself from many self-divided unities by the device of division.
Being is one; division is a device or a secondary condition of consciousness; but the primary truth of consciousness also is a truth of oneness and identity. One consciousness organised in many self-divided unities of consciousness is the subjective nature of existence.
The objective side of consciousness is force, because consciousness is a power of being. The eternal primary action of this force is to make for its own consciousness forms or figures of its being.
All force is inherently conscious force. Inhabiting and supporting every individual or universal form of being there is and must be some conscious power of being. But conscious force has the faculty of absorbing itself in its works and forms; there is in consciousness the power of self-oblivion. This self-oblivion is the primary phenomenon of material existence. But as [in] the sleeping or unconscious or self-oblivious man there is a subliminal self which neither sleeps nor forgets itself nor is unconscious, so in what appears to [be] inconscient form worked by an inconscient force or power of being there is, discoverable by extending knowledge, such a conscious power and that must be part of the conscious force of being of the one existence.
The nature of being aware of itself, in possession of all its consciousness and force is the inherent delight of its own existence. For experience shows that all complete possession of self is delight, only imperfection of possession creates imperfection or apparent absence of delight. But the one existence takes an equal delight in all the universal forms and figures of its own being, and this delight is the cause and support of universal and individual existence. For this reason all creation also and all action of force has secretly or overtly delight or a seeking for delight or [?some] attraction as its first motive cause, although the apparent object or aim of the action may seem to be of a different character.
These truths do not appear entirely to us because we start from division but they become self-evident when we get to a larger consciousness open to the conscious unity underlying things or one with the one conscious existence.
The one existence whether we call it or him god, Brahman, Purusha or by some other name is in its or his nature infinite existence aware of itself and its own eternal bliss of existence. Or speaking less in terms of division and analysis it is one existence, consciousness, bliss in an inalienable unity.
— Excerpt from the book Essays Divine and Human by Sri Aurobindo

Thursday, February 27, 2014

President Obama hopes that Harold Ramis ‘received total consciousness’

from deathandtaxesmag.com


popcorn


In News by Brian AbramsFeb 25, 2014
Even the First Couple has been rocked by the sad news about director Harold Ramis.
On Tuesday morning, the White House Press Secretary’s office issued a statement from Barack and Michelle Obama in regards to Monday’s passing of their fellow Chicagoan:
Michelle and I were saddened to hear of the passing of Harold Ramis, one of America’s greatest satirists, and like so many other comedic geniuses, a proud product of Chicago’s Second City. When we watched his movies–from “Animal House” and “Caddyshack” to “Ghostbusters” and “Groundhog Day”–we didn’t just laugh until it hurt. We questioned authority. We identified with the outsider. We rooted for the underdog. And through it all, we never lost our faith in happy endings. Our thoughts and prayers are with Harold’s wife, Erica, his children and grandchildren, and all those who loved him, who quote his work with abandon, and who hope that he received total consciousness.
So he might have that going for him, which is nice.
I interviewed Ramis twice before he got sick, and both times he couldn’t have been more of a mensch–funny, too, and not easily offended. He was capable of seeing the intellect in really stupid things.
I’m sure he would have loved the Twinkies set outside the Ghostbusters firehouse in Tribeca, Manhattan. Or this tweet, warning followers not to Google-search “don’t cross the streams” for a Ramis photo “without a gay porn filter.”
Like many of you, I’ve been crushed since hearing the news. I’ve been thinking of his family, members of which I also have the privilege of knowing, who gave their constant support to Ramis in his final years. It’s hard to think about what they all went through–autoimmune inflammatory vasculitis is nothing to sneeze at–and 69 years old is hardly an expiration date that you can dismiss as foreseeable. Maybe it’s best to stay focused on his work and slacker wisdom.
I’ll leave you with this comment from my 2009 interview in which he discusses comedy today.
I don’t want to say that there’s nothing new in comedy, but having seen Andy Kaufman in the mid-70s in clubs in New York, nothing surprises me conceptually. There’s a difference between getting the joke and liking the joke. Popularity isn’t the only measure of success. Sometimes the public is an idiot, but obscurity and perversity for it’s own sake can be a solipsistic jerk-off and real waste of time. I have no rules or expectations; I just like comedy that works.
h/t WH statement via @jbendery/photo via Heeb Magazine










Monday, February 24, 2014

Disconnecting Consciousness from the External Environment

from discovermagazine.com


By Neuroskeptic | February 23, 2014 12:08 pm
An very interesting report from a group of French neurosurgeons sheds light on the neural basis of consciousness and dreams.
Guillaume Herbet and colleagues describe the case of a 45 year old man in whom electrical stimulation of a particular spot in the brain “induced a dramatic alteration of conscious experience in a highly reproducible manner.”
The man had brain cancer (a diffuse low-grade glioma of the posterior left hemisphere). During the surgery to remove the tumour, Herbet et al stimulated various points on his brain to map out the areas that were functionally most important. This is a standard procedure to allow surgeons to know which bits they ought to leave intact, where possible.
Most of the stimulations didn’t do much, but there was a particular point, in the white matter beneath the left posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), where the electrical pulse caused the patient to become unresponsive – to ‘zone out’, essentially – for a few seconds. This point is marked as “S1″ (small blue spot) on these images. The red zone on the left is the area that was eventually removed.
consciousness_herbetUpon regaining awareness after the stimulation, the patient reported that he had been ‘in a dream’. Three stimulations of the same area produced three such reveries:
Quite surprisingly, he described himself retrospectively as in a dream, outside the operating room, and was able to fleetingly report his subjective experiences (stimulation 1: “I was as in a dream, there was a sun”; stimulation 2: I was as in a dream, I was on the beach”; stimulation 3: “I was as in a dream, I was surrounded by a white landscape”. No additional sites in the surrounding anatomical space were found to elicit this manifestation.
Suns and beaches doesn’t sound like the stuff of nightmares. But the patient said that these dreams were, in fact, unspeakably horrible:
However, the simple mention of the event was associated with a strong emotional discharge, including crying and tremors, and finally the patient always said: “I don’t remember, I don’t want to remember”
All very gothic. But what does it mean? Herbet et al say that
Disrupting the subcortical connectivity of the left posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) reliably induced a breakdown in conscious experience.
Which fits with the theory that the PCC – a ringleader of the brain’s default mode network – is central to waking consciousness. But what’s odd is that a large chunk of the left PCC was not just disrupted but permanently cut out, and it didn’t destroy the patient’s consciousness – although
He reported experiencing no rumination and no negative thought for almost a month after the surgery. He described himself in a kind of contemplative state, with a subjective feeling of absolute happiness and timelessness.
Sounds almost like spiritual enlightenment, but it only lasted a month; after that, it seems, he returned more or less to normal consciousness – even thought that chunk of PCC was still gone. So I’d say this case report, while fascinating, raises more questions than it answers.
ResearchBlogging.orgHerbet G, Lafargue G, de Champfleur NM, Moritz-Gasser S, le Bars E, Bonnetblanc F, & Duffau H (2014). Disrupting posterior cingulate connectivity disconnects consciousness from the external environment. Neuropsychologia, 56C, 239-244 PMID: 24508051
CATEGORIZED UNDER: PAPERSPHILOSOPHYRELIGIONISMSELECTTOP POSTS



Sunday, February 23, 2014

Biology of the mind: Is consciousness merely the result of evolution, or something more? (Live video)

from extremetech.com


Biology of the mind: Is consciousness merely the result of evolution, or something more? (Live video)

Biology of the mind

Share This Article

At 2:30pm (eastern time) today, some of the world’s preeminent psychologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers will discuss the biology of the mind. The discussion, which takes place at The Helix Center in New York, will focus on whether the very human concepts of the mind, consciousness, and self-awareness are merely a function of the mammalian brain’s structure, or whether there’s more to it. By the same measure, the researchers will discuss whether the mind is purely the reserve of humans, or whether it also exists further down the evolutionary scale (does a dog have a mind? how about a bird, or a crocodile?) These questions, of course, will then lead into another topic that’s particularly close to our hearts at ExtremeTech: If the mind exists purely in the morphology (form, structure) of the brain, and doesn’t contain some kind of weird, unquantifiable, magical quality, will we one day be able to engineer an artificial mind?
Biology of Mind is a roundtable discussion being held by The Helix Center, a relatively new foundation that is tasked with the “unhurried search for wisdom” through interdisciplinary investigation. “Philosophically, we stand against the trivialization of thought and the balkanization within and between the sciences and the arts.” Most of this investigation seems to revolve around a series of roundtable discussions, where the Center puts a bunch of bright people in a room together, gives them a topic for discussion, and then sits back to enjoy whatever emerges. Fortunately for us, the discussions are webcast live on YouTube.
Among the roundtable participants are Gary Marcus, a fairly well-known writer, and professors John Krakauer, Ken Miller, David Rosenthal, and Matthew Stone. I don’t think we’ve covered any of their work previously on ExtremeTech, but they’re all fairly well qualified. While there are a couple of neuroscientists, none of them are specifically biologists, which might pose a bit of a stumbling block when trying to get bottom of whether the human concept of mind, of self, of soul, is purely evolutionary and biological.
While it’s entirely possible that the Biology of Mind roundtable will stumble across the answer to this rather important question, it’s more likely that they’ll just cover the same ground that has been discussed for the last few years. This isn’t to say that the discussion will be dull — especially if you’re not up to speed on the latest and greatest advances in neuroscience and artificial intelligence — but the fact is, we still need to do a lot more research before we can answer these questions with any certainty. We are currently at the point where we have a pretty good understanding of how individual neurons operate — but we still have almost no clue about how the form of the brain, and its various, distinct regions, affect its functionality. If we could build an exact replica of the brain’s millions of neurons and billions of synapses — the brain’s connectome — some kind of consciousness might emerge… but creating that connectome is likely to be impossible for at least a few more years. Even then, given how neurons readily make and break connections, in ways that we don’t yet understand, it’s not just a case of creating an exact carbon copy of the brain — such an artificial brain would have to be flexible, malleable, and, well, alive.
The Biology of Mind roundtable discussion kicks off at 2:30pm eastern time today, and runs for a couple of hours. It will be broadcast live on YouTube (embedded above), but a recording will be available afterwards as well.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Evolution of Consciousness

from guardianlv.com


Added by Nathan Cranford on February 13, 2014.
Saved under Evolution, Nathan Cranford, Quantum Physics, Robots, Science
Tags: evolution

evolution

Evolution by means of natural selection is as widely accepted by biologists as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Despite the success evolution has had, their remains one irritating feature within the human make-up for which the theory of evolution proves short: consciousness. Since the 17th century, there has been a smooth continuity in deducing the principles of chemistry from the principles of physics, the principles of biology from the principles of chemistry and so on and so forth. Yet the chain of scientific reductionism has experienced a chink that cannot be filled. Consciousness—that irritating, inner subjective experience that is all too familiar but much less understood—seems to view the scientific paradigm from the outside in rather than from the inside out. Is consciousness dictated by the principles of quantum mechanics, does it have a biological basis, perhaps the product of social conditioning or none of the above?
From evolutionary history, it is known that the human cranium rapidly swelled up like a balloon. Accompanying this swelling, consciousness seemingly “popped” into existence. Yet it is difficult to determine why exactly natural selection seized upon the swelling of the brain. Large brains require lots of energy and have made the birthing process all the more difficult. In addition, consciousness does not necessarily need take up much space. Some people only have a single brain-hemisphere and are capable of performing day-to-day tasks.
Some psychologists and linguists have suggested the human brain is programmed to acquire language. After all, language is the defining trait that distinguishes humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom and is seemingly acquired with ease during the first few years of life. Just as evolution engrained spiders with the instinct to spin a web, so too has evolution engrained human brains with the instinct to “spin” language. Through this instinct, man became aware of his own words and thus, conscious.
The problem with this suggestion is that it merely sketches a model of cognition rather than consciousness. Cognition consists in certain computation faculties, such as self-reflection and individual awareness. Yet consciousness consists of something far more mysterious: individual experience, such as the sensation of red. In particular, consciousness consists of what it is like to be something. Although person A might know everything there is to know about person B, person A still does not know what it is actually like to be person B. In a sense, there is a metaphysical barrier between minds that no amount of scientific data can suffice.
In an effort to better understand consciousness, the human brain has been handed over and cracked open by artificial intelligence engineers (AI). AI engineers take a mind, break it down and attempt to re-build it using artificial material. This is known as the Humpty Dumpty problem. If consciousness is the result of information processing at the level of the brain, then AI engineers reason that information can be duplicated onto a computer hard drive. The problem is that attempts by AI engineers to artificially simulate consciousness have been an abysmal failure. Some scientists have suggested AI engineers are a head of themselves. In particular, AI engineers don’t have a biological basis for the mind in the same way doctors have a biological basis for the heart. In short: AI engineers are trying to simulate consciousness without having a blue-print of what consciousness is.
Others have argued that consciousness is dictated by the principles of quantum mechanics; however, most neuroscientists tend to be of the view that the gap between the sub-atomic world and large-scale macro-systems is too large to bridge. Others have argued that if mental states are derived from brain states, then it follow consciousness is a collection of “unconscious” states, thus leading to the provocative conclusion that consciousness does not exist! Whether it by engrained instinct, artifical engineering or quantum mechanics, the evolution of consciousness remains a vexing problem shrouded in mystery.
By Nathan Cranford

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Elements in Chemical Synaptic Transmission

from wikipedia 


Illustration of the major elements in chemical synaptic transmission. An electrochemical wave called an action potential travels along the axon of a neuron. When the action potential reaches the presynaptic terminal, it provokes the release of a small quantity of neurotransmitter molecules, which bind to chemical receptor molecules located in the membrane of another neuron, the postsynaptic neuron, on the opposite side of the synaptic cleft. Illustration of the major elements in chemical synaptic transmission. An electrochemical wave called an action potential travels along the axon of a neuron. When the action potential reaches the presynaptic terminal, it provokes the release of a small quantity of neurotransmitter molecules, which bind to chemical receptor molecules located in the membrane of another neuron, the postsynaptic neuron, on the opposite side of the synaptic cleft.


Chemical synapses are specialized junctions through which neurons signal to each other and to non-neuronal cells such as those in musclesor glands. Chemical synapses allow neurons to form circuits within the central nervous system. They are crucial to the biological computations that underlie perception and thought. They allow the nervous system to connect to and control other systems of the body.
At a chemical synapse, one neuron releases neurotransmitter molecules into a small space (the synaptic cleft) that is adjacent to another neuron. The neurotransmitters are kept within small sacs called vesicles, and are released into the synaptic cleft by exocytosis. These molecules then bind to receptors on the postsynaptic cell's side of the synaptic cleft. Finally, the neurotransmitters must be cleared from the synapse through one of several potential mechanisms including enzymatic degradation or re-uptake by specific transporters either on the presynaptic cell or possibly by neuroglia to terminate the action of the transmitter.
The adult human brain is estimated to contain from 1014 to 5 × 1014 (100–500 trillion) synapses.[1] Every cubic millimeter of cerebral cortexcontains roughly a billion (short scale, i.e. 109) of them.[2]
The word "synapse" comes from "synaptein", which Sir Charles Scott Sherrington and colleagues coined from the Greek "syn-" ("together") and "haptein" ("to clasp"). Chemical synapses are not the only type of biological synapse: electrical and immunological synapses also exist. Without a qualifier, however, "synapse" commonly means chemical synapse.