|
| |
Y-Bias and Angularity: The Dynamics of Self-Organizing
Criticality
From the Zero Point to Infinity
by David G. Yurth and Donald Ayres
Holladay, Utah
Composed on August 20, 2005
Published for the first time here at PES Network Academy Nov. 11, 2006
Hubble Mosaic of the Majestic Sombrero Galaxy
Image Credit: NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) |
|
|
Preface
On Dec. 27, 2006, David G. Yurth, who is the Director of
Science and Technology for the Nova Institute of Technology wrote the following.
At Nova
Institute of Technology we have produced a scientific monograph
entitled "Y-Bias
and Angularity: Self-Organizing Criticality -- From the Zero Point to Infinity".
This monograph describes a newly developed model of scalar physics that
incorporates all the rules of self-organizing criticality [P. Bak et al] into a
simple, elegant framework.
Based on the precepts included in this new model, we have successfully
developed, tested and independently verified four entirely new materials,
including:
-
a positively charged ZnO2 thin film,
-
a transparent electrically conductive thin film with
virtually no capacitance and ambient resistance of less than 2 ohms per
square, regardless of surface area,
-
a semi-conductor-based thermal electric generator that
converts heat to electrical power at efficiencies ranging between 38% - 45%,
between temperatures ranging from 1°C - 240°C, and
-
a new material that has been shown to fluoresce, emit
and lase across the visible spectrum [tunable] in nano-particle sizes, using
direct electrical stimulation rather than up or down pumping.
Introduction
Who we are, how we live and how we think; how the Universe functions, and how
we relate to that universe: these are the great questions of our Time. Physics,
in the classical sense that has inflamed the passions of untold thinkers in
human history, is the quest -- for the answers. It is a quest that ultimately
drives how we feel about each other, and profoundly influences how we treat the
planet we live on. It frames our attitudes and values about life and living. To
the extent that our notions about the origins of the cosmos and how Nature works
are flawed, it naturally follows that our attitudes about our relationships with
the world we live in must also be crippled. Consider, for example, the archaic
Darwinian concept that the most evolved creatures are those most effective at
slaughtering other creatures. It is this type of scientific bias which appears
to have negatively affected our modern mindset, leading to a passion for
consumption and conquest that is unrivaled in any written accounts of our
history.
Today, more than at any other time in the known history of our world, we find
ourselves faced with the daunting prospect of our own self-inflicted extinction.
While the particulars are growing in number at a startling rate, the causes have
remained starkly constant.
We have come to rely on the language of Science as the means for discussing how
Nature works. If, as the current thinking about such things goes, the universe
in its entirety was created in one mighty bang, it may be true that we are but
passive expressions of the evolution of that event, however it turns out. If we
are nothing more than inert byproducts of a giant, impersonal explosion, then
what difference does it make if we exploit the planet and each other? Were
Plato's notions about fate correct? On the other hand, if all the matter,
energy, field forces and phenomena comprising the cosmos are being actively
created and deconstructed everywhere, all the time, as part of an infinite,
eternal cycle of self-organization and annihilation, our role in this process
must be apprehended in a completely different context. If we are active
participants in the process of creation, is it not in our best interest to
produce a scientific model that defines our responsibility for the consequences
of our choices and actions?
Two hundred fifty years ago, Rene` Descartes and the other keen observers of
Nature who followed his example made a deal which still exerts a profound
influence on the way we all think about such things today. The principal
condition which governed Descartes' turf-deal with the Catholic Church was that
he agreed to restrict his investigations and writings solely to considerations
of the 'physical stuff' found in Nature; hence the science of all things in the
natural world has come to be known as 'Physics'. According to this compromise,
all things not seen or observed in the Natural world, the 'spirit stuff', were
to be left solely to the considerations of the Church. The decision to make this
distinction was political, not scientific. But the primary effect of this
agreement has been the evolution of a cosmology that insists that the physical
stuff and the spirit stuff are mutually exclusive: separate and distinct from
each other. Today, Science denies that 'spirit stuff' even exists.
As a consequence, the Standard Model of Physics still specifically prohibits a
long list of widely observed and impeccably documented phenomena which violate
this dictum. Rigorous experimental evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, it
is still not possible for competent scientists to report the results of
rigorously conducted experimental protocols which attempt to penetrate these
mysteries in the official organs of Science, because all such reports are
implicitly or explicitly forbidden. It is not simply a matter of such things not
being scientifically valid. Rather, even when scientific validity has been
clearly established, the institution of Science has continued to preclude the
publication of such heretical notions.
Is it any wonder, then, that the children of the 21st Century have little or no
concept of the implicate order which defines the way the fabric of the universe
is woven? How can anyone who looks carefully and thoughtfully at the most
fundamental questions make sense of what we think we know, when much of the
information we need to exercise informed judgment about such things is deemed
unacceptable for public discourse? How can Science and scientists be trusted to
provide valid, robust, meaningful answers to the most important questions of our
time when the disciplines which govern their research are so severely crippled
and proscriptive?
The bottom line is that we can't. Until Science and its practitioners are not
only permitted but affirmatively encouraged and supported to find the answers to
the questions involving the unseen stuff of the cosmos, we will not be able to
trust either the scientists or the brand of Science they practice. What this
suggests for the way we practice Science is profound.
This book steps outside the artificial and arbitrary proscriptions imposed on
our way of thinking by Science as it is practiced today. It looks at the deepest
inner workings of the cosmos from an entirely different vantage point and, as
one might expect, produces some answers which are fundamentally at odds with
mainstream Science. Despite the protestations of the high priests of Science,
that all the hard questions have been asked and almost all of the true answers
have already been provided, we are convinced that few of the answers we have
been given are complete and robust enough to even be useful, much less true and
correct. So this is where we begin by asking different questions and
remaining open to answers which are bound to surprise us.
Proponents of the Big Bang theory of the formation of the universe insist that
all the matter and energy comprising the cosmos were created in a single
instant. The model has been challenged because it fails to satisfy a number of
unresolved issues. Our research has produced results which suggest that while
singularities of enormous scope have almost certainly occurred in the visible
universe from time to time, the explanation for what they were and how they
worked is almost certainly different than the Big Bang theory proposes. Not only
have such things occurred in the past, in varying magnitudes and in widely
varying locales, it is a virtual certainty that similar events will continue to
occur again and again. What this means about us and our place in the cosmos is
equally important.
The Standard Model holds that nothing in the universe can travel at a velocity
greater than C, the constant used by Einstein in his famous equation to support
his notions about the relativity of matter, energy, time and gravitational
forces. The model holds that C is absolute, constant and immutable. Today we
know with absolute certainty that none of these presumptions are correct. Our
knowledge about such things is better informed, but the model has not been
modified to accommodate what we know. Why is this important? It is critical to
our way of thinking because a corollary to this dictum is the equally flawed
notion that the four linear field forces accepted by Science are primary,
mutually exclusive and distinct from one another. The model insists that these
are the only field forces which can be accommodated and, further, that they
existed before the beginnings of the universe. If we knew this were not true,
what effect would that have on our way of thinking about ourselves and our place
in the universe?
Descartes' legacy continues to haunt us. In the languages and cultures of the
West we view the physical world as separate and distinct from the 'spirit stuff'
we cannot see. Despite the fact that quantum mechanics has successfully
supplanted Newton's notions of the universe as a clockwork mechanism, we still
rely entirely on reductionist science to investigate how Nature works. If the
way we practice science could illuminate the dark corners of our notions about
these conceits, our way of thinking about such things would be compelled to
change. How those changes would affect our attitudes, feelings and behaviors is
open to speculation, but one thing is crystal clear: unless and until we
understand how Nature really works, in us and around us, we will continue to
precipitate the prospect of extinction on ourselves and each other.
Science as presently constituted consists of an agglomeration of often
contradictory, inconsistent notions about how various parts of the natural world
interact with each other. For every rule there are almost always exceptions. It
is held that the vagaries of semantic language are unsuitable for scientific
pursuits and that, therefore, the only way to understand or describe how Nature
works is to employ an unambiguous means of expression we call mathematics. The
notion that mathematics is a privileged means of communication is based on the
flawed assumption that a one-to-one direct relationship exists between the
natural phenomena we observe and the symbols employed in mathematical
expressions to describe them. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a
result, we have been enculturated to believe that (1) only mathematicians and
scientists are competent to understand and use this privileged means of
expression; (2) in order to understand how Nature works, you must be certifiably
competent to use this privileged language; and (3) only a few gifted individuals
are suitably intelligent and adequately trained to do so.
The privileged cult of Science, as viewed in the context of those who exercise
political control over access to the resources required to support scientific
undertakings, is the province of a chosen few. Admittance to the inner sanctum
of elevated scientific pursuits requires adherence to a set of carefully defined
values and rites of passage. Anyone who steps outside the accepted parameters
does so at the risk of their credentials, access to research data and funding
support, and the ability to share their findings in the official publications of
the Scientific community. If this sounds very similar to the way the Catholic
Church treated Copernicus and Galileo, it is because the dynamics of heretical
proscription and ostracism are not unique to religious orders.
It has been truly said that the inclusion of a mathematical formula in any text
automatically reduces its salability by at least 50%. If this is true, it is
because we have been enculturated to believe that mathematics is the province of
an elite and exclusive class of intellect. Again, nothing could be further from
the truth. We use formulas in our discussion of mass, magnetism, precessing
gyroscopes, gravitational field effects, self-organizing criticality and the
Fibonacci numbers. We use them because they give us a way to discuss physical
phenomena in a way that is difficult or impossible in linguistic terms. However,
at each step we also provide a set of footnotes located on the same page as the
formulas, to explain what the formulas mean and describe how they work. If you
can read this text, you can understand the mathematics we use. It's as simple as
that.
In our investigations we have discovered that everything we encounter in the
physical world can be explained in the context of a set of simple, elegant,
universally applicable rules. This is not what Science tells us, so we decided
to write this book to advance the discussion to another level. In the process,
we have made some discoveries we believe are important. One of these discoveries
enables us to define phenomena which have thus far resisted categorical
explication in scientific terms. Included in this list is a definition of Mass,
one of the most fundamental subjects of scientific investigation. We also define
Magnetism for the first time. We show that Time is a product of the continual
evolution and self-organizing nature of the cosmos and not an a priori
condition. We demonstrate that Complementarity operates at all scales in the
cosmos, from the smallest to the grandest, with equal effect.
In the discussion of 'primary' field effects, we show that all aspects of the
physical world can be described in terms of a newly coined concept called
'Self-Organizing Criticality.' This term, which we refer to with the acronym
SOC, is new to the scientific lexicon, since it was invented by Per Bak and his
colleagues at the Brookhaven National Laboratories in the mid-90's. Bak
suspected but did not know for certain that SOC principles lie at the heart of
the way the universe appears and operates at all scales. How this works -- and
why we know it is absolutely correct -- is the subject of one of the most
fascinating discussions of our time. As our research amply demonstrates,
physicist David Bohm was quite correct in his presumption that there is an
implicate order which governs the way Nature works. We now understand something
more about what that order is, how it works and how to use it to engineer
reality as we wish.
In addition, we discovered that every interaction between matter, energy, field
effects and time can be characterized in terms of the attributes exerted by one
component [operating in the Y axis] on another [operating in the X axis]. The
full complement of attributes used to describe these interactions is referred to
in the text as the 'Y-Bias' effect. Intrinsic to any analysis of the Y-Bias
effect is the angle of incidence at which such interactions occur. This aspect
of Y-Bias is referred to as 'Angularity.' This component plays such an important
role in the way self-organizing criticality operates that we have decided, for
the purpose of clarity, to talk about our findings in terms of both Y-Bias and
Angularity.
We found that only a few distinct archetypal forms and patterns of behavior
characterize the interaction of matter, energy and field forces at ten distinct
quantum-defined scales of natural evolution. By analyzing how these forms arise
in terms of Y-Bias and Angularity, we have developed a model which describes the
underlying dynamics common to each and all of them, from the Physical Vacuum to
the infinite expanse of the entire cosmos. What this means for the pursuit of
Science [with a big "S"] is important because this information makes
it possible for everyone who can read English to understand clearly how Nature
works.
We have written elsewhere that the practice of Science without a conscience is
the most dangerous pursuit ever undertaken. We have only to look around us to
discover how horrifyingly true this can be. As expressions of both physical and
spirit stuff, we can no longer pretend that what we do can in any meaningful way
be separated from the entire fabric of our combined existence. We exert a
palpable, measurable influence on each other and the physical world we live in,
whether we want to or not. We do not get to vote about that. What we do get to
vote about, however, is what influences we choose to exert. The way we pursue
Science is one of the most important of these decisions.
As a community of humans, we are at a crossroads now. We are obliged to either
change our values and attitudes or learn to deal with a world that is
increasingly polluted, inhospitable and dangerous. If the past is prologue to
the future, human nature and our attitudes about ourselves and each other will
not change unless and until we are faced with the option of either becoming
extinct or being compelled to move in another direction. We are at this point in
our evolution right now. We have all the information we need to understand how
Nature really works. What remains to be seen is whether or not we can summon the
fortitude to actually change the way we treat the planet and each other.
If this book serves no other purpose than to provoke a lively and well-informed
dialogue about this subject, it will have served its purpose. Along the way, we
hope the findings expressed here will serve to inform you by giving you a new
framework for considering how Nature works.
Abstract
The quest of modern physics has been to develop a model
which correctly describes the role and dynamics of the interactions by which
Nature works. In order for the model which describes these interactions to be
robust, it must not only accommodate phenomena which are known to occur, but
must also accommodate all rigorously documented phenomena, predict phenomena
which are as-yet undiscovered, and allow for the inclusion of all rigorously
observed, impeccably documented, carefully reported data derived from all
sources. To be adequate, any universally applicable physical model must also
accommodate the contemporaneous interaction between Descartes' 'physical stuff'
and 'spirit stuff' with equal cogency.
The current model fails to rise to this standard. It is based on a number of
fundamentally flawed, incomplete and arbitrarily imposed assumptions. In the 35
years since the Standard Model was improved by the Copenhagen School, the
reductionist methodology which typifies scientific research has run up hard
against the most daunting of all Nature's mysteries. Experimental results
provided by the most powerful microscopes, largest telescopes, fastest linear
accelerators and other advanced devices, demonstrate that there is an underlying
order in the cosmos which has not yet been understood. The shortcomings of the
Standard Model are ameliorated by the application of the rules of
Self-Organizing Criticality in complex, open systems [SOC][1] as integrated with
the dynamics described as Y-Bias and Angularity.[2]
1. Bak, Per, How Nature Works, Springer-Verlag (New York @ Copernicus) 1996.
2. Ayres, D., Y-Bias and Angularity, ref.
Download
Follow-up
On January 21, 2007, David G. Yurth wrote:
I have just received a copy of the paper
written by Dr. Paul La Violette. As you review it, you will see that it
fundamentally validates one of the key concepts included in the Y-Bias model.
This is extremely exciting because it means that we have suddenly been handed
independent validation in a way that we had never anticipated, from a truly
impeccable source. I still can't get unwound enough to get to sleep.
See also
Page posted by Sterling
D. Allan Jan. 11, 2007
Last updated August 23, 2007
| |
|
Feed