CLIPS from PUBLISHED WORK
by Michael Ricciardi (marz62@yahoo.com) website: www.chaosmosis.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Excerpted clips: from an article published by Space Lifestyle Magazine, a new digital magazine,
in April, 2007. note: article includes an interview with physicist Paul Steinhardt of Princeton]
When Branes Collide
A New Theory of Cyclic Cosmogenesis Suggests a Universe of Infinite Age.
By Michael Anthony Ricciardi
A Brief History of Scientific Cosmogenic Theories
Our classic Big Bang theory has held for some time—seeping solidly into the popular
consciousness—even though it requires a few counter-intuitive (and factual) notions. One of
these is an ‘infinitely dense’ point of matter (the singularity) which also must possess infinite
temperature (or energy potential). Also, one of the consequences of the classic Big Bang Model is
a non-isotropic or inhomogeneous cosmos (a universe that is ‘lumpy’ and filled with varying
densities and motions of celestial objects). Another consequence of this model is the appearance
of magnetic ‘monopoles’—bizarre one-dimensional objects-- scattered throughout the space-time
fabric.
The problem is that these predicted consequences do not jibe with observations (such as the
apparent ‘flatness’ of the cosmos) and calculations (such as the necessary age required for galaxy
formation). In the decades afterwards, and as more data came in, cosmologists have attempted to
refine this model to explain the contradictory observables (such as the fact that the Universe looks
the same in every direction that we point our telescopes). In the early 1980’s, a new theory was
put forth--known as the Inflationary Model--which posited a period of uniform, ‘hyperexpansion’ from an earlier, much smaller universe of much higher temperature and density. Two
divergent views emerged from this theory: one -- that the universe would continue to expand
indefinitely, and, two – that expansion would eventually slow down and begin to contract or
‘crunch’.
-----------------The Pitch: When ‘Branes’ Collide (or ‘Bounce’)
In a May, 2006 paper published in SCIENCE Magazine, the authors—Neil Turok and Paul J.
Steinhardt—put forth in remarkable detail a new theory that explains virtually every observable
phenomenon and resolves all of the problems inherent in the current, inflationary model. The
theory involves the cyclical collision, or ‘bouncing’, of branes (short for membranes)—vast, orbifold, structures of empty, 4-dimensional space -- connected via a ‘spring-like’ extra dimension.
Owing to gravity, these branes are periodically, over trillions of years, forced together (like two
sheets of paper, arranged above/below). The energy from this motion (the kinetic energy) spills
into our brane, filling it with a massive, pervasive burst of energetic particles and radiation. As
energy is released into our brane, the spring-like extra dimension “relaxes”, the branes separate
once more, and the newest cycle of expansions proceeds. The visible matter of our universe
appears uniformly distributed because the ‘Big Bang’ did not result from a singularity—an
emergence from a single point in space-time--but from the collision of branes which occurs
nearly simultaneously (and uniformly) throughout the cosmos.
Recently, this author interviewed Professor Steinhardt and asked him to explain the key concepts
of his theory and how it resolves the problems with the previous ones. “Our model finesses all of
these [classic] problems. First, it is important to understand what is cycling in our picture:
the distance between branes is opening and closing at regular intervals, creating hot matter
and radiation each time they hit one another. This causes the temperature and the density
of matter and radiation to keep being reset to the value they had a cycle ago. The cause is
the force between branes – nothing to do with how much matter and radiation is created.”
This key aspect of the theory addresses the first stated problem concerning the fact that the mass
density does not exceed the critical density. But what about the apparent ‘flatness’ and
homogeneity of the universe? Does the recently observed ‘jolt’ to the vacuum energy density
impact this?
“In order to make sure that the branes are smooth and uniform before they hit (so that the
universe is smooth and uniform after the bang), we actually want a period of accelerated
expansion to stretch the branes, smoothing them out and spreading out all the matter and
radiation produced in the earlier bounce. So, the observed acceleration (problem 2) is a
plus for us, not a minus.”
Ok, what about the ‘accumulation of entropy’ problem at the moment of the Big Crunch?
“In our picture, the usual three dimensions expand but never contract – only the extra
dimension goes through regular expansion and contraction. So, we produce entropy during
each cycle that is dispersed during the period of dark energy domination, but it is NOT
reconcentrated before the big crunch. So, there is not the reconcentrated entropy problem
and there is no problem with the cycles continuing forever (problem 3).”
And finally, what about the predicted age of the Universe?
“Having dark energy instead of extra matter changes the prediction for the age of the
universe, so the age in our model is in line with what we know and there is no problem
(problem 4).”
We can begin to see, perhaps, why this newest theory of cosmogenesis is getting a good deal of
attention—even as its creators caution the popular press about promulgating it too much, too
soon. Steinhardt, Turok, et al, are concerned that the theory be given proper time for vetting
amongst members of the physics community. Still, the theory is deeply appealing and intriguing,
perhaps explaining its popularity.
------------------But some aspects of the theory seem contra-factual. Viewed as a whole, as a true Universe, this
cyclic model seems to be self-sustaining. Some critics even have suggested that the “ekpyrotic”
model was akin to a ‘perpetual motion machine’-- a famously flawed, pseudo-scientific fantasy.
For, at first glance, there doesn’t seem to be an external energy flow ‘driving’ the periodic
bouncing of branes. So, what exactly is causing the cyclic collision?
Steinhardt clarifies: “It seems that we might have perpetual motion because the branes seem
to be drawn together by the springy force that joins them together, and it seems that the
spring should wind down if you produce matter and radiation each bounce. But this is not
the case. The secret is that we are not relying on the springy force along. We are actually
drawing energy from the gravitational field during each cycle and converting this into
brane kinetic energy, and then into matter, to start the cycle again.”
The use of the gravitational field as an inexhaustible energy source is a key idea that also relates
to the inflationary phenomenon; there is a finite energy density, yet, in order for the cosmos to
inflate (increase its volume), the total vacuum energy must increase. And, where does this extra
energy come from? Once again, the answer is gravity. “And, since you know there is such a
thing as eternal inflation,” Steinhardt continues, “you know there is no limit to how much
energy can be drawn from a gravitational field. So, eternal inflation is not a perpetual
motion machine, and neither is the cyclic model. They are just both taking advantage of the
peculiar feature of gravity that it can be an infinite energy source.”
If this sounds both remarkable and extremely convenient, then you are perhaps getting a good
idea of the nature of theoretical cosmology. For, while cosmologists draw upon observable data
(like the type 1a supernovas), they are ultimately dealing with something that cannot—perhaps
can never be—observed directly: the extra dimension connecting our cosmic brane to a another
hidden one. And there may be more dimensions ‘out there’, and more ‘branes’ as well. In
considering such theoretical models, one is unavoidably confronted with the awesome mystery
that engulfs us. One can only wonder too at the idea of a ‘beginning’ and an ‘end’ to the cosmos-whether such notions have any meaning here. For, the most astounding thing about Steinhardt and
Turok’s model is its implication of a universe of unimaginable ancientness. In conclusion, I asked
Professor Steinhardt what his thoughts/feelings were when he realized the implication of his
theory: “Shock and surprise. We thought there were all sorts of theorems that showed this
is impossible. We surprised ourselves when we discovered a way that seems to evade all the
known rules. I should add – our model does not REQUIRE an infinite number of cycles.
The universe MIGHT have a beginning and might settle into cycling. But the surprise is
that, so far as we know, there is nothing preventing infinite cycling.”
Michael Anthony Ricciardi
April 4, 2007
(NOTE to reader: An edited version of this article was first published in the newsletter What We Now
Know, see www.caseyresearch.com, in September, 2004; 990 words)
MIND OVER MATTER (AT LAST)
By Michael Ricciardi
Successful experiments on monkeys with 'neural implants' showed that the primates could learn
to control a screen cursor and robotic arm with only their thoughts. Experiments with human
subjects are currently underway.
The day when humans will be able to control a computer or robot by just thinking is not far off.
Monkeys are already doing it!
In October of 2003, researchers at Duke University trained rhesus monkeys to manipulate a
computer screen cursor, and later, a robotic arm, by first using a joystick wired to a computer.
The monkeys received a reward of juice for moving the cursor correctly. A 'microwire' probe
implanted in the monkey's brains monitored the patterns of neural impulses in the monkey's
motor cortex--the region of our outer brains responsible for muscle movement and control. The
patterns were then matched with their corresponding motor action, such as grasping, pushing, or
pulling in a certain direction, and these were programmed into the system. Later, the joystick was
taken away. The monkeys at first continued to perform grasping movements with their hands as
the system transferred joystick control to its own brain-monitoring program. What followed,
according to lead researcher Dr. Miguel Nicolelis, was "an incredible moment" in the course of
this training when the monkeys realized that they could move the cursor on the screen simply by
thinking.
__________
Its all an ingenious bit of technological 'mind-reading' that holds quite real and practical
application possibilities for completely paralyzed patients, as well as those with Lou Gehrig's
disease, spinal cord injuries, and prosthetic limbs.
Indeed, the success of the Duke University monkey experiments has inspired a Massachusetts
company called Cyberkinetics Inc. to begin experiments with brain implants--called the
'BrainGate System'--in paralyzed humans. The trials, which commenced in May of 2004 with
FDA approval, hope to make thought-controlled computers a practical reality for a spectrum of
disabled people.
Implants in the brains of Parkinson's patients that deliver electrical impulses to reduce tremors
and rigidity have been in use for many years. The BrainGate implants, however, do not provide
current, but instead continuously monitor the patient's motor cortex regions to detect brain
activity associated with physical movement…
Despite the revolutionary promise of these experiments, there are a few critics. Such an invasive
procedure (implanting a chip in a patients brain) is not necessary, they say, and there are other
technologies, such as speech recognition and computer mouse 'emulators' (which convert
eye/head movement into computer commands), which can work fine in most cases. Further, these
latter technologies do not pose a risk of dislocation (of the implant), scarring (of tissue), or
infection. Adding additional support to the non-invasive camp is the electro-encephalography
system developed by Dr. Jonathan R. Wolpaw, which detects brain waves via sensors attached to
the scalp. Unique brain waves associated with a particular movement can still be discerned this
way, obviating the need for implants and wires sticking out of the brain.
But doctors Gerhard Friehs and John P. Donoghue, co-founders of Cyberkinetics Inc., assert that
these risks have been successfully dealt with in the monkey experiments and that their system
will perform better than previously tested systems. According to the company's researchers,
external sensor devices do not detect signals as clearly as electrode implants. Further, the
BrainGate microchip has one hundred electrodes--allowing for more precise information
collecting, and presumably, more dynamic 'thought control'.
___________.
Other researcher's have developed and are testing similar devices. One unique device, created by
Dr. Philip Kennedy of Neural Signals Inc., eliminates the risk of infection all together. Unlike
previous and current 'hard-wired' experiments (which leave a wire sticking out of the subject's
brain), Dr. Kennedy's device is wireless. Neural firing patterns are relayed via radio signals to the
computer control system, similar to how a wi-fi card allows your laptop to access the Internet.
Perhaps unintentionally, this feature also makes the paranormal effect of 'thought control' more
real, more dramatic.
Looking beyond these important, therapeutic applications, many technology observers foresee the
inevitable convergence of brain implants and wi-fi communications--with perhaps even a
collaboration between Cyberkinetics Inc. and Neural Signals Inc.--permitting a true revolution in
thought-controlled machines.
Further Reading: 'Neural Control of Movement' http://www.plos.org/news/pr_2003_pbio.html
______________________________________________________________________________
FROM: Would That It Were, A Journal of Historical Science Fiction,
www.wouldthatitwere.com, October, 2004, [now defunct]; full essay: 2800 words)
THE WORLD AS TESLA WOULD HAVE IT
Without doubt, Tesla was that rare type of creative genius who makes an enormously profound,
long-term mark on human culture--though such a mark would not be recognized fully until his
old age and seizure-addled brain had made him rather confused, no longer 'visionary', but
hallucinatory. Though famous in his time (he had a knack for provoking sensational headlines),
his true contributions to our technological age have only recently become more widely known.
Yet, despite many books and biographies, his life is still rife with mystery, intrigue, and
controversy.
_______
The reader may recall from history, that a tremendous rivalry existed between Tesla and Edison.
At times, the rivalry could get rather vicious. The two were critically aware of each other's work,
and egos. Was Thomas Edison (who was heavily involved with Federal energy/military
contracting) partly responsible for Tesla's lack of financial success? Alternately, had there been
no political obstacles to the US military contracting of Tesla's inventions, might they have been
exploited in horrific ways? Tesla, despite his numerous inventions for military applications
(intended to bring in enough money to fund his other work) was staunchly anti-war. He, like
many other scientists, held to the notion that if a weapon was 'horrible' enough (or a defense
strong enough), then all would see the futility/pointlessness of war, and abolish it forever. His
'Death Ray' was conceived with this purpose.
________
Tesla's greatest gift, and greatest shortcoming, was his far-sightedness. A visionary of the highest
order, Tesla saw perhaps too far ahead, and so, would not live to see his ideas utilized, or
appropriated. His far-sightedness may have created a 'blind spot' as well: Tesla made no provision
for the legal transference of his research papers, notes, and designs upon his death. Perhaps he
would have objected to the intended use of the HAARP array, but, like Einstein, Oppenheimer,
and Fermi, who implored the US government not to use the A-bomb on civilian populations, but
who saw there efforts ignored--would have had little control over its use, once
contracted/appropriated by the military.
_________
How would the world be different had Tesla's vision been shared by those with the means and the
power? Given the evidence of the historical record since 1900, perhaps it was a good thing that
someone as inventive as Tesla was not understood, or embraced, by those in power at the time.
One can easily imagine some megalomaniac--straight out of an Ian Fleming novel--appropriating
Tesla's inventions for his own nefarious, world domination scheme. Tesla's creative arrogance
and isolationist lifestyle may have saved the world from himself. I sometimes think that, in the
final analysis, the 'disappearance' of Tesla's papers/archives may have been the right thing--his
awe-inspiring applications doomed to bureaucratic oblivion. Then again, there is the HAARP
array.
Perhaps not now, but someday soon, human civilization will be ready to dust off Tesla's old
papers and view them with new eyes.
What discoveries await us then?
______________________________________________________________________________
[From: SCOPES Magazine {Seattle WA}, Pacific Northwest regional print, June 2004 issue (full
essay: 1942 words, with photos, sidebar):
"Play Two Symphonies and Call Me In The Morning."
Music As Medicine by Michael Ricciardi
For Pythagoras--the legendary, ancient Greek mystic-mathematician who gave us that famous
geometric theorem--music and mathematics where intimately connected. It was not simply the
mathematical basis of musical intervals, which he also discovered, that compelled him to assert
this. It was more fundamental. Each reflected and expressed the truth, beauty, and perfection of
the Cosmic Order. This 'perfection' manifested itself as 'the music of the spheres': the 'spheres'
being the sun, moon, and various planetary bodies, with their precise orbital motions, being the
'music'. Pythagoras believed that each planetary motion must produce a sound, and that the sum
of these sounds was a cosmological harmony.
Though today the issue of music's ability to "heal" is both fervently supported and contested,
Pythagoras, were he present to witness this debate, would no doubt be surprised that such a
purpose could ever be questioned. Sickness in his day was always a spiritual matter--or more
accurately, a 'metaphysical' matter. To be 'sick' was to be out of harmony with the Universe. The
proper music was obviously a means of restoring the ailing psyche to resonance with the Musica
Cosmologica…
Fast forward to the early 21st Century: having now evolved a far more complex understanding of
human sickness and wellness, we none the less come full circle. Our science and medicine are
undeniably powerful tools, yet wielding them has not eradicated disease, nor have they provided
the keys to complete wellness. The universally noted 'placebo effect' clearly implicates a
psychological component to healing. But how this effect works--how it translates from mind to
body--is still unclear. And so, into this great unknown rush the alternative therapy advocates,
including those who advocate music as a 'healing agent'.
Intuitively, we accept as true Shakespeare’s maxim: ‘music hath charms which doth soothe the
savage beast'. But is music more than simply soothing? What exactly is the scientific evidence
supporting claims to the healing properties of music?
Much of the evidence is anecdotal, or inconclusive. Music therapy proponents have, in the past,
made exaggerated claims and sometimes turned out to be charlatans, while other promising
research awaits more critical analysis and follow up study. The fact that music can produce a
physiological effect in the brain does not equate with a therapeutic effect in the body. Still, the
possibility warrants serious study.
The mysterious relationship between sound, mind, and physiology has engendered the new
science of psychoacoustics, which seeks to identify patterns of physiological responses to musical
stimuli, and thereby develop specific compositions and protocols for therapeutic applications. Its
practitioners have produced a great number of technological devices for administering 'sound
therapy', but such work has not ended the debate or established a definitive theoretical
framework.
--------------------------[End of published clips selection for M. Riccriardi]