Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the whtp domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/jojo1437/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Notice: Trying to get property 'geoplugin_countryCode' of non-object in /home/jojo1437/public_html/wp-content/plugins/page-visit-counter/public/class-page-visit-counter-public.php on line 227
Cosmology – John Hartley

Category: Cosmology

Posted on

What is a sub quantum physicist?

A sub quantum physicist looks at quantum information beyond the Higgs boson line. They also look at sub quantum physics related information emanating from quantum computing. Examples of this include this link and this link.

A description of one:

Quote:

“… A sub-quantum physicist is a physicist who explores theories and concepts that go beyond the standard quantum mechanics framework, often proposing new or alternative explanations for quantum phenomena. These physicists may explore concepts like hidden variables, emergent behavior, or alternative theories of space-time at a more fundamental level than quantum mechanics…”

“… A “sub-quantum physicist” or a physicist studying sub-quantum theory does not have a formal, widely recognized role in the physics field. However, it refers to physicists who explore theories and models that go beyond the realm of established quantum mechanics, attempting to understand the underlying principles and dynamics that might govern sub-quantum phenomena. These physicists may explore concepts like sub-quantum kinetics or hidden variables, seeking to explain quantum phenomena without relying solely on the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Here’s a more detailed explanation:

What is “sub-quantum” in this context?

It refers to theories that propose a deeper level of reality beneath the standard quantum world, where quantum particles and their interactions are explained by underlying processes or structures.

These theories often involve the idea of “hidden variables” or “pilot waves,” which are not explicitly part of standard quantum mechanics but are proposed to be influencing the behavior of quantum particles.

Some examples of sub-quantum theories include Subquantum Kinetics, a theory proposed by Paul LaViolette. Source

Why do physicists explore sub-quantum theories?

To address the measurement problem:

Quantum mechanics has a "measurement problem," which is the difficulty in explaining how quantum systems evolve from a probabilistic superposition to a definite measurement outcome.

To explain quantum entanglement:

Sub-quantum theories sometimes offer alternative explanations for the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, where two particles can be correlated in a way that seems instantaneous across space.

To seek a more complete theory of everything:

Some researchers believe that a sub-quantum theory could potentially provide a more fundamental explanation for the laws of nature, unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity.

Key points about sub-quantum physics:

Not mainstream physics. Sub-quantum theories are not widely accepted as part of mainstream physics, but they are an area of ongoing research and exploration.

Often speculative:

These theories are often speculative and may not have strong experimental support.

Driven by intellectual curiosity:

Sub-quantum physicists are often motivated by the desire to understand the fundamental nature of reality and the laws that govern the universe…”.

Sub quotes to above:

“… Sub-quantum physics” refers to theories that propose a deeper reality beneath the standard model of quantum mechanics, suggesting a more fundamental level of reality where quantum phenomena might arise as emergent properties. While not part of the mainstream scientific understanding, some researchers explore these ideas as potential explanations for phenomena that quantum mechanics alone doesn’t fully address…”

“…Sub-quantum physics” refers to theories and ideas that explore the nature of reality below the level of quantum mechanics, often involving the concept of hidden variables or alternative explanations for quantum phenomena. These theories attempt to describe the fundamental processes underlying quantum mechanics, potentially explaining phenomena like wave function collapse, entanglement, and other perplexing quantum behaviors…”

Ideas relating to the quotes above include:

“Implications of a deeper level explanation of the deBroglie-Bohm version of quantum mechanics”, link here.

Also see this link and this link.

I consider myself to be one.

Posted on

A comparison of three models of physics


Raymond Awareness ModelCahill Process Physics ModelBohm/Hiley Model

1
At its deepest level, reality consists of awareness and everything that we can perceive and observe consists of patterns of information in that awareness.
Process Physics models physical space and quantum phenomena as patterns of information within a stochastic neural network. If this model corresponds to reality, then everything that we can perceive and observe would consist of patterns of information in such a network, which though infinite in size, is conceptually simple.

In the the Bohm/Hiley model, the observable level of reality of matter and space emerges from a lower level that consists of relationships involving processes, activity and movement. The sum total of all such relations is called the holomovement.

2
In the beginning, the awareness may have contained no patterns of information, but if so, we can suppose it had a capacity to create random patterns.
In the beginning, the network may have contained no patterns of information, but as a stochastic network, it would have a capacity to continuously create random patterns.
Bohm has written,”each relatively autonomous and stable structure is to be understood not as something independently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and what will ultimately dissolve back into this movement.”


3
As random patterns were created, a proportion would have had structures that would allow them to be linked into more complex patterns. We can suppose that the awareness allowed this to occur and that complex patterns could better persist than the simpler ones.

As random patterns were created, a proportion would have had structures that would allow them to be linked into more complex patterns. Feedback in such a network allows this to occur and allows complex patterns that link to others to better persist than simpler ones.

The above would imply that the universe as we know it emerged from and is being sustained by the holomovement.

4
Then over time patterns could emerge and evolve of increasing complexity.

Then over time patterns can emerge and evolve of increasing complexity. Computer simulation of a particular network was found to predominately generate 3 dimensional patterns that could be identified as an expanding 3 dimensional space and with other more highly linked patterns corresponding to quantum matter.

David Bohm also introduced the notion of Active Information. His idea was to use the activity of information as a way of explaining the actual nature of quantum processes.
Active information would inherently have the ability to form patterns of information of increasing complexity.

Raymond Awareness ModelCahill Process Physics ModelBohm/Hiley Model

5
We suppose this eventually led to a set of patterns with the right features to produce the universe in which we find ourselves.

Eg. replication of patterns responsible for creating 3 dimensional space could produce the phenomenon of a universe expanding from a big bang.

Evolution of patterns could then eventually lead to patterns with the right features to produce the universe in which we find ourselves.

Eg. replication of patterns responsible for creating 3 dimensional space could produce the phenomenon of a universe expanding from a big bang.
Then active information within the holomovement could lead to patterns with the right features to produce the universe in which we find ourselves.
Eg. replication of patterns responsible for creating 3 dimensional space could produce the phenomenon of a universe expanding from a big bang.

6
We cannot perceive or observe anything outside our universe, however if physical objects consist of patterns of information within a deeper level of awareness, then that awareness might constitute a kind of fourth dimension.

We cannot perceive or observe anything outside our universe, however if physical objects consist of patterns of information within a deeper network then that network might constitute a kind of fourth dimension.
We cannot perceive or observe anything outside our universe, however if physical objects consist of patterns of information within the holomovement then the latter might constitute a kind of fourth dimension.

7
After dying the patterns of information corresponding to our physical body must fade away. But how about the patterns of information corresponding to our mental activity? Could they continue to persist within the deeper level awareness even after our physical body no longer exists?

After dying the patterns of information corresponding to our physical body must fade away. But how about the patterns of information corresponding to our mental activity? Could they continue to persist within the deeper network even after our physical body no longer exists?
After dying the patterns of information corresponding to our physical body must fade away. But how about the patterns of information corresponding to our mental activity? Could they continue to persist within the holomovement even after our physical body no longer exists?

8
Is our personal awareness linked to or produced by the deeper awareness?

Is our personal awareness produced by the deeper network and if so is the deeper network also in some sense aware?

Is our personal awareness produced by the holomovement and if so is the holomovement also in some sense aware?

Also see this link and this link.

Posted on

The words implicit and explicit seem to describe all that “IS”

Demonstrating that in my opinion the words explicit and implicit describe all that ‘IS’.

You will see from other posts that new physics experiments show us different ways in which to think about holistic reality and our relationship with it. This is more especially so with Bohm’s physics theories.

I originally wrote this story as a first draft. This was around six years ago. I never intended for it to be made public. Today, however, I am of the opinion that some ideas contained within it are worthy of wider consideration. This includes by laypersons of which I am a learner-member too. If I were to re write it I would assemble and describe its contents differently. This includes by me employing Bohm’s last Infinite Potential ideas. This is before before he died in 1992. These Infinite Potential considerations are also included in other posts through out my website.

Note: This post is best understood if it is combined with my post entitled “A sub quantum analogy relating to a better understanding of cosmic reality“

Link to story

Posted on

Is it possible that a day existed in which some important elements of physics theory lost their way?

Note: I reviewed this post in April 2025. I note that its contents also mirror the information in my post: “Somethings for you to consider in respect to Einstein’s two relativity theories“. I believe they should be considered in conjunction with each other. This is as well as my later post.

An unusual physics story that you may care to consider. Sometimes there are stories within stories within the science community. The link below demonstrates this point.

Link to the stories within the story

Posted on

Somethings for you to consider in respect to Einstein’s two relativity theories

An informational search-and-find task for adventurous physics thinkers

Note: I reviewed this post in April 2025. I still broadly agree with what I have written. However, in my readers interest I suggest that you look at this latest post relating to this subject. There is a small degree of overlap.

You will need to do most of the heavy lifting with respect to the information that I am providing for you today. I am merely providing you with scientific clues for you to ponder about and draw your own conclusions.

  1. I ask you to consider this question. Was the 1887 Michelson and Morley (M and M) ether experiment a null result or not? Conservative physicists say it was, and more open-minded (liberal thinking) physicists say it was not. These latter scientists say the results were inconclusive. Entrenched attitudes by both sides of this physics argument divide remain unto this day. There is extensive material to be found on line. This is if you care to follow the happenings relating to this debate from 1920 onwards. Keep in mind that the merits or otherwise of Einstein’s Special Relativity theory at that time hinged upon whether the M and M results were null or not!
  1. Also consider this. In 1926, and for a period of around three years the highly acclaimed American physicists Dayton Miller demonstrated that it was likely that the original Michelson and Morley experimental results were not null. He showed from extensive measuring methods over the period, and with more sophisticated measuring equipment that M and M had in 1887, that the earth was moving through ‘something’. This might be likened to the ether that M and M were looking for in 1887. However, Miller’s new results were dismissed by his peers. This is because they allegedly found flaws in his conclusions. The reason for this is Miller could not fully explain what was happening for him to record the types of results that he did. There is extensive on line material about this debate.
  1. I believe that the following contemporary physics results also need to be considered by you with respect to the possible existence of some type of ether in the universe or not. In contemporary times it has been scientifically demonstrated that the earth is moving through ‘something’ at the rate of 502 k/ms per second. Random Event Generator devices have measured this speed of travel of the earth. These findings have been confirmed by other means as well such as those devised by Cahill and his associates. Importantly, these contemporary readings confirm those earlier determined by Dayton Miller. This is as discussed above. For example see the paper ‘Perth-Muenster REG-REG Correlations: Remarkable New Evidence for Dynamical Space’ presented by Morris and the associated mathematical results therefrom entitled ‘Estimating 3-Space Velocity from REG-REG Correlations’ also posted by Morris. Both of these informational results were determined by means of the cited international Random Event Generator devices.
  1. I feel that you should also consider the little known physics lecture delivered by Einstein in Berlin in 1920 entitled Ether and the Theory of Relativity with respect to the existence of ‘something’ in space that Einstein refers to as ‘ether’. If you read this paper you will note that Einstein says that without an ether theory his theory of General Relativity would not work (especially see the last summarising paragraph). Einstein also said on two subsequent occasions later in his career that:-

Quotes:

(both from the same source)

A. “..My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory. — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925”

B. “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error (they weren’t). Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)” ((I italicised)

If this is the case then perhaps we should consider if ether must be a key component of Einstein’s General Relativity model. If so, then why does Einstein’s Special Relativity theory depend on there being no ether for it to work? Can the universe have both some sort of ether and no ether at the same time? Do you think that there might be some form of contradiction of Einstein theories here? I suggest not. This is if both theories are “embraced” within a separate cosmic continuum. This is outlined in the Infinite Potential theory.

I hope that my few words today might contribute towards you further developing your own ideas about how “things” might come together and work in the manner that they do. This is in the wider universe around us. As I have suggested, it is important for you to know that both of Einstein’s relativity theories are NOT wrong! They are incomplete. I understand from my readings that a (dynamic) common ether like reference frame between both of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity models would ‘fix’ the alleged physics dilemma that I have asked you to consider.

You will find my position in this link and this link.

Good hunting!

Posted on

Remarkable evidence that universal entanglement theory in physics is real (all things in it are somehow connected to each other)

Why recent physics experiments with respect to non-locality (entanglement) are likely to change the nature and style of scientific research forever

These two experiments demonstrate that all “things” in the universe act in a coordinated way even though no force passes through the space between them. These words strongly imply that the universe is aware of itself and furthermore the conditions at the time of the Big Bang were without time and non-local as well.

Link to the story

Posted on

Is the earth moving through a fluid like ether. Has this been considered by some physicists for centuries?

I believe that it is. A statement with respect to the 1887 Michelson and Morley Ether experiment seem to support these words. It remains a universally contentious debate to this day.

I believe that you will find that the information contained in the following document is challenging. It questions certain contemporary physics beliefs. As a layperson I have conducted a great deal of research in respect to this topic. As you would expect I have critics.

I had a cursory re-look at this post in May 2025. With the benefit of hindsight I would not write such a document in the manner that I have. However, I feel that my readers should seriously look at information relating to Dayton Miller. Also see my latest post relating to this subject.

The document

Posted on

A quick look at our universe and what might be the natural order of things within it.

I mostly discuss this topic in relation to clock time and what the natural order of the universe might be in relationship to entropy physics theory

All ‘things’ and associated events in the universe are subject to the process of change. Material things and events both change and decay. In both instances they change without time, because clocks change and decay too. * Thoughts, patterns of thoughts, intuition and alleged clairvoyance are everyday examples of phenomena without time. Protons in light have no rest energy (mass) and so they can also be seen to be without time (travel for ever) unless they somehow interact with ‘something’ along the way.

These words imply that all change and decay of things and events (all objects and associated influences and effects such as cutting and slicing an apple) in the universe are somehow related to some type of ‘hidden’ laws within it. By this I mean that the universe does have predictable ‘order’ within it and this is despite that all things and events are interacting with each other in ever-differing averages, densities and ratios with each other. This is in respect to not only each other but also the universe itself as a single reference frame. I suggest by this that the biggest objects (like Galaxies) and ‘bundles’ of various energy types in the universe seem to mostly get along quite well with the smallest objects in the universe such as quantum particles.

Because clocks are perpetually changing and decaying too this means that these differing averages, densities and ratios cannot be accurately observed or measured by an observer. This includes attempting to measure the speed of light with such clocks because of the process of change and decay with them as well. This is an implicit (mysterious) observable scientific paradox in science. This scientific paradox is further complicated (reduced to being chaotic) by the ever-changing condition of the universe wherein energy types and their associated, influences and effects are forever changing as well. It also should be kept in mind with these universal changes that observers similarly change and decay within the reference frame (system) of the universe too. These words then question as to how accurate can a changing and decaying observer, employing a changing and decaying clock accurately observe and measure changing and decaying things and events in the universe. I suggest that the best they can do so is to randomly do so as best they can.

I see this difficulty as being a significant failing in contemporary scientific research and discovery

In other words there appears to be no reliable mechanical mechanism that can indefinitely measure the process of decay and change of things and events in the universe unless the universe has a determinable (by clocks) some sort of end time. Unless scientists can determine a specific end time (a time reference frame) for the universe then this seems to raise a difficult question. which is:- what type of reference frame are all things and events in the universe changing and decaying in relationship to except to each other? You cannot successfully observe, analyze and count a two hundred-liter sealed barrel containing hundreds of different types and colors of small swimming fish let alone with no barrel at all.

Furthermore if a single proton is capable of traveling forever (unless it ‘hits’ something in its journey) then this suggests to me that the universe might simply be a without time, non-materialistic, nothing reference frame. In other words I am implying that nothing except perhaps an indeterminable (like the hidden rules of nature) stochastic** neural network type of ‘nothing’ reference frame that we could never observe and measure in the first place. This is although it might be mathematically demonstrated to be otherwise.

Could this nothing, however, be aware of itself as well as all things and events taking place within itself in this course of events in this process and does not need mechanical devices such as clocks in order to do so? I believe that this is the case.

*This notion of decay/change can be mathematically demonstrated by means of employing entropy theory in physics. Entropy theory in science explains Quote: “… the lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder…”) Source

** Quote: “…Having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely…” (ex Wikipedia).

John Raymond
10th April 2019