|
|
|
|
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 6:09:07 PM | I love this thread.
I have to re read some posts. English is not my first language.
This link, may be of interest for many of you.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
It is well made and it does try to, how can I say, unite the infinitaly big with the infinitaly small. (It is interesting to see the evolution of the great theories, throughout time. )
My research, a hobby really, took be to the world of fractals.
I know a little bit about this. I just love the art part.
I have an artistic side and in my paintings, without knowing it, I was sort of painting in the fractal way.
Very abstract art with taking a little part of the original picture and doing similar parterns and so on and so on. Of course I was not accurate but this is how I painted.
You also find fractals, not pure ones, in nature.
I am trying to make a link with the notion of the infinitaly small to the infinitaly big. I think like some of the people I have read that somehow there is a connection that we cannot grasp to link the two extremes. Anyway... fascinating to me.
Like I say, I have to re-read some posts and structure my ideas.
Here is the visual side of the famous Mandelbrot set done in animation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_GBwuYuOOs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esingleminds%2Eca%2Fviewtopic%2Ephp%3Ff%3D93%26t%3D1018&feature=player_embedded
Hope the link works...
I could be completely off but I just have this little itch that I cannot scratch taking me in that direction...
 | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 6:24:44 PM | I need to share this before my idea disapears...
Fractals are like zooming in a picture. With powerful computers we can zoom in a "picture" that becomes bigger than the universe. Imagine zooming into a picture in an infinite way. Mathematically it is possible, I mean to calculate zooming in for ever.
Here is the formula that I hope is accurate.
f(n) = f(n) * f(n) + c or f(n)^2 + c
(This site explains the formula if any of you are interested.
http://oak.kcsd.k12.pa.us/~projects/fractal/what2.html)
It is the recursion law.
This specific equation will create a fractal known as the Julian set.
Anyway... cool stuff...
For those of you who wish to understand a little more... Enjoy... Easy to understand.
The colours of infinity... Amazing... there are 6 series in the form of youtube vidéos... It is fun to watch and very easy to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB8m85p7GsU&feature=related
| |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 6:46:25 PM |
I am not familiar with any measurement system that uses radiance to measure temperature; so although there are models which might substitute hue, saturation, and intensity for more arbitrary color models, I am pretty sure we are still looking at color temperature on the Kelvin scale to define the emission spectra which produce the wavelengths we perceive as color.
I could be misunderstanding you; what do you have against clocks with hands? Emission spectra can be put into Kelvin however the electron volt is handy; as you point out the wavelength of a photon is directly related to the temperature; so I have to ask, what wavelength do you know of that isn’t a function of sin theta? | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 7:09:35 PM | Just pointing out that wavelengths are not dependent upon clocks having hands.
Wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.
So far, no 'aliens from the Pleidies' posts; so we must all be doing something right. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 7:46:29 PM | Isn't it possible that there is no proof of mulitple dimensions in the multiverse because the math to support proof of this has not been discovered?
After all how much did we know before calculus was developed and refined?
The simple answer is that as humans we are graced with curiosity and imagination, what makes us right or wrong is the math that supports the credibility for a hypothesis and the experiment to prove it correct or incorrect.
Stephan hawkins hypothesis that black holes existed was not believed until the math supported the hypothesis then a black hole was found !
And it is thought that the normal laws of physics don't apply in the center of a black hole anyway so in essence a new science is waiting to be discovered to explain how matter reacts in the center of a black hole, much like results from a search engine, we are not using the correct parameters to find the answers we are looking for.
Same with Enstein's theory of relativity,it was a hypothesis, he then discovered the equation and realized that without proof his theory was not accepted. Wasn't until clear photos were taken of an eclipse that his hypothesis was proven correct albeit with still unclarified applications yet to be discovered and proven.
I prefer to keep an open mind and will be surprised to find what i have discovered.......
Just my 2 cents. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 11:09:43 PM |
There is a school of thought around embodied knowledge. If we fully embraced and embodied the concepts around quantum physics and mechanics, what would our relationship look like with the world around us? Does intelligence/knowledge have an impact on behavior/morality? If so, how does that take shape? (I apologize, I tend to go off on tangents.)
It absolutely has to. If you knew nothing of all the babies you just killed in an alternate world by typing those two front-slashes, you'd do it again and again with no regard for the destruction of those lives. On the other hand, if you knew about such a thing, you'd likely avoid front-slashes like the plague! Obviously this is an example based on hyperbole, but it makes things clear, doesn't it? :)
Btw, following tangents can lead you to many unexpected and exciting places. Go bravely with the knowledge that you can always turn around if you don't like where you're heading.
First, I would hold the argument (along the lines of Bergson) that time is not a dimension of space; because what we call dimensional space has the characteristic of varying by degrees of difference (so that, if you divide up a length, and breadth, or a width the difference you get is a degree of what you started with in that measure is always a more or a less of something). Time, by contrast, has the distinct characteristic of varying by kind: the distinctions we make between ‘kinds of things’ are experimentally based on their perceivable and historic occurrence, and this is a distinction which is very different than that of measurable degree.
Oh ho... Okay, these degrees require two dimensions in order to exist. There is no degree in a line other than 0 or 180. In a plane, we get the circle of degrees, 0-360 and everything in between. In an volume, you can even have steradians*, or "solid angles" May I suggest that if you view time as a line, not unlike "length", "width" or "breadth", then you would be able to differentiate degrees between them with degrees, steradians and the elongated solid angle, which has no name as far as I know.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steradian
Oh - 'degree' as in "greater or lesser, in measure" not 'degrees' as in a specific unit of measure (temperature or angle)
Ah. I'm thinking you could still measure time in "greater or lesser degrees" by measuring time as a variable. It's certainly not constant. If someone was moving close to the speed of light, they might percieve that they've "taken their own time with them", but in reality, it's only that everything they do is slower, including transmit between cerebral synapses. This person would be said to have "more" time because anything they did would take years of "our" time. Better, you could compare anything moving between 0 and C by saying that at 0 velocity, you have 0, or a minimum amount of time. At C, you would have infinite time, or the maximum amount of time. Hm! I'll be damned... With that information plus the "elongated steradian" idea, one might be able to visualise an outside viewer's perspective of 4-space, being able to compensate for a particle's velocity!
but our visual space is in fact curved (he states)
You can confirm this by the fact that our retinas are attached to the inside of a sphere.
Fractals are like zooming in a picture. With powerful computers we can zoom in a "picture" that becomes bigger than the universe. Imagine zooming into a picture in an infinite way. Mathematically it is possible, I mean to calculate zooming in forever.
As a matter of fact, your computer is quite capable of doing exactly that. Look up this program: XaoS. http://wmi.math.u-szeged.hu/xaos/doku.php
Isn't it possible that there is no proof of mulitple dimensions in the multiverse because the math to support proof of this has not been discovered?
Quite the contrary. A lot of these models are based entirely on mathematics. Matrices are a simple way of describing and transforming Nth dimensional functions that would be impossible to imagine. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/19/2009 11:46:04 PM | Sorry, allow me to expand:
Quite the contrary. A lot of these models are based entirely on mathematics. Matrices are a simple way of describing and transforming Nth dimensional functions that would be impossible to imagine. In other words, it is only our inability to use that math effectively enough that holds us back from proving multiple dimensions. That, and we've never directly observed them either. As a result, these proofs are very good to be beyond common sense and common mathematical techniques, even though they may technically be found using the same class of math (linear algebra, in this case). | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/20/2009 12:00:02 AM | Eureka! What if we were moving along the time axis in 4 space at a given speed (C?), but there is no 3-d object that can interact with another 3-d object in the 4th dimension? We'd continue our journey through time uninterrupted, via inertia. We can assume we're only able to carry so much inertia/energy because we are fixed masses, and inertia is proportional to matter and energy. By moving quickly in 3-space, we have to slow down in time because we'd have too much energy and expand in mass because M=E/C^2
Holy crap!
Omg, I figured it out... Time is not continuous, just as space isn't either. Plank lengths. If we're zooming at C, time would be expressed as a rapid shift from one frame to another. Does this explain the fine structure constant? O_O
If we were slowing down in time for one reason or another (time friction?), the speed of light would have to decrease, right? If plank lengths are constant, then alpha (fine structure constant) would be decreasing over the course of eons... Does this help reconcile some theories that alpha wasn't always 1/147? | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/20/2009 4:38:15 AM | Interesting observations TheCoffeeSan.
Einstein seems to have observed that our whole planetary system is "sitting" on what he calls the fabric of time.
The link I presented a few posts above explains it well.
Image our whole planetary system sort of sitting on a blanket. Sort of imagine stretching out a blanket and having someone hold it at each end. Then, put balls of difference weight and sizes on it. It will affect the blanket. I mean it will not stay flat.
The balls will naturally go towards the middle. If this blanket has a center that is the biggest and heaviest ball, (our sun) , it affects the whole situation by creating gravitational pull.
I am not sure I have the right english words to express this. Then there is, what do you call, the planets all orbiting around the sun while sitting on fabric of time.
We do not see the fourth dimension because we are in it. -->My way of understanding it.
Example, a fish in a fish bowl, can see outside the bowl and is able to live in his fish bowl but he can only see parts of the fish bowl, not the whole bowl itself.
I am rambling but I find it interesting.
--------------------------------------------------
Also, I remember when I was in university, I "played" with Einstein's equation.
M=E/C^2... I could be wrong but me and my friends noticed that when we are "close" to the speed of light, according to his formula, time "slows" down and if we reach exactly the speed of light, time apprears to stop and if we surpass the speed of light, time appears to go backwards.
This we could do mathematically, but of course, cannot be proven and also there is always the possibility of making errors while decomposing and playing with the formula.
---------------------------------
An amusing fun thing to see. We can sort of "see" a fourth dimension.
Go play on this link. It is interesting and fun.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/math-flash.html
Multidimensional Math... It demonstrates through mathematics the ability to "see" a fourth dimension.
| |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/20/2009 7:56:25 AM |
Anyone care to waste some time with me, discussing that which we cannot see?
Anything which can have no physical effect on anything in this universe, does not exist, by definition. If it can have an effect on something in this universe, then by definition, it is possible, in principle, to create an experiment to measure it, since by definition, such an effect constitues an experiment. Any other musings are just navel contemplation. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:21:24 AM | Stephan hawkins hypothesis that black holes existed was not believed until the math supported the hypothesis then a black hole was found !
That's not true. Karl Schwarzschild published the solution for what is now called the Schwarzschild black hole, in 1915, the same year as general relativity. It was probably the first exact solution to the field equations ever found (except perhaps a universe with no matter in it). At that time, the difference between a coordinate singularity and true curvature singularity was not understood and in the original paper, Schwarzschild refers to the horizon as a singularity (which it is not, except in the coordinates he used to obtain the solution). The solution was considered unphysical until Chandrasekar (around 1930) showed that there was a limit to the mass of a collapsing star above which the star could not avoid complete gravitational collapse. Einstein did not want to accept this, but died before the so-called ``golden age'' of general relativity in which Hawking showed that given certain conditions, satisfied by what are considered physically reasonable space times, singularities MUST form. (Hawking's singularity theorem).
BTW - theories are never proven. Theories are only tested and considered viable for the regime in which they've been tested. It's not possible to prove a theory true. However it is possible (and correct) to say that a theory which is shown to be valid in a given regime explains the phenomena in that regime as well as any other theory could, since any ``better'' theory MUST obviously get the same correct answers. That makes it easy to say at what level any unknown phenomena can arise. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/20/2009 8:58:39 AM |
BTW - theories are never proven. Theories are only tested and considered viable for the regime in which they've been tested. It's not possible to prove a theory true. However it is possible (and correct) to say that a theory which is shown to be valid in a given regime explains the phenomena in that regime as well as any other theory could, since any ``better'' theory MUST obviously get the same correct answers. That makes it easy to say at what level any unknown phenomena can arise.
Very true. And we cannot discount the impact of the observer on the observation or the observed...
On another note. Perhaps time is a construct of our imagination, in an attempt to organize the senses and our experiential relationship with our surroundings. It is subjective after all, since the experience of time passes differently for each individual being...
"The bees exist in their own time. The flowers exist in their own time. The birds exist in their own time..."
-from the movie "Antonia's Line"
If time and space define our existence, does experience give breadth to that same existence?
When we say "universal thought", are we not saying that these are concepts that we happen to agree with?
So if we use the term "multiversal thought", what would that look like? | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/20/2009 11:51:32 AM | If time and space define our existence, does experience give breadth to that same existence?
Good question... Here are some ideas I have on this.
1- Time and space existed for thousands of years before I was born. It will surely exist for thousands of years after I am dead. So, my experiences, while I am "stuck" in a sack of guts and bones, will remain in this four dimensional world where my body is subjected to it constantly. Therefore, my experience with all my three brains and my fives senses are designed to be functional in this four dimensional world that we are in now.
By the by, I do have a soft spot for my reptilian brain. It rocks and I must say it is the most efficient one to make sure I stay alive and remain intact with all my limbs. The idea of fight of flight has always appealed to me... Anyway... I digress.
2- Time... the variable that no one seems to be able to control or manipulate. We work around it, we use it for everything, from waking up in the morning to baking a cake to celebrate special occasions... etc. etc. etc.
We are born a certain time and we will all die at a certain time. I do not want to sound depressive but I do sometimes have a warped way of seeing things in life. For example, my SO other was diagnosed with a terminal desease and he said: " I will most certainly die." I said... "Will, we will all for certain most certainly die. What are you saying?" He just looked at me and burst out laughing and said... "I love it when you do shit like that." Anyway... bless his soul...
All this to say that I used to see time in a linear way sort of like a time line. Now, I think it is not a time line nor a coordinate. There is "something" else that we perhaps have not identified. I sort of "feel" like time is more like a sphere and this sphere has a set of rules designed to enable our universe to function in a certain way.
Time does affect our baggage of experience. I mean some memories I have are etched in my brain because at the time it happened it was a significant moment for me.
3- Light... The energy from the sun is affected by time also. Our sun is middle aged. It will in many many moons from now die.
What I find interesting to look at is the speed of light. The best example I was given to understand the idea of speed of light is one second you are on the moon. It goes that fast. (Note the relationship between time and speed.)
Now, I have no idea what happens to time at that speed. But what I find fascinating is that when I gaze at the sky it is like looking at yesterday's newspaper. We are all marvelling at old news. Once the rays of light can be seen and goodness knows how far it came from (perhaps thousands of light years away), it is very very old news once we "see" it.
My memory escapes me but I believe it takes something like 5 minutes or maybe a little less for the rays of sun to "reach" our planet. The sun is far from us. If it were closer we would fry and if it were farther we would freeze.
Anywyay... All this to say that I am fascinated by the speed of light.
All this to say that we are deeply affected by time and space and the accumulation of our collective experiences are a series of events that were triggered by trial and error always learning about this particular place in time in this four dimensional world.
Anyway... interesting question... | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/20/2009 11:16:09 PM | Anything which can have no physical effect on anything in this universe, does not exist, by definition. If it can have an effect on something in this universe, then by definition, it is possible, in principle, to create an experiment to measure it, since by definition, such an effect constitues an experiment. Any other musings are just navel contemplation. Let's see... By contemplating one's own navel and discussing things that don't exist, aren't those things altering our interactions by virtue of not existing? By your own words, that makes things that don't exist possible to experiment on. 
Time... the variable that no one seems to be able to control or manipulate. We work around it, we use it for everything, from waking up in the morning to baking a cake to celebrate special occasions... etc. etc. etc. I'm not so sure about that... We can't control or manipulate 3-space much either. We can move round inside of it, but we can't bend an axis of space to our desires. If we could, we'd be able to do jumping like quantum tunneling. As for time, we can't bend it either, but we can control our velocity through it by virtue of our own velocity or gravitational presence (gravity fields affect time too). We just can't switch directions for some reason... | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/21/2009 10:50:31 AM |
Let's see... By contemplating one's own navel and discussing things that don't exist, aren't those things altering our interactions by virtue of not existing?
No, it only proves you went out of your way to miss the point in order to play games with semantics. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/21/2009 10:18:08 PM | Let's see... By contemplating one's own navel and discussing things that don't exist, aren't those things altering our interactions by virtue of not existing? No, it only proves you went out of your way to miss the point in order to play games with semantics. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/21/2009 10:56:22 PM |
If Einstein had figured that seeing the Earth in a giant rubber sheet was mere navel gazing, we'd be living in a different world.
Which has nothing to do with my original comment. General relativity is well established through real measurements. However, as an aside on the rubber sheet you mention, Einstein certainly did not see the Earth as it's depicted in that analogy. That analogy is used to convey the concept of curvature to lay audiences and is, in fact, incorrect in that the earth's trajectory around the sun is not due to the space-space components of the curvature, but the time-space components. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/21/2009 11:08:31 PM | Fair enough, but it was indeed Einstein that said “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Thanks for the corrections, btw. Mind looking at my ramble a few posts up about the fine structure content idea? I have this feeling that I could be on to something, but it's not quite solidified yet? I don't know, it's weird. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/22/2009 2:08:40 AM |
It has been debated that there are five. Within those five, a multitude can occur. Tesseract.
I strongly doubt, for mathematical reasons, that there can be universes with other than 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32. That's because these tuples form numbers that are particularly good for forming algebras. Specifically, real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions, octonions, sedenions, and the last I can't remember the name, respectively. These are sometimes called post-Hamiltonian numbers (not to be confused the the Hamiltonian operator), because Hamilton discovered the quaternion. He was looking for a successor to complex numbers.
These numbers just seem to fit in a natural way things we see in the universe. Quaternions, for example, provide a much more natural representation of relativity than the more traditional [1, 1, 1, -1] metric vector/tensor representation. The things that you have to remember in relativity (like subtracting instead of adding the time squared term in the Pythagorean Theorem), just fall out naturally from quaternion space. Also, when you use unit quaternions to represent rotations, you get something counterintuitive but actually accurate from them: there are two representations for every apparent orientation. But they are different, and this has a lot of implications for spin theory. You can think of them in terms of tangling. Tape a ribbon on one side to a table, and the other side to a ball. If you rotate the ball 360 degrees, the ribbon will be twisted. However, if you rotate the ball another 360 degrees, in any direction, you can untwist the ribbon. It might appear at first to be doubly twisted, but you can undo that twist by passing the ribbon around the ball. Do try this at home. It's kind of fun.
Now, it's fairly obvious that this universe has no fewer than 4 dimensions. If it had 5, then it should have at least 8, and if 9 then at lest 16. Fortunately, it ends at 32. It's been proved that there are no more numbers like this.
However, I'm not sure what any of this dimension stuff has to do with a multiverse. There are a couple of different ways in which people use the term. One is in the cosmological sense, to represent the idea of multiple universes being produce say, from colliding branes, or spawned from a parent universe by means of a black hole. Another is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where new universes are splitting off all the time whenever a particle zigs or zags and whenever something else interacts with it. This is nice, because it avoids the "wavefunction collapse" of the Von Neumann interpretation (inaccurately called the Copenhagen interpretation) and the nonlocality of interpretations like Bohm's. Even more challenging is that of the entanglement/decoherence people (I'm one of them) who hold that many universes exist, not out there, but actually in the same one that we constantly experience. Trouble with that one is that we have to give up any idea of absolute, classical, realism. That makes people's brains hurt. (Fortunately, I like it when my brain hurts. It's a good kind of pain.)
To think about this one, consider the Shroedinger's cat thought experiment. (I knew someone who was afraid of looking this up, because she's an animal lover. I assured her than no cats were harmed in the experiment.) The idea here is that you take one of those weird quantum thingies that don't appear to be causal, like the decay of a single radioactive atom. You put one of those and a detector in a box. If the detector fires, then a little hammer drops onto a vial of poison gas. You put a cat in the box, so that if the poison is released, the cat dies.
Traditional quantum theory (that is, before the relativistic quantum field theories) would state that the cat would be in a superposition of two states, alive and dead, at least until the box is opened. Presumably, when the box is opened, you could tell whether the cat is alive or dead, for sure. Shroedinger posed this problem to show how ludicrous these ideas are. (Trouble is that there does not seem to be a way of making them non-ludicrous). In the many-worlds interpretation, the universe splits off into two (actually more, but we can think of two): one where the cat is alive, and another where the cat is dead. Other people say that the cat is the observer, and what matters is that the cat's dying (and, for that matter, the vial breaking and the hammer falling) are, unlike the decay of the atom, thermodynamically irreversible transactions, and that's where the collapse happens.
The decoherence people, like me, are weirder. We argue that nothing really happens, that the cat remains in a superposition of states, both alive and dead, even after the box is opened. It's just that our brains become entangled with the state of the cat, such that we agree with the cat. Either the cat is alive and we think it's alive, or the cat is dead and we think it's dead, or both, but there is no way of telling in an absolute sense which.
There's a way of thinking about this classically. Let's posit an omnipotent god. Let's say that the cat dies, and you know it's dead. Let's say that the god resurrects the cat and also edits your memories such that you remember the cat as always alive. Would you be able to tell the difference? No, of course not. And then the god kills the cat again, and edits your memories such that the you remember the cat as dead. Now imagine this happening thousands of times a second, back and forth. You still wouldn't be able to detect anything going wrong. That would be a rather capricious god, but reality is a ****. | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/22/2009 2:13:44 AM |
Which has nothing to do with my original comment. General relativity is well established through real measurements. However, as an aside on the rubber sheet you mention, Einstein certainly did not see the Earth as it's depicted in that analogy. That analogy is used to convey the concept of curvature to lay audiences and is, in fact, incorrect in that the earth's trajectory around the sun is not due to the space-space components of the curvature, but the time-space components.
Yeah, I hate that rubber sheet analogy.
It is right in one way with respect to purely spatial curvature. The diameter of an orbit through the sun, just spatially measured, is different from what you would get by taking the circumference and dividing by pi.
But that idea of a ball rolling around on the sheet because of the purely spatial distortion is like what Mickey said to the psychiatrist: "I didn't say Minnie was crazy. I said she was f*cking Goofy!" | |
|
| Thoughts on a multiversal/universal perspective?
Posted: 7/22/2009 2:28:01 AM |
My research, a hobby really, took be to the world of fractals.
I know a little bit about this. I just love the art part.
I have an artistic side and in my paintings, without knowing it, I was sort of painting in the fractal way.
That's cool.
Back in the early 1980s, I did some pioneering visualizations studying chaotic behavior in humans, mostly the brain and the heart. It's funny, but even simple measurements of brain and heart activity, like the time between heartbeats or voltages at a specific part of the brain, show chaotic behavior and fractal patterns.
It's fairly obvious in the heart why this happens, because the sinus node and the A-V node form a classical, textbook example of coupled differential equations, in this case, oscillators. The brain, of course, is more complicated. Fascinating, though. We got data from young people, old people, and people with Alzheimers. In aging and with the disease, the measured fractal dimension got lower. We didn't have data for various heart diseases, but it appears that fibrilation is one of those catastrophic chaotic events where the oscillators can't find each other and synchronize. It was just amazing to me that there was any chaotic behavior at all. It was just a simple visualization (I was proud of that one, less than two hours from initial discussion to a video). If the heartbeat had been totally regular, we would have seen just a single point at the center. Instead, what we saw was a three-vaned manifold looking a bit like the Space Shuttle, at a weird angle.
Wish I had those tapes now. Oh well, the Supercomputer Computations Research Institute self-destructed. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
