5. Hip Hop Physics 2 - illuminati
-
Upload
rob-graham -
Category
Documents
-
view
56 -
download
0
Transcript of 5. Hip Hop Physics 2 - illuminati
Music and Mathematics ‘Music theorists sometimes use mathematics to understand music, but music has no axiomatic foundation in modern mathematics.’ Mathematics is the ‘basis for sound’ and sound itself ‘in its musical aspects. Exhibits a remarkable array of number properties’, simply because nature itself ‘is amazingly
mathematical.’ Through ancient Chinese, Egyptians and Mesopotamians are known to have studied the mathematical principals of sound, the Pythagoreans of ancient Greece are the first researchers known to have investigated the expression of musical scales in terms of numerical ratios, particularly the ratio of small integers. Their central doctrine was that ‘all nature consists of harmony arising out of numbers.’ From the time Plato, harmony was considered a fundamental branch of physics, now known as musical acoustics, early Indian and Chinese theorists show similar approaches; all sought to show that the mathematical laws of harmonics and rhythms were fundamental not only to our understanding of the world but to human well being. Confucius, like Pythagoras, regarded the small numbers 1,2,3,4 as the source of all perfection. To this day mathematics has more to do with acoustics than with composition and the use of mathematics in compositions is historically limited to the simplest operations of counting and measuring. The attempt to structure and communicate new ideas of composing and hearing music has led to musical applications of set theory, abstract algebra and number theory. Some composers have incorporated the golden ratio and Fibonacci numbers to their music. The term musical intervals refer to a step up or down in pitch, which is specified by the ratio of the frequencies, involved. For example and octave is a music interval defined by the ration 2:1 regardless of the starting frequency.
From 100hz to 200hz is an octave, as is the interval from 2000hz to 4000hz. The intervals, which are generally, the most consonant to the human ear intervals represented by small integer ratios. The octave (2:1), fifth (3:2) and fourth (4:3) are the intervals which have been considered to be consonant throughout all history by all cultures, so they form a logical base for the building of musical scales.
Superstring theory All fundamental particles, formerly thought of as point-‐like entities, are now considered teeny, tiny one-‐dimensional objects called strings. Just as a violin string can be made to vibrate in multiple modes (fundamental and overtones in a harmonic series) so too can these strings. But the modes available to a superstring are far richer and more complex than those of a simple violin string (which is itself pretty rich when you think about it). The reason for this is that superstrings live in a space quite unfamiliar to us all. A space beyond the familiar up-‐down, left-‐right, forward-‐backward, three-‐dimensional realm we're all so familiar with. The name M Theory most likely comes from the clever use of the word "membrane" to describe any object used to separate one part of space from another.
Think of your diaphragm for a moment. This is an obvious two-‐dimensional membrane that separates the three-‐dimensional abdominal cavity into two regions — the heart and lungs above; and the liver, spleen, and digestive tract below. What would you call the objects that divide a higher dimensional space in two? I have seen the terms "d-‐branes", "m-‐branes", and "p-‐branes" all used. "D-‐branes" do nothing for me, "m-‐branes" are a very clever alliteration to the biological term "membranes", but "p-‐branes" are probably too silly to gain much popularity for a potential Theory of Everything. (In North America, the term "pea brain" is slang for a stupid person. Somebody with a brain the size of a pea couldn't be very smart now could they? It makes for a somewhat clever joke, but a theory of "p branes" is likely to attract more chuckles than grant money.) From symmetry (matter-‐antimatter) to super symmetry (fermions-‐bosons). Say them as one word: "s-‐particles" and "particle-‐ions". I believe that there is a simple theory that governs everything — the four forces we know about, perhaps other forces as well. It may be that nature is irreducibly messy. But even so, we're not guaranteed that we'll find it. We may not be smart enough. Dogs are not smart enough to understand quantum mechanics. I'm not sure that people are smart enough to understand the whatever-‐it-‐is that unifies everything. I think we probably are, because of our ability to link our minds through
language, but I'm certain. There was a marvelous period from, I'd say, the mid-‐'60s until the late '70s when theoretical physicists actually had something to say that experimentalists were interested in. Experimentalists made discoveries that theoretical physicists were interested in. Everything was converging toward a simple picture of the known particles and forces, a picture that eventually became known as the standard model. I think I gave it that name. And it was a time when graduate students would run through the halls of a physics building saying they had discovered another particle and it fit the theories, and it was all so exciting. Since the late '70s, I'd say, particle physics has been in somewhat of a doldrums. Partly it's just the price we're paying for the great success we had in that wonderful time then. I think cosmology now, for example, is much more exciting than particle physics. The string theorists are trying to push ahead without much support from relevant experiments, because there aren't any relevant experiments that can be done at the kind of scales that the string theorists are interested in. They're trying to take the next big step by pure mathematical reasoning, and it's extraordinarily difficult. I hope they succeed. I think they're doing the right thing in pursuing this, because right now string theory offers the only hope of a really unified view of nature. They have to pursue it, but the progress is glacially slow. I'd rather study continental drift in real time than is a string theorist today.
But I admire them for trying, because they are our best hope of making a great step toward the next big unified theory. Steven Weinberg, 2003 Interviewer: Can we understand how these extra dimensions have curled themselves up into such a small size? We can try to understand it and we can see that by making some simple assumptions about how the extra dimensions would curl up, we can get plausible and interesting rough models of particle physics. I don't think we can expect to understand definitively how the extra dimensions curl themselves up without understanding a little better what string theory is really all about, We are handicapped by having an extremely primitive and crude view of what the subject really is. Einstein developed general relativity at a time when the basic ideas in geometry that he needed had already been developed in the nineteenth century. It's been said that string theory is part of the physics of the twenty-‐first century that fell by chance into the twentieth century. That's a remark that was made by a leading physicist about fifteen years ago. What he meant was that humans on planet earth never had the conceptual framework that would lead them to invent string theory on purpose. String theory was invented essentially by accident in a long sequence of events, starting with the Venetian model that was formulated in 1968. No one invented it on purpose; it was invented in a lucky accident. By rights, twentieth century physicists shouldn't have had
the privilege of studying this theory. By rights, string theory shouldn't have been invented until our knowledge of some of the areas that are prerequisite for string theory had developed to the point that it was possible for us to have the right concept of what it was all about. Interviewer: We need twenty-‐first century mathematics? Probably. What should have happened, by rights, is that the correct mathematical structures should have been developed in the twenty-‐first or twenty-‐second century, and then finally physicists should have invented string theory as a physical theory that is made possible by those structures. If that had happened, then the first physicists working with string theory would have known what they were doing perhaps. Einstein knew what he was doing when he invented general relativity. That would perhaps have been a normal way for things to happen but it wouldn't have given twentieth century physicists the chance to work on this fascinating theory. As it is we have had the stroke of good luck that string theory was invented in a sense without human beings on planet Earth really deserving it. ‘But anyway we have this stroke of good luck and we are trying to make the best of it. But we are paying the price for the fact that we didn't come by this thing in the usual way.’ Edward Witten, 1988 It seems immensely difficult because we haven't finished solving it yet. Someone had to invent writing.
Someone had to invent reading without speaking aloud. Someone had to discover electromagnetic induction. Someone had to discover zero. Someone had to be the first to look at the heavens through a telescope. Someone had to be the first to eat with a fork! Currently, no one has solved the mathematical problem of a complete "theory of everything". It hasn't been invented, it hasn't been discovered, and it has never been seen or used. But it will be. This will be followed by a short period (two to two hundred years, say) when the theory will be discussed and tested and advanced and learned by tens then hundreds then thousands then millions of people. And then it won't seem like such a big deal anymore. And few will remember the time when it was considered unobtainable. And students learning it will find it a chore to learn for the first time and then be astounded at how easy it all was in retrospect. ‘Science is beautiful when it makes simple explanations of phenomena or connections between different observations. Examples include the double helix in biology and the fundamental equations of physics.’ Stephen Hawking
Euler’s Formula gives rise to space, time and the material world. Euler’s Formula gives rise to Fourier series, the quantum universe and holography. Euler’s Formula gives rise to the brain itself, mind, the soul and even God. Euler’s Formula, ontologically, is all about energy, motion and Information. Euler’s Formula has two completely different aspects: Dimensionless (frequency) and Dimensional (space and time). Euler’s formula always involves the motion of a one-‐dimensional point – the flowing point that goes right around the circumference of the Euler circle and passes through:
-‐ Positive numbers -‐ Negative numbers. -‐ Real numbers. -‐ Imaginary numbers. -‐ All numbers are equally balanced and none privileged over some of the others.
The net outcome is a system of some things, that automatically balance to zero, leaving a resultant of nothing, I.e. Dimensionless existence.
The generalized Euler Formula generates all ontologically possible frequencies. These frequencies are associated with perfect sine and cosine waves. Sine functions are odd, while cosine functions are even. Sine and Cosine functions are orthogonal to each other. Sine waves are associated with imaginary numbers (time= imaginary space). Cosine waves are associated with real numbers (Space). There are also negative sine and cosine frequencies, ensuring that all frequencies, both positive and negative balance to zero. Sine and Cosines provide a perfect set of Fourier basis frequencies. Using these, Fourier mathematics allows us to construct extended functions in space and time, the functions associated with the material rather than the mental world. Perfect Cosine waves are none other than photons: Light or space particles for which no time, or alternatively imaginary space passes. Perfect Sine waves are chronons: time or imaginary space particles for which no real space passes.
Essential physics formulas:
Dynamics: Dynamics is the name give to the rules of motion. It’s something that you would think would be one of the first things to be figured out, but wasn’t fully locked down until fairly recently. 1. A particle will remain at rest or continue with its motion, unless acted upon by an external force.
2. The force on an object is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration.
3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Thermodynamics:
Zeroth law of thermodynamics – If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the network done by the system. Second law of thermodynamics – The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. Third law of thermodynamics – As temperature approaches absolute zero; the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum. Entropy is a very important thing in the realm of thermodynamics. It’s the core idea behind the second and third laws and shows up all over the place. Essentially entropy is the measure of disorder and randomness in a system.
S= Change in entropy Q= Energy or level of heat T= A constant temperature. Some Definitions: Can you see where they went wrong? Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to this body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.
Ever since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the West during the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably, and until the 19th century natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a branch of philosophy. In modern usage however, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe. In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature. Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist began to be applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature. However, "science" has also continued to be used in a broad sense to denote reliable and teachable knowledge about a topic, as reflected in modern terms like library science or computer science. This is also reflected in the names of some areas of academic study such as social science and political science. The natural sciences and social sciences are empirical sciences, meaning that the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and must be capable of being verified by other researchers working under the same conditions. Physical Science is an encompassing term for the branches of natural science and science that study non-‐living systems, in contrast to the life sciences. However, the term "physical" creates an unintended, somewhat arbitrary distinction, since many branches of physical science also study biological phenomena. There is a difference
between physical science and physics. Physics is the natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force.
More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves. Astronomy is the oldest of the natural sciences. The earliest civilizations dating back to beyond 3000 BCE, such as the Sumerians, ancient Egyptians, and the Indus Valley Civilization, all had a predictive knowledge and a basic understanding of the motions of the Sun, Moon, and stars. Natural philosophy has its origins in Greece during the Archaic period, (650 BC – 480 BC), when Pre-‐Socratic philosophers like Thales rejected non-‐naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena and proclaimed that every event had a natural cause. They proposed ideas verified by reason and observation, and many of their hypotheses proved successful in experiment; Atomism was found to be correct approximately 2000 years after it was first proposed by Leucippus and his pupil Democritus. Physics became a separate science when early modern Europeans used experimental and quantitative methods to discover what are now considered to be the laws of physics. Modern physics began in the early 20th century with the work of Max Planck in quantum theory and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Both of these theories came about due to inaccuracies in classical mechanics in certain situations. Classical mechanics predicted a varying speed of light, which could not be resolved with the constant speed predicted by Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism; This discrepancy was corrected by Einstein's theory of special
relativity, which replaced classical mechanics for fast-‐moving bodies and allowed for a constant speed of light. Chemistry is a branch of physical science that studies the composition, structure, properties and change of matter. Chemistry is chiefly concerned with atoms and molecules and their interactions and transformations, for example, the properties of the chemical bonds formed between atoms to create chemical compounds. Early civilizations, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Indians amassed practical knowledge concerning the arts of metallurgy, pottery and dyes, but didn't develop a systematic theory. A basic chemical hypothesis first emerged in Classical Greece with the theory of four elements as propounded definitively by Aristotle stating that that fire, air, earth and water were the fundamental elements from which everything is formed as a combination. Greek atomism dates back to 440 BC, arising in works by philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus. In 50 BC, the Roman philosopher Lucretius expanded upon the theory in his book De rerum natura (On The Nature of Things) Unlike modern concepts of science, Greek atomism was purely philosophical in nature, with little concern for empirical observations and no concern for chemical experiments. In the Hellenistic world the art of alchemy first proliferated, mingling magic and occultism into the study of natural substances with the ultimate goal of transmuting elements into gold and discovering the elixir of eternal life.
Alchemy was discovered and practiced widely throughout the Arab world after the Muslim conquests, and from there, diffused into medieval and Renaissance Europe through Latin translations. Under the influence of the new empirical methods propounded by Sir Francis Bacon and others, a group of chemists at Oxford, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke and John Mayow began to reshape the old
alchemical traditions into a scientific discipline. Boyle in particular is regarded as the founding father of chemistry due to his most important work, the classic chemistry text The Sceptical Chymist where the differentiation is made between the claims of alchemy and the empirical scientific discoveries of the new chemistry. He formulated Boyle's law, rejected the classical "four elements" and proposed a mechanistic alternative of atoms and chemical reactions that could be subject to rigorous experiment. The theory of phlogiston (a substance at the root of all combustion) was propounded by the German Georg Ernst Stahl in the early 18th century and was only overturned by the end of the century by the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier, the chemical analogue of Newton in physics; who did more than any other to establish the new science on proper theoretical footing, by elucidating the principle of conservation of mass and developing a new system of chemical nomenclature used to this day. The greatest catastrophe in intellectual history was to regard physics as real and mathematics as an unreal abstraction. In fact, mathematics is noumenal (true) reality, and physics is phenomenal (illusory) reality. Mathematics tells you what things are in themselves, and physics tells you how they appear to us. Mathematics is the perfect ground of existence, defined by the God Equation. Mathematics is the source of causation, determinism and objective reality; all of the things now formally denied by physics, which claims that observable reality is in-‐deterministically born of unreal, probabilistic wave functions. It’s time to replace the scientific method with the mathematical method.
It’s time to recognize that true reality is intelligible, not sensible; noumenal, not phenomenal; unobservable, not observable; metaphysical, not physical; hidden, not manifest; rationalist, not empiricist; necessary, not contingent. Physics is literally incapable of detecting true reality since true reality is an eternal, indestructible, dimensionless mathematical Singularity, outside space and time. The Singularity is a precisely defined Fourier frequency domain. There’s nothing “woo woo” about it. It's pure math. Physicists suffer from a disorder of the mind that causes them to believe that sensible, temporal objects have more reality than eternal, immutable Platonic mathematical objects, and to place more trust in their senses than in their reason, more trust in the scientific method of “evidence” than the mathematical method of eternal proof. Never forget that sensory objects are just ideas in the mind. According to quantum physics, objects are just the observable entities produced by the collapse of unreal wave functions, and don’t formally exist when they are not being observed. Niels Bohr, in response to Einstein, literally denied that the moon existed when it wasn’t being observed. The subject that comes after physics is metaphysics, and the true language of metaphysics is ontological mathematics. Physics is the phenomenal expression of noumenal mathematics. Mathematics has one final wonder to confer on us. It provides a complete definition of the human soul, which is, like the universe in itself, just an immaterial, dimensionless mathematical singularity defined by the God Equation. As above so below. The soul is the microcosm and the universe the macrocosm. Can you see the pattern below?
Pythagoras: 500bc approx. Pythagoras was an Ionian Greek philosopher, mathematician, and founder of the religious movement called Pythagoreanism. What did he help explain to humanity that is now realized, immutable and un-arguable? Pythagoras theorem: a ² + b ² = c ² What was his philosophy? Plato: 500bc approx. Plato was a philosopher, as well as mathematician, in Classical Greece. He is considered an essential figure in the development of philosophy, especially the Western tradition. What did he help explain to humanity that is now realized, immutable and un-arguable? Recurrent themes, Metaphysics, Theory of Forms, Epistemology, The state, Unwritten Doctrines. What was he’s philosophy? Platonic love is a type of love that is chaste and non-sexual. The term is named after Plato, who was the first to describe this kind of love. Euclid: 500bc Approx. Euclid was a Greek mathematician, often referred to as the "Father of Geometry". His Elements is one of the most influential works in the history of mathematics, serving as the main textbook for teaching mathematics (especially geometry) from the time of its publication until the late 19th or early 20th century.
What did he help explain to humanity that is now realized, immutable and un-arguable? Geometry, axioms, perspective, conic sections, spherical geometry, number theory and rigor, number theory, perfect numbers, infitude of prime numbers, fundamental theorem of arithmetic, data, catropics, spherical astronomy, optics, conic sections, mechanics, quadratic surfaces. Galileo: 1564 - 1642 Galileo Galilei, often known mononymously as Galileo, was an Italian physicist, mathematician, engineer, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the scientific revolution during the Renaissance. What did he help explain to humanity that is now realized, immutable and un-arguable? Kinematics, strength of materials, telescopic confirmation of the phases of Venus, four largest satellites of Jupiter, military compass, inverse proportion of the square root, Galileo’s compass. What was his philosophy? ‘Philosophy [i.e. physics] is written in this grand book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth.’ Leibniz: 1646 – 1747 Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was a German polymath and philosopher. He occupies a prominent place in the history of mathematics and the history of philosophy. Most scholars believe Leibniz developed calculus independently of Isaac Newton, and Leibniz's notation has been widely used ever since it was published. What did he help to explain to humanity that is now realized, immutable and un-arguable?
Calculus, monads, Leibniz formula for π, harmonic triangle, integral rule, principal of scientific reasoning, notation of differentiation, proof of formats, little theorem, kinetic energy, law of continuity, transcendental law of homogeneity. What was his philosophy? "God assuredly always chooses the best." ‘There must be a sufficient reason for anything to exist, for any event to occur, for any truth to obtain.’ "The appropriate nature of each substance brings it about that what happens to one corresponds to what happens to all the others, without, however, their acting upon one another directly.’ ‘Leibniz believed that the best of all possible worlds would actualize every genuine possibility, and argued in Théodicée that this best of all possible worlds will contain all possibilities, with our finite experience of eternity giving no reason to dispute nature's perfection.’ The only way to rectify our reasoning is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate [calculemus], without further ado, to see who is right. Newton: 1642 – 1726 Sir Isaac Newton was an English physicist and mathematician (described in his own day as a "natural philosopher") who are widely recognized as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. His book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematical ("Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"), first published in 1687, laid -the foundations for classical mechanics. What did he help to explain to humanity that is now realized, immutable and un-arguable? Calculus, binomial theorem, cubic plane curves, finite differences, coordinate geometry, harmonic series, power series, prisms, refraction of light, dispersion, Newtonian telescope, law of gravitation, classical mechanics, gravity, motion of the moon. What was his philosophy?
‘I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.’ There is another, more mysterious side to Newton that is imperfectly known, a realm of activity that spanned some thirty years of his life, although he kept it largely hidden from his contemporaries and colleagues. We refer to Newton's involvement in the discipline of alchemy, or as it was often called in seventeenth-century England, "chymistry." Newton wrote and transcribed about a million words on the subject of alchemy. It was Newton's conception of the Universe based upon Natural and rationally understandable laws that became one of the seeds for Enlightenment. Einstein: 1879 - 1955 Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist. Einstein's work is also known for its influence on the philosophy of science. He developed the general theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics (alongside quantum mechanics. Einstein is best known in popular culture for his mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2 (which has been dubbed "the world's most famous equation"). What did he help to explain to humanity that is now realized, immutable and un-arguable? General theory of relativity, photoelectric effect, classical mechanics, electromagnetic fields, gravitational forces. What was his philosophy? Einstein's political view was in favor of socialism and critical of capitalism, which he detailed in his essays such as "Why Socialism?". Einstein offered and was called on to give judgments and opinions on matters often unrelated to theoretical physics or mathematics. He called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. Einstein once wrote: I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but expressed it clearly. Hawking:
1942 – Stephen William Hawking is an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author and director of research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge.
His scientific works include a collaboration with Roger Penrose on gravitational singularity theorems in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes emit radiation, often called Hawking radiation. Hawking was the first to set forth a cosmology explained by a union of the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. He is a vigorous supporter of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. What was his philosophy? Watch the ‘Theory of everything’ motion picture very closely. 1. Great Unanswered Questions of Physics Resolution of these profound questions could unlock the secrets of existence and deliver a new age of science within several decades. 2. Here's a tale of modern physics: Two scientists work at the same university in different fields. One studies huge objects far from Earth. The other is fascinated by the tiny stuff right in front of him. To satisfy their curiosities, one builds the world's most powerful telescope, and the other builds the world's best microscope. As they focus their instruments on ever more distant and ever more minuscule objects, they begin to observe structures and behavior’s never before seen—or imagined. They are excited but frustrated because their observations don't fit existing theories.
One day they leave their instruments for a caffeine break and happen to meet in the faculty lounge, where they begin to commiserate about what to make of their observations. Suddenly it becomes clear to both of them that although they seem to be looking at opposite ends of the universe, they are seeing the same phenomena. Like blind men groping a beast, one scientist has grasped its thrashing tail and the other its chomping snout. Comparing notes, they realize it's the same alligator. This is precisely the situation particle physicist and astronomers find themselves in today. Physicists, using linear and circular particle accelerators as their high-‐resolution "microscopes," study pieces of atoms so small they can't be seen. Astronomers, using a dozen or so new supersize telescopes, also study the same tiny particles, but theirs are waiting for them in space. This strange collision of information means that the holy grail of particle physics—understanding the unification of all four forces of nature (electromagnetism, weak force, strong force, and gravity)—will be achieved in part by astronomers. The implications are exciting to scientists because bizarre marriages of unrelated phenomena have created leaps of understanding in the past. Pythagoras, for example, set science spinning when he proved that abstract mathematics could be applied to the real world. A similar leap occurred when Newton discovered that the motions of planets and falling apples are both due to gravity. Maxwell created a new era of physics when he unified magnetism and electricity. Einstein, the greatest unifier of them all, wove together matter, energy, space, and time.
But nobody has woven together the tiny world of quantum mechanics and the big world we see when we look through a telescope. As these come together, physicists realize they are getting very close to a single "theory of everything" that accounts for the fundamental workings of nature, the long-‐sought unified field theory. A Music Lovers Perspective Before we begin to examine or attempt to address the most important unanswered mysteries in physics, it is extremely important to understand that somewhere along the line, the methodology and the resources used to build scientific knowledge changed dramatically. “Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy.” – William Blake “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere” Einstein “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion” Dale Carnegie Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of human understanding. Ambrose Bierce The human brain works as a binary computer and can only analyze the exact information based on zeros and ones. Edward de Bono
1. Alexandre Grothendieck 2. Pierre de Fermat 3. Évariste Galois 4. John von Neumann 5. Niels Abel
1. Emma Noether 2. Pythagoras of Samos 3. Leonardo `Fibonacci' 4. William R. Hamilton 5. Aryabhata
Question 1: What is dark matter? Current Perspective All the ordinary matter we can find accounts for only about 4 % of the universe. We know this by calculating how much mass would be needed to hold galaxies together and cause them to move about the way they do when they gather in large clusters. Another way to weigh the unseen matter is to look at how gravity bends the light from distant objects. Every measure tells astronomers that most of the universe is invisible.
It's tempting to say that the universe must be full of dark clouds of dust or dead stars and be done with it, but there are persuasive arguments that this is not the case. First, although there are ways to spot even the darkest forms of matter, almost every attempt to find missing clouds and stars has failed. Second, and more convincing, cosmologists can make very precise calculations of the nuclear reactions that occurred right after the Big Bang and compare the expected results with the actual composition of the universe. Those calculations show that the total amount of ordinary matter, composed of familiar protons and neutrons, is much less than the total mass of the universe. Whatever the rest is, it isn't like the stuff of which we're made. The quest to find the missing universe is one of the key efforts that have brought cosmologists and particle physicists together. The leading dark-‐matter candidates are neutrinos or two other kinds of particles: neutralinos and axioms predicted by some physics theories but never detected. All three of these particles are thought to be electrically neutral, thus unable to absorb or reflect light, yet stable enough to have survived from the earliest moments after the Big Bang. A music lover’s potential solution? Physics believes itself to reflect mathematics of what actually exists. Being materialists and empiricists, physicists believe that the sensory, material world of time of space is all that exists. Any mathematics that deals with the immaterial and non-‐sensory is regarded as unreal. For physicists, physics is the mathematics of reality while mathematics itself is solely about hypothetical things, many of which cannot be realized because they are not compatible with reality. The quantum mechanical wave function is said to be unreal because it involves imaginary numbers and various operations have to be applied to make it real. So, the wave function per se is an abstract mathematical entity and the probabilistic wave function derived from it is treated as physical. However, here we have a serious philosophical problem akin to mind-‐matter Cartesian dualism. How can unreal, abstract mathematics be the underpinning for real, concrete physical mathematics, and is a probability cloud real anyway? How is reality
determined? How can the real emerge from unreality? What’s the rational cause of this miracle, this magic? Physics actually abandons cause and effect at this level and refers to randomness, probability, indeterminacy and statistics. Determinism is completely rejected. Physical mathematics is dynamic while abstract mathematics is static. Physical mathematics is constrained by physical constant while abstract mathematics is not. Ontological mathematics is the dialectical synthesis of physical mathematics and abstract mathematics: 1. Thesis: Physical mathematics: Dynamic, always observable and
constrained by ontological constants such as the speed of light, gravitational constant and Planck’s constant.
2. Anti-‐thesis: Abstract mathematics: Static, can be wholly unobservable and is unrestrained by ontological constants.
3. Synthesis: Ontological mathematics: Dynamic, both observable and unobservable, constrained by ontological constants.
With 3. The speed of light, gravitational constant are no longer constants of physics but mathematical ontological constants i.e. they are built into ontological mathematics (Which they are not in relation into abstract mathematics). Physical and abstract mathematics are both wrong, they are approximations to the truth of mathematics: ontological mathematics, the mathematics of actual existence. They get many things right because they partake of several features of ontological mathematics but they also get many things wrong because they do not do so completely and consistently. In ontological mathematics there’s a cosmic speed limit and anything that does not reflect this is ontologically absurd. Abstract mathematics can easily cater for tachyons (Imaginary mass particles that exceed the cosmic speed limit), but no such thing could exist. So, abstract mathematics allows ontologically impossible (forbidden) situations to be reflected discussed because it does not obey the restrictions that define ontology. Physics dismisses permissible ontological things that cannot be observed, and abstract mathematics accepts impermissible ontological things. Ontological mathematics sits in the middle. It caters for the unobservable but not the impossible. Physics is mathematics that is too constrained (to accommodate the sensory world) and abstract mathematics is not constrained enough, hence can deal with ontologically impossible situations.
Physical mathematics: Dimensional mathematics only: constrained by physical constant: dynamic. Abstract mathematics: dimensional mathematics (uncertain towards dimensionless mathematics); not constrained by physical or ontological constant; static. Ontological mathematics: dimensional (space-‐time) mathematics and dimensionless (frequency) mathematics: constrained by physical and ontological constants: permanently dynamic (everything is always in motion: there can be static state for anything that exists). It might be said that the equations that control motion are static, but, on the other hand, they are directing permanent motion, so they are always put into effect through motion, hence are not static. Thesis: Frequency mathematics: dimensionless. Antithesis: Space mathematics: dimensional. Synthesis: ontological mathematics: dimensional and dimensionless, with the interaction between dimensional and dimensionless mathematics being enacted by Fourier mathematics, the core of ontological. Question 2. What is dark energy? Current Perspective Two recent discoveries from cosmology prove that ordinary matter and dark matter are still not enough to explain the structure of the universe. There's a third component out there, and it's not matter but some form of dark energy. The first line of evidence for this mystery component comes from measurements of the geometry of the universe. Einstein theorized that all matter alters the shape of space and time around it. Therefore, the overall shape of the universe is governed by the total mass and energy within it.
Recent studies of radiation left over from the Big Bang show that the universe has the simplest shape—it's flat. That, in turn, reveals the total mass density of the universe. But after adding up all the potential sources of dark matter and ordinary matter, astronomers still come up two-‐thirds short. The second line of evidence suggests that the mystery component must be energy. Observations of distant supernovas show that the rate of expansion of the universe isn't slowing as scientists had once assumed; in fact, the pace of the expansion is increasing. This cosmic acceleration is difficult to explain unless a pervasive repulsive force constantly pushes outward on the fabric of space and time. Why dark energy produces a repulsive force field is a bit complicated. Quantum theory says virtual particles can pop into existence for the briefest of moments before returning to nothingness. That means the vacuum of space is not a true void. Rather, space is filled with low-‐grade energy created when virtual particles and their antimatter partners momentarily pop into and out of existence, leaving behind a very small field called vacuum energy. That energy should produce a kind of negative pressure, or repulsion, thereby explaining why the universe's expansion is accelerating. Consider a simple analogy: If you pull back on a sealed plunger in an empty, airtight vessel, you'll create a near vacuum. At first, the plunger will offer little resistance, but the farther you pull, the greater the vacuum and the more the plunger will pull back against you. Although vacuum energy in outer space was pumped into it by the weird rules of quantum mechanics, not by someone pulling on a
plunger, this example illustrates how a negative pressure can create repulsion. A Music lover’s potential solution? A word that can be used for living mathematics is energy. Existence consists of nothing but mathematical energy seeking to optimize itself, which, since it comes in monadic collections of energy rather one vast, unitary block of energy, means that each individual energy collection (monad) is striving to optimize itself. This leads to a competitive dialectic, and to all the conflict, binary oppositions and ‘evil’ that we encounter in the world. Schopenhauer conceived of ultimate reality as a single mental entity outside time and space. This view was derived from the living oneness that underpins Buddhism. Peter Higgs was awarded a Nobel Prize when the CERN Large Hadron Collider confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson. This is utterly inconsequential in relation to the biggest question of all – ‘Is mathematical idealism, rationalism and metaphysics correct, or mathematical materialism, empiricism and physics?’ The ultimate nature of existence, and the possibility of a grand unifying equation hinges exactly on this question. Metaphysics (What comes after physics?) is about an unobservable mathematical domain – a frequency singularity defined by the GOD equation. Physics demands that everything be observable. Question 3. Where do ultra high-‐energy particles come from? Current Perspective The most energetic particles that strike us from space, which include neutrinos as well as gamma-‐ray photons and various other bits of subatomic shrapnel, are called cosmic rays.
They bombard Earth all the time; a few are zipping through you as you read this article. Cosmic rays are sometimes so energetic; they must be born in cosmic accelerators fuelled by cataclysms of staggering proportions. Scientists suspect some sources: the Big Bang itself, shock waves from supernovas collapsing into black holes, and matter accelerated as it is sucked into massive black holes at the centers of galaxies. Knowing where these particles originate and how they attain such colossal energies will help us understand how these violent objects operate. Question 4. Is a new theory of light and matter needed to explain what happens at very high energies and temperatures? Current View Astronomers have known for three decades that brilliant flashes of these rays, called gamma-‐ray bursts, arrive daily from random directions in the sky. Recently astronomers have pinned down the location of the bursts and tentatively identified them as massive supernova explosions and neutron stars colliding both with themselves and black holes. But even now nobody knows much about what goes on when so much energy is flying around. Matter grows so hot that it interacts with radiation in unfamiliar ways, and photons of radiation can crash into each other and create new matter. The distinction between matter and energy grows blurry. Throw in the added factor of magnetism, and physicists can make only rough guesses about what happens in these hellish settings. Perhaps current theories simply aren't adequate to explain them.
A Music lover’s potential solution? Einstein won the Nobel Prize for physics for explain the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect involves shinning light (of high enough energy) on to a metal, causing electrons to be emitted from the metal and thereby generating an electric current. It was observed that below a threshold frequency would lead to no emission, no matter how intense the light was (with intensity being the number of photons per second for a specified area). On the other hand, low intensity light above the threshold frequency would succeed in releasing electrons. The means that the total amount of energy (the intensity of light) is what’s important but rather the specific energy per light photon. You could use a massively intense light beam, and keep increasing it, and it would have no photoelectric effects whatsoever if the photons were of insufficient frequency. However, if the photons were of the right frequency then increased frequency would lead to and increased photoelectric effect. It is often said that the photoelectric effect provides convincing evidence for the particle nature of light in certain circumstances. However, it could be said it could be said that what the photoelectric really demonstrates is a profound difference in the energy of a light beam judged in terms of amplitude of the one hand, frequency on the other. The photoelectric effect was a conundrum because classical physics said that the emitted electrons must acquire their kinetic energy from the light beam shinning on the metal surface. If light, were envisioned in terms of ocean waves, and the electrons in terms of pebbles on the beach, then, obviously, the more intense the ocean activity, the more pebbles should be displaced on the beach.
The problem with this view is that it likens light to water and says that the only way of changing the energy of the ocean is via changing the amplitude of the waves. What is a wave? What is a particle? Bizarrely, these have never been analytically defined by modern science. Historically, a wave was regarded as something spread out, and a particle as something concentrated. What is it that’s spread out and what is it that’s concentrated. A wave is actually a flowing point tracing out the trajectory dictated by the generalized Euler Formula. It’s this trajectory that constitutes the wave. The ‘active’ part of the wave is the flowing point at its current location on the wave trajectory. It’s the following point that constitutes the ‘particle.’ The scientific claim that entities are sometimes waves and sometimes particles is irrational, ridiculous and almost insane. Science actually claims that something can be both spread out and concentrated at the same time, depending on how you’re observing it. Einstein Ian relativity claims that something can be simultaneously contracted and not contracted depending on whom observing it. Quantum mechanics, in the standard interpretation, claims that observable relativity is based on an observable, unreal wave function Question 5. Are there additional dimensions? Current View Wondering about the real nature of gravity leads eventually to wondering whether there are more than the four dimensions we can easily observe.
To get to that place, we might first wonder if nature is, in fact, schizophrenic: Should we accept that there are two kinds of forces that operate over two different scales—gravity for big scales like galaxies, the other three forces for the tiny world of atoms? Poppycock, say unified theory proponents—there must be a way to connect the three atomic-‐scale forces with gravity. Maybe, but it won't be easy. In the first place, gravity is odd. Einstein's general theory of relativity says gravity isn't so much a force as it is an inherent property of space and time. Accordingly, Earth orbits the sun not because it is attracted by gravity but because it has been caught in a big dimple in space-‐time caused by the sun and spins around inside this dimple like a fast-‐moving marble caught in a large bowl. Second, gravity, as far as we have been able to detect, is a continuous phenomenon, whereas all the other forces of nature come in discrete packets. All this leads us to the string theorists and their explanation for gravity, which includes other dimensions. The original string-‐theory model of the universe combines gravity with the other three forces in a complex 11-‐dimensional world. In that world—our world—seven of the dimensions are wrapped up on themselves in unimaginably small regions that escape our notice. One way to get your mind around these extra dimensions is to visualize a single strand of a spider web. To the naked eye, the filament appears to be one dimensional, but at high magnification it resolves into an object with considerable width, breadth, and depth. String theorists argue that we can't see extra dimensions because we lack instruments powerful enough to resolve them.
We may never see these extra dimensions directly, but we may be able to detect evidence of their existence with the instruments of astronomers and particle physicists. A Music lover’s potential solution? In mathematics, the dimension of an object is an intrinsic property independent of the space in which the object is embedded. For example, a point on the unit circle in the plane can be specified by two Cartesian coordinates, but one can make do with a single coordinate (the polar coordinate angle), so the circle is 1 dimensional even though it exists in the 2 dimensional plane. The intrinsic notion of dimension is one of the chief ways the mathematical notion of dimensions differs from its common usages. Question 6. How did the universe begin? Current View If all four forces of nature are really a single force that takes on different complexions at temperatures below several million degrees, then the unimaginably hot and dense universe that existed at the Big Bang must have been a place where distinctions between gravity, strong force, particles, and antiparticles had no meaning. Einstein's theories of matter and space-‐time, which depend upon more familiar benchmarks, cannot explain what caused the hot primordial pinpoint of the universe to inflate into the universe we see today. We don't even know why the universe is full of matter. According to current physics ideas, energy in the early universe should have produced an equal mix of matter and antimatter, which would later annihilate each other. Some mysterious and very helpful mechanism tipped the scales in favor of matter, leaving enough to produce galaxies full of stars. Fortunately, the primordial universe left behind a few clues.
One is the cosmic microwave background radiation, the afterglow of the Big Bang. For several decades now, that weak radiation measured the same wherever astronomers looked at the edges of the universe. Astronomers believed such uniformity meant that the Big Bang commenced with an inflation of space-‐time that unfolded faster than the speed of light. More recent careful observation, however, shows that the cosmic background radiation is not perfectly uniform. There are minuscule variations from one small patch of space to another that are randomly distributed. Could random quantum fluctuations in the density of the early universe have left this fingerprint? Very possibly, says Michael Turner, chairman of the astrophysics department at the University of Chicago and chairman of the committee that came up with these 11 questions. Turner and many other cosmologists now believe the lumps of the universe—vast stretches of void punctuated by galaxies and galactic clusters—are probably vastly magnified versions of quantum fluctuations of the original, subatomic-‐size universe. And that is just the sort of marriage of the infinite and the infinitesimal that has particle physicists cozying up to astronomers these days, and why all of these mysteries might soon be explained by one idea. A Music lover’s potential solution? Existence is simply an infinitely complex singularity; an immaterial, dimensionless nothing composed of countless individual nothings (Monads). If the universe is rational, it must be made of eternal reason (ontological mathematics). If the universe isn’t rational, who cares what anybody says about it because one irrational opinion is as good as another.
The method for discovering and building scientific knowledge has become irrational and it is only interested in understanding observable and physical aspects of our collective existence. We can call any abstraction (or concept) a ‘form’ and its (perceptual or intuitive) concretes the ‘content.’ Formalization, then, is just a way to freely study the logical properties of propositional forms, without regard to their content. A ‘form’ is simply a shorthand expression for any number of particular propositions or contents. The mathematical monad, the fundamental unit on ontological mathematics, is a logical container for a complete and consistent set of analytical sinusoids, which constitute the fundamental component of mind. Sinusoids are individual thoughts. They are simple, ‘atomic’ thoughts that can be combined into a complex ‘molecule’. When an individual thought in manifested through ones on thought, this activity takes place within the private world through an individual monad. The monad is the agent that does the thinking, via its constituent sinusoids. When collective thoughts are thought, this actively takes place in the public domain, all monads united together (the monad collective). Collective thoughts are what we know as ‘matter’. Matter, therefore is a sinusoidal mental monad that exists collectively rather than individually. Monads and their constituent sinusoids are all that exist. There isn’t anything else. The mathematical monad is the fundamental unit of ontological mathematics.
Monads are the containers (form) for sinusoids (contests), but sinusoids are also the containers (forms) for thoughts (contents). Every individual sinusoid has an individual basis thought. These individual thoughts are like the letter of the alphabet. The mathematical monad is the fundamental unit of ontological mathematics. Is a logical container for a complete and consistent set of analytic sinusoids, which constitute the fundamental components of the mind? Sinusoids are individual thoughts. They are simple, ‘atomic” thoughts that can be combined into complex ‘molecular” structures. However, when they are combined, then, just as letters can be combined into words. Words into sentences and sentences into books expressing myriad ideas, basic thought can be combined into all possible complex thoughts. Letters (atoms) and works (molecules) can be combined into sentences, paragraphs, chapters and books (contents, objects). Letters and words are forms (together with spelling, syntax and grammar i.e. the proper, valid relations between them and ways of ordering them and combining them). Letters (atoms) and words (molecules) can be combined into sentences, paragraphs, chapter and books (content, object). Letters and words are forms (together with spelling and grammar i.e. the proper, valid relations between them and ways of ordering them and combining them). In chemistry, the periodic table of elements provides (atoms) from which all molecules are generated. We might think that molecules as the contingent content as necessary atoms ‘molecules’ themselves can then be combined to form, for example, human bodies. DNA is a molecule from that gives to bodies (content).
For Aristotle, the world consisted partly of form and matter, which combined to produce substance. At the bottom of Aristotle’s great chain at being was formless matter (chaos), and at the top matter less form (GOD). When form is applied to matter, it gives it shape, order, organization and even purpose to life. For Aristotle, each level at his great chain of being acted as the matter per the level above and for the before level below. Chaotic matter had nothing below it and God had nothing above him. God was pure mind (pure reason). All the substances below him constituted his body = the cosmos. In illuminism ‘GOD’ is replaced with monads, which are eternal mathematical entities that enshrine the laws of ontological mathematics. Reflect upon the principle of sufficient reason and thus constitute reason itself; reason as it’s manifested onto logically. The wider the form, the broader the range or possible behavior, and, the fewer rules there are for it. The widest form at all is the single cosmic formula known as the GOD equation (the generalized Euler formula) in its supreme form, the form that defines all other forms and all of their contents. The God equation defines sinusoids, monads and all their relations. It defines Fourier mathematics, quantum mechanics, holography and is the true (not relative) basis of Einstein’s theories. When Einstein’s theories are properly expressed, in a manner consistent with quantum mechanics, his bizarre and impossible principal of relativity (which contradicts the reality principal by allowing something to be considered both stationary and in motion at the same time, depending on subject perspectives) vanishes.
We live in an absolute, defined, mathematical universe, not one that is relativistic and undefined. “A ‘form’ is simple a shorthand expression for any number of particular propositions or ‘contents’. What we say about the form applies to all the contents” Avi sion Every applicant for a job is asked to fill in a form. Each applicant fills in the form uniquely, i.e. the form is identical in all cases, while the content differs in all cases. There is one to many relationships between form and content. If we regard the periodic table of elements as the set of basis forms for the material works then we can combine these forms in a myriad of different ways to produce all of the different molecules and compounds of the world. The ultimate form is the generalized Euler formula = God Equation Each monad fill in this form uniquely, via what it does with it set of basis sinusoids (thoughts). In logic, a syllogism is a formal deductive argument consisting of a major and minor premise and conclusion. This is a logical form into which all manner of contents can be inserted. If the contents are valid, the conclusion will be logically valid. To say, using the classical syllogism, that all men are mortal (major premise), Socrates is a mortal (minor premise); there fore Socrates is a mortal (conclusion). This seems unarguable, until we introduce the concept of the immortal soul. It is critical to grasp that perfect form does not automatically lead to perfect content. All sinusoidal forms are perfect. Ultimate form I.E. the God equation is parmidean, platonic, eternal, immutable and perfect. Content i.e. everything dynamically generated by the GOD equation, is, on the other hand, Heraclitean. It is pure change and becoming, mutable and imperfect, dialectical and teleological.
The GOD equation is the platonic form of thought. As soon as a cosmic age begins, (when perfect and divine symmetry is broken), all monads become pure potential (empty content) and are in need of being perfectly actualized. (Enlightenment). This is the point where the metaphorical quest for truth began. This is where the Hegelian dialectic kicks in. It drives imperfection (potential) to perfection (actualization). Viewed in other terms, it converts fallible content into perfect, infallible form (matter less form/4th dimension). The end of a cosmic cycle/age occurs when form and content become perfectly mathematically and cosmically aligned. A cosmic age relies on pure mathematical wave frequencies. A perpetual system of energy. The universe was created based on mathematical design. Music is the mathematical representation of the soul. The method/process of experiencing or being chosen for this incredible impart knowledge will be revealed at a later date. If you imagined the perfect from for delivering content, what could it be? When considered ontologically: Form and delivery are perfect and never change: What is it? ‘Faith no more’ Analytical mathematical sinusoids, organized into complete and consistent units (monads), constitute the perfect form and perfect delivery mechanisms for content (information). However, it must be remembered that although Form is perfect, content is not. Content is dialectical. It is improving all the time and becomes perfect only at the Omega point, where form and content become perfectly aligned. To make science consistent, it must be predicted on from rather than content.
It must switch from empiricism to rationalism, from science (physics) to mathematics (metaphysics). Physics, with its scientific method, then becomes the phenomenal application of metaphysics, with its mathematical method. As Leibniz advocated, “we must start with metaphysics and work our way to physics, start with the phenomena and then understand the phenomena that result from them.” “We must not do what science does and start with physics and deny the existence of metaphysics, to start with phenomena and deny that they are representations of mathematical noumea.” Question 7. How Did We Get Here? Current View Astronomers cannot see all the way back in time to the origin of the universe, but by drawing on lots of clues and theory, they can imagine how everything began. Their model starts with the entire universe as a very hot dot, much smaller than the diameter of an atom. The dot began to expand faster than the speed of light, an expansion called the Big Bang. Cosmologists are still arguing about the exact mechanism that may have set this event in motion. From there on out, however, they are in remarkable agreement about what happened. As the baby universe expanded, it cooled the various forms of matter and antimatter it contained, such as quarks and leptons, along with their antimatter twins, antiquarks and antileptons. These particles promptly smashed into and annihilated one another, leaving behind a small residue of matter and a lot of energy.
The universe continued to cool down until the few quarks that survived could latch together into protons and neutrons, which in turn formed the nuclei of hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium. For 300,000 years, this soup stayed too hot for electrons to bind to the nuclei and form complete atoms. But once temperatures dropped enough, the same hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium atoms that are around today formed, ready to start a long journey into becoming dust, planets, stars, galaxies, and lawyers. Gravity—the weakest of the forces but the only one that acts cumulatively across long distances—gradually took control, gathering gas and dust into massive globs that collapsed in on themselves until fusion reactions were ignited and the first stars were born. At much larger scales, gravity pulled together huge regions of denser-‐than-‐average gas. These evolved into clusters of galaxies, each one brimming with billions of stars. Over the eons fusion reactions inside stars transformed hydrogen and helium into other atomic nuclei, including carbon, the basis for all life on Earth. The most massive stars sometimes exploded in energetic supernovas that produced even heavier elements, up to and including iron. Where the heaviest elements, such as uranium and lead, came from still remains something of a mystery. The Illuminati The illuminati is an ancient secret society that seeks to bring to bring about a new world order based on the principal that everyone has the potential with in them to become God. Illuminati’s radical vision for a new humanity provides a full account of the inner divinity of the human race. The ten most influential Grand Masters of the Illuminati are: King Solomon the apostate, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Simon Magus, Hypatia, Leibniz, Weishaupt, Goethe and Hegel.
Our aim, as it always has been, is to overthrow the network of elite, dynastic families of wealth and privilege that we refer to as the ‘Old world order that have run this world this the dawn of the civilization, to their maximum advantage and to the extreme detriment of the people. We are radical and indeed revolutionary organization that seeks nothing less that to assist the ordinary man and women to ascend to the next stage of humanity’s divine evolution. We describe this higher level as the ‘community of Gods’ or the ‘society of the divine.’ It is time to end the reign of false prophets of religion, the fake gods of capitalism