Stephen Bové - Art, Technology, Right Action

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

You are Made of Black Holes

Physicists around the world are making great progress in understanding the fundamental structure of matter and energy.

Recently at Stanford's linear accelerator, matter was created from raw energy (particles created from light) for the first time.

Increasingly, it appears that fundamental particles (electrons, quarks and such) are:
  • extremely high frequency (10 to the 21st power)
  • small (sub-Schwarzschild-radius = below the radius at which their energy density becomes black-hole-like...which for the entire earth is around the size of a small marble(!), and which for a single HZ of radiation is...well, really small)
  • complex (toroidial-vortex-like)
  • high energy density (same as black holes)
  • superluminal (meaning inside them, the velocity of energy flow exceedes the speed of light "C")
  • 4 dimensional (not N dimensional as per various string theories)
  • slightly warbling (i.e., imperfect just a bit so that German physicists can have fun saying "zitterbewegung" - which means "jittering" - wegung )
  • Solitons (standing waves)
Imagine not "points of matter", but rapidly oscillating "ganeshas"...places where the energy density of space is so high (it was this kind of density that was created recently at SLAC and out of which "matter was created from light") that light (electromagnetic radiation) cannot propagate linearly and instead collapses inward on itself...still traveling at or above the speed of light, but "chasing it's tail" around a slightly off-center node...a mobius-strip-like "infinity sign" warbling about the centroid at 10 to the 21st oscillations per second.

The two forces in opposition (the electric and magnetic fields) endlessly chasing each other in the high density location are two aspects of the field that are in opposition in lower energy space-time (when light moves linearly)...and the "spin" (angular momentum about the centroid) is the result of the slightly out of balance nature of these two aspects of the field.

Edwin Babbit proposed this model of the fundamental structure of matter in the late 1800s...

Babbitt Atom

And Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater in 1895, described this struture deduced through "clairvoyant viewing" in their book Occult Chemistry:

More recent efforts from Dirac, Kerr, Feynman, Compton, Bohr, Siddharth, et. al. are synthesized here.

Remarkable similarities are emerging.

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Grist for Evolution's Mill

Kinsey, Wasps, Giant Eagles & Speciation

The film Kinsey.

Kinsey was a botanist...with a passion for demonstrating variety within a given species...he collected over 1 Million specimens of a single species of wasp and noted, "they're all different."

He also was a pioneer in the scientific study of human sexual behavior and variation:

Recent findings in evolutionary science indicate that the primary (not only) font of speciation may simply be meiotic/sexual variation.

Meiosis is the process where sex cells are produced with a randomly generated "genetic payload" (haploid gametes/spores) comprised of half of each parent's genome. The resolution in this process is at the "gene" scale.

Sexual combination (fertilization) is what happens when a sperm and egg mesh the two parental genomes into a single genome.

Both of these processes induce variation - statistically, a single human, with 46 chromosomes, can form 6,388,608 different gametes during metaphase I of meiosis alone.

Human science hasn;t yet worked out the subtle nature of the meiotic process, so random may not be may only be "approaching random", or better yet, "directed random."

Evolution may be the result of normal genomic expression. Evolution may not require "mutation" in the deleterious sense of the word.

Check out this article on the Great New Zealand Eagle and the new genetic evidence that it evolved from a local small eagle:

"The results showed that the New Zealand giant was in fact related to one of the world's smallest eagles – the Little Eagle from Australia and New Guinea, which typically weighs under two pounds. Even more striking was how closely related genetically the two species were. We estimate that their common ancestor lived less than a million years ago. It means that an eagle arrived in New Zealand and increased in weight by 10 to 15 times over this period, which is very fast in evolutionary terms. Such rapid size change is unprecedented in birds and animals," adds Bunce.

Read the whole article here.

When a species exists in an environment that does not change there is often No evolution. This is backed up by the theory/evidence of Punctuated Equilibrium first put forward by Anthony Aveni, Niles Eldredge, and most famously, Stephen Jay Gould. There are hundreds of examples in both the fossil record and the living world of species that retain their exact forms for MILLIONS of years - total stability over enormous amounts of so called DRIFT, and no so called evolution by mutation. The species is not changing because all the variation produced by meiotic/sexual probability is proving stays confined to a narrow band and no evolution takes place. There is probably lots of radiation-induced mutation, transcription error etc. over 1 million years, but a healthy genome manages this effortlessly. A genome that can't manage mutation becomes a diseased dead end.

It appears that mutations build up in the code for vestigial features and functions, but that doesn't impact an organism's chances for success, and the genomic operating system has complex (and little understood) mechanisms for ignoring (commenting out, suppressing the expression of) unneccary/dangerous parts of the code base.

The definition of species is notoriously hard to define. At some point, usually through geographic isolation and significant evolutionary pressure, different branches of a single species diverge so greatly in morphology and phenotype that their genomes become sexually incompatible. A wolf and a dog can still reproduce. Are a wolf and a dog the same species? Polar Bears and Grizzly bears can also reproduce. A wolf and a Bear cannot reproduce. Can Humans and Chimps breed? The truth may be shocking...and the answer is, no one knows. We need a better definition of species (for sexual and asexually reproducing organisms).

What about asexual reproduction. No meiosis. No fertilization. These organisms must be evolving by mutation, right? There are other forces at work in the asexual realm. Bacteria are not CLONES. Asexual reproduction induces variation (perhaps as much or more, statistically speaking, than meiosis/fertilization) into each and every offspring. A deep "probability cloud" of variation is created in any healthy and sufficiently large population of asexually reproducing creatures that enables rapid opportunistic evolution in the face of environmental stress. I would wager that understanding how this variation is created at a base-pair level of specificity would shine great light on the sexual-reproduction-meiosis problem.

If you and a single mate had 1 million children, no two of them would be alike. The variation you would see amongst your offspring would probably amaze you. Short, fat, athletic, wide, musical, mathematical, visually talented, mechanically oriented, tall, beautiful, downright ugly, diseased/deficient, hunters, gatherers, traders, maniacs, name it. If you picked the two or three children furthest apart in looks/features/traits, and those just happened to be your first, second and third chronologically born children, you would be astounded! Christie Brinkley and Elvis Presley (just to make a quick example) came from the most ordinary parents
(sorry mom and dad Brinkley/Presely) and Mozart's kids by his Musically gifted opera singer wife were NOT musical geniuses. I have two best friends who have 11+ brothers and sisters. The variation amongst the siblings is truly amazing. It's a living bell curve. The ends of the curve have kids you would never think are related to the center where the kids look/behave most like Mom and Dad. Unless your family and that of your spouse have been carefully controlling looks/traits for 20 or 30 generations (highly isolated populations are the closest we have to this today) , you can only guess what your kids will look/behave like. The more diverse your genetic background, the wider the divergence in your offspring will be. The power of normal meiotic/sexual variation is great, even in one mating pair! Statistically, all the variation in the human race on all the continents can be recreated from any four parents randomly chosen from anyplace on earth in less than 10,000 carefully controlled generations [[Update: this is being proven out by mitochondrial and Y chromasome DNA studies that link, in the case of the Y chromasome, all humans on earth today to a single male ancestor in south-west africa about 50,000 years ago. -- See ]]

Another interesting area for deep research: "Tribal Genomics": the expression of the genome can probably best be seen in it's fullest functional aspect when a whole tribal unit is studied (Craig Venter is onto this with his work sequencing whole marine biotas). Any group of 100 or 200 people who are closely related probably expresses a fully functional human "pack" or tribe genome...where the sum of the individual's talents equates to a formidable functioning human meta-unit -- it's the unit/tribe that gives Humans a seriously unfair advantage over all other lifeforms on Earth. At around 50,000 people, you see enough variation so that the ends of the bell curve show the absolute highs and lows (statistically) of human genomic expression. In a city of 50,000 people, say Florence in 1400, you will have a bunch of healthy Michaelangelos, Leonardos, Cosimo de Medicis, and other "geniuses" in every field/occupation at one end of the curve and the worst sort of diseased, nasty, unproductive laggarts imaginable at the other end. What is the genome of the Tribe trying to do? A) through communication and diversity of stregths, give the tribe a great advantage in a harsh world...hunting, gathering, child rearing...all easier in an intelligent tribe, and B) make sure that the sum total expression of the genome at any given time is capable of adapting, in the shortest possible period of time, to the widest range of environmental conditions.

Stasis should see the full flourishing and expression of the genome with no drift or evolution. Punctuation (the opening of new niches) should favor some fraction of the total genomic pool and provide opportunities for branching. The force of genomic variation through reproduction which is built into the the code of life itself, plus environmental variation & isolation over large periods of time seems to be the primary driver of speciation and evolution.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Herb Caen's Posthumous Ode to San Francisco

"Herb Caen, Pulitzer-winning lead columnist of the San Francisco Chronicle, was the most beloved and powerful man in San Francisco for almost sixty years.

At his funeral (2/7/97), 2,500 mourners packed Grace Cathedral. The service was carried live on channels 4, 5 and 7, and shown on several giant screens around the city. The eulogies were delivered by Robin Williams, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and a Mystery Gentleman wearing a pillowcase over his head."

Caen also willed to his beloved city of San Francisco a fireworks display.

It happened above Aquatic Park near Fort Mason a few days after his funeral.

I lived on Russian Hill at the time and was lucky to attended.

There was no fog ;-)

Monday, December 13, 2004

Klaus Kinski in Mill Valley

Re-watched Werner Herzog's documentary about his relationship with actor Klaus Kinski...My Best Friend (Mein Liebster Feind)...sensational study of the creative process...

Searching the internet for stuff on Klaus: found an odd interview/story about him.

He died at his home in Lagunitas in 1991 (just north of where I now live)...2 weeks before his death, he met this reporter/interviewer for lunch in Mill Valley at D'Angelos...they sat together at one of the little marble tables in the front bar window...he loved Jack London...who also happened to live in/around the bay area)...

Don't miss Kinski's flagrant autobiography (current version is the toned down 2nd publishing after the first was pulled due to libel threats)...

"Our first task was finding a table in the near-empty restaurant. Kinski led me from table to table, with Paolo right behind us. No, this table wasn't right because it was too close to other diners. No, this table was in the sun. No, this table was too near the aisle. So, we circled the room for several minutes before he settled upon a small marble table by the window in the front bar area that had not yet been set up.

He asked me where I used to live. When I said Oakland, he began talking about one of his favorite authors, Jack London. He narrated the plot of one story, To Build a Fire, which he said he always wanted to film. The tale is about a Yukon adventurer who is caught out in the Klondike cold. His only hope for survival in the sub-freezing temperature is to build a fire, but his hands are numb with frostbite. He does manage to ignite a fire with matches and a scrap of beech bark, but only by cupping the flame with his hands until his palms begin to burn. While Klaus told this story, he, too, cupped his hands. I half expected to see the yellow tip of a flame flickering up through his fingers...