The data from the seven participants were unambiguous. Paying attention to the target consistently and strongly increased the fMRI activity, regardless of whether the subject saw the target or not. This result was expected because many previous studies had shown that attending to a signal reinforces its representation in the cortex. Much more intriguing, though, was that whether or not the stimulus was consciously perceived made no difference to signal strength. Visibility didn’t matter to V1; what did was whether or not selective visual attention focused on the grating. Indeed, the experimentalists could not decode from the signal whether or not the subject saw the stimulus.
I am very pleased by their finding because it is fully in line with the hypothesis that Nobel laureate Francis Crick and I advanced in 1995. Writing in Nature, we had argued that neurons in V1 do not directly contribute to visual consciousness. Our speculation was based on the absence of a direct connection between cells in V1 and their partners in the frontal lobe in macaques. The fMRI experiment described here provided evidence for our conjecture. Whether or not our connectional argument is valid remains open, of course.
It appears that the habitat of consciousness is not the cortical region at the bottom of the extended hierarchy of cortical areas dedicated to vision. Consciousness is restricted to higher regions, possibly those that are engaged in a reciprocal, two-way communication with the prefrontal cortex, the seat of planning.
The history of any scientific concept—energy, atom, gene, cancer, memory—is one of increased differentiation and sophistication until it can be explained in a quantitative and mechanistic manner at a lower, more elemental level. These and related experiments put paid to the notion that consciousness and attention are the same. They are not, and the brain responds differently to them. This distinction clears the decks for a concerted, neurobiological attack on the core problem of identifying the necessary causes of consciousness in the brain.
This article was originally published with the title Consciousness Does Not Reside Here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
55 Comments
Add CommentHow can you go "looking for" consciousness in various regions of the brain if you haven't decided at the outset what it is you're looking for?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, before you can look for the presence or absence of consciousness, you need to DEFINE exactly what consciousness is. At least in this brief article, I did not find a clear, one-sentence definition of the term.
As a result, I cannot take your conclusion - "Consciousness is restricted to higher [brain] regions" - any more seriously than if a non-scientist casually made the same conclusion.
This is worth thinking about: because no one in the fields of neuroscience and cognitive psychology have ever agreed on a definition of consciousness, it is impossible to make a science out of consciousness - unlike, say, physics and biochemistry where scientists agree on the definitions of, say, "electron" and "DNA".
Even more alarming: the lack of a definition of consciousness does not arise from a lack of data or key experiments - no, it arises from the very nature of the word "consciousness": it is one of a small group of words in natural languages that cannot rely on the support of empirical data for their definitions (other such words include "mind" and "God").
That means we cannot have a proper science of consciousness or God - EVER. And there is nothing we can do about that limitation because we are "stuck" in the web of our natural languages from birth. If you appreciate that point, you will be very alarmed.
Mr. Dick Turpin
"A Japanese-German collaboration has moved such an experiment into the confines of a magnetic scanner to record the brain’s response to unseen stimuli."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible to get any more info so I can find this experiment?
Consciousness, attention and neural activity in either one or different regions of brain are different entities but closely integrated with each other. These entities, though different, but function as integrated whole.Unless neuro biologists and neuro scientists are not clear on these concepts, it will be futile to search attention and consciousness in any one point or region of brain, whether lower or higher, or even in the total brain as a whole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe way for cosmologists, it is not feasible to focus on 200 billion stars and their planetary systems, for scientists and biologists in neurology, search of attention and consciousness in any region of brain having 100 billions of neurons can't lead to any fruitful result unless sufficient understanding on fundamentals of attention and consciousness have developed.
Leave aside higher functions of brain like memory, planning, analysis, decision making, imagination , in case of basic rudimentary function, neurons in different regions of brain get activated on receiving stimuli of vision, sound, touch, smell and taste thro' respective senses. While attention and consciousness are different from each other, both these entities are not the neural functions of brain.
While higher or lower rudimentary functions of brain whether memory, imagination or vision, taste are different and stimuli for each function activate different region and set in motion complex synapses building, attention is ONE and COMMON function. At one time attention gets engaged with ONE function only, though it switch overs from one function to another very fast. Unless, attention does not engages with any function , consciousness does not gets hold of of the stimuli. It is the attention which drags consciousness to different neural functions of brain
Attention is the most basic function of MIND which does not resides in physical body. The seat of mind is in the astral plane in the astral body which is embedded in the brain.Consciousness is the SUPER force residing in the plan beyond brain and mind. Brain receives basic signals from environment for the rudimentary functions and neural activity in different regions sets in motion, a SINGLE attention, common to all functions of brain whether lower or higher, which is a function of MIND, residing in ASTRAL BODY, gets linked to these signals and consciousness observes. Consciousness merely observes different functions of brain thro' attention(Mind). Attention(Mind) serves as an interface between consciousness and brain.
In reference to your last paragraph, this is a scientific magazine, so do you have any evidence to support the astral body theory, or is it just made up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike former theories about the "æther" or "ether" that fills the universe above our terrestrial sphere before the time of Einstein and modern physics, so conventional scientific wisdom goes that consciousness is tied to our biologies. ("Consciousness is restricted to higher regions, possibly those that are engaged in a reciprocal, two-way communication with the prefrontal cortex, the seat of planning.")
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're living inside a proverbial box scientifically. Until we know what's beyond the region of our understanding, the nature of consciousness is idle speculation at best. We're still living in a dark age where the essence of consciousness in living creatures like ourselves is considered as a combination of bio-chemical components that make our living bodies. There's no such thing as "spirits" or life that thrives in other dimensions. That is conventional scientific wisdom.
Conventional 19th century definitions of Ether are as ludicrous today as present views on consciousness will likely be viewed by future generations.
Once upon a time, the definition of "Ether" was "(1) A medium of great elasticity and extreme tenuity, supposed to pervade all space, the interior of solid bodies not excepted, and to be the medium of transmission of light and heat; hence often called luminiferous ether. (2) Supposed matter above the air; the air itself."
If I went back to the 19th century and mentioned some of Einstein's and present day physics theories that contradict the "ether" to a group of prominent scientists at a science symposium, scornful laughter would have filled the Victorian era lecture hall. The real nature of consciousness as it may be understood in the future is probably just as laughable to scientists today.
I will give you a very clear definition of consciousness so that you might get it:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsciousness follows the desire to fit in, to understand ones places and the places of others and things around you.
With this one line you should be able to build your terminator robot easily...surely...come on.
Maybe he's referring to the paper http://alturl.com/5hwzr
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay to code it into a machine youll need this: A definition you can use to build it and a loop to start you off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsciousness is knowing the impact of intelligent decisions, it is pure and simply the appreciation of TIME and its consequence of actions at different times.
[
Loop
Time
[What can i do with it before it starts helping me....its an object thats affects other objects]
Movement
[What can i do with it before it starts helping me.... I can move..yes]
Objects
[What can i do with it before it starts helping me....it interacts with me like this and with other things like this]
]
This I coin as the M-Method. It should by all my formidble brain power give you a conscious entity.
Also above the loop in the memory section is a scrath-pad of things to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis lits is filled from other sections of the body, like repair arm, food, etc
In reply to DaniEder:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe transcription and translation of the genetic code into protein requires a host of protein enzymes and transcription factors that must themselves be transcribed, translated and folded by yet more chaperone proteins. Because the shape of enzymes is critical to their function and because their active sites employ non-covalent interactions all this mesmerizing activity amounts to an extremely complex energy pattern. This pattern is distinct from the molecular chemistry of the cell that enzymes meaningfully orchestrate including themselves. Cells are essentially clothed in molecules as constituents of the organ tissues that make up the biological host. The host can thus be considered a closed complex energy pattern that functions behind the open molecular interface shared with the universe at large. These distinctive individual energy patterns have taken a few billion years to evolve in concert with the evolution of the whole biosphere. See the following link: http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Gene_Expression.html and related articles on the website.
I can't believe the kind of comments that I'm seeing. Are you really conscious about it? Did you pay attention to the subject of the article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I find the inattentive, unconscious mind more compelling, but I'm have difficulty locating it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of all, I think it's brilliant that consciousness is now considered valid for investigation. You'd think it would have been at the top of the list! Although taking 5000 year old meditation experiments as the evidence, perhaps it once was. The recent finding that oxytocin is generated by altrusitic emotions is hugely significant, considering that oxytocin is beneficial, apparently, for every major system in the body. It seems consciousness is also a huge lever towards health. What an interesting time, to be starting to look deep inside our own selves using science, at last.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLeave aside consciousness, there have been no full fledged theories and hard scientific evidence on higher mental function like LOVE, HATE, Conspiracy, IMAGINATION but billions of people believe in these experience based upon their subjective experience. Even scientists and neuro biologists agree with the presence of these functions since during their life, they have had also experienced these feelings at one stage or other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery very few people, may be in hundreds, people on this globe have had experience of astral body and separate consciousness beyond physical and astral plane in deep contemplation (Samadhi) and after their experience they have written on these subjects. Since their number is negligible and there have been no empirical evidence for the astral body, most of the people will not agree with the the existence of astral body or separate consciousness.
During early 20th century and 19th century, scientific development in any area was restricted to that area only and contribution from other areas have been negligible. But during the late 20th century and 21st century, there has been inter-disciplinay approach. A molecular scientist, software specialist, an electronics engineer have significance contribution in the area of human biology. During the coming decades, cue from non-scientific sources and intuitive approaches may play their increasing role in scientific development. Landmark developments in science were triggered thro' intuition only. A person having the true scientific passion shall not underestimate the significance of intuition and knowledge from non scientific sources.
Nevertheless the above, most of the people shall experience that attention and consciousness can not be dichotomised based upon region of the brain and neural function in the same. Both consciousness and attention (basic function of mind) are COMPOSITE one, WHOLE, NON_Quantum and SINGLE entities irrespective of the functionality of brain. Let readers may have had their intuitive experience for the same and express in these columns. Great intuitive experiences may usher new frontiers in the great scientific developments in future.
Leave aside consciousness, there have been no full fledged theories and hard scientific evidence on higher mental function like LOVE, HATE, Conspiracy, IMAGINATION but billions of people believe in these experience based upon their subjective experience. Even scientists and neuro biologists agree with the presence of these functions since during their life, they have had also experienced these feelings at one stage or other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery very few people, may be in hundreds, people on this globe have had experience of astral body and separate consciousness beyond physical and astral plane in deep contemplation (Samadhi) and after their experience they have written on these subjects. Since their number is negligible and there have been no empirical evidence for the astral body, most of the people will not agree with the the existence of astral body or separate consciousness.
During early 20th century and 19th century, scientific development in any area was restricted to that area only and contribution from other areas have been negligible. But during the late 20th century and 21st century, there has been inter-disciplinay approach. A molecular scientist, software specialist, an electronics engineer have significance contribution in the area of human biology. During the coming decades, cue from non-scientific sources and intuitive approaches may play their increasing role in scientific development. Landmark developments in science were triggered thro' intuition only. A person having the true scientific passion shall not underestimate the significance of intuition and knowledge from non scientific sources.
Nevertheless the above, most of the people shall experience that attention and consciousness can not be dichotomised based upon region of the brain and neural function in the same. Both consciousness and attention (basic function of mind) are COMPOSITE one, WHOLE, NON_Quantum and SINGLE entities irrespective of the functionality of brain. Let readers may have had their intuitive experience for the same and express in these columns. Great intuitive experiences may usher new frontiers in the great scientific developments in future.
Leave aside consciousness, there have been no full fledged theories and hard scientific evidence on higher mental function like LOVE, HATE, Conspiracy, IMAGINATION but billions of people believe in these experience based upon their subjective experience. Even scientists and neuro biologists agree with the presence of these functions since during their life, they have had also experienced these feelings at one stage or other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery very few people, may be in hundreds, people on this globe have had experience of astral body and separate consciousness beyond physical and astral plane in deep contemplation (Samadhi) and after their experience they have written on these subjects. Since their number is negligible and there have been no empirical evidence for the astral body, most of the people will not agree with the the existence of astral body or separate consciousness.
During early 20th century and 19th century, scientific development in any area was restricted to that area only and contribution from other areas have been negligible. But during the late 20th century and 21st century, there has been inter-disciplinay approach. A molecular scientist, software specialist, an electronics engineer have significance contribution in the area of human biology. During the coming decades, cue from non-scientific sources and intuitive approaches may play their increasing role in scientific development. Landmark developments in science were triggered thro' intuition only. A person having the true scientific passion shall not underestimate the significance of intuition and knowledge from non scientific sources.
Nevertheless the above, most of the people shall experience that attention and consciousness can not be dichotomised based upon region of the brain and neural function in the same. Both consciousness and attention (basic function of mind) are COMPOSITE one, WHOLE, NON_Quantum and SINGLE entities irrespective of the functionality of brain. Let readers may have had their intuitive experience for the same and express in these columns. Great intuitive experiences may usher new frontiers in the great scientific developments in future.
Hm, the author had argued that V1 does not contribute to consciousnes, because there are no direct connections between V1 and the frontal lobe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, shouldn't such connections also be needed for V1 to "know" where the subject was asked to direct their visual attention, also? If V1 can do that without direct connections to the frontal lobe, maybe such connections shouldn't be so necessary for V1 to contribute to consciousness either.
Can somebody explain that to me?
Why should it be presumed that direct connection is necessary for V1 and the frontal lobe to contribute to 'consciousness'? Consciousness may be a product of some collaborative process mediated by some area(s) of the brain that share direct connection to both V1 and the frontal lobe, for example...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conventional 19th century definition of ether may be less than perfect, but the concept that an ether exists is alive and well today. It may be called a fabric of space, but none-the-less can be considered an ether of sorts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou point to problems in the 19th century view of what constituted an ether. I believe the early view you site was simply trying to convey the concept that an ether existed. It was likely not trying to precisely define the ether since no theory at the time had been successful.
To my knowledge, Einstein did nothing to disprove an ether. Indeed, if you start with the concept on a preferred coordinate system in local space, it can be shown that SR transformations would follow.
In part one often solves problems by doing exactly what the author is doing... conjecture based on some form of logic. This was true in the 19th century and it is true today.
I think the article stirs one's imagination to distinguish between attention and consciousness.
Confusion arises because the relations between consciousness, attention, and perception are not properly specified. The weight of evidence suggests that consciousness is a necessary precondition for selective attention to be deployed, and that selective attention is needed for perception. But selective attention is directed to a brain region of egocentric space where it enhances the neuronal activation of cells in that region regardless of the presence or absence of a stimulus in that region. So, it is not surprising that fMRI signal strength in V1 increased whether or not the subject saw the stimulus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistrehub
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the relevance of selective attention without any stimulus? Attention per se means convergence of thought process on some subject. When it is exclusive and intense for some time on a single subject, it can be termed as "selective". If there are no visual stimulus from external, environment, our memory or imagination provide strong stimulus. Regardless of the fact, whether stimulus is provided by external environment OR internally from memory or imagination, a stimulus is necessary for creating a subject on which attention shall be focused which will be perceived by consciousness
The author(s) of this article use weird and non-descriptive language. Example:"These and related experiments put paid to the notion that consciousness and attention are the same." What does "put paid to the notion" mean?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that ether (or aether) as a cosmic substrate is referred to as dark matter and dark energy in the current era. As far as I can tell it is just as poorly defined as it ever was.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey done been killed it and put the gold coins on its eyes. It can now be buried in the dirt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn a practical level, I tend to think much the same way as the author as far as attention and consciousness being different however, I don't think minor brain activation is sufficient proof. Part of the problem really is semantics as other commentators have pointed out.
Selective attention can be directed to a particular region of space, either idly, or in anticipation of a stimulus appearing in that region. Wherever attention is targeted in the brain's representation of one's egocentric space, there will be an increase in neuronal excitation and in fMRI that does not depend on the presence of an additional stimulus input. For more about this, see pp. 315-317 and Fig. 3 here: http://people.umass.edu/trehub/YCCOG828%20copy.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI post a comment as number 19.Now is not displayed . Why..?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks in advance,
Jorge
As I understand, aether or ether is generally dismissed at least in part because it has been used to describe varying concepts throughout the ages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAether was initially used in Greek mythology to describe the region above the sky, including space and heaven.
In Medieval science the term aether was used to describe the classical element (i.e., Earth, wind, fire) - a physical material that filled the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.
As stated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
"In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether... was the term used to describe a [material] medium [necessary] for the propagation of light [like waves in water]."
"Following the negative outcome of aether-drift experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiment, the concept of aether as a mechanical medium having a state of motion lost adherents. It has been replaced in modern physics by the theory of relativity and quantum theory."
IMO, general relativity accurately describes the effects of gravitation only as a mathematically abstract system of dimensional coordinates but does not describe any physical entity through which these effects can be mechanically imparted. That does not prove that no such entity exists - in fact there is ample evidence that space is not literally empty. I think that it is the vibrant energy contained within space that produces the kinetic effects of gravitation in response to the potential energy stored as the localized mass of aggregated matter.
Please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
especially the closing section "Contemporary Ideas", which quote Nobel laureate Robert B. Laughlin (included here, in part):
"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry."
"It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids... The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
To trehub
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow selective attention can be directed in a particular region idly without any subject? What does selective attention idly, implying no subject matter, means? Selective attention per se means a sustained and continuous focused thinking process on a SINGLE SUBJECT- Selective attention is not possible on more than one subject at one time. From where the single subject will emerge? Either as a stimulus from external environment OR internally from memory/imagination. And then who will perceive the the process of selective attention? Obviously, it is the consciousness which perceives the entire process.
Before we discuss neuro centric process in any region of brain OR MRI imaging, we should evolve a consensual view on the concepts of attention, selective attention, consciousness, sources of stimulants.
My view is that whenever selective attention shall be directed at any subject in any region of brain, neural activity shall increase in that region. MRI imaging also supports this view. But subject matter for selective attention has to be provided by some stimulant either externally OR internally from memory/imagination. And this entire process viz entry of stimulant from external environment/internally from memory or imagination, creation of subject matter, selective attention IS
perceived by a distinct entity - consciousness. And this consciousness is distinct from neural activity of brain
Since "God" is not a universal concept, not shared by all, it can have no relevance here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince that product of the imagination of some (by NO means all) has never been shown to have had verifiable or repeatable evidence of its existence, it must be regarded as fictional, and therefore not worthy of mention in scientific discussion.
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to message 27
Einstein's GR describes gravity as a curvature in Space-Time and expresses the same thro' complex mathematically system. But this does not describes the existence of any physical entity which may create a force of attraction . In view of this, I am perplexed to understand as to What gravity is? At least, Newton straightforward described gravity as an attractive force between two masses and all the space exploration and research, design of satellites, rovers, rockets etc are based upon Newton's Gravity.
But genius like Einstein might be having some concept of gravity in their mind while enunciating GR but they might not have conveyed the same in express terms.
I suspects certain things which appear right to me intuitively. If mass can create curvature in Space/Time it means Space is quantum comprising of some particles which interact with the mass particles. Mass particles can not create curvature in a space which is
1) truly empty implying nil existence of any entity in space, there can not be any interaction between existence and nil existence
2) an integral and infinite space. Curvature can be created in a quantum space only. Curvature of a perfectly smooth, integral, infinite, composite whole space is difficult to comprehend
Could you please add your contribution on above ideas. One thing which I do not know is whether it is only the mass or ENERGY ALSO CREATES CURVATURE in Space/time. Further, curvature of quantum space can be comprehended since nay scientists have ideas regarding graininess of space, but what is the physical relevance of curvature OF Time. Is time also an existential entity which is quantum in which curvature can be created?
"My view is that whenever selective attention shall be directed at any subject in any region of brain, neural activity shall increase in that region. MRI imaging also supports this view. But subject matter for selective attention has to be provided by some stimulant either externally OR internally from memory/imagination. And this entire process viz entry of stimulant from external environment/internally from memory or imagination, creation of subject matter, selective attention IS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisperceived by a distinct entity - consciousness. And this consciousness is distinct from neural activity of brain"
Selective attention refers to mostly unconscious driven attention, and Attention refers to mostly conscious driven attention ? -
Selective attention tracks stimulie for relevance to various internal processes and a possible flagging for consciousness attention ?
It's tough to admit to having multiple entities under the hood. When I say I drive to the store this is not true. The I talking has very little to with this. The mind , a concept with no classical existence, often claims sole ownership of the "I" however never proves it successfully. And since a big role of the cerebrum's is suppressive, who's to say there isn't a complete conscious in the basement tied and gagged by evolutionary kidnapping. "I" have to acknowledge that my body needs to go now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read the book "The Tell-Tale Brain: Unlocking the Mystery of Human Nature" by Prof. V. S. Ramachandran, published by Random House India,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that you relate consciousness to the external world and about oneself. Is consciouness not simply awareness? In your definition of consciousness, how will you describe hallucinations and dreams? You remember these experiences. Can memory be not a part of consciousness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is cleverly written and author is trying to dodge people. The author is trying the same experiment with the readers he has mentioned in this article. I usually prefer to be accomplice with the people who use such kind of trick without letting them know. However this time I have tried to make other readers aware in case they happen to read my comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry for the delay in responding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll be very brief for now. As you pointed out (I'd omitted for simplicity) - energy also 'curves' (distorts) space and time. In your preceding paragraph you state that "Space is quantum comprising of some particles which interact with the mass particles."
I am suggesting that space is less comprised of particles (disregarding virtual particles that are manifested from 'empty space' and annihilated) than an energy residue of the initial state of the universe. It is this velocity producing energy of space whose density coordinates are 'curved' by the mass effect produced by spherically symmetrical aggregations of mass.
Again, I'm not physicist, but as I understand time is an aspect of the distortion of spatial dimensions produced by gravitation and other velocity producing energies.
As I envision it, the energy of space was present in the dense, extremely energetic particle plasma that first emitted the cosmic microwave background radiation, prior to the development of stars and galaxies. While universal expansion dispersed this space energy, redshifting its spectrum from infrared to microwave frequencies, and the aggregation of massive objects diminished it, it has not been depleted. It could hypothetically be measured as the temperature of space within our galactic neighborhood, but it is effectively impossible to distinguish from the infrared radiation produced by material objects...
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your guiding comments at para 36 above
" It is the velocity producing energy of space whose density co-ordinates are 'curved' by mass effect produced by spherical symmetrical aggregation of mass"
1. Regardless of different concepts/theories on gravity, it is universally recognized that gravity is an attractive force. How the distortion in the density co-ordinates of energy of space brings on scene an attractive force called gravity?
2 If fabric of space - whether continuous smooth one or graininess, different than velocity producing energy of space OR energy of space is the space itself.
3 What is meant by " time is an aspect of distortion of spatial dimensions produced by gravitation and velocity producing energies" ? If there is no distortion in the spatial dimensions, in any area of space due to absence of mass/gravitation/velocity producing energies -- i.e. in large voids, will there be nil existence of time?After all what time is? and how this appears on scene? Is it an existential entity like matter/energy/space or a cognitive off-shoot of an observer?
4 is there any relation between distortion of space, produced by mass effect, and expansion of inter galactic space?
I want a clear understanding on the above aspects. I shall be delighted and grateful if you could please share your understanding and knowledge.
Thanks, but I do have to admit that I'm simply attempting to describe my current personal conceptions of gravitation, since existing theories don't seem to offer any physical cause for its effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn an attempt to address your points:
1. As I understand, general relativity's description of gravity's effects does not rely on any physical force, attractive or otherwise. It only expresses those effects as some geometric characteristics of spacetime. However, if it's considered that each massive object in effect independently produces an external field of contracted (directional) velocity-producing space energy, the interaction of two such (opposingly directed) fields could be said to accelerate each body towards one another, providing for the apparent effect of an attractive force operating between them.
Each object of mass produces the local contraction of spacetime even in the absence of any other massive object: a marble would accelerate towards the Earth even if there were no Sun or other planets; its gravitational effects are not dependent on any attractive force directed towards any other massive object.
2. IMO, in the absence of locally contracting masses, the energy of space produces its own expansion, in effect increasing distances and the volume of spacetime. Eventually, as I envision it, the energy of spacetime would become so disperse that its expansion would effectively cease (disregarding any current 'accelerating universe' hypothesis).
3. Locally, the progression rate of time is inversely related to the density of velocity producing energy. Just as general relativity prescribes that the progression rate of time is effectively halted by a black hole, whose gravitation essentially accelerates matter to velocities approaching the speed of light, I understand that, in the absence of any velocity producing energy of space (or gravitational mass) the progression rate of time would be significantly increased! In any eventually 'fully dispersed' universe, time would meaninglessly spin out, as relatively no events would occur at nearly any time, whether anyone could perceive the 'imperceptible' progression of time or not.
4. IMO, the intergalactic expansion of spacetime is the dispersal of space energy density in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. In the absence of massive objects, whose aggregated potential energy contracts the energy density of localized external space, the velocity producing energy of space must disperse and expand.
Thanks for your interest in these, my personal conceptions.
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your prompt response against my queries. I have tried to understand your personal concepts on gravity and related process. I am paraphrasing the same to invite your comments as to if I have understood the concepts correctly:
1 Some velocity producing space energy is embedded in Space. Each massive object independently interacts with space energy, causes distortion in space (actually in dimensions in density of space-energy) and produces a contracting external field say F1.Similarly another body also produces an external field say F2. When F1 interacts with F2, an attractive force which we call gravity appear on the scene. External field F1 is directly proportional to mass. A larger mass m1 shall produce an external field F1 whose magnitude shall be higher than field F2 produced by a smaller mass m2. Therefore, m2 is attracted towards m1, a scenario emerging from Newton's Law of gravity.
2 Space energy per se is expanding in nature. At large distances say inter galactic distances, density of space energy becomes so much dispersed that expansion of space becomes minimal and comes to halt in large voids.
3. Progression of Time is inversely related to velocity producing energy of space. velocity producing energy of space is different than contracting producing potential energy of aggregate mass. At large distances, velocity producing energy of space almost becomes nil, therefore, progression of time may approach towards infinity and eventually spin out.
Now, I have objections to my aforesaid understanding:
a) So far existence of any independent space energy, whether dark energy or vacuum energy or any energy whatsoever we may name it, has been empirically established.
b) Accelrated Expansion of space has been established empirically (Perlmutter).
c) Space per se is different then velocity producing space energy. At large distances, space energy may become dispersed to nil energy density but space will remain in existence by virtue of its existence. Our basic question regarding "fabric of space" remains even more confounded
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your prompt response against my queries. I have tried to understand your personal concepts on gravity and related process. I am paraphrasing the same to invite your comments as to if I have understood the concepts correctly:
1 Some velocity producing space energy is embedded in Space. Each massive object independently interacts with space energy, causes distortion in space (actually in dimensions in density of space-energy) and produces a contracting external field say F1.Similarly another body also produces an external field say F2. When F1 interacts with F2, an attractive force which we call gravity appear on the scene. External field F1 is directly proportional to mass. A larger mass m1 shall produce an external field F1 whose magnitude shall be higher than field F2 produced by a smaller mass m2. Therefore, m2 is attracted towards m1, a scenario emerging from Newton's Law of gravity.
2 Space energy per se is expanding in nature. At large distances say inter galactic distances, density of space energy becomes so much dispersed that expansion of space becomes minimal and comes to halt in large voids.
3. Progression of Time is inversely related to velocity producing energy of space. velocity producing energy of space is different than contracting producing potential energy of aggregate mass. At large distances, velocity producing energy of space almost becomes nil, therefore, progression of time may approach towards infinity and eventually spin out.
Now, I have objections to my aforesaid understanding:
a) So far existence of any independent space energy, whether dark energy or vacuum energy or any energy whatsoever we may name it, has been empirically established.
b) Accelrated Expansion of space has been established empirically (Perlmutter).
c) Space per se is different then velocity producing space energy. At large distances, space energy may become dispersed to nil energy density but space will remain in existence by virtue of its existence. Our basic question regarding "fabric of space" remains even more confounded
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther to your comments at 38 and my observations at 39 an40 (40 being duplication of 39 my mistake), you have stated that at large distances, space-energy may dispersed out to nil leading to a situation wherein time may eventually spin-out and that time has no meaning due to nil event, though difficult to perceive intuitively. But with the spinning out of time will space shall also be meaningless. Does it implies that time comes into existence and carries some meaning owing to change in some event?
All the universe is an inter-play of matter and energy within the bounds of space-time. If boundaries itself become meaningless, where matter-energy shall stand? With the spinning out of Time, matter-energy may itself dissolve and universe may disappear.
In the scheme of universe creation, is creation and appearance of space-time not priori to the creation of matter-energy? I understand that BB theory also provides for creation and expansion thereof of space-time. And creation of space-time should be before appearance of matter-energy.
In matters of space-time, certain aspects may appear correct mathematically or theoretically, but a deep insight leads to a position which seems to carry no meaning.
I often used your method of restatement to confirm mutual understanding of complex issues in my past work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I must attempt to revise some of your statements as I don't think they accurately represent my intended conceptualization.
In my comment #38 point 1, I attempted to explain how the physical processes I propose to produce the effects described as gravitation are also consistent with the effects of gravitation as described in Newton's law of universal gravitation as well as general relativity. In other words, I propose a physical interaction between potential mass-energy and kinetic space-energy that produce both the appearance of an attractive force between two bodies as well as a dimensional curvature of spacetime coordinates.
In your comment #39 point 1, I have to take exception with the idea: "When F1 interacts with F2, an attractive force which we call gravity appear on the scene."
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_gravitation
states the law in modern language:
"Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them: [F = G * ((m1 * m2) / r**2)],
where:
F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses."
The law applies only to valid point masses which, as proven in Newton's shell theorem, includes exactly spherically symmetrical distributions of mass.
The law describes the attractive force in effect between the two point masses. It does not describe who moves where.
In my attempt to describe an accelerating force field enveloping objects of mass, each field accelerates an interacting (spherical) object towards its center; two interacting massive objects each accelerate their partner towards their own center, producing in effect an attractive interaction from two separately directed force fields.
(continued)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding your objections expressed in comment 39, I don't fully understand your statements, but IMO dark energy has been hypothesized to account for the still tenuous exceedingly complex interpretation of observations that seemed to researchers (i.e., Perlmutter) to indicate the acceleration of universal expansion. Their consideration are not necessarily pertinent to this discussion.
As I understand, the vacuum energy or whatever it might be called is necessary to produce the initial and (diminishingly) continuing expansion of spacetime, separate from any proposed acceleration.
Regarding your objection c), I don't disagree, expect that I don't quite understand your statement "Our basic question regarding "fabric of space" remains even more confounded."
I hope this helps somewhat - I do find your questions interesting and helpful.
Regarding your comment #41, my comments regarding time are just a simple interpolation of my limited conceptual understanding of general relativity. If GR indicates that the acceleration of matter to nearly the speed of light as it 'falls into' the event horizon nearly halts the progression of time in relation to an external observer, then I conclude that an environment or nearly zero energy density should cause the progression rate of time to approach infinity...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, there are a number of ideas about the initial state of the universe, but I generally envision it as an enormously dense energy field that expands, condensing energy into matter (a hyper-dense quark-gluon 'soup'). As I envision it, that partial condensation of energy into matter also creates the residual spatial dimensions; the resulting expansion also creates time as an inherent characteristic of space. Likewise, the diminishing (gravitational) contraction of space also diminishes the progression rate of time.
Disregarding any quantum scale time effects, the 'forward arrow of time' is an aspect of the forward direction of velocity; their is no reverse motion, only forward motion in varying directions...
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your quick response. It is my belief that mutual discussions always clarifies our conceptual understanding.
1. What I understand from your posts so far is that gravity comes into play on interaction between potential mass energy of an object and kinetic space-energy of space. The beauty of this approach is that this reconciles both Newtonian's and Einstein's ideas on gravity. Now I move forward a bit further to examine the issue in more details :
a) Potential mass energy : Is potential mass energy of an object an aggregate of its inertial mass PLUS energy emanating from all the forces within its atoms (strong nuclear+weak nuclear+e.m.forces). My intuition is that mass and energy are basically two forms of same entity. That is the reason for interaction between mass and energy. In view of this the TOTAL content of an object MASS+ENERGY equivalent to all forces should interact with kinetic space-energy .of space
b) Kinetic Space Energy : Is kinetic space-energy an inherent energy of space, which is basically expanding in nature, but separate and independent of the existence of space OR Kinetic space energy itself is space. In a way, it is another name for space.
Photon(e.m. energy) and electron(mass particle) are different entities but photons can remain embedded in electron. It is the electron (matter) which absorbs or radiates photon(e.m.energy). So my basic question is what is the relation between kinetic mass energy of space and space Like between matter and energy OR kinetic space energy itself is SPACE
One of my objection in my previous post was that if kinetic space energy is considered another entity embedded in space, the issue regarding "fabric of space"
shall become even more complex. It means space, independent of Kinetic space energy, comprises of something else either continuous OR graininess building blocks.
c) Another objection which I had raised during my previous posts was that so far existence of any energy of space, whether kinetic space energy as you call it OR vacuum energy OR dark energy OR any type of energy by whatever name we my call it, has not been established empirically. Existence of space-energy is still a theoretical concept
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your quick response. It is my belief that mutual discussions always clarifies our conceptual understanding.
1. What I understand from your posts so far is that gravity comes into play on interaction between potential mass energy of an object and kinetic space-energy of space. The beauty of this approach is that this reconciles both Newtonian's and Einstein's ideas on gravity. Now I move forward a bit further to examine the issue in more details :
a) Potential mass energy : Is potential mass energy of an object an aggregate of its inertial mass PLUS energy emanating from all the forces within its atoms (strong nuclear+weak nuclear+e.m.forces). My intuition is that mass and energy are basically two forms of same entity. That is the reason for interaction between mass and energy. In view of this the TOTAL content of an object MASS+ENERGY equivalent to all forces should interact with kinetic space-energy .of space
b) Kinetic Space Energy : Is kinetic space-energy an inherent energy of space, which is basically expanding in nature, but separate and independent of the existence of space OR Kinetic space energy itself is space. In a way, it is another name for space.
Photon(e.m. energy) and electron(mass particle) are different entities but photons can remain embedded in electron. It is the electron (matter) which absorbs or radiates photon(e.m.energy). So my basic question is what is the relation between kinetic mass energy of space and space Like between matter and energy OR kinetic space energy itself is SPACE
One of my objection in my previous post was that if kinetic space energy is considered another entity embedded in space, the issue regarding "fabric of space"
shall become even more complex. It means space, independent of Kinetic space energy, comprises of something else either continuous OR graininess building blocks.
c) Another objection which I had raised during my previous posts was that so far existence of any energy of space, whether kinetic space energy as you call it OR vacuum energy OR dark energy OR any type of energy by whatever name we my call it, has not been established empirically. Existence of space-energy is still a theoretical concept
Further to post 45
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Post 46 duplicated by mistake)
d) You have indicated in your posts that density of kinetic space- energy at large inter galactic distances becomes so dispersed that expansion of space comes to halt. I had raised the view that Perlmutter has empirically established not only the expansion of space but but proved it to be an accelrating one. We can't ignore his study/research on these issues. He has been conferred Nobel Prize of Physics for 2011.
e) Another point which you had raised in your previous posts was that progression of time is inversely related to kinetic space-energy or gravitational mass energy. That is why time cease to exist in a black hole. And, in your view, density of kinetic space energy at intergalactic distances becoming almost nil, progression of time should approach towards infinity and eventually spinning out.
Now, above concepts appear sound from theoretical and mathematical consideration. But a deep insight does not leads to any meaningful purpose. Whole universe is an inter-play of mass and energy on a very complex canvass of space-time. If space-time, either in a black hole OR at large distances, spin out what will be the meaning of matter-energy? My intuition is that, with the spinning out of space-time, universe (matter-energy) shall also evaporate out
Thanks for referring to the term vacuum energy - I've avoided it because some readers are confused by it, thinking it is related to the suction of a vacuum cleaner (seriously). I envision it more as the opposite - the pressurization of space in response to the presence of aggregated potential mass-energy...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding your statement, "Existence of space-energy is still a theoretical concept..."
Referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
the opening paragraph includes the statement:
"The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds [citation needed] and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales." [links omitted]
The "History" section includes the statement:
"In 1973, Edward Tryon proposed that the Universe may be a large-scale quantum-mechanical vacuum fluctuation where positive mass-energy is balanced by negative gravitational potential energy."
While I have independently constructed this conception of the physical process responsible for producing gravitational effects, I (once again) am apparently not the first to have been thinking along these lines - I simply have been ignorant of the works of predecessors.
As near as I can determine, it is the idea that vacuum energy density is in any way dependent on the presence of massive objects or that it is directly responsible for the directional acceleration of material objects that has not in any way been empirically or experimentally established. While it seems that this assertion should in some way be testable, I think it's unlikely that I could devise or design any experimental verification...
BTW, thanks for appreciating that this conception of a physical mechanistic process producing gravitational effects attempts to reconcile the descriptions of Newton and Einstein. My objective is to inspire the description of a single physical process that can produce the effects quantified in distinct abstract terms by the two highly successful predictive mathematical theories.
I'll have to respond to your other interesting ideas a bit later, after regaining some additional energy...
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your comments. I am delighted that there are some people who want to peep into the reality genuinely.
1. I knew about casmier effect and Vacuum energy and read about this from Wikipedia.
2. you have indicated in your post 48 that vacuum energy density is dependent upon presence of massive objects. However, in your previous posts, it seems your view was that velocity producing space-energy is intrinsic to space. Could you please clarify your stand on this.
3. I appreciate your concepts on gravity primarily due to reasons that they are closer to both Newton ( an intervention by a Force) and Einstein (curvature of space-time). (Both the genius can;t be wrong - I suppose so) However, certain issues still requires to be addressed:
a) Is space-energy, whatever may be its name, is the space itself OR space energy is a type of energy embedded in space the way matter (atom) and energy (photon) are embedded in each other but different entities. Frankly speaking, though there are number of theoretical/mathematical models on electron/photon inter phase, but conceptually still I wonder,how a photon emerges/absorbes out/in an electron on change of its energy level.
b) you had mentioned in one of your post that distortion in space-time (curvature) means change in the abstract co-ordinates of velocity producing space-energy. Here does change in density co-ordinates of space energy implies change in magnitudes otherwise what is the spatial significance of co-ordinates of density of space-energy.
c) Another speculative intuition which has been roaming in my mind and which I want to share with you.
Matter and energy interact with each other. And it is an established fact that energy and matter are are two inter changeble entities from the same source.
Now if aggregated potential mass energy of massive objects can interact with space Or Space- energy, space/space-energy, matter and matter energy should also inter changeable entities having same source.
My intuition and my studies of some spiritual sources, which is supported by above scientific line of view, tells me that at the time of Big Bang, following physical entities are created in sequence :
Space --- Energy -- matter
If you find any worth in above idea, you may develop this into a scientific proposition since I lack the capability and resources due to variety of reasons.
I am not in hurry, you may please take your time and i shall definitely be thankful, if you could please respond
For clarity and simplicity, I'd like to adopt the term 'vacuum energy' to replace the terms 'kinetic, external and space-energy'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry I'm having trouble keeping up - I'll try to address all your points eventually, but briefly (#49 2.):
"you have indicated in your post 48 that vacuum energy density is dependent upon presence of massive objects. However, in your previous posts, it seems your view was that velocity producing space-energy is intrinsic to space."
In my view, vacuum energy is the residual of the initial universal energy - that which was not condensed to form matter. It is an inherent property of space and creates additional space through expansion. The density of vacuum energy should, in general, be universally consistent, diminishing over time due to its dispersal producing expansion, but it is locally contracted or intensified by the presence of aggregated potential mass-energy, physically producing gravitational fields. I hope this helps clarify any apparent contradiction.
A brief comment on your point 3.: 'Both geniuses can't be wrong'; the crucial point is that, when properly and appropriately applied, both predictive theories have been proven to be most often correct. I certainly can't improve on their predictability, but would like to provide a theoretical physical/mechanical model supporting both theories.
I'll continue later...
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your comments at 50 above. I believe that our continued exchange of comments on the subject may enlighten us with fresh conceptual clarity on the subject and may even create a new insight.
"It is an inherent property of space and creates additional space through expansion. The density of vacuum energy should, in general, be universally consistent, diminishing over time due to its dispersal producing expansion, but it is locally contracted or intensified by the presence of aggregated potential mass-energy,"
1.0 When I delve deeper into into any issue, more a more questions crop up. For example, you have stated above that vacuum energy is an inherent property of space and creates additional space thro' expansion. Now following issues crop -up"
a) Is vacuum energy a property/an attribute of space and space is a separate existential physical entity? Then host of issues crop up regarding structure of space, its fabric
b) Are vacuum energy and space two names of the same entity? And self expansion is an intrinsic elastic property of Space. But any entity, however elastic it may be, can go on expanding forever.
c) Is vacuum energy an independent energy seated in the fabric of space on similar pattern in which matter energy( photon) are embedded in matter (electron)
In my view either of the above situation should be applicable
2.0 Then how vacuum energy creates additional space? From where building blocks of additional space emerge?
Expansion of universe(whether space? Or actual movement of galaxies in static space ) is a very complex phenomenon.
Lot of empirical studies ( Hubble 1929) and Perlmutter and Schmidt(1998) suggest that Universe is expanding at inter galactic distances. But what is the meaning of Universe expansion? It is the receding distances of Cepheid variables and Supernovas from our galaxy which has established expansion of Universe. These receding distances per se do not establish that expansion of Universe emanates from expansion of Space. And in Space, we can't have distinguishable landmarks, comprising of space, which may conclusively establish that Universe expansion means creation and expansion of space thereof
If you can send your E-mail ID, I shall send my observations and comments thro' normal mail and not thro' the columns of SA which I suppose is not the proper medium for detailed discussions. My E mail ED are vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com and vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com
To jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther to comment 51
3.0 In my view, of course universe is expanding since this is supported by host of empirical studies since the time of Hubble but expansion of universe does not means creation and expansion of Space.Creation and expansion of additional space is fraught with a host of non resolved issues.
It is my speculative intuition and sense which suggest that a universal energy in Space, which comes into existence at the time of Big Bang, creates repelling effect between galaxies in the pr- existing space which gives the impression of creation and expansion of additional space. Yes, I agree with you, the universal energy which is causing repulsion now if the LEFT OVER energy after conversion of some portion into matter energy and basic matter particles( quarks, electron) Density of this space-energy is uniformly distributed
in Space.
The universal energy is repelling in nature at all distances whether intra galactic OR inter galactic. But within, galaxy this energy balances out gravitational pull, therefore no expansion between intra galaxy bodies. In fact, galaxies take the structure and position where universal energy of Space and gravitational pull balance each other. But between inter galaxy distances, gravity becomes week, therefore, universal space energy dominates leading to dispersal of galaxies in the pre- existing space.
In my view Space and its universal energy is created at the time of BB and no additional space is being created continuously.
Now above concept of space, universal energy and expansion appeals to me But there may be some gaps in my understanding. I request you to please study this concept, ponder deeply and send your observations so that
gaps become visible. Please send your observations directly at my E mail vimodsehgal1957@yahoo.com
FYI - I attempted to contact you using your id (your comment apparently contained a typo. You should be able to find my commentary on dark matter @ http://sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/JDwyer.PDF
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience 11 November 2011:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVol. 334 no. 6057 pp. 829-831
DOI: 10.1126/science.1203161
Attention But Not Awareness Modulates the BOLD Signal in the Human V1 During Binocular Suppression
Masataka Watanabe, et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6057/829.abstract
It is that various types have different systems, you know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this