Presentation 26

Transcript (PDF)

The Future and The New Past
Presentation 26 of 52

Interval 2
Presented by Roger Weir
Saturday, June 27, 2015

Transcript:

Let's come to the 26th presentation in this year of preparation. And 26 is right at the midway point. It's at the pivot. And so, the first 26 presentations of which this will be the parentheses will be adjunct to the next 26, which will be in now a future, but eventually a past for a long time. And these two parentheses together mathematically, are a way to express multiplication. Mathematics is a language. And the important insight which is being delivered here, which can be heard here, is that mathematics is technically not a science, but an art. Mathematics is the art of a high dharma expression of the way in which a theory is put into practice through experiment, and finally becomes the language of dependability, of the integral with the differential theory vision dimension in the art of the mathematical language accruing the kaleidoscopic history that then is able to deliver the forms of science. Now that's consciousness.
That's an ecology that goes with a cycle that together in a complementarity deliver the real.

When Marie Curie was married to Pierre **inaudible word**. It was 1895. There's a new biography done for the centenary of that marriage by Susan Quinn from Massachusetts. And Susan Quinn in 1895 published this beautiful biography of Marie Curie. And it completely recalibrated Marie Curie. It was the new past of what the entire world had assumed was a cut and dried history past. What made the difference was that in 1990, all of the sealed papers of the families, of the Curies and of the Sklodowskas, Sklodowskas. A's in male gender because Maria Sklodowska the female version and became Marie Curie. And all those papers were sealed until 1990. And it took Susan Quinn, one of the first to read through all of those sealed papers and to come up with the first real biography of Marie Curie, who arguably is the most famous woman scientist in history in civilization. She was a knockout.
Marie, when she was a teenager, already had a body that Marilyn Monroe would have been jealous of. And she had that Polish cheerful beauty. There's a photo in Mrs. Quinn's biography of the house on Freta Street in Warsaw with a second story balcony where Marie was born. And in that building, not only did her family live, but her mother, who was not only a schoolteacher, but who ran a school, had that school in the back. So that Marie and her three sisters and her brother grew up in a family where learning was exactly what occurred. And having three sisters along with herself and her mother, a fivefold full hand of very intelligent women. And Marie was the sum. She was the brilliant intelligence. But she was beautiful. She was shapely. She was in demand all the time. And she handled it very, very, very well.

But in her very happy marriage with Pierre **inaudible word**. They were working. They were among the first people in the world working with radioactive substances. In fact, it was the genius of Marie Curie, Sklodowska-Curie who understood a secret about radioactivity that most of the speculation at the time that radioactivity had to do with modulations in the ether. It wasn't really material; it was something in the ether. And so, all the rush to experiments were with the ether. But Marie understood like a comb frere of hers who had grown up in New Zealand. Who had grown up, in fact, in a crowded family of 12 children. His mother was not particularly shapely or beautiful, but she loved her husband, and they had 12 children. And the youngest boy was the genius of the whole lot was in the South Island of New Zealand. He was the genius of New Zealand.

His name was Ernest Rutherford. And he had gone to...tried to first go to England from New Zealand. He became very, very famous and he applied because Cambridge University that had the becoming famous Cavendish laboratory had decided to open up the graduate program entrance for those who had degrees from, as foreign students to come in. It was the first time. And they had appointments. And in New Zealand there was a young man who got appointed and Rutherford Ernst was left having to go back and teach high school in New Zealand. In Nelson, in the southern South Island. And to supplement his meagre income, he was digging potatoes in one of the plots. The family owned a flax farm. And flax you have to not only have the ground to grow the flax, but you have to have a big, huge pond to soak the flax after it's cut, to soften the stems. So that you can then extract and get the fibers and make rope and things out of it. And of course, the seeds are something you can press too.

When he found out that the fellow who had won the exhibition decided to get married and stay in New Zealand and that Rutherford was going to be the first one sent to Cambridge under the new plan to the Cavendish Laboratory that was headed by one of the peculiar giants of world science of physics. He went by his initials, J.J. J.J. Thompson. And J.J. Thompson was a butterfingers. They did not trust him in the labs with equipment because he would break things. But he was a kindhearted, insightful genius. He was involved with the discovery of the first subatomic particle, the electron.

But at this time, as he was discovering that as his insight, his penetrating visionary scale prismatic person. Historical kaleidoscopic looking forward to developments that he could theoretically already begin to see. He saw that this young New Zealand guy was special. When talking about special. And so, he and the old phrase took him under his wing. Because especially right on time, young Ernst Rutherford was a genius of making equipment in the laboratory. Not only handling it but making it from scratch because he could theorize and bring it to focus. And make the instruments and set them up and get them going and do the experiments. And refine and refine and refine so that the results gave you something that we respect in science. And that is an analytic exactness. A precision.

He did very well at Cambridge. Even though the locals, the Cambridge dons and so forth looked down upon this foreign student. And finally, he was not really tendered the position that should have been given to him despite what JJ was able to do for him. But he did get his first appointment, but it was thousands of miles to the west in Montreal, Canada. In McGill University. And McGill was the pride of Montreal. Montreal always prides itself on being the North American Paris. And one of the very wealthy businessmen decided that McGill in his city had to have the world's best laboratory and equipment for research in physics, which was taking off with the discovery of the electron. What else can we find?

And so, Rutherford went to McGill, and he was given probably the world class laboratory, arguably on the level or maybe better than the Cavendish. And it was there he was building equipment. And it's there that he understood that the key was that radioactivity was not in the ether but was in the atomic atom. Somehow, if one could understand that here is the electron, that's a particle in the atom that it showed that there is a whole system to the atomic structure. And it was the genius of Rutherford to understand one then has to use the material of radioactivity to crack the atomic structure. And that one can build equipment to do this. But it has to be extraordinarily refined. And you have to have something to work with. Something to test.

And right about the same time because reality works like this. It works like this. Marie Curie discovered with her husband that if you look at the electron in terms of the atom, in terms of radioactivity, it shows in testing, in equipment that what occurs is that there is a different element that emerges out of an element that one thought one had and did have, in fact. And the element that she began with was thorium. And that if you take an electron from thorium because she was that refined already in the 1890's. If you take one electron away, they didn't know what to call it, they called it thorium x. Now the short form of thorium is a th. And so, the unknown element was thx. You ever heard of that, you George Lucas fans? She said, no, it's not thx, it is a new element. And she showed with her husband that this new element which she named for her own country because he was the one that discovered it. She was from Poland, from Warsaw. So, she named it polonium. And she discovered polonium.

About the same time that a French grandee, he was grand, and he was beautifully intelligent. André Becquerel. Very suave. There's a photo of him in Susan Quinn's book with his embroidered vest, with the formal holding the plumed helmet and wearing the sword. And with all the beautiful decorations of merit. He was the discoverer of x-rays. And he won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1903, along with Marie Curie and her husband, Pierre.

But she also then discovered that it isn't just the transmutation of thorium into polonium, but that it was that polonium itself was an element. And that within that range, then there should be another element that has an atomic structure that's related to thorium, but also filling the gap, because on the other side of it is uranium. And she discovered a second element. She called it radium. Radioactive-um.

And so, Marie Curie became one of the few people in history to win two Nobel Prizes within eight years. 1903 with Becquerel. 1911 for discovering polonium and radium. And showing that the way to look at the periodic table is not through some linearity but to be able to group the elements into sets. And that now the arrangement of the periodic table would show by these groupings' ensemble in the spectrum of elements just how nature works in that radioactivity is a function of the atom. It's an atomic energy and not in some ether. It's not ethereal, it's physical. But it also is physical to the extent that it affects the very nature of chemistry. So, her first Nobel Prizes in physics, her second was in chemistry.

And it so happened that when she heard about the second Nobel Prize, she was in the midst of an embarrassing shame. She was being castigated in the press with headlines in Paris, Sex and the Laboratory with a married man, Paul Langevin. Who had just been married in 1902. Just the year before she won her first Nobel Prize. What happened was that her beloved husband, Pierre, died of radioactive poisoning in 1906. Leaving her with two daughters, Irene, and Eve. By the way, Irene, her daughter, also won a Nobel Prize in physics because the Sklodowska girls knew how to teach, knew how to learn.

She was left with two young daughters and a laboratory and a cosmic unfolding that this puzzle was in her hands and that she was able to ship a rare, expensive, almost unheard-of quantities of radium to Ernest Rutherford in McGill. And he understanding that something, as Sherlock Holmes would say, the games afoot. He was able to do the testing and to understand. And kept writing to J.J. Thompson that his discovery of that subatomic particle was just the beginning and that there would be more. And that they would be arranged. They would have a setting. And what a setting.

She had to flee Paris. She had to flee France. She went to England. She went, a friend of hers put her up in Birmingham. About that time, Rutherford had left McGill and went to back to England and went to Manchester. North of Birmingham. Closer.
And eventually, Rutherford did inherit the Cavendish laboratory from good old J.J. after he passed. And it was there at the Cavendish that Rutherford's work began to make the atom a structure and was joined about that time by a young Danish genius named Niels Bohr. And that young man and this older mentor, young at heart, are the ones who made the first structure, the Rutherford Bohr atom, that understood this is like a star system. It's like our solar system. It has a nucleus, the sun. And it has electrons like the planets and their moons, etc. And that these are particles. Fast forward. This was published in the Frontiers in Physics 1964. More than 50 years ago. Its title is The Eightfold Way by Murray Gell-Mann and Yuval Neʾeman from Israel.

By the early 1960's, the number of particles discovered by the new accelerators and associated particle detectors had grown to almost 100. Since these were mostly products of strong forces, they were collectively called Hadrons. Hadrons. Using the Greek word for strong, Hadrons.
In 1962, the world's largest bubble chamber, 80 feet long and containing 900 liters of liquid hydrogen, was exposed to a beam of negatively charged Koans, particles, from the AGS. The goal of the experiment was to test a new hypothesis by Murray Gell-Mann of California Institute of Technology, that attempted to organize hadron particles known by 1962.

What Gell-Mann, who was born in 1929, what Gell-Mann had discovered was that many of the particles could be organized into families of eight or ten. Wow. Eight or ten. Yeah. The title is The Eightfold Way. Let's just finish this, this history. "With properties that are mathematically the same of those of what is called a group of eight an octet," like in jazz, an octet. Like in classical music. Mendelssohn's Octet. Heard that played at one time by youth orchestra in Berkeley, and they just played like angels. Even though they were not exact like a concert hall. It was fabulous.

An octet. And the Group of eight as an octet is also a term in mathematics. In abstract algebra, a branch of mathematics rarely before applied to physics. So, Gell-Mann was like Rutherford and Curie and Einstein and Bohr. He was understanding if mathematics is a language, and it goes into further dimensions from what we thought was the standard four-dimensional nature world. And we're looking at the subatomic world that has never been seen before but must be real. Therefore, we can use a mathematical language with the prismatic art of our differential consciousness, seeing into the kaleidoscopic consciousness of the accruing history of our experiments in a field of theory that's at least coextensive with the field of nature.

The series Frontiers in Physics includes the earliest publications that are around an extent on field theory. As early as just a few years after The Eightfold Path.

Just to finish up. "A group of eight octet and abstract algebra, a branch of mathematics rarely before applied to physics groups of ten." Decuplets. Octuplets, decuplets. Decade, ten. "Were also discovered by a clever arrangement of the particles" Into groups. Into families. "Gell-Mann whimsically entitled his discovery using the Buddhist term The Eightfold Way. The noble Eightfold Way," which is a dynamic of the four noble truths, four dimensions as truths. Eight dimensions as dynamic truths. Leading from the four truths that are Dharma into the eight-fold way that's high dharma, which reveals the real.

This symmetry was also discovered simultaneously and independently by Yuval Neʾeman, an Israeli theorist working in England. And when they understood that they had done it simultaneously in disparate places and came as a focus to the same thing, they realize this is really high magic working.

Let's take a break.

END OF SIDE ONE

Let's come back.

When mathematics developed set theory its foundations in the 19th century. One of the most profound aspects was that a true set theoria, a contemplation of what is real about sets in the universe described by the language of mathematics, is that the field within which those sets assemble the accurate structure, the field is a zero field.
Recently, this little book by Amir Aczel, The Mystery of the Aleph: Mathematics, the Kabbalah, and the Search for Infinity. It is about Cantor's development of set theory and how he, Ernst Gregor Cantor, emphasized that the field that generates this is Aleph zero. Its ordinal mathematical designation is written as the A with a zero as the power to which it is. Because zero not only allows for cardinality, but it indexes by sets ordinality. So that by having cardinal and ordinal arithmetic of numbers that can be applied to geometricity in motion as trigonometric. Then one begins to have the ability to have a true calculus either way, differential or integral.

One of the ancient signs of this mystically, the hand. The grasping, not the fist. Not the grasping, but the I get it. The Greek word for that was always a eureka. I get it. I got it. But it's a comprehension. I got it the way that it works. And what it is that works. And that I understand. That triple, that three, that triangle, is the foundation of developing a geometry. Not a circle, but three points linked by lines.

This volume, The Eightfold Way that we were talking about being from the Buddha historically, that Gell-Mann, professor extraordinaire at Caltech. He was always vying with Richard Feynman of who is the farthest out at Caltech. Feynman, of course, enormously colorful. Gell-Mann enormously interesting. Finally went to Santa Fe and developed the complexity theory there at the Santa Fe Institute, etc., etc.

But the series Frontiers in Physics has the editors of foreword here. And the foreword is kind of interesting. "The problem of communicating in a coherent fashion. The recent developments in the most exciting and active fields of physics seems particularly pressing today." This is over 50 years ago, folks. "The enormous growth in the number of physicists has tended to make the familiar channels of communication considerably less effective." Why? Because the grouping, the families, the sets, of those inquiring to learn are not in a master set, which has something to do with eight or ten. And obviously it must build on the four-dimensional nature cycle. Space time, for. There has to be, what in theater used to be called the fifth business, the magic of the theater. Not the magic so much of the theater, but of the performance.

There was an old song in the 1940's that was traditionally sung after a particularly great magical performance, an evening of show of the drama where the entire cast and ensemble, those behind the lights and so forth will all come out on the stage and with arms around each other, with shoulders or waists, and with saying It's a grand night for singing. The stars are bright above. And I feel like we're falling, falling, falling in love. I remember singing that in the forties as a child after performance. A bunch of us kids were the dancers around the maypole that was set up with the colored crepe paper, which we held, and we rotated around it and wound the cre[e paper around the maypole.

"It has become increasingly difficult for experts in a given field to keep up with the current literature." 50 plus years ago. "The novice can only be confused." And he's just writing about scientists, about mathematicians, about those who understand science, just like they're already facing the specter of confusion, which very soon generated because it's an ongoing this it generated chaos. We're the third generation coming up who have come up in a serious chaos. Because it doesn't have any way to arrange the sets, mathematically speaking, of what we're doing and what we're looking at, because there's no zero as a resolving field of us as the third. Because a zero field will not do it.

The Mystery of the Aleph: Mathematics, the Kabbalah, as a token structure then, and the Search for Infinity. It takes an infinite field. It takes an infinite field, not a zero field. A zero field is possible to be the field within the sets of four-dimensional space time, can be assembled, but when you get to the subatomic visionary world. Niels Bohr, even a young Niels Bohr, even in the 1920's, already. Early twenties. The trouble with trying to talk about that new realm that was emerging is that it cannot be pictured. There are no images. Why? Because they keep getting so specific that they come down to something which is singular. And if you push that through refinement, it disappears. It winks out. Because there is no zero-point folks. There's no zero-point energy. Zero absorbs all numeration. The one is absorbed into the zero field. It's a field. It's a field.

So that in order to learn, one has to pair the fields. You can work with zero field and time-space as space time for a universe. But to get to reality, one has to go to the symmetry. Four dimensions of space-time. Four dimensions of not a cycle of integral, but a spectrum. A differential ecology of consciousness. Each of them have a magical recognition, integrally realization consciously. Now you can pray. Because the zero field is fertile. She is fertile. And his infinite field falls in love. And now you got something real. Born. Emerged.

What is needed is both a consistent account of a field and the presentation of a definite, quote point of view. And the best that could be done 50 years ago was to get to a point of view that one could sustain, even though it wasn't there.

If you look at Euclid's Geometry 2300 years ago in Alexandria, the very first sentence, "A point is a locus with no dimension." It doesn't have four dimensions or one dimension. It doesn't have eight dimensions. It has no dimensions. Because a Pythagorean mathematic is only able to be visioned and then kaleidoscopically expressed. And that was due to Pythagoras.

So that instead of an analytic being, the calibration of science and theory, theoria, vision of consciousness. That analytic is actually a Pythagoric. Its expression is in the actual performance of a language that has all of those dimensions. The four of space-time, nature, ritual, mythic horizon of expression, symbols, symbolic integral of the writing, of the written language of that expression, of those actions in that field. With the vision emerging. The learner who has that extra fifth dimension of vision, and now as a sixth dimensional prismatic learner who is aesthetically beautiful and appreciates that one is in love. And that this is that prismatic quality where the entire rainbows of dimensions occur enough for there to be not an eight dimensional analytic, but an eight-dimensional Pythagoric that tunes symmetrically with the aesthetic of art, of beauty. The appreciation of beauty. The perfection and exactness of calibration. A recalibration because it's always re calibrating, always.

"Formal monographs cannot meet such a need in a rapidly developing field". This was written in 1964.
And perhaps more important, the review article seems to have fallen into disfavor. Indeed, it would seem that the people most actively engaged in developing a given field are the people least likely to write at length about it.
We're at 2015. There is no calibration that has worked for the last hundred years. But we can learn to recalibrate and to understand that it isn't about singularity, it's about continuity and tensegrity.

Marie Curie was beautiful. But she was extraordinarily beautiful. And appreciated 100 years after her marriage with Pierre Juliet. To celebrate their marriage, a la Françoise, they bought matching bicycles and got bicycling outfits 1895. And went cycling together into, from Paris. one could still go into the countryside in 1895. And then their laboratory. There's a photo of the laboratory where polonium and radium were discovered. It was in a warehouse, a storeroom of a warehouse in Paris.

It isn't that the emperor has no clothes. No clothes at all are needed because there's no emperor either. When one is dealing with a field of infinity and a field of zero, their complementarity dwarf's explosiveness with a quiet that is real.

When Rutherford reached the end of his life. He was about 67 years old. But, um, he gave the last of his lectures that was printed as a very small book. Sixty some pages, and its title was The Newer Alchemy. Because by 1937 it was apparent standing on the shoulders of the giants like Marie Curie and Ernst Rutherford, Einstein, and Niels Bohr, etc., etc., etc. One of the missing particles that Rutherford was convinced one had to find something here that was in the atomic nucleus that was like a was like a positive electron. It was like, well, no, it can't be a positive electron. It has to be something else. It wasn't until 1932 that the discovery of the neutron in the nucleus made that entire atomic structure understandable for the first time. And that neutrons, like protons only they have no charge. So that if you want to go into the structure of the atom, one has to go into the very tight, strong, really strong Hadronic Sun star of the atomic system, the atom. One has to if one can go into the nucleus and the way into it is not a quick particle, but a very slow neutron that goes in and splits. Splits the nucleus. Splits the atom. And that it releases a cascade of neutrons that increases. We do this and you got it, the biggest boom anyone had ever heard of by 1945. You get an atomic bomb.

All of this rests, especially in the poignancy of 1937. And we talk last week about how in the 15 years back to 1922, when it was beginning to have Rutherford with Marie Curie's developments. Marie went on to be established in France and everyone was recognizing that she's that, she's rare. She doesn't have to be shamed by anything. She loved her husband. He was dead. Paul Langevin loved his wife. But he worked as a physicist and understood the anguish that Marie Curie was not really able to function creatively as she should because she was devastated by the loss. So, he helped. Not to throw out his wife, but to help.

All of France, in fact, all of Europe. In fact, the world recognized that Marie Curie is really rare. And so, they built for her the Radium Institute. And she was able at last to take her girls with her. Irene was older, and so she helped her mother more than Eve. And eventually Irene also won a Nobel Prize for physics.

When one looks at the cast and photographs of the early Solvay conferences from the industrialist Ernst Solvay in Brussels, in Belgium. From the first, the only woman at the table with dozens of distinguished, largely the early ones are bearded men, dressed beautifully as Marie Curie. The woman who was held in the highest regard because she was the one who had understood how to get to what used to be called the real stuff. How to get to where we can understand that the spectrum of the families of the elements once arranged in their families comb out for us the true lattice of the way in which the universe as a four-dimensional space-time phenomenal actuality works. What it's composed of. How it is composed. What they do. And what they do is that they reveal that if you're conscious enough to penetrate through to a transform of the learners' recognition that this is how the calibration is to have the second transformation, that one can change it.

And so, Rutherford's 1937 The Newer Alchemy is all about that. We are the alchemists now. Not occult at all. But really kaleidoscopically conscious now.

And exactly at that time, as we talked about, Yeats published the revision of his great occult magnum opus, A Vision from 1925. He, by 1937 was able to recalibrate it, and the 1937 version of A Vision came out almost within the same month as Rutherford. Almost in the same month as the older H.G. Wells published the Star Begotten. About mankind's structure having been pierced by a cosmic ray energy into the fission, into the transformation, by superior civilization of conscious beings, and that they're walking among us. And maybe we are the aliens after all. All of this was published within months of each other. The biography of Yeats's wife, Georgie, Georgie Yeats, finally was written beautifully in 2002, Ann Saddlemyer from Vancouver.

It's interesting to see that the volume of Yeats's 1937 Vision was never put together exactly because there were different versions of it. And hidden were some of the versions that were never consulted, never read, never understood by someone who had learned all the way to a science of exactness with an aesthetic of prismatic appreciation together tuning their consciousness. And two women finally put together in 2015. It was just published last month. The final volume in The Collected Works of William Butler Yeats. With their appreciation of the incredible insight that was like the conscious thumb for Yeats when he married Georgie. When they got together, they both eclipsed the falsely integral, limiting occult structures. Especially those surrounding the Kabbalistic Gnosticism of the occult age that had come together in the 1920's with such a vituperative boasting of its ability to really deliver at last the power of man to understand completely. Whereas complete is not enough. Your total completeness, integral to one to a singularity is less than an instant from vanishing. Not only to a zero field, but an infinite field, which is loving the zero field into birth all over again. Right now, in fact, faster than now. Ever.

More next week.

END OF RECORDING