View Single Post
Old 08-10-2013, 10:00 PM   #65
CorkyQ
Dojo: Kakushi Toride Aikido
Location: Los Angeles
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 98
United_States
Offline
Re: Ki energy defined

For my part, all I have done is present a model in a very simplified way. The models of quantum mechanics can be expressed relatively simply for a lay perspective, or they can be explained in much greater details based on mathematics, but no matter what, it is still a model - a model in which uncertainty figures heavily from a mathematical perspective.

If you believe a current theory of quantum mechanics, why? Did you replicate the experiments yourself and do all the math? Or are you putting your faith on some scientist you don't even know? If you are, don't you feel llike it may be a little silly to accept a model as fact when every model of physical reality to date has eventually shown itself to be erroneous or incomplete?

I am never surprised when people reject something they've never heard before, even when they will accept theories of others whose math they trust without understanding it (such as anyone who has expressed belief in quantum theory but has not been on the front lines of particle physics research).

According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus) "About 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses."[53]"

100 years later Galileo was put to trial and convicted for publishing supporting evidence that Copernicus was correct in claiming the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

But before you dismiss someone else's theory it might be prudent to have your own theory to explain the phenomena of living organisms which live, grow, and evolve through connective interactions. In terms of ki we have a special problem because the sheer complexity of the expression of life force defies the idea it could be categorized so simply as a force of nature in the same vein as gravity or electromagnetic radiation.

However, that implies that there is something simplistic about the four recognized forces of nature. If any of the four forces were a simple thing they could be described with the ease and precision that one might describe the taxonomy of a cat.

The observable facts of gravity may be simple to explain, as are the qualities that give a specific creature the name ‘cat' but why mass attracts mass defies understanding, as does why 30 million years ago the genetic code of some carnivoramorphan's genes mutated toward cat characteristics and other's toward bears, canines, hyenas, etc., and what would cuase such complex changes in a relatively unchanging environment over the course of the prior 30 million years. If the only four forces of the universe are really just gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak subatomic forces, which of those or combination of those are responsible for the development of a cat?

Carl Sagan wrote in The Demon-Haunted World:

"Spirit" comes from the Latin word "to breathe." What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word "spiritual" that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."

(Non-sequitur: Just for fun, here is a picture from TIME Magazine, October 1980 which featured Carl on the cover and had a picture inside that included me. I spent a year and a half working with and travelling the world with Carl Sagan on the COSMOS series in 1979 and 80.)

Click image for larger version

Name:	CarlandCorky1980TimeMag801020Vol116_16pg69.jpg
Views:	16
Size:	49.6 KB
ID:	1163

The idea of the fusion of spirit with science has been broached by other scientists and is not a new idea. The first comparison of the intuitive understanding of life force and the quantification science provides that I ever read, The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, Ph.D. was published in 1975. A physicist and systems theorist, Capra, who I had the wonderful experience to personally talk with in May 1984 has written a few books on paradigm shifts in science. In the Tao of Physics, published in 43 editions in 23 languages, Capra goes into far greater detail about the then current model of quantum mechanics and how material reality is created through subatomic processes, and that these processes are what constitute matter, not permanently existing subatomic particles.

Hilary, if you want the math and detailed hard science he was coming from, and from which my postulate is based, here is a link to Capra's book in pdf form: http://www.plouffe.fr/simon/math/The...%20Physics.pdf Please let me know if you find anything in there about quantum mechanics that is inaccurate, doesn't hold up to recent scientific understanding, is based on unreliable studies or is just plain dead wrong, and please back it up with sources like Capra did, particulary if your sources contradict the idea that matter is continually becoming and being destroyed at the subatomic level, a fundamental aspect of my postulate.

Capra writes this in The Tao of Physics: With the concept of the quantum field, modern physics has found an unexpected answer to the old question of whether matter consists of indivisible atoms or of an underlying continuum. The field is a continuum which is present everywhere in space and yet in its particle aspect has a discontinuous, ‘granular' structure. The two apparently contradictory concepts are thus unified and seen to be merely different aspects of the same reality. As always in a relativistic theory, the unification of the two opposite concepts takes place in a dynamic way: the two aspects of matter transform themselves endlessly into one another. "

"The field theories of modern physics have led not only to a new view of subatomic particles but have also decisively modified our notions about the forces between these particles. The field concept was originally linked to the concept of force, and even in quantum field theory it is still associated with the forces between particles. The electromagnetic field, for example, can manifest itself as a ‘free field' in the form of travelling waves/photons, or it can play the role of a field of force between charged particles. In the latter case, the force manifests itself as the exchange of photons between the interacting particles. The electric repulsion between two electrons, for example, is mediated through these photon exchanges.

This new notion of a force may seem difficult to understand, but it becomes much clearer when the process of exchanging a photon is pictured in a space-time diagram. The diagram below (please see source for all diagrams)shows two electrons approaching each other, one of them emitting the photon (denoted by ~4 at the point A, the other one absorbing it at the point B. When the first electron emits the photon it reverses its direction and changes its velocity .(as can be seen from the different direction and inclination of its world line), and so does the second electron when it absorbs the photon. In the end, the two electrons fly apart, having repelled each other through the exchange of the photon. The full interaction between the electrons will involve a series of photon exchanges, and as a result the electrons will appear to deflect one another along smooth curves.

In terms of classical physics, one would say that the electrons exert a repulsive force on one another. This, however, is now seen to be a very imprecise way of describing the situation. Neither of the two electrons ‘feels' a force when they approach each other. All they do is interact with the exchanged photons. The force is nothing but the collective macroscopic effect of these multiple photon exchanges. The concept of force is therefore no longer useful in subatomic physics. It is a classical concept which we associate (even if only subconsciously) with the Newtonian idea of a force being felt over a distance. In the subatomic world there are no such forces, but only interactions between particles, mediated through fields, that is, through other particles. Hence, physicists prefer to speak about interactions, rather than about forces.

According to quantum field theory, all interactions take place through the exchange of particles. In the case of electro- magnetic interactions, the exchanged particles are photons; nucleons, on the other hand, interact through the much stronger nuclear force-or ‘strong interaction'-which manifests itself as the exchange of a new kind of particles called ‘mesons'. There are many different types of mesons which can be exchanged between protons and neutrons. The closer the nucleons are to each other, the more numerous and heavy the mesons they exchange. The interactions between nucleons are thus linked to the properties of the exchanged mesons and these, in turn, interact mutually through the exchange of other particles. For this reason, we shall not be able to understand the nuclear force on a fundamental level without understanding the whole spectrum of subatomic particles.

In quantum field theory, all particle interactions can be pictured in space-time diagrams, and each diagram is associated with a mathematical expression which allows one to calculate the probability for the corresponding process to occur. The exact correspondence between the diagrams and the mathe- matical expressions was established in 1949 by Richard Feynman, since when the diagrams have been known as Feynman diagrams. A crucial feature of the theory is the creation and destruction of particles. (Poster's emphasis) For example, the photon in our diagram is created in the process of emission at point A, and is destroyed when it is absorbed at point B. Such a process can only be conceived in a relativistic theory where particles are not seen as indestructible objects, but rather as dynamic patterns involving a certain amount of energy which can be redistributed when new patterns are formed.
"

So in a nutshell, what I have postulated could well be integrated into the current, modern scientific viewpoint, if for an objective system of measurements of either ki or its effects. Or it could be proven wrong, but if it is proven wrong then it will require another postulate to take its place. As of now, scientists can scarcely describe, and only as probabilities of potential events, the nature of atomic structure, and then only how the atomic structures act when in the form of chemical elements and compounds. No one has yet tackled the fundamental nature of what makes elements of the earth get up and walk around with purpose. They can describe the chemical and mechanical processes that occur in conjunction but they cannot explain the difference between a living body and a corpse except through function.

For naysayers, please produce an alternate explanation, postulate or theory using any science you choose, to explain how the elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen naturally come together to form amino acids that build into complex organisms capable of consciousness through any number of senses.

And if you study aikido, please refer to the book Aikido, 1958 by K. Ueshiba, under the guidance of Morihei Ueshiba, specifically the section titled "Basic Knowledge," and offer your theory or postulate on what Ueshiba was talking about when he mentions "#4. Stream of Spirit," and "#7. Extention of Power," particulary in regard to the distinction made between "spirit power" and "force power." If you don't believe these things exist, excuse me if I express incomprehensibility that anyone would dedicate himself or herself to any practice in which one believes 20% of the "Basic Knowledge" of the practice to be the Founder's belief in fantasy.

What I have offered as a postulate is a model for the description of life force (ki) that can be applied and observed through the practice of aikido. It is replicable, predicts outcomes, and has so far stood in the face of challenges. As I am personally not interested in models that have flaws, please disprove it or replace it with something better, as to just spout off about how wrong it is does not make one's point of view reflective of truth.

Thanks for the lively discussion!

Corky