Transcription
Okay, tonight it will be like, um, like the other evening. I will do like a quick presentation, uh, on the topic. Uh, tonight it will be about the zero-point energy and, uh, and the technological applications, uh, from it. And, uh, after the the quick, the short presentation, um, I will take, um, uh, some questions from the Q&A. Oh, it seems like the chat is deactivated. Let's see, chat. Uh, I can write on inside it. Okay, now it should be good. Everyone could be able to chat. If you can try it again, it should work. Yes.
Okay. So, zero-point energy and technology. Uh, first, we we need to understand like the the two main, uh, physics theories, uh, of the last century, uh, meaning the quantum mechanics, first developed by Max Planck and Paul Dirac. Uh, it's Max Planck, uh, that came up with the concept of the zero-point energy when he was working on the black body, uh, radiation and the ultraviolet catastrophe. And what, what he found, uh, is like, uh, an electromagnetic field, will, um, u, oscillate, radiate energy even, uh, when matter will be at zero, zero Kelvin, or when the field will be at zero Kelvin. And, uh, this, uh, this creates this, um, this very important, uh, relationship between energy, uh, and, uh, and the frequency, one-half of h-nu. And, uh, from that, like, you can calculate the the energy density present in the vacuum, uh, which we call like rho-vac, and which is like a very, very large number. And the second big theory, uh, from the last century is general relativity, which explains, uh, space-time dynamics. Uh, so it's Einstein's field equations, and you can see, uh, this equation presents like, uh, has two sides. On the left side, it's the space-time curvature, and on the right side is the energy density present, uh, in space-time.
So if we look a little bit more closely to to this equation, to this result from the from the these two big, uh, theories from the last century. Uh, so from quantum mechanics, we deduce the zero-point energy, and it says that like, uh, everything is always spinning at all scales. And you can see the scales here in the frequency where there are no limits. It goes like from like a very small scale, and we usually use a cutoff at the Planck, Planck length, but it's not really a hard cutoff. And, um, it goes like to the scale of the universe and even beyond. And, uh, the other part is telling us that, um, from this fluctuation, we have like an infinite energy available at all time in the vacuum, which is represented by this number. When we use the the Planck frequency as a natural cutoff to compute, uh, the energy, the quantity of the energy density resulting from the electromagnetic, uh, fluctuations in the vacuum. And, uh, on the other side, we have like, uh, this Einstein field equation, which represents the the dynamic of space-time, meaning like, uh, u, it's important to understand that space-time is not just a mathematical construct as it can be, uh, presented. It's, it's really, um, a medium that flows. And typically, when you are inside a gravitational field, as you are like naturally on Earth, what's, what's happening is that space-time is, is, um, flowing from up to down to the center of the Earth. And what's putting you, uh, on the ground is this flow flowing, uh, toward the center of the Earth. And, uh, if you look at the the equation, it's, u, it's really like a fluid equation, but in in four, in 4D. And the, uh, the left side is the 4D representation. Um, uh, so the equation is a tensorial equation, writing in in four dimensions, and the space-time flow is represented by the the 4D surface curvature. So it's kind of like difficult to represent because it's, we are more used to 3D representation, and it's a 4D representation. So curvature is, is kind of, uh, an abstract, uh, way to see to see it. But a good analogy will be like, if you look at, uh, a vortex in a inside the water, a vortex will curve the surface of the water. And it's kind of a good analogy to represent the curvature of space-time. But you, you need to remember that, uh, in the case of like an field equation, it's in four dimensions. So it's not a 3D analogy. It's like, it's just like a very partial representation. And on the right side, you have like the the stress-energy tensor, which is like basically the energy density that is like curving space-time.
And, uh, what we did in our last paper and, uh, the next one, like the one that will come up, like very shortly, we talk about the origin of mass and natural and gravity, and we show, uh, how these electromagnetic, uh, quantum vacuum fluctuations, which represent like, which have like a very large energy density, are in fact, the origin of mass and, uh, are basically curving, uh, space-time. And this curvature, in return, like represents the the mass of the object that we are measuring experimentally.
So if we look at the the dynamic, uh, at the proton scale, what, what you have is like, um, we define, uh, a current region of space, uh, at the core of the proton. And, in this, uh, in this space, the the vacuum fluctuations are current, meaning that they are not like canceling out. In the standard vacuum, you will, you will say like, I cannot feel the energy and I cannot measure any energy. And in fact, it's true because like at the Planck scale, uh, the, the, the vacuum is not current, and all the electromagnetic energy is canceling out, so you can't see anything. But, uh, in, in matter, and in particular inside the proton, it appears like the the fluctuation are like in current mode, and, and so the energy density can build up, and it creates a cavity with a withstanding waves and a very high energy density, uh, defined by rho-vac. So the rho-vac that we we saw just earlier. So we have like this huge energy density, and from, uh, Einstein's field equation, we can, uh, compute the gravitational wave generated by these quantum, uh, vacuum fluctuations. And, uh, it's what we did. So in this, uh, little, um, schematics, we we represented like the the dynamic of of space-time of the of the little vauel, Planck-sized vauels, that are like dynamically moving, uh, inside the the cavity forming the the proton. So you have like two motions, a radial motion and a toroidal motion, creating like the the vortex forming the proton. And inside this cavity, the the electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations generate gravitational waves. And when we compute like the energy of these gravitational waves, we found out that the the resulting energy density, uh, inside the the proton cavity corresponds to the energy density of a black hole. And so we, we, uh, demonstrated like a first result that Nasim showed like 10 years ago, that the proton was in fact a black hole and has a had a black hole structure. And the the Compton radius, uh, of the, of the proton was in fact the the Schwarzschild solution for the black hole proton, where the the black hole mass of the proton results from the conversion of the electromagnetic vacuum fluctuation into gravitational wave inside this current region of space. And, uh, from this, like, from the the black hole proton, we showed that, uh, assuming the Hawking radiation emitted by by this black hole, we computed the the radiated energy from the the black hole proton horizon, and we found out that the this emitted energy was, in reality, the rest mass, uh, of the proton. So the measured rest mass of the proton. And at the same time, uh, we, uh, we found, uh, that the the resulting force from, uh, the space-time curvature generated by this gravitational wave inside the proton cavity were, were corresponding exactly, uh, to the color force. So the color force is what they call, uh, the the force that is like, um, um, keeping together the proton, and they they use it with the quarks and the and the glue. But in our case, we we show that it's, uh, it's only like a gravitational force, so a curvature of space-time generated by the energy density, uh, inside the the proton cavity.
So when when we saw that, we wanted like to expand the model and to see how it was fitting at various scales. So we are the first application we made was at the proton scale, and then we tried to to apply it at the at the cosmological scale, the stars, and the galaxy, and, uh, at the universe scale with the the galaxy, the galactic cluster, and the universe. Because we already, we always had in mind that, uh, everything in in nature has, uh, as a fractal structure. Meaning that like the structures that you can observe at the microscopic level, you can observe it at the cosmological level. And, uh, at all these scales, the same forces are applied, and with the same laws and the same dynamics. It's always the same thing, but with a scaling relationship. So we did like the computation, uh, at the universe scale, and, uh, we found out like, uh, that the universe is a black hole. And it wasn't a new result because in the 70s, there were like already papers talking about it. But we redid the calculation with our methodology, and we found out like, uh, the same result, and it was, uh, it was extremely precise. So we found out that the the critical density of the universe was corresponding, uh, to the same screening mechanism that we saw at the proton scale, meaning like that the electromagnetic, uh, energy density, uh, was screened by, uh, by the surface of the universe in a similar way that the the energy density of rho-vac by the proton surface. And, uh, so we, we, we computed the the mass of the universe and found the common, the common value. And, and then we compared this mass or energy of the universe with the the total mass that could be like contained in the in the proton, assuming that the maximum density rho-vac was filling the complete volume of the proton. And what we found was like very important and very interesting. And it was like that the energy contained inside one proton was the same energy contained in the whole universe. And, uh, this finding is is interesting in two ways. First, it was a nice validation of the the fractal structure of the universe, showing that like the the small scales were was built in the exact same way as the bigger scale. But also, because it was like reflecting the holographic property of the of the reality, meaning that every piece of the whole was containing all the information of the whole. And, uh, it's a, it's a very important result that goes with like the other, uh, models that we are developing, the space-memory network, which says that like, instead of space-time, Nasim talks about space-memory because the information is encoded, the information, the memory, because we, let's define, let's take just one second to define what is time. Uh, time, uh, exists only because you have a memory of the past. So it means that that fundamentally you need somewhere, and you need a mechanism to store, uh, the energy, to store the information. Information is energy. To store the information, to have the the concept of time to to exist. And so, what we have in reality is a space-memory network where the information is directly encoded in space-time, and every point of space is connected to the other, to the other part of the network, to the other point of space-time with a wormhole connection. So it's all described with general relativity, and, and you have like this network of wormholes that keeps, uh, basically the universe in sync with the information shared in all points of the universe, at, at every time. And then like you have like the the network of the proton black hole, all connected together, and basically you have a network of black holes at every scale. So you have a network of black holes at the Planck scale, at the proton scale, at the star level, and at the galactic level, because like there are like black holes at the center of every galaxy, and you have black holes at the center of every sun. So basically, like the proton is, is the key to understand, uh, everything in the universe, both the dynamic of the of the space-time, which is crucial when you want to to build something, you need to understand like precisely and accurately, uh, how space-time, uh, evolves, moves, and so you will be able to to engineer and build on top of it.
So, what we are working on like currently at the laboratory, it's concentrated on two, like, key, two or three key applications: so energy production, gravity control, and, uh, application of this knowledge to to biotech. And every time, it's like, it's applying what we learned at the proton, at the in theoretical physics, at the proton level, at the proton scale, to a bigger scale, and reproducing this dynamic, uh, into like a device to mimic what, uh, nature, uh, is naturally doing with the proton, to to be able like to extract motion. And generally, like, the easiest way is to extract like the motion of the electron, for example, to to get an electric, an electrical current. And, uh, and the step after that, like, it's to control like precisely like a plasma, to spin them, uh, in the right configuration, to to be able like to curve, uh, space-time using like very little, uh, energy input. So the key idea is to to play with, with the flows, space-time flow, and the, and the direction of it. And what is important to know and to understand from our equation is that, um, gravity and electromagnetism, basically, are like, um, emergent phenomena from this, from the same dynamic, which is like the motion of space-time, which we prefer to call like the Planck plasma. And when the Planck plasma is going inward, it's when we call it like gravity. And when it's going outward, it's when we call it like electromagnetism. But it's the same, it's part of the same, like, global dynamic. And when you understand that, like, you, you are, you are, you are able like to to play, to to design your device, to to feed your device with like the right dynamic to be able like to to scale up the the motion, the the motion of the Planck plasma up to a microscopic level where you can like see and measure, uh, a usable electrical current, for example. And, uh, it's basically that, what, what we saw at the at the scale of the proton with the black hole mass at the center, the rest mass, and then the electric charge that we can reproduce at the laboratory scale. And then, like, the end goal is like, is to basically, like, reproduce the dynamic of a star, uh, inside a jar, which will be like just like a spinning plasma, uh, in a glass.
Okay, I hope I wasn't too long. Uh, let's take some questions from the Q&A. Okay. So Nama, let's see if I can bring you up. So you can ask your question. Okay, Nama, if you want to. You are on mute.
Hello. Hello. Hi. How are you? Good evening. Good. And you? Very good. Thank you for your presentation. Um, the first question had to do with light and understanding that photons are excitations of the, uh, plasma lattice, I believe, if I'm explaining that correctly. Um, so would we then extrapolate that matter itself is a form of light or containment of light?
Uh, yeah, yeah, you could, you could say that because like photons are an excitation, um, of, um, an electromagnetic field. The difference is more like that a proton is a propagating electromagnetic wave, and, uh, in the case of the, of the proton, for example, it's a resonant cavity. So instead of having like propagating waves and radiation, the rest mass is more radiation. But the core of the proton is like an electromagnetic standing wave because they are like closed inside the cavity, and you could compare it like as a laser cavity, but in the case of the proton, like the boundaries are like so thick that very little energy can escape it.
Okay. So when when we're visualizing the space-memory lattice or the, um, excitation and the propagation of a photon, um, I understand it's all in the same continuum. So at the, um, foundational level, how do we really visualize the propagation of light in in the field or through the PSU lattice? Like, how does that really, how should we really visualize that as opposed to just visualizing it through how we perceive it?
So, yeah, still the photon, the photon is a propagating wave. So you can visualize it just with like a string, and if you excite a string, the excitation will move forward. In the case of the electro, the photon is an electromagnetic wave. So we know that it's not like in one dimension, it's paralleling moving. Okay. And the analogy with gravity is like, is there like, because it's the same with the Earth moving in space. It's spiraling around the sun because the sun is spiraling around around the galaxy. So it's like you, you can see the similarity with the with the photon. But the photon, the standard representation when I, I represent it like spiraling, it's like the the direction of the electric field that is spiraling. So it's the, uh, in the classical representation, it's like the the spiraling is is representing the polarization of the medium, so of space-time.
Okay. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. Um, I I did have two questions, but I didn't know if you wanted me to ask the second one.
Uh, yeah, yeah, sure, the second one.
Yeah. It had to do the vector equilibrium in the kernel 64, and is it is it that symmetry itself that replicates and scales, but may become out of phase as it leaves the Einstein condensate? Does is it still the same symmetry we're dealing with, or, uh, is there a breaking of symmetry?
Because like when you have like the 64 and the vector equilibrium, you are in the state, the more current state, so you have the the more energy density, the highest energy density, we could say. Uh, and, and then when you, and it's a black hole, the kernel 64, when you do the math, it's exactly a black hole. But when you scale up, you change the relationship between like the unit of information inside the volume and those in at the surface. When you take the 64, the kernel 64, you have like 64 units in the volume and 64 units at the surface. So you have a one-to-one ratio for the information exchange. So you have no tension, and all the information inside can communicate with the outside. But when you scale up the the black hole, for example, at the proton scale, you are, you have like a huge discrepancy between the energy that is inside and the energy at the surface. You have like 10 to the 20 difference, uh, when you do the ratio. And, and that's what Nasim called the holographic ratio, this discrepancy between the information inside and the information that is available, uh, to the outside. So you have this, you could say like surface tension. You have like this huge pressure, this huge amount of information contained in the volume, and only a fraction of it can escape, escape, can be transferred to the outside through the surface. And so, this creates the this tension creates the wall dynamic and the structure, uh, with the double, the double structure of the proton, so of matter. And it generates what we call gravity and electromagnetism.
Okay. So that discrepancy creates that pressure gradient and, um, yes, the discrepancy of, uh, energy or information, uh, between the interior and, uh, and the surface.
Okay. So, and thank you for that. This will be my final thing. So when when we say that it's the Schwarzschild or a black hole, it's mainly we're measuring the 64 as the black hole mass.
Uh, you, you have black holes at every scale. So the 64 is the the first black hole, the smallest black hole, because it has only like a radius of two Planck lengths. And then like you have black holes at the size of the proton, the size of the star, and the universe is a black hole.
Got it. Okay. Thank you so much for that. You clarified a lot. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Uh, let's have like the following question. Uh, Ellen Loa, let's see if Ellen is, she's available.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yes, perfectly.
Um, yeah, I had two questions. Um, one was about the, you mentioned 4D space-time. Yeah. And the other question, it kind of tacks on to what Nama had asked about gravity versus EM, and that's it. So both those are created out of the pressure between the inside and the outside of that proton. Is that correct?
Yeah. Or proton, or like at every scale. So, yeah, at the proton, but also.
Yeah. So basically, like, the, the 4D space-time is like, is saying like, as you write in your question, that there is like two dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Uh, you had like Kaluza-Klein theory. So other theories like adding a fifth dimension for the rotation, for the spin. But in, uh, in the standard Einstein field equation, you only have four dimensions. The spin is removed. So it, uh, yeah, it's kind of like complicated a little bit the things, uh, it missed part of the picture.
So let's say that, yeah, you'd still be using, uh, spherical coordinates for your equations, though, right?
Uh, in a, in 4D, and in tensorial equations, like, we use like metric coordinates, which is kind of like different than spherical coordinates. Spherical coordinates are like just for 3D.
Okay. Like, uh, they're like more useful with a Euclidean plane and, uh, and 3D representation. Uh, but when you are in space-time, you need like, so in four dimensions, you need to use tensors and metric coordinates. So the most known metric coordinates, which are like, in fact, to be more precise, there are like solutions to understand field equations, and you have like multiple solutions for Einstein field equations. The most known is the Schwarzschild solution with the Schwarzschild radius. And even in this case, like you have different, uh, sets of coordinates that you could use with the Schwarzschild condition, the structure solution, but it's like, it's very, it's very mathematical, very technical, so.
Okay. Do, do you have like a more precise, uh, question or?
Oh, no, no, not on that one. It was, I was interested in how do you add the, how do you add the extra space dimension to to your, but yeah, if you're using the tensors, that makes, that makes sense.
Uh, could you repeat one more time so I have a better physical picture in my mind? Um, so, so gravity is from, uh, the torus spinning one way, and EM is from the torus spinning the other way?
Can, uh, no, if you say that, it will be more the distinction between particle and antiparticle. Uh, um, for gravity and electromagnetism, it's more like gravity is, um, is the flow from outward to inward. So the flow in. And electromagnetism will be the flow out.
Okay.
If you have like a mechanical representation.
Okay, cool. And both, like, gravity and, when you write it like in a vectorial representation, like Newtonian representation here, you can see it as a, as a flow in. And, yeah, the plasma, the the vauel of space-time are flowing like a flow like a fluid. But it's tricky because all, all your matter, all matter is made from from this particle, this dynamic. So basically, the the proton is a, is a little vortex ring floating inside, inside the vacuum, inside the the huge sea, this huge ocean, with like an additional motion on top of it, which we call like gravity, gravitational field. And so when, when you say for, in your technology that you've, uh, replicated the effects of a photon, are you seeing both a gravity effect and an EM effect?
Yeah. Yeah.
And, um, when, when we try to, um, when we focus on energy, uh, extraction, we, we focus more on the electromagnetic effect because the goal is to extract like the energy of the electromagnetic field because electricity is what we currently use for for devices. And when we want to, uh, to control, uh, gravity, it's more like creating, uh, locally, creating curving locally, uh, space-time to have like a gravitational effect.
Cool. So no levitation quite yet.
Not, not that we can communicate on, but yeah, we we are working towards that and we have like the the principle and the the technological road map to to reach it, but, uh, yeah, right now we can't show, we can't show anything.
Great. Thanks so much. Thank you for the questions.
So, let's take the next question. Uh, Marco, let's bring Marco.
Marco, you want to ask?
Hello. Hello, Marco. Hola. Hello. Hello, everyone. And first, sorry, my English. I'm not from the physicist background, and I come from linguistics and literature, philosophy, but been following Nasim since 2010. And well, my my question was about something Nasim mentioned in a past Q&A, and was, uh, that the description for for the Planck oscillators, it was the Pythagorean triangle, right-angled triangle. So I was very interested in grasping more about that description, and and I was asking if there is somewhere where we can learn more about it, and and of course, I'm thanking you for that for the job. Now, if if there is something you can bring to the table about that.
Okay. It's very confusing. No, it's clear. Okay. So, uh, when Nasim mentioned the Pythagorean triangle, it's to remember the relationship discovered by Einstein. Uh, it's the energy-momentum relationship, and it's called like the Einstein triangle because it's an easy way to represent the relationship between, uh, energy, momentum, and mass. And basically, it's the more complete version of E=mc². Because when, and it's called the energy-momentum relationship, so it's, uh, it's not general relativity, it's, uh, it's special relativity, and it's, and it's about, uh, how mass, uh, changes when, uh, it's in, it's in motion. So it's the, the triangle represents this relationship between mass, momentum, and total energy of the system.
Yes. And if, if there, is there a reason for it to be a rectangle, the relationship, and not another triangular triangle, another kind of triangle? I know it's very geometric, but that's my kind of, uh, field.
Or when you look at the relationship, it's an equality between a square. And so it's like it's naturally looking at the Pythagorean relationship with a triangle when you have like the square of the of the side equal the square of, uh, the the hypotenuse. So that's why like it was associated with the with the right-angled triangle.
Yes. Rectangle triangle. Yeah. Exactly. That that's fair. Thank you very much.
You're welcome, and congratulations for all the work.
Thank you. Let's take next question. Uh, next question is from Bob. Let's see, Bob.
Hey. Hi, Bob. Hi there. So I have a very simple question. Um, if you operate a star in a jar on the surface of the Earth and you, uh, extract energy, do you change the local Newton's small g? Do you change gravity?
Uh, it's locally, it's the goal. Like if you, the goal of controlling gravity is to like, uh, to levitate from the from the ground. So locally, you will change the small g, and you will float. That's that's the main goal. But it will be just like locally, like you won't, you won't, uh, change the the mass of the Earth or like the gravitational field of the Earth. It's just like you create a locally a kind of gravitational bubble because you will modify locally the the curvature of space-time. Basically, you want a flat space-time so you can float.
Yeah. So, so you compensate the acceleration, and you can see it like a like fluid dynamics also, like you have a flow which is represented by the the small g going inward, and you want to create the opposite flow upward. So you create an upward torus like that that will compensate the flow, the flow going inward toward the Earth, and you float. So the theory is simple. The the technological part, uh, is more tricky because you need to scale up the flow because we are talking Planck-scale flow of the space-time. So you need like to to scale it up to have a microscopic effect.
So my follow-up to that is what happens at a Lagrange point where space-time is flat?
Yeah, but the Lagrange, yeah, it will be similar. The Lagrange for the for the others that doesn't know what it is, it's like the point between planets or between the Earth and the Sun or between the Earth and the Moon. So between like two gravitational fields, you have a point where all the all the forces cancel out. So you could say like we will create a local Lagrange point, Planck, Lagrange point to float in space.
So can you extract energy at a Lagrange point?
Uh, it wouldn't be the easiest way to do it because it's easier like to directly manipulate the the electromagnetic field, uh, instead of like using the gravity. But, uh, I need to see, yeah, maybe it's not the first way we are looking at it, uh, for extracting energy because like there are like way simpler ways, because the first step is like extracting energy because it's the easier way, and then like creating a gravitational way and, uh, and controlling gravity is the concept, because it's, I'm really suggesting, I'm really not suggesting doing it. I'm really just trying to understand the, get a mental picture of how this works by considering a couple of test cases.
Okay. Uh, yeah. So how it works, I think like the easiest way to represent it is like visualizing space-time as a flow. And so you, it's more complex because it's in four dimensions, etc. But it's a very good approximation to see it as a flow. So as a flow, a pressure, and acceleration. And so if you want to resist the flow, you need to create a flow in the in the other direction, and you have like waves, different ways to do that when you understand the the equation. But, uh, when you look at the equation, uh, of gravity, the linearized one in weak field approximation, they are like in, uh, in a lot of points, are like the same as the electromagnetic, uh, equations. So very similar to the Maxwell equations.
So I have one more question further down the chat, but it follows perfectly from what you just said. So I'll ask it anyway, and if you want to answer it, that would be great. Um, if charge is an outward flow, what is the sign of charge?
So the the the sign of charge is more like, uh, the the direction of the spin, the motion, because you have the the double torus dynamic. So you, you need the way to visualize the torus is like you have the flow out goes to the pole, and the flow in, and it's what's called gravity, and it's a simplification because we know like gravity goes from all directions, but it's a simplification to to visualize it. So you have like this radial motion, and then you have like the toroidal motion, and, uh, it's the toroidal motion that will polarize the vacuum in one direction or in in the other direction. That's why like you have like the proton that will, um, spin in one direction and will be charged positively, and the electron spinning in the other direction will be charged negatively. And, uh, is, and then like you have like a kind of conservation of angular momentum, because you know like one, one thing that is very important to conserve is the angular momentum, which is difficult to understand and not that intuitive. And because, and you can, you can see all the nice experiments you can do with a gyroscope, and testing how the conservation of the angular momentum is working, and can be like a little, a little bit tricky to understand it, to understand the motion of a gyroscope.
Thank you very much. I could probably come up with about half a dozen more questions, but thank you. You, you're wonderful. I appreciate your explanations. Thank you, Bob. Thank you for the question.
So, let's take another question. Um, thank Elizabeth. Um, first, thank you very much for the presentation. It's really, really interesting, and, um, I'm not a scientist, so it's difficult for me to go in depths in the details, but it's, it's a question I, I would like to ask is, how easy could it be to switch the form from wave to confined, so from the photon to proton, back and forth? Um, I think in fact, with the explanations you've given before to the other questions, you probably are close to answering my own question, but could you add something on that?
Yeah. Yeah. It's a very good question because like, it's, it's not intuitive like to understand why like we are saying like there is like the same energy everywhere in space in the vacuum everywhere, and, uh, and yet like you can feel that there is like space that is different, that is more rigid, uh, than the rest of the space. And, uh, the only difference is the the currency, uh, of the waves. Like, in the vacuum where there is no matter, uh, the electromagnetic waves are like non-current. So they are like fluctuating, but not, uh, in in sync. They are not synchronized. So one, one is up, the other one is down. So the the average value, uh, of the energy density is zero. But, uh, when, when you have matter, what, what you saw is like there is like, it's forming a resonant cavity, and, uh, and the waves start like syncing, and, and this syncing process is a natural process that you can see like everywhere in nature. And, uh, you can even like do it at home like very easily if you have like metronomes, if you play music, you, you will, you will have one, or you need at least two or three metronomes to see the effect. But you have like a video on YouTube like showing that, and it's very interesting because you can demonstrate that as soon as you have like a weak coupling between oscillators, and metronomes are like a good example of oscillators, when you have a weak coupling between oscillators, after like a very short period of time, uh, you will see that all the oscillators will come in sync. And you have some videos on the internet like that, like very interesting because they show like a large array of these metronomes, and they start all the metronomes out of sync, and just like by putting all the metronomes on the same plate, on the same table, and allowing the table to move just a little bit. And this motion of the table, uh, is representing the the weak coupling between all the metronomes. But the metronomes are not like directly attached. They are just like on the same, uh, surface. And you will see after like a couple of seconds that all the metronomes start, uh, being in sync. It's like, it's surprising the first time you will see it. And, uh, what we need to understand, and what we understood, is like space-time is acting the same way. Like, you, you have like this, uh, tiny oscillator, the kernel 64, the the vauel, the elementary vauel of space-time. They are like small oscillators. And, uh, in the, in the vacuum where there is no matter, basically these small oscillators, they are not like spring, they are not like metronomes, they are oscillators, so they are like spinning. Because everything is spinning. Everything around is spinning, like from the Planck scale to the atoms, to the planets, stars, galaxies, everything is spinning. So you have this little oscillators, and, uh, usually they are not like in phase. And, uh, but when you create a resonant cavity, and there are like, there are like various ways to create a resonant cavity, but when you create a resonant cavity, you have like standing waves appearing inside it, inside the cavity. And it's the same way that you create like, for example, laser light. You have a resonant cavity, like pumping electrons, I mean, pumping photons, at the same frequency and in phase, so synchronized. And, and then like you have the laser, powerful, uh, photon emission. And, uh, so it's kind of similar in the way that you have like this resonant cavity, and you, you start building up energy because everything gets in sync. So, uh, and to come on to the proton, you need to have like this gravitational effect, you need to create, to have mass to appear. And, uh, it's comes naturally, as we've shown like, um, from, uh, computation from Einstein field equations, that when you build up, uh, an energy density in space, uh, you start curving it. And when you curve space, uh, it's what we call mass. You can simply say like that.
So how? Yeah. Yeah. And and how does it play with the with the human biology? In fact, how can I apply this to human biology?
It's a good question. It's part of the presentation that William and Nasim are like currently doing, like tomorrow. I'd like to be there in Barcelona. Yeah, in Barcelona, they are having like the conference on consciousness, and it's a nice conference because like finally physicists start talking openly about consciousness. So how physics and biology works together to make, uh, conscious beings, to make life. Um, so it's a very good question. Uh, maybe I will let William answer it next Q&A in next month. Uh, yeah, because like, yeah, it will be like too short, but, uh, yeah, the, it's, it's the same idea. You have a scaling law, and you scale the the same mechanism. Um, you scale it, and it's very interesting because when you look at a neuron network, so neurons in the human body, it has the same shape and the same properties as the the galactic collector network. And when you look at the picture, you see, oh, it's the same, and it's the same mechanism behind it.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Olivia. Thank you for the question.
So, last question. Uh, let's see. Martin, let's see. Martin.
Yes. Hello, Martin. Oh, hello. I didn't notice. Uh, can you hear me? Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You, you are mute. Um, I was just hoping that you can have a read since I'm not a physicist, and it's, it's pretty complicated stuff. I'm basically thinking about the way how planet Earth is moving through cosmos in relation to the sun and to the galaxy, something like, you know, cosmic journey kind of stuff. I'm trying to build, uh, this modeling, you know, solar system with the donuts, but like I said, I'm not a physicist, so I'm sorry about that. And my question basically is about any suggestions if you think if you can think of anything regarding, uh, understanding the way how Earth is moving along with the Sun through the through the cosmos. Thank you.
So you have, yeah, you have to consider like, uh, different scales. So you have the the motion of the, of the Earth and of the Sun, uh, inside the galaxy, and now you have like nice animations. Nasim made one 30 years ago, but now you have more modern ones. And you can see like the Earth spiraling around the Sun, and the Sun moving around the galactic center. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you have this spiral motion, and then you have the the torus. And also like you have very good, uh, it's not like it's a representation because like it's not like direct photography, but if you look at the representation of the Earth cloud, so it's the the solar system, but, uh, well beyond the Pluto, well beyond the last planet, with all the meteorites, etc. And it represents nicely, uh, the complete, uh, gravitational dynamic of the solar system. And you can see it like literally forming the double torus shape. Same with the galaxy. Uh, you have like some nice pictures of galaxies like showing the the double torus. It's tricky for the galaxy because some, you, you see them like from different angles. So the double torus is not always like easy, easy to see, but you can see it at the galactic level, you can see it at the solar scale. You need to, uh, Google like "art cloud," and you, and you will see the shape. I mean, from a simple perspective, it's pretty easy to understand the fractal nesting of the donuts of Earth's electromagnetic fields, Sun, and galaxy, and, you know, all of those others. It's just that I'm not sure how to connect, uh, this fractality together since the nesting is not like centered, you know, it's somehow along the lines of dynamics that could be, I think, understood simply as lines. It's just that we need to have more information about every single one. And I'm, I'm just, I'm just, you know, missing this kind of, uh, deeper explanation of the dynamics that could be, I think, explained by some sacred geometry. Thank you.
Yeah. Look at, look at fractal geometry because, uh, you, you need to consider the, when you look at through scales, especially if you look at like from the Earth, galactic, universe scale, you are, you are moving like through like different scales, and, and the relationship is like, it's all about fractals. So there is no one center. Of the, you are never at the center. At the same time, you are always at the center. And it's a mathematical property of fractals when you look at fractals. But it's difficult because the mathematics behind fractals is not that simple, and it wasn't like applied yet to to cosmology and to physics in general. But you, you will have the main concept, the fractal structure. I'm not, I don't know if you are like familiar with fractals, but when you zoom in or zoom out, you will always find the same geometry. Maybe not at the center where you are, but like just nearby, but you will always have the same geometry, the same motif.
Um, can I, can I comment on that, or we haven't got time?
Yeah. Yeah, you have a few minutes.
Yeah. I mean, the the fractal idea is known to me. It's just that, you know, I can imagine electromagnetic field of Earth like a donut, and then we have one with a Sun, and then we have one with a galaxy. Uh, but, uh, the way how the Earth moves through space is pretty dynamic, and it's hard to kind of, uh, you know, describe simply since it's all of those gyro kind of movements around, I think, still not really well explained. But, uh, somehow like, uh, self-orientation within this space, uh, would be, uh, nice to have if we will have that kind of update on the way how that kind of movement could be felt. And I think it translates basically to the fact that, uh, we, in the way, into the way how consciousness expands in all directions, and inside out, in the same, in the same time. So the, the way the movement is understood. But, yeah, I'm, I'm more like an artist, not a scientist, so, yeah.
Uh, you, you have moving like many pieces at the same time. One thing.
Um, so for the motion, one thing that could help you like if you look at like the dynamic of a vortex ring, it will show you like how the angular momentum is conserved and how it's crucial for for the stability of the motion, uh, through time and space. And the other part, like, uh, it will be more like about the space-memory network and how the information is shared between every point at every time, every point of the universe at every time. So everything is always synchronized, and every point has the information of the of the whole system at every time.
Thank you. Yeah, sorry if I can't develop more, but, uh, yeah, it was a very good question. Do you have any, any books maybe you can, you can suggest on that since, um, it's something that, it's, it's not really well explained, although that idea is bouncing around from from here and there, but again, not very well explained.
Nasim is working on on a book. It will be like published, uh, soon, and there will be like, yeah, a good part of the answer you are looking for. Yeah, because he's talking about the dynamic of the cosmos and, uh, and how it's related to the value scale. So you will find the answer about that. And, uh, about other books, like, I don't have like other books detailing what you, you are talking about, because you, you are mixing like different concepts, and usually they don't mix all these concepts in the same book. But, yeah, it's a very good question. Continue your study, like it's a, it's a good path.
Okay. Uh, oops. Thank you everyone for all the questions and being there. Uh, it was a pleasure discussing with you, and, uh, we'll see you like in a few months. Next month, it will be like, I said, William, but maybe it will be more Kriya and William in September to respond to all the questions about like biology and, uh, what they, what they did like at the Barcelona conference. It's, it's quite interesting. Like, it's, it's actually right now, it's this week. Okay. Have a great week, everyone. Great evening. Bye.