There have been two more formal publications on Big History recently: one a journal article – hinted at in the previous post – written in part to honour the memory of Erich Jantsch, the other a book chapter, as well as an informal podcast episode in the FuturePod series.Continue reading “More Big History outputs”
… would have been today (Capra 1981, p.151). Instead, the world lost an incomparable polymath and genius on 12 Dec 1980, less than a month before his 52nd birthday, and we are all much, much the poorer for that loss (Capra 1981, Linstone, Maruyama & Kaje 1981, Zeleny 1981). Continue reading “Erich Jantsch’s 90th birthday…”
Today was the last class ever of the Swinburne MSF (2001 — 2018) — something that has been coming for a long time (announcement of closure was back in May 2016).
Q: What now?
A: Trust emergence…
In the previous post in this series, I gave the rationale for undertaking this extended (re-)examination of the geometry of the semi-symmetric metric connection (SSMC): essentially, it represents (to my mind) the most ultra-minimalist extension to General Relativity (GR) at all possible – or so I thought back in the early 1990s – given that it introduces precisely one new object – a vector field – as part of the connection.
In gauge field theories the “connection” carries the gauge field, while the “curvature” corresponds to the field strength, a view that was argued in a book by Göckeler and Schücker (1989), which I had also been reading at that time. Since electromagnetism is often introduced as the archetypal gauge field in mathematical treatments of differential geometry (such as that by Göckeler & Schücker), it seemed to make intuitive sense to me that introducing electromagnetism into an extension of GR intended to model electromagnetism by way of a geometrical object might require it to enter by way of the connection, rather than as an additional field just lying around in spacetime, as it is in Einstein-Maxwell Theory (EMT). Hence, in this view, the SSMC is an obvious candidate.
Many years ago (getting close to 30 now), while doing my PhD (Voros 1996) in theoretical physics on mathematical extensions to General Relativity – and in particular, on Einstein’s own “unified field theory” – I happened across a book by Jan Schouten (1954) called Ricci-Calculus, which was an introduction (by a mathematician) to tensors and their applications, especially to geometrical thinking and analysis.
The question asked in the title of this post is one I have been pondering for the most part of a decade now, ever since I saw the image, shown in Figure 1, of the galaxy PGC54559 (popularly known as Hoag’s Object) in 2010, following several months of thinking about what Kardashev Type III civilisations might look like.
I’ve had a new paper accepted for a special issue of the SAGE journal World Futures Review, on Foresight Education, edited by Peter Bishop. It is yet to be assigned to a volume/issue (UPDATE: it is most likely to be Vol.10, No. 4, Dec 2018), but has had a formal DOI assigned to it to allow for web linking prior to final publication, and is available through SAGE’s OnlineFirst system. I am also allowed to link a version from my University’s research repository, Swinburne ResearchBank. It is an accepted manuscript form, which SAGE allows to be placed in a university repository, rather than the final officially-published version, which they do not. Always look to the pagination of the final published version if you are going to be quoting things from it… Continue reading “Big History and Futures Studies – what a cosmic perfect match!”