Graviphoton

[∆1]->(a[1(t,1)]+b[2(t,2)]) -> [?(t>1)] [math][?(t=1)]-ab[1(t,1)2(t,2)] -> (a[1(t,1)])[/math] I'll explain what this means soon. To understand the first notion, you must note that the future, whilst it holds a great amount of uncertainty for us, in knowing what kind of knowledge will present itself, it is, still nonetheless, expected, and exists already there in the future. The second premise, i agree. It scratches the surface, but i shouldn't go into detail about the Observer Effect at the moment, suffice to say, i have covered most of what i think about it throughout the posts. [∆1]->(a[1(t,1)]+b[2(t,2)]) -> [?(t>1)] [math][?(t=1)]-ab[1(t,1)2(t,2)] -> (a[1(t,1)])[/math] Where Nabla here [∆1] not only represents the change in the state of evolutionary thought processes, the three sides symbolically represent the three actions in the expressions... [math]a[1(t,1)][/math] here, the variable (a) represents a memory, and relates to a single event in time (t,1). It would be found in the past variable sense t<1. [math]b[2(t,2)][/math] represents the next event (t,2), where we are reflecting on the thought, which would make it a memory. This would be found in the present time variable t=1. Now, we know that after time, we can expience the loss of knowledge/memory, so this is where the function, [math][?(t>1)][/math] plays the part, and also notice it is found as an event of knowledge loss in the future. so, [∆1]->(a[1(t,1)]+b[2(t,2)]) -> [?(t>1)] Repesents the spontaneous event of thought entering the mind, then the reflection of the memory, to the probability of knowledge loss. But behold, we can get this knowledge back. [math][?(t=1)]-ab[1(t,1)2(t,2)] -> (a[1(t,1)])[/math] Where the loss of knowledge, which exists beyond the observer, is found to be subracted from the relationship of [math]ab[1(t,1)2(t,2)][/math], which would ''pop'' that original memory back into our present minds. Some musings bewteen me and Dr Wolf: > You said, ''Fred Alan Wolf: I don't recall saying "that this > universe we come to > > perceive is in fact one unit of perception itself". I am not sure > > what this means.'' > > I'm just trying to apply logic to what i have learned from > your teachings. > If there is one mind, then there is one peception cast by that mind. > And if spacetime requires the observer to give it any > meaning, or collapse the wave function, and add detail in > general, then spacetime. If there is one mind, there is also > one reflection on this bubble of existence we call > ''universe,'' then in effect, the universe, in total, is a > unit brought alive by perception itself. Did you not add the > following> Space-Matter-Time-Energy-Mind as one single thing > in Mind into Matter? I ignore the notion of a ball sitting > behind the wall of an observer, because there is no one to > affirm it is there. This goes for the whole universe, i would > have thought, and any points we make in real time through our > observations, must also be considered that the universe is > somehow, ''alive''... and this of course, requires that one > mind, and one perception of the whole and self. But please, i > am not arguing. I am treasuring these conversations with you. > > > Fred Alan Wolf: '' Again I don't believe I posit that > "quantum mechanics > > states that the only universe ever in existence is the > subjective and > > subliminal dimension of the mind". Quantum physics deals with > > material reality. That it must include the observer effect > is true, > > but it does not go as far as denying the objective world at all.'' > > > I apologize, i have misinterpreted your work then. The > Imaginal World where porbabilities square with their > conjugate, an undulating wave from the imaginal realm, you > must then consider as something beyond mind? Fred Alan Wolf; Amit Goswami would agree with you. He would say consciousness is the ground of all being. I am, perhaps never really satisfied with any pat answer to the mystery of mind and matter. Hence I may from time to time disagree with myself. I don't really know that mind is all there is and everything comers from the imaginal realm. I know that everything doesn't come from the material realm. Hence on the one had I write about Parallel Universes and on the other hand I write about the Bohr Copenhagen interpretation or the Bohm interpretation. These are all very different from a met point of view. > > I prefer the idea that somehow it is mind, or atleast, > contains all the information the mind requires, since i am an > advocator that the fabric of spacetime not only stores > memory, but also we must assume the history of everything, > including mind, and history of future as well, must already > be written down, predetermined somehow. > > As for dealing with the material side of things, i agree you > insist it consists of a reality, but i am asking you to > consider the following logic, which i suppose, is highly > philosophical at best, to imagine there would no longer be an > observer their to observe Her beauty, then really what kind > of existence can there be? If quantum mechanics is right, > then it also states the same fact, since it hints that before > any resolution is made on the wave function, the world, the > objective world seems incomplete, and devoid of meaning... > the meaning we are dealing with every day... Fred Alan Wolf: I generally agree. If no observers would hard core stuff exist? I would say no. However, I don't think that it is our human consciousness that creators this reality--but something like a field of mind of which we play what appears to ourselves to be a significant role. > > Gareth-Lee > I said ''then surely any premise of > >> other universes, even if they do exist, must be rendered > >> non-existent, even if those other universes do contain > like-organisms > >> such as ourselves?'' > > Fred Alan Wolf; Based on your solipsistic point of view > your conclusion is > > logical. But I don't agree with the premises.''

I disagree. Not ALL experimental evidence has shown this. What about the transaction of information between two photons that occur instantaneously at a hypothetical 5 billion-light year distance? This is an incomplete problem, and common sense would require either hidden variables, or some kind of notion that not all information moves at v<c or v=c.

Do you remember these premises? 1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer. 2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement. North It doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not. This is called ''self-contained'' knowledge. It was David Albert who realized this as a serious mechanical application to automaton, and there are those who believe the same principle applies to consciousness... David Albert, PhD ''On Quantum-Mechanical Atomata,'' physics letters, 98A nos, 5,6 Now, i asked, Do you remember these premises? 1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer. 2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement. ...................... Well, soon i will show that somehow memories to exist ''beyond'' the observer, and beyond ''the physical mind.'' The information of these things must therefore already exist, so without further adue, i will start on my mathematical musings on memory, loss of memory and regaining that memory. Be back soon.

On Probability Curves Probability curves, a mathematical discipline in physics, is used to cite the probability of an event. It is a growing theory in physics, that there is a subspacetime realm, where a possibility-wave squares with its conjugate possibility-wave. This is in fact the very same process we use in information physics, to create a single answer. We multiply two numbers all of the time to find single answers, such as: 1. Force = mass x acceleration 2. Velocity = frequency x wavelength 3. Volume = area of base x height 4. Area = half the length of base x perpendicular height Fred Wolf has been most influential in this model, because it was he who speculated originally a relationship between undulating probability-waves meeting undergoing a sqquring mechanism, so that objective realities are created ''out there'' by the undulating probability-waves ''in here''. This relationship, i concluded was perfect to answer for the reference between the observer and the observed, and more importantly, to this model, the relationship between the dimensions we experience, and the dimensions that are objective. Getting Comfy With Subspacetime Realms In this section, i studied the form of three new principles for consciousness. I will rewrite them for the sake of this investigation... If you have read the work, and already understood what it all meant, then i advise you just skip it... [Qoute] The Three Principles of Consciousness (Recently, my model of consciousness has evolved. I figure that the following results are required for a model of the brain and cognitivity.) As much as it might seem at times that the mind is totally ''free'' of the boundaries of time, it really isn't. In fact, it's just that we have a phenomenally-complex outlook on existence, that existence itself seems so ''defied;'' and this illusion is brought on by three principles of mind. 1. The Principle of Expectancy 2. The Principle of Uncertainty 3. The Principle of Certainty Time, as we have covered so many times, is consistent of three boundaries (created by the mind). These are the guises of past, present and future. It turns out, that time would not be 'time' without these three boundaries. In fact, without mind, time could not take on these attributes - and without them, we cannot even be sure if we could call time, as ''time'' - it would essentially be meaningless. For this reason, time requires the human [certainty] that we have a past. It also requires the [expectation] that time will always be one more than now - but as you might have surmised, we can never be [certain] that it will - this is based on two factors; one being that the universe could end one day - and the more obvious fact that we can [expect] to die one day. And then there is the perception that we are 'moving up' with time, always in the present moment. The present seems to be a record of everything that was past. The past can take on in particular, two of the principles set above. We can be either [certain] or [uncertain] about a past event - we cannot [expect] anything in the past, because we do not exist in the past. In the present, all three principles can take hold of us at any time. We can [expect] an outcome. We can be [uncertain] about a present outcome. And we can be [certain] about either our existences, or again another outcome made in the present. The future can take on either two of the principles. We can [expect] the future, naturally, and we can be [uncertain] about the future - but i feel, we can never be [certain] about the future, because everything is unfixed - if we could be [certain] about the future, we would know for [certain] any outcome. Using these thoughts, we can see that psyche plays a particular dance in knowledge, especially when concerning the past, present and future. This pattern emerged ever since the very low entropy in the beginning of spacetime. In fact, one can see the invaluable nature of entropy, when considering knowledge; because, as far as we know, our gaining of information would not occur, unless it was in this very formation. Thus: 1. Past = (Certain and Uncertain factors) – [math][A,(1,0)][/math] 2. Present = (Expectant, Uncertain and Certain factors) – [math][b,(2,0,1)][/math] 3. Future = (Expectant and Uncertain factors) – [math][C,(2,0)][/math] The one principle that seems to play an unwashed effect is the [uncertainty] inherent in life, in past, present and future - and this not necessarily be Heisenberg’s principle of Uncertainty, since the world of subatomic particles don't really concern the average Joe - rather, i am speaking about subjective factors here. What is vivid in the set-up, are two main configurations. Those being the apparent swap of [certain] and [expectant] factors inherent in the past and the future. This swap means everything, when it comes to present knowledge. The second pointer, is that the 'liveliness' of the present time is represented clearly through the ability to have (all three) principles at work. Though all the three principles are quite psychological, the undeniable thing at play here is that these psychological factors of knowledge play an intrical part in distinguishing the differential barriers in time. The mystery of the mind can be mapped out so; but nevertheless, it makes one wonder just how the mind does it all. It seems to me that time can wire together in this fashionable, consistent way through very means of participation; on the behalf of the human. For instance, it is said that the psychological arrow of time is due to low entropy in the past. But this does not answer the configuration of: [math]A = past = [A,(1,0)][/math] [math]B=present = [b,(2,0,1)][/math] and [math]C=future = [C,(2,0)][/math] This simple, zero, one two combo related expression with coordinates A, B and C, in this configuration, displays a fundamental rule of the psychological arrangement and pathology of time. [\Qoute] ........................................................................... Other Postulations It may be possible, to use these functions as references to actual events in spacetime!! Amazing? Perhaps… In a real quantum picture, these principles are not actual principles of nature externally, because we do have some place in the past, as I was warned by Dr Wolf. Even thought we may never exist in the past, I wanted to reassure him, I meant this strictly in the sense that we only ever exist in the present… And since we do only ever exist in the present time frame, these principles of consciousness may indeed have some applications in physics. For instance, not only do I believe they can be used in a model describing our objective outlook on the subliminal linear nature of time, and ultimately the arrangement of how knowledge is perceived, it may be also useful in the sub-spacetime realm theory of mine. Roger Penrose takes them very seriously, saying they are akin to Plato’s world of idea’s… Since we have looked into some of the finer points of speculating on a subspacetime realm, there are a few rules, which I must keep. 1) The mind has unbroken relationships and continual interactions with the subspacetime Just like how we go through life, and forget that nearly or just over 80% of all the functions in the brain are working subliminally to keep our hearts going, among other functions, is almost analogous to the manner in which the mind subliminally operates in the subspacetime realm without us ever being personally concerned with it. Dr Wolf has a very good way of explaining the notion. Consider the following abstraction, ___.___.___.___.___.___.___ The ‘’almost’’ line there, is what he calls the temporal order of consciousness, which is linear by definition, even though time really isn’t linear. From time to time, the mind/consciousness has a focal point, which is marked by the dots. (Just to point out very quickly, that these focal points is very similar to the focal points I relate the internal and external dimensions together in the spacetime theory of consciousness.) Any sequence of three focal points are called a ‘’triplet’’, and in any order like this, the normal order is a larger blur prior to the focal point, and a smaller blur following it. It always follows this order. Why? Wolf explains it is because consciousness is preceded by an unfocused point of greater uncertainty, and is inexorably followed by a focal point that is nevertheless more certain than the previous unfocused point. Complex? Keep up!!! Just read over it again, slowly if things get a bit rough out there… Now, the relationship between these focal points and level of uncertainty. We can know nothing about a system until a focal point, for refreshment of trying to simplify this, and we know more about it afterwards. It will be interesting to see how we can fit all these strange concepts into place, integrating my principles. Right, so let's continue this. Mind the following: ''Any sequence of three focal points are called a ‘’triplet’’, and in any order like this, the normal order is a larger blur prior to the focal point, and a smaller blur following it. It always follows this order. Why? Wolf explains it is because consciousness is preceded by an unfocused point of greater uncertainty, and is inexorably followed by a focal point that is nevertheless more certain than the previous unfocused point. '' This would mean that my principles of consciousness, when concerning uncertainty. If we give each principle three probability values, given as: [math]2_{a}[/math] Expectant [math]1_{b}[/math] Certain [math]0_{c}[/math] Uncertain Next, we have to understand what the lower case values represent. They represent real focal points in spacetime. But they have an ascending value, which in this system, represents ascending real values. So a focal point being made in the most furthest back in time, will have a value of a, whereas a focal point established in the end, has a value of c, being the future. So present is logically b. Since we know that the temporal schematic operates as: __.__..__0__.__..__0__.__..__0__.__.. Where the zero's represent focal points, and the dots represent the uncertainty, or probability of uncertainty if you like. If the uncertainty of consciousness reflects the uncertainty inherent in the schematic (1), which Wolf evidently expressed in his musings, then the uncertainty must be psychological as well as being a quantum subject, and it seems that the particular dance as i put it, may hold a key to undersanding this in new ways. (1) - I make this connection, because his schematic relates to real time operations on the focal points of the abstraction, with evident values of a more uncertain progress into th future, whilst the past holds more certainty, or less uncertainty. All ready, values are popping up all over the place, and this is going to be my operation to express them in simple relations with the principles. Now, lets take the notation we ended up expressing the relationships between the principles and plug in those variables of intensity. [math][A(1_{b}<0_{c})][/math] (Past) here the uncertainty located in the future is less than the value of certainty located in the variable [math]1_{b}[/math]. [math][b(2_{a}<0_{c}<1_{b})][/math] (Present) here, in the present time, i would state that expectant values are more than the uncertain factors of what we expect from the future, and that Certain factors are more than both the expectant and the uncertain factors, because we are very certain about the past. [math][C(2_{a}>0_{c})][/math] (Future) And to finish, the future holds for us, an expectant factor that is less than the uncertain factors, because we can expect a lot from the future, but not very certain of anything at all. I'll continue the implications later. So in theory, there are possibilities for quantum waves of information altering the world in sqauring probabilities of undulating waves from the ''potentia realm'', as Prof. Goswami terms it. The squaring produces the thing, and in the theory of treating the mind as a dimension, we can use focal points to schemise actual actions taken between an observer and the external world as conjugates of each other. When the conjugates multiply [math](a+bi)(a-bi)=a^{2}+b^{2}[/math], a focal point is created between the observer and the observed, even if we are talking about a single thought that changed the vacuum statistically and a very small probabilistic state Only one Conscious Mind? I found it interesting to learn that quantum physics actually predicted that there was only one mind ever in existence. It was a metaphysical physicist that proved there was only one mind ever present. It was conjected from the musings of Vedanta. So No two minds can ever exist, in a consistent quantum mechanical framework. It will obviously appear strange to imagine that we have different thoughts, actions and plans, but find sharing a by-product of a single unit of energy we call the conscious realm of the mind. Surely we are unique? The answer turns out to be a mixed logic, when concerned with quantum mechanics. There can be no separate mind, but only one mind ever existing. If this is true, which I surely do believe it is, then there is a complication removed from my theory. There was the chance, one could have argued that my theory would in fact be a lot more complicated than a single subspacetime dimension for consciousness, because the line of thought would say that there have been many minds, so many different dimensions we would need to make note of. But if independent minds are proven by quantum mechanics to cause problems, then a single mind, created by all the ‘’illusory’’ of separation and identity, is in fact lost to all the networks operating interdependently, again as one single unit. Dr Wolf argues that this is the Mind of God, and he has not been the first to postulate such notions, as they extend right back to Plato’s time. Then there is one mind, and there is no need to worry about how to treat so-called ‘’individual’’ conscious minds in a mathematical framework for a quantum field model, because we can remain safe describing all ‘’conscious minds’’ under the same single dimension. Everything Is Relative We find, that there is no absolute time frame in the universe. Everything must be relative to another framework. And because of the this, nothing is moving, and nothing is standing still. For instance, we find in relativity that time is actually a frozen lake, that does not flow at all, and everything that exists in the history of the universe, it is found to be all layed out, existing like side-by-side graphs, or myraid sheets. Single frames of existence, all layed out like a breath frozen by the cold air. But its not such a wimper, with the term of zero-point energy in quantum electrodynamics. If you could freeze the vacuum down to absolute zero, -273 K, there is still movement in the vacuum. Everything is still vibrating in the absolute cold temperature. This is the zero-point energy, and it is seen as the spontaneous frothing of energetic and material quantum bubbles. John Wheeler coined this famously as ''quantum foam.'' Even when you think you could freeze something, there is still something happening. This sea is a virtual electromagnetic sea, and is required as a model in the Dirac Sea, where an electron moves through spacetime, and moves in a jitter-bugging motion, as the virtual negative electroparticles are bouncing the poor electron back and forth. Dirac, by formulating quantum mechanics and relativity together in 1926 (a big year in physics), found that the electron could move at near light speed, and whenever we observed it moving through spacetime, it would appear to move slower, because it followed a jagged path through the vacuum. Weird stuff eh? It predicted the electron quite well, and dispite the little attention of the media concerning such things, the notion of the Dirac Sea has been enlightened again as quite possibly somehow the same thing as the zero-point energy field itself. If thoughts come from the zero-point field, as speculated by quite a few physicists in the field, then it may also be something we need to use to model a system to how we come to know something. Dr. Walker, a physicist who works deep in the field of cognitive science, also took a quantum mechanical approach, among three seperate groups of scientists at the time who where working on such models, back in the 80's. He proposed hidden variables to answer for how we come to know something. He is a really smart scientist, but the idea never really caught on so much. What most of the models did generally conform to, was the collapse of the wave function upon a measurement, and perhaps a collapse in the psyche. The collapse is obviously an operation that works in imaginary time, but it has been speculated by Bertrand Russel that the imaginary dimension of spacetime is somehow the same realm as consciousness. Again, this never really caught on either, but it is still the foundation of the possibilities of spacetime theories ~ the so called relationships between objective and subjective dimensions... ..anyway, from my babbling on, the collapse of the wave function responsible for consciousness, is seen as the process of the two-dimensional image cast into the three-dimensional phenomena. How do we come to know something? We tend to say that we gain information, just by analyzing a particular event, and by thus processing it in our neural networks. However, where does this information come from? Does it come from the outside? In fact, the last question is taken seriously by physicists that the very information we gain flows into our beings from the outside. But what if it doesn't? I've always had a problem accepting the idea that information comes into our beings. I'm not exactly sure why. I have always thought of the human being, as being a gigantic memory unit, storing all information in a potential mixed state. Indeed, such an idea shouldn't be difficult to understand, based on two premises: 1. That entropy, causing the distinction of past and future, makes our perception of the future as something we move towards, and when we do, it seems as though the future is already apart of our memories. For this reason, one must suspect that somehow thought and wishes exists beyond the observer. 2. That information or knowledge about a system instantly becomes known to the observer upon measurement. Now, if we take premise one seriously, thought and memory exists beyond the observer. As much as this might just be a psychological illusory of the mind, we might even consider taking such an idea seriously. For instance, the human observer exists in the present, and we can have memory about the past. However, whenever we come to remember the past, we do no such thing as jumping backwards in time and recollecting the memory being asked for. Instead, we reevaluate an experience we had, and recreate the past in the present as memory. Thus, the real question is, when we do come to experience the future (in the present), how is it that the future already exists as memory? Does thought and wishes exist beyond the observer? I think so - but perhaps not in the way I’ve been making out. You see, one might think that the mind jumps into the future, and this is how thoughts can exist beyond the observer... memories of the future. However, as we have seen, the mind is bound to the present time. The only other way to explain this, is if we have a complete record of future events in our beings, just as we have a record of the past; but the record of the future must be seen as a record we can potentially remember, but cannot, because experience must activate these memories (just as the experience of the past activates our memories of a past event). Thus, the record of the past can be now put in terms of ''real'', and we can say that the future is a record that is ''virtual''; this is only an idiosyncratic method I am going to use, to distinguish the differences. I would like to note, that the past and future have no existence... the past makes up the present time as a record. The only difference with my interpretation is that the future also makes up a record in the present - but this record differs quite a bit from any other type of record we might suspect through subjective knowledge. It turns out, I believe, that both the past and the future is made up of conscious experience (1), which in turn, exists in the present time as a record of memory - one real and the other potentially real. We must be the perfect machines capable of storing these records, as one exists as memory, and the other is unfolded to us as memory. If we take the second premise seriously, then we might ask how we come to process information [almost] as instant as we come to measure something. One example, is how we come to analyze written language, and know it almost just as quickly? In fact, how can blind people touch brail, and equally know it just as fast? How do we bind optical and other sensory perceptions into the phenomena of knowing about it almost just as quick? Let us put forth another mystery concerning consciousness. How can written text seen by the eyes, contain [almost] the same information as when heard by the ears? How does this information vary and fluctuate? Indeed, this 'binding problem' holds also many questions; the most prominent being, how do we crystallize existence in a continuous flow of perception, rather than discontinuous flashes? The only way (I believe) consciousness can perform such tasks, is by saying that we do in fact have a record of all-information about spacetime... Thus, when push comes to shove, consciousness can process the knowledge of a system, because that information is already contained within us. Indeed, such psychic phenomena such as 'Deja Vu' might be explainable, if certain sensory perceptions are abnormal, and certainty get's mixed up with the uncertain realms of knowledge. In fact, psychic predictions of the future might be explainable, if we do indeed have a record of the future in embedded in our consciousness! (1) This applies only to real time. And consequently, the only time something exists. Then using the final equation here, without introducing superfluous probability values right now, the present time frame, in which A and C functions are complimentary to each (the so-called, Complimentarity Principle of Quantum Mechanics), So… Since function A, called in the mathematical principles of my spacetime theory consist experience as temporal focal points in real time stimulations, which I, after a few hours, came to my memory of past musings, that relativtsic time coordinated systems in special relativity could be integrated as an observer-dependancy. Imaginary Time concludes through the notions in spacetime, concerning an event, in this case can very speculated to be simply and observer invariant relevance within the mix of the empirical equations: (a) ~ ∆s = ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ) And in time frames relevant to this, is also a dependant variable of a non-conscious influenced observation, or general relationship, since the equation (a) works in real space: The definition that the observer operates in symbiotic mathematical laws whenever we experience and memorize the system being observed. Then there is this… In timelike conditions, we define the paths in real time, the conditions we experience for instance, but only is very slow durations. Truth is, we experience more time in the imaginary time than what we do in real time, or imaginary space, as it is also known as. ∆t = ∫(√ - η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ) And here, we have the coordination of a lego piece of time as imaginary values. These are the points where a conscious, memorizing system of the outside world, (and there is no proof to suggest we lose thoughts at all. There are cases, concerning strong evidence where old people find they can remember more about their youth, and maybe the old metaphor of ‘’the older the wiser,’’ is in fact a truth of psychological astrangement. So in conclusion, I believe that the whenever the human observes an object, and disturbs the wave function so that the particle collapsed, then we must also consider that even the spacetime equations ~ (a) ∆s = ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ) Yet; (b) -∆s = ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ) resembles a physical interaction, because I concluded that the equation (a)-bove, expresses physical attributes, so the observer must have the proof that not only does the mind exist only ever in exist real focal points in space, they are ultimately tied to the world she measures. If we state, instead of reducing the left hand side, just to keep things simple as possible, and state the variable of change, and its constant s, we shall give it a negative time direction, the variable (-∆s) becomes negative instantaneously, then the overall construction will remain negative. So to be proper, it really should be expressed as the equation: -∆s ∫(√ η μv)(dxμ/dλ x dxν/dλ)(dλ) ...................................................... [math](a_{(ii)j} + b_{(ij)j} )=a^{2}+b^{2}[/math] In this equation, where a equals the tdi variable i have been using to describe the external mind is given as (a), whilst Tdi gives the internal (b). The lower case trace variables, are not traces in the sense of matrix notation, but instead in this theory, trace the different time directions of possible superluminal waves of information. Phase velocity of a Quantum Time Wave Look at this wave equation i devised ages ago: [math](d^{2}/dt^{2})(c^{2})(du^2/dx^{2})+w^{2}u=0[/math] Which can be solved as …has a set of solutions: [math]u = Acos( ax - bt )[/math] [math]c^2 a^2 - b^2 + w^2 = 0[/math] Which are ‘’sine waves’’ propagating with a speed, [math]v=b/a=\sqrt{(c^{2}+(w/a)^{2}}[/math] The problem here, is that they are moving at a speed which exceeds ''c'', at tachyonic speeds that would oscillate in the imaginary time dimension, and spend no time in real time. … just gonna get to some more conclusions which lead to something quite interesting things to consider, even if you don't go away a believer... The usea of the equations, i feel, can describe posible (TTTI), ''two- time measurements and the Transactional Interprtation. The theory involves how quantum time waves, that could be totally analogous to the ones provided above. A state vector, |S> deteremined the probability of the field of the original wave. If the orginal wave does not compute, it simply cancles out. An Echo Wave, |E(t,1)> meeting an Offer Wave <(t,2)O|, moving at superluminal speeds, just like the wave equations i made above. Afterall, not all information should be speculated to move necesserily at the same speeds, which is accepted as lightspeed. But information is far more etheral than a photon, and may have abilities that are of significance. ‘’ Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light.’’ The velocity of a wave, can be defined many ways, and they are by theory found to be at different speeds. What I am interested in, is the speeds of the Echo Wave and the Offer Waves velocity, upon a measurement made in real time. (Such superluminal postulations even lead some to believe this is how to solve the spooky action at a distance, because information moves faster than light, or at least, certain information travels faster than light. You must not mistake however, wave velocities referring to something like a photon, except for under very special conditions… for instance, Hawking can make a photon move at superluminal speeds for a short time using the uncertainty principle. But I am not talking about radiation here. I am talking about totally ethereal information, phantom of waves of information that whiz past us faster than light, and we are non-the-wiser. We had [math](t=|t|^{2}=(tt))[/math] Where the absolute square created a reference between the internal and external world, and I described the internal world as having a reference to the internal world. But by treating t and t’ as conjugates that gave a real value, it opened the door of allowing an exchange of information: A wave undulating through the imaginal realm, that meets with its conjugate in real time. So the observations we make in everyday life might even be creating the world around us. Many take the idea seriously, such as Dr Cramer in his Transactional Interpretation. Dr Wolf has also promoted the use of the Delayed-Choice Experiment as evidence of backwards-through-time traveling waves. Using the TI, he explains that reality could be built up on superluminal waves traveling through time in a sinusoidal manner. First, we would need to integrate the TI theory of a complex-valued retarded wave of a quantum state vector [math]| S >[/math] that moves forward through time, as Cramer calls it, an ‘’offer wave’’ in the present state: [math]|O(t, 1) >[/math] Which then moves to the future: t >1 When it does so, it will activate an echo wave state vector which Cramer calls ( a complex-conjugated advanced wave) <E(2)|, toward the present time [math]<E(t, 2)|[/math] The field of probability distribution allows the ‘’transaction’’ to be complete through probability amplitude: [math]<E(t,1)|O(t,2)>[/math] The field requires on exact values of the initial state, and if the original wave does not contain the correct information, then the waves simply cancels out. But each time a successful transaction transpires, a collapse in the wave function follows. This cannot be applied to a multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, such as the Everett Interpretation and the Existential Interpretation, because there is no collapse of the wave function. These waves will move in a sinusoidal manner, it can be seen, to not only move forward in a smooth curve of probability in the positive time direction along an axis, let’s call axis y, and then find itself back at its original starting point, by moving back through the negative time direction. To complete a cycle, such as an Offer Wave moving into the future state, and then back again, the wave now have a displacement on angular frequency [math]w[/math] to the magnitude of [math]2\pi,radians[/math]. You can also work out that you can express such a wave traveling in the form of, noting though that [math]A_{0}[/math] is the amplitude as the maximum function of the equation: [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx -wt[/math] To express this wave in the positive time negative direction, we can state: [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx + wt)[/math] This should be a firm start to set off any notion of superluminal waves in the form of Echo and Offer Waves operating and undulating the spacetime fabric. In a sense, this is information to be able to move through space, requires to be somehow a part of the vacuum itself, and in reflection, this MUST mean that the vacuum does store and transfer information. ...................................... Only one Conscious Mind? -And Debunking Parallel Universe Theory I found it interesting to learn that quantum physics actually predicted that there was only one mind ever in existence. It was a metaphysical physicist that proved there was only one mind ever present. It was conjected from the musings of Vedanta. So No two minds can ever exist, in a consistent quantum mechanical framework. It will obviously appear strange to imagine that we have different thoughts, actions and plans, but find sharing a by-product of a single unit of energy we call the conscious realm of the mind. Surely we are unique? The answer turns out to be a mixed logic, when concerned with quantum mechanics. There can be no separate mind, but only one mind ever existing. If this is true, which I surely do believe it is, then there is a complication removed from my theory. There was the chance, one could have argued that my theory would in fact be a lot more complicated than a single subspacetime dimension for consciousness, because the line of thought would say that there have been many minds, so many different dimensions we would need to make note of. But if independent minds are proven by quantum mechanics to cause problems, then a single mind, created by all the ‘’illusory’’ of separation and identity, is in fact lost to all the networks operating interdependently, again as one single unit. Dr Wolf argues that this is the Mind of God, and he has not been the first to postulate such notions, as they extend right back to Plato’s time. Then there is one mind, and there is no need to worry about how to treat so-called ‘’individual’’ conscious minds in a mathematical framework for a quantum field model, because we can remain safe describing all ‘’conscious minds’’ under the same single dimension. One Mind, One Universe There was a time when physicists considered that there was only one electron in the universe… as the theory was so obviously called, ‘The One Electron Universe.’’ The idea that there was only one electron was to account for its similar attributes and spontaneous actions. The theory has now been overruled with other quantum evidence. But the reason I bring this up, is because it is inherently different to unifying every quantum mind into a single mind-unit. I do believe, and I could be wrong, but I have no reference, I do believe Einstein once said that every mind in the universe, was a dimension upon its own. This line of reference has now been speculated, backed by very strong arguments, philiosophical and quantum mechanical, to be wrong. If there is only one dimension, there is only one mind that is ever conscious. The argument, is that the human brain projects a frame of existence that is, what we call in physics jargon, ‘’self-contained’’. This means that there is no real reference between my mind, and yours. Therefore, I state there is only one mind ever present to my reality of existence: That is my own conclude that even if there are other universes, it does us no good to talk about them, because not only do we never really observe this universe, the universe we measure, exists in the framework of the mind, and that must render parallel universe theory invalid. I needed to ask my expert friend on Parallel Universes, (an enthusiast to say the least), to see whether this is correct reasoning, that there is only one mind, and therefore only one universe: Gareth-Lee: ''Might it be, that if mind is only one, and one reflecting > consciousness, and this consciousness gives rise to an > internal world that is only ever perceived, might it also be > quantum mechanically useless to consider more than one universe?'' Fred Alan Wolf: You might say so. Since we do have quantum physics doesn't that deny the premise? Wolfs first rule of quantum mechanics, is that there is no reality without the perception of reality... ... taking this AS TRUTH, then there is no reality at large, but the reality that if of ''mind stuff'', as Arthur Eddington once put it, ''To put it cruedly, the stuff of the world is mind stuff.'' And since there is no reality at large outside of the mind without the reference of an observer, this renders parallel universe theory a metaphysical defect.

Riding the time waves (separate essay) Abstract This is an essay evolved from my spacetime theory, essay one. My premise, is that the information in the subliminal realm of consciousness, which I define as being the same thing as the proposed ‘’Imaginal Realm Model,’’ of quantum physics, have a velocity of v>c. Wiki, an on-line source of information states: ‘’ Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light.’’ wiki The velocity of a wave, can be defined many ways, and they are by theory found to be at different speeds. What I am interested in, is the speeds of the Echo Wave and the Offer Waves velocity, upon a measurement made in real time. (Such superluminal postulations even lead some to believe this is how to solve the spooky action at a distance, because information moves faster than light, or at least, certain information travels faster than light. You must not mistake however, wave velocities referring to something like a photon, except for under very special conditions… for instance, Hawking can make a photon move at superluminal speeds for a short time using the uncertainty principle. But I am not talking about radiation here. I am talking about totally ethereal information, phantom of waves of information that whiz past us faster than light, and we are non-the-wiser. We had [math](P=|t|^{2}=(tt’))[/math] Where the absolute square created a reference between the internal and external world, and I described the internal world as having a reference to the internal world. But by treating t and t’ as conjugates that gave a real value, it opened the door of allowing an exchange of information: A wave undulating through the imaginal realm, that meets with its conjugate in real time. So the observations we make in everyday life might even be creating the world around us. Many take the idea seriously, such as Dr Cramer in his Transactional Interpretation. Dr Wolf has also promoted the use of the Delayed-Choice Experiment as evidence of backwards-through-time traveling waves. Using the TI, he explains that reality could be built up on superluminal waves traveling through time in a sinusoidal manner. First, we would need to integrate the TI theory of a complex-valued retarded wave of a quantum state vector | S > that moves forward through time, as Cramer calls it, an ‘’offer wave’’ in the present state: [math]|O(t, 1) >[/math] Which then moves to the future: t >1 When it does so, it will activate an echo wave state vector which Cramer calls ( a complex-conjugated advanced wave) <E(2)|, toward the present time [math]<E(t, 2)|[/math] The field of probability distribution allows the ‘’transaction’’ to be complete through probability amplitude: [math]<E(t,1)|O(t,2)>[/math] The field requires on exact values of the initial state, and if the original wave does not contain the correct information, then the waves simply cancels out. But each time a successful transaction transpires, a collapse in the wave function follows. This cannot be applied to a multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, such as the Everett Interpretation and the Existential Interpretation, because there is no collapse of the wave function. These waves will move in a sinusoidal manner, it can be seen, to not only move forward in a smooth curve of probability in the positive time direction along an axis, let’s call axis y, and then find itself back at its original starting point, by moving back through the negative time direction. To complete a cycle, such as an Offer Wave moving into the future state, and then back again, the wave now have a displacement on angular frequency w to the magnitude of [math]2\pi,radians[/math]. You can also work out that you can express such a wave traveling in the form of, noting though that [math]A_{0}[/math] is the amplitude as the maximum function of the equation: [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx -wt)[/math] To express this wave in the positive time negative direction, we can state: [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx + wt)[/math] This should be a firm start to set off any notion of superluminal waves in the form of Echo and Offer Waves operating and undulating the spacetime fabric. In a sense, this is information to be able to move through space, requires to be somehow a part of the vacuum itself, and in reflection, this MUST mean that the vacuum does store and transfer information. The function [math]<E(t,1)|[/math] and [math]|(t,2)O>[/math], upon squaring [math]<E(t,1)|(t,2)O>[/math] is the same as the operation: [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx -wt)[/math] x [math]A(t,x) = A_{0} cos(kx + wt)[/math] But much more simpler, and the result is a real time event, between an observer, and the observed system. It seems that these waves are produced from a field of probability that surrounds the observer, and excites the ethereal wave to oscillate through time, and meet up with its conjugate partner. If the mind is time, as some theories suggest, then it shouldn’t be too hard to imagine a time wave being produced by the mind, undulating spacetime. Fingers crossed…

Your postal forum here says: In definition of content ''science topics that frequently come under discussion Discuss life, work, school, anything '' Question Caps, Are you destroying the truth so that no man can seek it? Or are you destrying the man, so no one can seek it? >> Or better yet, are you ignoring what i said, so you can have some kind of authorative, because you implicitely informed the i should contact you about the things which i have wrong, not what i might have wrong, and as far as i undertstand, you are no autharative in such an area. As for the others who believe they are, they are dillusioned by grandure of wisdom, that really is only knowledge, and non of us are no better than each other, no matter what tag a college or university has given you. Those prancing lightweights who call themselves professional here, are ignorant that physics is incomplete, so there can be no such thing as a professional. These are my last words.

Well, for starters, i am blamed for something i never instigated. Now you are instigating the instigated. Very logical. VERY MESSY.

We don't want to make a mess in front of the mods, please. The antiquated methods will be their downfall.

''Locked, because this is not up for negotiation or discussion.'' Or how about common logic sense. IF (Which i never) started the contradictory arguement, so in normal procedure with thoughts involved, i showed that there should be no biased theory. Then i am blamed for causing this so called ''flame-war'', when not only was it started by someone else, it was equally contributed to by other members...\\ /// so, yeh, it is for discussion, or are you going to a non-liberal?

Swanson suspended me for: ''graviphoton suspended for three days for a combination of recent violations: flaming, thread hijacking, and plagiarism ______________ Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum'' ...who thread did i hijack? By any chance the thread where i was talking about theories that where contradictory... ... flaming... whatever ... and plagiarism... the true definition of this word, is by taking someone elses work, and claim it as no other than your own. I did not do this, and i expressed it was another scientists work. So in effect, i need to reflect on the fact that other people, even mods contributed to the discussion of what i was talking about. And i wasn't the original oister who claimed Hydrino energy was contradictory, thus spawing the contradictory conclusions concerning physics... AND YET ... i am the one blamed, and punished. Well **** you swanson, and your discrepency-enduced decisions, and antiquated assumptions.

Emmm... what the ****?>> You telling me a scientist in his lifetime, never speuclates on a theory, and by working on it, he or she does not do so by faith of the theory? You think scientists are unbiased?

I'm nitpicking... the hypocrisy. You are the master of that act. And no, i neve specificated it to you, and when you said i was unscientific, you niether qouted that, so no, funnily, its not me being illogical at all. I would say that is quite logical. Now, i showed, concerning that specific line of thought, that by treating the photon as a shell is wrong. If a photon by definition, has an energy, and you cannot remove the energy without moving the entire photon, then the photon is the energy in question. That is certainly NOT illogical.

EVERY SCIENTIST, in their lifetimes, have made speculations based on the faith they have on a subject. And now you are just being rude. Point out where i am illogical, please. And you acted as a boycott when you spoke on behalf of other people.

Well saying a photon doesn't have an invariant mass, is the equivalant to saying the photon does not have a rest mass, and since the rest mass of a photon is zero, then it concludes that the invariant mass is also zero, so you will find it might count after all. And where did this start in the conversation between me and you? You squeezed that in there didn't you? Did you forget what you qouted as being non-scientific?

How do you conclude that? I can't wait to hear this one.

Bottom line moo, you like to distinguish too much secondly, it was an example. A lot of physics is built up on faith, like parallel universe theory, for one. And why shouldn't anyone follow my logic, and when did you control what they thought?

But to talk about the invariant mass of a photon being zero, wasn't a lie, and i find it easier to talk like that.

yes

Bacteriophages are a virus that attacks bacteria. and that's already been said. Nice one Gareth.

But just to clear any misunderstanding, In physics jargon, the mass of an object is called its 'invariant mass,' and the photon has no invariant mass. Now, a massless particle can have energy and it can have momentum, simply because mass is related to these through the equation E^2 = M^2c^4 + p^2c^2, which is subsequently zero-mass for a photon because E = pc for massless radiatiation. So yes, the photon has momenta and energy, and can deliver a punch out of it when it hits a surface, but it doesn't have mass. But since the photon is energy, you plug the same variables into the equation above, with the added knowledge that if you use E=Mc^2 to describe the relationship between matter and energy, a proton and a photon, then these subtle things should be known. But if you have no eye for detail in physics, it will possibly never concern you. Well, i think i have tried extra harder tonight to answer everyone.

Yes, well, everything moves so fast here. People don't generally give time for anyone, unless it is asked for I did reply to this. Klaynos We shouldn't, but i have.

Oh yes... well... should i necesserily count?

Well, since matter is defined as M, and photons as E, (since photons are energy), then E=Mc^2 is analogous to matter=trapped photons.