Jump to content

Graviphoton

Senior Members
  • Posts

    424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Graviphoton

  1. To be fair to me, i never qouted anyone in this case
  2. You can be quite ignorant from time to time can't you, not just to me, but especially concerning physics? Did you know that quantum physics was incomplete, and will require scientists of my generation to come along and make a speculation on a matter of physics, purely through the faith it is correct? Did Einstein have faith the universe was static?
  3. Dirk, friend, what teaching have you had in physics?
  4. Well, i agree, because i believe in the same thing -- that's why. Nothing more, nothing less.
  5. Again ''Look, i am not going to argue this anymore. The both of you are arguing that the photon is something like a shell, that contains energy. Its not. Its diffused matter. It is energy.'' What really is the big deal anyway. First you all doubted the validity of matter being made from light, requiring a reference, which you finally got, amonf other references. You have now agreed that light came first, and logic PURE UTTER GODDAMN LOGIC, indicates that these photons gave rise to matter with a rest mass, so now whats the problem... oh yes, we are squabbling over the terminology of a friggin photon. This is very clever.
  6. Your Dad Yes, if you kick a ball, not only are electrons and photons exchanged with the ball, but the ball will also realease energy due to the action taken.
  7. Look, i am not going to argue this anymore. The both of you are arguing that the photon is something like a shell, that contains energy. Its not. Its diffused matter. It is energy.
  8. Klaynos Right, hold it there. You hit it on the button. How does a timeless particle evolve into a particle that does, when you state: Particles that are timeless cannot change? You make a point of absorption and emmision, but not ''decay''. You cannot remove the energy of a photon, because the photon is the energu it makes up. Its a simple unit, that cannot be simplified any more.
  9. Swanson Then teach me something.
  10. Klaynos Who and when? try reading, ''Spiritual Universe,'' By no other than Dr. Wolf. He explains we now believe that matter, all forms of matter with rest mass are forms of trapped light. He also goes onto inform the reader that the photon is the simplest unit of energy there is.
  11. Klaynos I know the photon is timeless... but how does this relate? Elaborate please, also be cautionary, that the freezing of time is only significant to its frame of reference. Swanson Meh
  12. Citation. Don't have one. Its been in my teachings, that where we consider a particle and their antipartner, they will most probably return to photon energy.
  13. Id agree with the lecturer.
  14. Your Dad was that to me? INow Yes.. Klaynos Bad answer, it in fact never answered my question at all. My question was, again, ''If the photon is a system with an energy, how do you remove the energy from the system?'' If you cannot, then the photon is the energy it makes up. And, you do realize the photon is the simplest and smallest known unit of energy?
  15. Yes, and the problem is our ability to distinguish what is acceptable and what is an oxymoron. But that's even hard, since quantum physics is incomplete.
  16. It is said that photons would need to be pure energy, because there is nothing more fundamental than them. How do you define pure energy then, and more importantly, how do you remove the energy of a photon, without removing the entire photon itself?
  17. Initial Thoughts on Spacetime Theories Its seems that spacetime theories are quite a mainstream theory. I came up with the idea of treating the mind as a dimension of spacetime, and I wasn’t aware of this. Its actually good, because then it cannot be so crack pot. The idea, is that consciousness is related to geometrical features, and are therefore called spacetime theories. I believe it was Arthur Eddington who first came up with the name to the theory, and advanced by Dr. John Smythies. It seems that the theory is based upon the proposal that the spacetime continuum we perceive in the four dimensional phenomenon, neither exists in time nor space… But we do have points and places in space and time as though our bubble of perception has these degrees of freedom. The Relationship between Internal and External Spacetime (a.k.a Reference Theory) ‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time. The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the law, that the rule that the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system.’’ The probability of a spacetime occurrence is proportional to the magnitude of the external time variable with the internal time variable, which will be described as t and t’, so the probability equation is given as [math](P=|t|^{2}=(tt’)[/math] *Where t’ is the conjugate of t. This of course is identical discipline to Born’s Law, an empirical equation [math](P= \psi \psi*)[/math] describing the probability of finding a system in one of its quantum states, given by the quantum state vector given as |Ø>. An example, is the electron, with a position, momentum and energy is totally described by the state vector, given as |Ø>. Although, the rule of complimentarity ruled itself by the uncertainty principle forbids us ever knowing everything about the mathematics behind |Ø>. Though, potentially, anything you want to know is behind that variable. The state/wave vector spreads out over spacetime. It can potentially and theoretically calculate the wave vector of entire galaxies and even the universe itself! But here is the really interesting [part]. If we want a unification of physics, we need a model of the mind that corresponds to it having its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, even if we have to integrate them as real points in time, and that would also include space, according to special relativity. If my law that states: ‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time. The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the rule that the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system.’’ .. is true, then we do have a few things to consider, that seem totally logical. It would mean that for consciousness to operate, a collapse in the wave function between an observer and the observed must occur, so that the observations we make, can be used as a reference to what is observed: The internal and external realities, in this specific case of reasoning. These are the only times when real time models can be used, and is really, according to one line of mainstream physics, the only real time anything is real. When things are not observed, is when we can use imaginary time. This law is empirical to the following work, and if it fails, all else does as well. An Arrow of Time for the Model …Is interesting, because my model cannot suggest a unique arrow, because of some discrepancies with the instantaneous frames of existence that seem to be posited from the above conclusions. I have quantized consciousness, so that only whenever we make an observation, can there be a correlation in space and time. In fact, time may be the very conduit that relates the internal world and the external world together. So only a point in conscious spacetime, which has collapsed the state vector of external reality, does either variable exist… in other words, there is no reality without the perception of reality, and this would conclude that consciousness and the perception of consciousness are invariant to each other. In fact, this is where the next premise derives: ‘’You cannot have a real point in conscious spacetime, without a corresponding point in external spacetime.’’ If what we observe is not a current projection of external spacetime, then what we are witnessing cannot be real in the sense of what we define as a reality. There needs to be a simultaneous squaring of our world and the external world, for both to define a real existence. We actually require this rule, if we are going to integrate the mind as a dimension of spacetime, because in spacetime, we, find that matter and energy cannot exist without a vacuum, and vice versa. We need a relationship like the one proposed, so that there is an answer to how there can be a similar premise for the time vector of the mind and its relationship with matter. Its explanation, is that matter is popped into existence whenever we observe it, exciting the two dimensions [math](P=|t|^{2}=(tt’)[/math]. The notion that, ‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time. The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the absolute square of the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system (1),’’ not only unites the points of internal spacetime and external spacetime as playing exactly the same roles, it also plays the same role as the observer effect. (1) - Or the dimension of the observer and the dimension of the observed system. In fact, the very idea that a system will collapse on the ‘’transaction’’ of * (using Cramer terminology), may play exactly the same roles in uniting the variables t and t’ together. I also came to these conclusions obviously from mathematical idea’s, and we will cover that soon. The relationship between the external and the internal dimension(s), can be expressed as: [math]<t(a,1)|(b,2)t’>[/math] … as an expression detailing their ‘’meeting’’. We must assume for this expression to be correct, there must be the ability to describe both t and t’ as having values that can be expressed as a set of events which describe their evolutionary steps to reach their final State Value. 1) [math]P_{12}=|t_{1} (a_{2},b_{2})|^{2}=|(\Delta S)t’>,|(\Delta S_{f})t’>[/math] And for the conjugate 2) [math]P_{12}=|t_{2} (a_{2},b_{2})|^{2}= |(\Delta S)t >,|(\Delta S_{f})t >[/math] Where: P ~ Probability [math]t_{1}[/math] ~ The time variable (just a mathematical duration) t ~ The time dimension t’~ The Second Imaginary Time Dimension a ~ Event One b ~ Event Two [math]S[/math] ~ Initial State [math]S_{f}[/math] ~ Final State The reason why I have exhausted this part, is because the upper equations do describe some kind of time passing using a time variable... (But this is ok). The process can be instantaneous, but be careful, we may not actually be talking about speeds, as in faster than light. Of course, superluminal speeds would be hard to distinguish in the theory, because there is no obvious evidence that anything moves at all. It may just be a case of two myriad imaginal sheets that square together. I obviously attend for the latter. So how do we picture all of this? Well, I’ve made it clear that anything we perceive, are like flashes of momentary existence that has an unbounded attachment to the outside world. From time to time, consciousness and external spacetime lock, and create a point/moment in real time. This is the true arrow of time. There is just discontinuous fleeting flashes of existence, and any flow, is just an illusion. For some reason though, consciousness does not experience a discontinuous set of frames in time. Instead we experience a smooth chain of events that seem uninterrupted. This is called the ‘’Binding Paradox.’’ After the consideration of mind and matter: Even those physicists who will inexorably and insidiously evaluate that such discussions are of philosophical debate, because consciousness is an ‘’abstract theory’’(1), that we are informed in physics, namely the Copenhagen Interpretation, that a particle is not real until a a collapse in the wave function occurs, (in this sense, we shall not include atomic observers). The thing that makes a collapse of the wave function unique when an observer is involved, is that we have memory of the action. (1) Consciousness cannot be an abstract theory. There are too many details which quantum mechanics cannot allow to be dismissed, such as the question to not having determined whether a model of the brain does not require a non-classical model of quantum physics, or not. If it does require a non-classical model, then we have the question to how [math]10^27[/math] particles come together and give rise the phenomenon of consciousness. I argue, that if the mind was not present, then spacetime ‘’out there’’ would become an abstract theory, because there is no mind there to define it. An atom, being modeled as an observer, does not have this kind of memory (1). This is why there is an importance with the conscious collapse model. This is not pseudoscience. It is the core of Copenhagen, and the importance of the titles of many famous books ever written. (1) (and i'll let you in on some recent developments... for a while now, i have been proposing that memory does not retain to the matter in our heads, but recent views and a model yet to be shown to the general public, describes memory as being stored in the vacuum). On Non-Classical Models space-matter-time-energy-mind It is said in relativity, that spacetime is in fact one thing with energy as space-matter-time-energy. Now with the new physics, no longer are they four, but mind is added to the one force: space-matter-time-energy-mind Actually, I am not the first to posit this. Dr. Wolf also makes the relation in his book, ‘’Mind into Matter.’’ The reality we see, smell and touch are built up on senses. Thus, the optical bubble of perception isn't the real physical outside world. The world we see is actually a mental projection > one that is created through a series of complicated processes. Somehow, the eye captures a two-dimensional image and casts it into the three-dimensional phenomenon of perception, and how it does this, is still a mystery to neuroscientists. More physical processes are involved, at the microscopic level. When a photon (a particle of light) hits off the retina, changes occur inside of the cells. A molecule called the Cis-Retinal changes into a Trans-Retinal; it isn't a chemical change, but rather a change in the spatial structure of the molecule. This changes a protein that is already present in the cells of the retina, and this protein attaches itself to another protein, because of a chemical change in the original protein. More happens. Molecules are cut in half, which in turn causes electrical channels to become closed off; and this series of events causes an electrical imbalance, which is then transported through electrolyte and nerve activity to the brain. This is all quite amazing. To think a picture from the outside world has to go through so many changes to reach the brain. Something which is even more amazing is that the process needs to be reversed! The reason for this is because if it didn't, a cell in the retina could only ever be used once. This regeneration allows our eyes to use a cell over and over again. Some of these cells will be used for color perception. Other's black and white. But how the brain processes this mixed information is still one of the biggest mysteries concerning this area of science. What is even more interesting is the ''binding problem'' of quantum physics. How does the mind not only make sense of this information, but bind it together into a smooth continuous perception, rather than discontinuous flashes of awareness? The brain really is quite complex when one considers these things. Nevertheless, one cannot escape the beauty of consciousness' ability to 'recreate' space and time in its own projection of the external world. In fact, more and more physicists are attempting to treat the mind with its own spacetime continuum. However, there are not many models or mathematical basis for consciousness around. It is still an on-going, difficult problem. One just doesn't know how to; and for those who do, tread this yellow brick road with careful coordinated steps to the wizard of quantum. And I hope, from my following conclusions of whether the mind requires a non-classical model, that the academia will consider its implications seriously: ‘’It is absolutely, and ridiculously useless to consider a non-classical frame for the mind, when in the end, the ultimatum is that non-classical actions determine any result of consciousness, in the state of that single photon, a two dimensional object of information transverses into the three dimensional phenom of the neural networks. So in any model of consciousness, it needs to take into account of these quantum actions, upon arrival at the retina, and therefore leaves the conclusion of a classical model of the brain retarded.’’ (Before we continue, my original notation did not have t and t’. Instead, they used Td and td.) "If consciousness is in fact defined (and different) at every moment of time, it should also be related to points in space: the truly subjective observer system should be related to space-time points." from "Quantum Theory and Time Asymmetry", Zeh (1979). We certainly do experience a time dimension, and that time dimension must be inextricably linked to the external time dimension… I’ll provide more reasons into this soon; and there is overwhelming evidence to suggest they are indeed separate entities, and not the same. We also experience spatial dimensions, and it has been proposed by well-known spacetime theories to advocate dimensions for the mind as well, since we know very well we see three dimensions… but what we see isn’t of real space, so what we are observing are naturally created dimensions inside the mind. I applied the following mathematical conclusions from Pythagorean geometry: Td – Internal Time Experience td – External Time Experience a, b and c are the spatial coordinates [math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2}-Tdi^{2}[/math] I settle with the former discipline. I prefer the idea that the asymptotic time we all experience, and cosmic time are two different sides to the same coin. [math]|a^{2}|=(\sqrt(a^{2}_{1}+a^{2}_{2}+a^{3}_{2}))^{2}= \sqrt a'^{2}_{1}+a'^{2}_{2}+a'^{3}_{2}[/math] Where the left hand side of the equation, in this case, can represent the spatial dimensions we observe, given by the slash at the end. To solve [math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2}-Tdi^{2}[/math] I solved the real part of the equation by allowing [math]i^{2}=i^{2}*k^{2}[/math] so that the result is [math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}-i^{2}*k^{2}[/math] a^2+b^2+c^2-k^2^2=0 Solving for the real part in vectors is useless for me, unless I can find some acceptable mathematical set of equations that describe the relationship between Tdi=tdi. With, Alone, [math]a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}+tdi^{2}-Tdi^{2}[/math] knowing that Tdi=tdi, then we see the upper expression as having new meaning, by uniting the fabric of spacetime with consciousness. But space and time on the relativistic map, is invariant, so that they play the same roles. For instance, a change in time Δt must also indicate a change in space. If time is a human aspect, and there is a change in our vector, then this would instantly determine a change in all the other variables: Δa^2+Δb^2+Δc^2+Δtdi- ΔTdi So instantly can we assume that this model is flawed, because in no way have we ever had any experience that a change in how we perceive time, alters the external world of clocks. This immediately renders the equation tdi=Tdi flawed one might think. But, with some careful thought and deduction, relativity does say that a conscious observer will experience time change in for instance, time dilation. This experience alone can excite Tdi=tdi again. So I like to talk about the world we see and the time we feel specifically, as a dimension(s). This time dimension we feel and sense flow past us, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom which can be described as a second imaginary dimension of spacetime. The mathematical relationship between is by treating both individually as conjugates of each other. In physics, we often square numbers to evaluate the final answer. A perfect example is Born's Probability Law, the rule that the absolute square of the wave function gives the probability (P=|ψ|^2= (ψψ*)) of finding the system in the state described by the wave function, where psi ψ is an acting conjugate of psi star ψ*. Let Tdi be (a) and tdi as b, and use the following algebraic function: [math](a+bi)(a-bi)=a^{2}-b^{2}+2abi=a^{2}+b^{2}[/math] where The Second process just yields yet another conjugate, but has the same final value [math]a^{2}+b^{2}[/math]. This shows the final answer, produced by the original conguates being squared. It also displays the unique relationship between tdi and Tdi… the acting variables of the conjugates. Tdi or (b), is a single answer with (a), as [math]a^{2}+b^{2}[/math]. I think the relationship between human experience, and the observed system square together, and locks in the relationship of the mind as a vector of spacetime. Final Thoughts Well, I am personally convinced that there could be success in describing the dimensions we see and feel into a type of subspace dimensional math [math]|a|=( \sqrt(a^{1}_{2}+a^{2}_{2} + a^{3}_{2} ))^{2}= \sqrt -a^{1}_{2}+-a^{2}_{2} + -a{3}_{2}[/math]. The vector analysis of consciousness may prove very useful, or the alternative, very useless. The math can never be concrete with a highly metaphysical condition such as consciousness. Its hard to define at all, never define the terms in mathematical text. Many physicists often believe that the term ‘’subdimension,’’ or ‘’hyperdimension’’ are just science pop expressions, and nothing of it really truly exists. This may not be so much the truth from further thought though. In physics, we do deal with virtual seas of negative spinning particles, in the Dirac Sea model of quantum physics. This is an ethereal background of infinite negative energy… isn’t this a type of subspace? The notion of hidden things should not be of surprise. The scope of knowledge we have concerning this universe, is a maya of mystery and fog, which is hidden below the threshold of perception. Such realms have allowed psychophysicists to explore the probable realms of the imaginary. Supposed to be well-excepted, there is some kind of imaginal realm, where waves square and create something. We use conjugate values all the time in physics, and in the transactional interpretation, an Echo Wave and an Offer Wave oscillate throughout the imaginary dimension of space, and they multiply in the present, and the ‘’thing’’ is created. I think the relationship between mind and the vacuum in much the same sense might treat the relationship between the time experienced by the mind, and the time existing natural outside the mind, are in much the same ways conjugates of each other. Their squared result gives the minds value as being an added vector onto spacetime. If it is the predictability of this theory being integrated into a mainstream science difficult to comprehend, then there is in fact really strong evidence we can integrate it into special relativity. Special relativity, as you might know, is an observer-dependant theory of physics. If the concept of treating the mind as something similar to a dimension is difficult to accept, just consider these words by Dr. Andre Linde: ‘’ The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves… Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?’’ My theory does in fact have a snag, with general view. Dr. Alex Greene postulated that the imaginary time units where a product of the observer. Real time is a property of something being measured, while imaginary time is what happens when something is not, and he see’s consciousness as the unobserved, and the imaginary time dimension. The difference with my theory, is that it involves adding an extra imaginary dimension. But my own work is extraordinarily simple, next to Elizabeth Rauscher in 2001 who developed a detailed theory of an eight-dimensional complex Minkowski space. Some of the equations did not show up... so i will rewrite them I just saw some tumbleweed pass me by...
  18. Your point being? My point was, that we have theories that contradict the standard model of physics and cosmology, and dispite what anyone says, they can be accepted very readily. It may be correct, it may not. Usually, when something contradicts science, it will turn out to be false, but some things require extra attention, just to make sure, just like the black hole transportation and information paradox situation.
  19. Photons are defined as energy. Strange you would say they aren't? Why is it that we talk about a system loosing energy through electradiation? In some manner, we must believe that the photon is a unit of energy, or E=Mc^2 is meaningless when describing a photon to lets say, a protino.
  20. Energy has an energy. One rule. Information can never be lost, only transferred. In this case, the energy can not be lost. Second rule. In conclusion, photon is an energy. If it isn't, then why is it defined as so?
  21. Mmm... for some reason, its not letting me in Dad. I will try later when my computer is faster, and i am fitter ;)

  22. Well, conversion is just a word we use. But since the energy can never be lost, the particle has energy within it; photon energy. Right, for once answer me a question, and lets see if we can follow this through. Which came first, the chicken/energy, or the egg/matter?
  23. INow Be quite please. You are talking nonesense. Of course i am on topic. I am talking about the nature of theories that contradict. Now, K Yes it was considered very early on... thing is though, scientists ignored it for even longer.
  24. Maybe because i wasn't taking about gravity in geneal at all. The information paradox of quantum mechanics was violated for a good few decades. Why? Because we where using models where things can move through black holes and into other universes... ... but did that stop the rationale?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.