Graviphoton

Maybe it is terminology. How do you see it? That light decays into other particles, witha rest mass, because if that was the case, the original energy hasn't dissappeared, so what guise it is taking on now? Logic, and commonsense, would indicate that either the energy is trapped in the particle, (or if you wish, to be more scientific), is the particle in general, or, there is none of that original energy within its structure. Trapped photons, is just another terminology i use for, perhaps, a flux in frequency. Bottom line. All Tardyons are Luxons.

Well, the Dirac Sea, which is supposed to boil particles and antiparticles into existence, within the vacuum, is seriously being considered by physicists as a quantum aether.

Seriously you guys, you should know by now that because something contradicts our physics, it doesn't mean it is bogus. For years, it was generally accepted by the larger chunk of the mainstream, that peeps could jump into black holes, despite it ''contradicting'' quantum physics.

Well, the hypothesis right now, is that you can make any type of matter (in your words, massive particles) from light. It is by no coincidence nature made two types of matter, normal and anti. It was there so that these fluctuations could reduce back into light, for whatever reason nature wished, and the audasity of God. There is no sane scientist i know, who would deny that light cannot potentially create all matter with rest mass. Why? Because it is more logical to assume that this is where these types of particles came from, and evolved, because again, it is by no accident all these known particles do in fact mathematically reduce back into photons. There is an evident pattern, and you are refusing to accept it.

What do you mean by massive particles, caps. For me, i think about neutrinos as an example. It is within current understanding among physicists that even neutrino-antineutrino combo reduced into photon energy... Or Klaynos, even. Sorry.

Sorry. I will use qoutations in the future.

Noted

I don't appreciate your sarcasm. My methods work fine for me. It's other people that it doesn't work well with them. Big difference. And thanks, i guess.

[[Note]] Please do not grill me about publication rights. I obviously hold no publication rights of tis work, so as soon as it has been digested by the readers here, it will be removed. OUT OF PURE LIGHT, PHYSICISTS CREATE PARTICLES OF MATTER September 16, 1997 [mod note: copyrighted material removed. See link below.] Excuse me??? A tantrum? Over what??? I was even told by one of the more demanding of the members here that references where not really needed in that thread. And i am probably more of a scientist than you think, so i will retain to my own scientific methods, thank you very much.

Let me find one for you then.

If it comes to books, i would be more than happy to give all those details, so long as it not argued to be science pop, because in the end, i will not entertain the wilder theories of teleportation, for instance. So things like citing from, ''what the bleep do we know,' would in effect be a no, no. However, suffice to say, Dr Wolf appeared in that program. But i do not judge him overall through his appearance in it, and knowing him personally, he is very intelligent, and very reliable. Klaynos Here in this thread, OP at the bottom.

Well, the psychological thread, is in fact a new creation, and anything said concerning quantum mechanics should be distinguished from the psychological. So i will not be refencing anything in that thread. Now, you will notice i provided some links, some... references. But it was argued they could not be trusted. I simply think i am not being treated fairly in the consideration, because the references, by scientific standards, are no more ''proper'' than any other.

Well, for starters, i want you to define ''proper references,'' because i don't really know what makes a reference proper or not. You'll have to teach me about that one, or i am ****ed.

I'm a runner? Interesting.

Sorry Caps... (and Klaynos), never meant to come across condescending. Right mooey... hold on --- i'll get to your questions very soon Mooey ''There is a discussion in philosophy about what is, specifically, a "Present". Present is hard to explain, because your "now" is defined either by what just happened or by what will happen. Human thought has a lot of trouble facing the true, instantenous "now". So if nothing else, I would say that if the present is defined, it too contains quite a lot of the uncertainty aspect. '' Me Yes, i totally agree, and from your reflection on this essay, i am glad you realize this. mooey ''I am not sure if I'm the only one but I completely lost you here. Can you explain this? What swap? We're changing between certain and expectant? I don't quite understand what you're saying, or where your conclusion comes from. (Since this is strictly philosophical, you don't have to cite [though if you have citation it might help your cause] but at least explain your rationale again, it's very unclear at this point).'' I'm afraid this is superfluously my own investigation, so no cites sorry. Right, the swap... Notice that the past and the future contain only to working principles? 1. Past = (Certain and Uncertain factors) – 2. Present = (Expectant, Uncertain and Certain factors) – 3. Future = (Expectant and Uncertain factors) – Whilst the future excites all three principles to work? Well, i you focus on the principles, the uncertainty plays an unwashed effect, existing in both past and future. But past and future contain two principles, in this case, different principle, which seems to swap around, due to our perception, which is purely psychological in this theory. Mooey ''I'm not sure these are psychological aspects at all. Philosophically speaking, sure, those can be viable outlooks but if you are to say they are the three psychological principles (or even "a three" psychological principles, minus the 'the') you need to explain how you know this, how it was tested (psychology is quite a tested/testable field, in many cases) and why not other principles (that might oppose these three, and there are many) are not equally viable. Separate philosophy and empirical science..'' Me Well, i personally need to be careful. After analysis, Dr Wolf informed me to be mindful of relativity... if these definitions are not psychological, they would render the rest of the OP erreneous. If you want me to explain why, i will. But i will leave that there for now. As for the latter, this is the whole point thought. Its not been tested, because it is totally new. However, the theory has evolved. In special cases, there can be violations of the principle at work. Talking about these violations will be more difficult. ''Again I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, so if I understood you incorrectly, just explain it again -- do you mean that time is "subjective" ? if time is "wired together" by the means of participation of the human, then it is subjective... or did I misunderstand you? And if it is subjective (very interesting concept.. worth thinking about), then what does that mean of our perception of reality? hm.. interesting.'' Can i answer this from a quantum viewpoint? First, yes, you have that totally correct. Time must be subjective (and also objective, or external) so there is some kind of mathematical reference to each other. But since quantum mechanics cannot deal with the nature of a particle without it beings observed, then this goes for all reality. (Here, we must tread very carefully). Decoherence is not the same as a human observer. We actually reflect (1) and memorize the things we observe, whilst an atom cannot). This is VERY IMPORTANT in physics, and is the core reason why no scientist has been able to shoot the Observer Effect to the ground. (1) - Yep, my reflection theory again... but since it was given bad approval here, lets not concern ourselves with it. Dr Wolf reminds me, that the first rule in physics, is that there is no reality (as we know it, i will add), without the perception of reality. This must be true, according to the models of Copenhagen. Now, moving on, since this is generally accepted by physicists, this means that the notion of what we percieve is the only reality at large, and since we are talking about perception as a subjective phenom, then this must mean that the reality as we know it, is totally subjective as well, and this includes time. Phew.. that was a lot Mooey ''Another issue.. I think you might mean another word than pathology.. from what I understand it, pathology is a scientific definition in relation to study of disease and their causes.. ? I am not sure how that fits in relation to either time or the fact we speak of philosophical applications and not empirical methodological examination, like the study of disease is.. But do explain it if I understood incorrectly'' Me Its not like me to get my words mixed up... but i was under the impression ''pathology'' can also mean a biased concept in science, and to some degrees, these principles could are certainly biased for the human perception, and takes not into account the reality of relativity. This is why is must be attended that they are psychological principles, rather than effecting principles of quantum physics. Though, it would please me greately to find that these rules or principles if you wish, are in fact the shadow of mind that is not bound by the effects of quantum rules, but is a by-product of them instead. Does this make better sense? Mooey Wait, not really. In physics the present is not quite a record of the past at all, and if you mean something specific then elaborate on it please. I'll give an example - I actually got double-points in an exam because the question depicted a "freeze frame" image of a body with force pushing to the left, without saying anything else. I ended up writing 2 answers - if this was a free-falling body (and in your 'analogy' - if the 'past' was that it was thrown off something) and the second case was if this object was being pushed on top a frictionless surface (hence, it's "past" was at rest on the surface). Physics isn't necessarily a record of the past. We, humans, have a tendency to over-guess and extrapulate (and if we do that using factual data, then it is usually correct). But it's not empirically proven. It's infered. You walk to the middle of a forest and you see a broken stump lying on the floor, and a birds nest squished under it. You don't know, empirically, physically, absolutely, that it fell. You guess it did, because of the evidence around you and all other trees you actually did see fall. For that matter, if some crazy-scientist-fella will tell you he has a machine that builds a stump out of chopped wood in the middle of wherever-you-want it so it looks realistic, then the "past" of that tree is NOT that it fell, the guess was wrong - in light of new evidence (of course, these need to be found, based, and proven). So no. "Present" in Physics is not quite the record of the past. '' Not to be disrespectful to your teacher, but the exam misses out the more important aspects of physics, and the true understanding of time. I did though, note that John Wheeler said ''''The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present.'' So the present is a record of the future. As much as the past is of the present. There you go mooey mate. I have answered all of your question, minus the mathematical coordinations.

Yeh, got a straight?

Expectancy, if you had understood the meaning of the entire essay must exist as a psychological unit. (Since i have a diploma in such a subject, it is understood here i know what i am talking about). However, it also acts in a quantum sense as physical in observational or memorial qualities.

The value is artibrary. I WAS expecting someone of such intelligence of yourself, to realise they are coordinates or durations. I prefer the word value, when i mean cordinate, or selection. Nowm, don't all swamp me with questions. IF YOU DO, then leave them till things are a bit queiter.

Its not wierd notation, (just that you may not of it). Tey are ''related expressions.'' The notation was posted to my professor, who informs me the notation is correct.. the only problem is that i am using a product of 2, and in binary systems, as you will know, do not have a value of 2. This was my sane way to reach the teaching here i needed to explore... But if you want me to logically take you through the math, please ask directly. *** Correction I apologize. You have already asked... give me time to present it in a lesson... In fact, you have quite a selection of questions... please give me time to deal with all of them in sections. Thank you. First, your misunderstanding of time As physicist John A. Wheeler put it once; ''The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present.'' The present is a record of the future. As much as the past is of the present. With the brief summery, do you understand the rest of the notation? Its been checked by another physicist, if this helps the acceptability.

(Excerpt: Those who are demanding, are only looking for the same truth as you) 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. There is more to come: Now, since we know in physics, that the present is a record of the past, we can speculate that: [math]A,t_{0}=[t_{1}B,(2,0,1)][/math] The future however, plays only a statistical value in the present state, however, using logic, we can say that the future is in fact a statistical record of the past: [math]B,t_{0}=[t_{1}C,(2,0)][/math] And since we know [tex]A=B[/tex], we can say now that: [math]A,B,t_{0}=[t_{1}C,(2,0)][/math]

No. I don't have a degree. I am currently working for my National Diploma.