Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 2, 2013 Author Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) So the blue wavy thing is where the initiative occurs, and the space above it is carried downward because of the initiative, and because of that effect, the path of least resistance is downward? The upper grey descending line is representative of a Higher Energy Band ( higher orbital ) that the electron finds itself in. The lower grey band is representative of a lower energy band ( lower orbital) that is not fully occupied, ( namely there might be 2 possible states that only one is occupied by an electron , the other is currently empty or vacant. There must exist some form of gradient energy existing to initiate a move of the Upper electron to make the jump to the lower. If we take your lightning story , thin threads can be seen to stream upwards into the sky prior to a downward lightning strike. In the picture of the electron you will note I have indicated Fine streaming lines around the electrons supposed jump ( a little artistic licence). The exact nature of the jump is sometimes considered difficult to imagine, as the physical space between the different energy bands is considered NOT POSSIBLE/permissible . The purple curved slug is representative of the upper electron starting its jump to the lower orbit/energy band. However the lower energy band will not allow this high value of energy, so the electron has to shed the difference in energy ,in the form of a single quanta of energy known as the light photon. This is represented by the small white infant prick of light seen just below the purple slug. This immediately heads off left at 300,000 kilometers/ sec ( 186,000 miles per second ) . THE ACTUAL COLOR of this light photon is dictated by the exact energy difference which is a very accurate fingerprint of the element ( say Oxygen) that it is the atom of. The photon is illustrated as an individual Particle with wave like characteristics. ( re[resented by the left hand Star heading off into the distance. Now you can see how scientists can see if oxygen is present on other planets . They look for this color signature. The electron, now having the prescribed lower energy, illustrated as the Red ball , takes up residence in the lower energy level or orbital. I have given a more detailed talk through of the illustration for clarity. Edited March 2, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 Thats for adding the extra detail. It seems to me that atoms (such as oxygen), have an atmosphere to themselves of some sort. The atmosphere is bubbleic in reality and doesnt necessarily consist of individual elements (such as the electron as the distinction is often made). It would make sense, to me at least, that the particle (or atmosphere) that people call the electron is actually the most solidified it can possibly be around a more solid mass and has a clear parameter between the substance (electron) and it's surrounding environment (which causes it to take an efficient, bubble like form). In this case, the initiative can seperate that bubbleic atmosphere from the more solidified underlying substance (consisting of what are currently called protons and neutrons). Well, if this is the case, and the repelsion theory of reduction holds, then that separated element (the electron) will encounter another solidified element (one that is more solidified than the electron) and the result of the impact between the two elements will cause a reduction of the element that is less solidified (and more unstable) hence, producing another element that has even less mass (or in this case, a photon). And if the element has been reduced enough, then it is able to travel through the surrounding environments until it reaches a surface that it merges with (think of a spec of dust falling through a bubble, when it reaches the surface, it won't travel through, instead, the two substances will merge. Now if the element was more solidified, there are two possibilities. Either the element travels through the surface and seemingly causes no alteration (like sticking your finger into a bubble and pulling it out and having the bubble resume in it's efficient state), or having the penetrating object cause the bubble to burst, in which the contents of the bubble disperse into the surrounding environment. Well, speculating on this phenomena, if there is no similarity between the substances contained within the bubble and the surrounding environment, then the bubble will pop, dispersing the substance into many separate bubbles, all of which are composed of the same substance. In the case of this particular occurrence, you note that the empty void is not permissable, which may be true, and it may hold for the behavior of elements all together, but the way that it was worded ("not possible/permissable") is entirely prescriptive. You can tell this by looking into the draft of a semi, or anything of that sort. In the case of a semi, the void behind it may not be entirely empty (it's probably not travelling fast enough for that to happen). But if you think about an extremely massive and extremely solid object impacting a surface (which can exist at any point in space), there absolutely has to be some sort of draft that follows it. And logically, if the object is massive and travelling fast enough, there has to be a void in it's wake (one that could in principle be entirely empty). So it's natural, given this void, that the substances within it's proximity would fall into it for reasons well established by principles of surrounding pressure. Something that is pressurized to an extent (which all points in space are susceptible to) will "seek equilibrium" with it's surroundings. If one area of space is pressurized, and suddenly there is an impact, and consequently there is a wake, that wake is less pressurized than the surrounding environment, which would cause the surrounding substances to maximize entropy within the wake, and in the process, the substances merge, which may leaf to the formation of what we observe to be macroscopic. I should note my disbelief in the constant speed of light. To think that light travels at a constant speed is inconsistent with everything we observe in nature, and for that reason, I cannot accept that the speed doesnt very. If it were the case that the speed of light was constant, there would probably be no variation in temperature. More to say about this but I'll stop there for now.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 7, 2013 Author Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Sorry ! My computer finally got filled up with no more disc space and crashed. It has been into the computer shop until today, ( 08:50 am Thursday ;7th March ) to have its Hard Disc opened up. ( C: and D: to just C: ).Popcorn ! You have an interesting way of thinking !I need to pull this down a bit, into the theme of the original thread, if that is possible..Firstly, Probable tracks or lines of least resistance can be quite ;wide flung ; or ; all over the place, as illustrated by my river example from a drop of water on Exmoor, ( which had its initiative been just a fraction further north would have meant it would have descended an entirely different, short track to the Atlantic coast on North Devon Coast , rather than the long bendy track south , through a beautiful valley to the south, ending up in the English Channel. ; This is similar to your lightening strike interpretation. Maybe it went 'this way ' or 'that way' depending on its exact starting point . ( Exact Initiative)Someone once said , ; if you sat a row of monkeys at a keyboard and let them bash away randomly sooner or later you would suddenly see ;The complete works of Shakespeare or for that matter Einstein's famous equation ;( E =m times c squared ) . That might well be so , but having thought about this quite hard. Let us design a computer that creates random ideas , sooner or later it would reproduce amazing new discoveries. ;This could well be true, but the problem arises in having someone looking at all the random 'JUNK ' and recognising ;a new world shaking idea when it randomly appeared. This is similar to your idea to design a computer program to learn .The monkeys and the keyboard idea has already been solved, as to some extent that is what is actually happening, Outside in the big wide universe. different events are happening as random junk, Occasionally a really brilliant initiative is started, One of those tracks of least resistance is started correctly and ;Woosh! The zone is hit and out pops the next brilliant innovation for the Universe. Who is there to recognise it ? Well the rest of the universe , that is there already. ;( Like clay being poured into a mold ). So in this description you need the two things , the constant generation of initiatives and the changing testing mold. (The Universe that works is the testing mould. English Mold American )So one could ask ? ; Is the universe the way it is today , by dint of the very finely tuned mechanisms of things at the heart of matter ( which is what all the fuss is about with Large Hadron Colliders and the nature of small particles) or is it the way it is because of the Testing MOLD ;(The Universe that currently Exists and is changing) ;or both ? I might have to re phrase this question ;or be asked by a zealous moderator to make this a different thread. Although I must say it is at the ROOT of the theme of this thread. So would prefer it to remain in this Thread.! Because the spaces in the mold are the very things I am interested in, with the Linguistic theory / observation of everything that is the theme I am discussing in this thread . That then, allows THINGS to occur as opposed to dictates Things to occur . ( or of course BOTH ) Edited March 7, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 If you could rephrase that question, I might be able to provide some insight. It's nice to get cross ontological interaction. I haven't spent years researching and studying physics, but I have spent years studying language and what makes it's acquisition possible. Alot of my findings have interesting implications on physics and biology, and it's interesting to hear the problems of physics to see if, in some way, my research and understanding may provide insight. If I'm understanding correctly, it seems to me that the universe (whatever it may be when speculating about it) is more of a mold that causes things existing within it to form and function in specific ways. As I've said before, to distinguish something from its surroundings is logical, but the category we prescribe is fictitious. So, in that sense, we cannot sensibly formulate about anything objectively, so we need to add the sutton substance. The poi. Gravity. The mind. Time. The empty unit (or the closest thing to it). Maybe it will help to understand what is going on. Name a few problems in science and lets see if the lingual theory can account for them. As for a learning program, stick around, I plan on releasing it asap. And as to when you say looking through all the 'junk', I hope that we won't have to do that, and the reason why is simple. Theres just too much data to look through without having a substantial amount of people to perform that task. So instead of doing that, I use a method called prompting, which is what makes the machine intelligent. You just ask ' have you made any discoveries lately' or something along those lines, and a relevant answer will pop up.
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 ! Moderator Note Popcorn, I hardly think you need to be told again not to drag this into discussion about your computer program. This is just another friendly reminder that you have a thread for that and you should stick to posting things related to it there rather than here (or anywhere else). Thank you.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 7, 2013 Author Posted March 7, 2013 I listened to a "Dimbleby Lecture" many years ago given to a selected audience, by a well recognized Mathematician. He was discussing the Sea, how it was a collection of Billions of billions of loose water molecules, all moving independently. how could we ever hope to make predictions he said. ( this incidently was before the spread of very fast ,powerful computers. After a lot of reasoning he came to the following conclusion. That despite the quantities of separate particles, the variables involved, and the inherent difficulties in making mathematical predictions as to the movement of the sea . The whole system could be reduced to a half dozen surface movements. Namely 1) Flat still. 2) Different heights of water level , 3) waves small and medium 4) Flow of water 5 ) Catostrophic waves (Waves that break. ) and maybe another. No matter . The point being , he reasoned, that given what might seem an unsurmountable amount of information CAN be reduced to 5 basic types. These types of actions are not particularly derived from the action of individuals but the sea works as a System including the Catastrophic irreversible wave collapse . Thus although it helps to know the properties of invividual particles, it is how the system at our sort of size and biger behaves that enables us to predict a handful of behaviours, equivalent of the water characteristics. Not the same , but they will be there.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 (edited) If you could rephrase that question, I might be able to provide some insight. It's nice to get cross ontological interaction. I haven't spent years researching and studying physics, but I have spent years studying language and what makes it's acquisition possible. Alot of my findings have interesting implications on physics and biology, and it's interesting to hear the problems of physics to see if, ................................. If I'm understanding correctly, it seems to me that the universe (whatever it may be when speculating about it) is more of a mold that causes things existing within it to form and function in specific ways. As I've said before, ...................................... Gravity. Name a few problems in science and lets see if the lingual theory can account for them. .................................. Popcorn, I have removed the bits from your response that relate to your new program, that the moderators want you to deal with in your own thread dedicated to your computer program. To give an interesting physics phenomenon that I believe relates to a balanced system in plenty of space , that can be seen, to some extent by everyone. THE ORION NEBULA This is an artists impression of what the M 42 dust clouds and star forming area of the Orion Constellation. It is situated , in the sky, in the sword hanging from Orions belt . You can see the dominant star with the naked eye. The area there is a misty , dusty , star studded region , a few light years across where dust and gas have grouped together under the influence of gravity. The dust and gas are no doubt the remnants of previously existing stars that have gone Supernova or red giant and distributed their contents in various explosions into this region of space. Some time in the past the majority of this dust and gas , must have found itself in some form of balanced state. This is where some concentration of matter ( perhaps caused by a supernova explosion nearby, pushing matter together, perhaps in a ridge of matter) JUST starts to pull on the surrounding dust and gas. Perhaps this is the balance point, perhaps the 'push' could be described as the initiative in this instance. A Star is on the way to being born. from this moment on , in all this space there is possibly ( no reason for it not, to occur ) or nothing to stop the star being born. Over a period of time dust and gas is tugged, pulled in , until the descending matter spirals in to create a disc of whirling gas and dust. The center concentration becomes so dense ,so as to fire nuclear fusion . ( A STAR IS BORN ) . Go outside, find Orion, Look for his Belt , Look for his sword, There half way down is M 42 ( What I have painted above ) from pictures courtesy of Hubble, and Spitzer cameras. ps A star is born could be described as the ANYTHING Quote " A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ". 1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur " 2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. " 3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. " Edited March 9, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 12, 2013 Author Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) So the statements are not falsifiable and have no predictive value. Tunnel diodes acting across a P-N junction are an example of how things that you would not think can happen, do happen because the probability wave of quantum mechanics removes the potential hill ( or tunnels through it symbolically ) and thus there is no reason for it not to occur. Tunnel diode From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Tunnel diode schematic symbol 1N3716 tunnel diode (with jumper for scale) A tunnel diode or Esaki diode is a type of semiconductor diode that is capable of very fast operation, well into the microwave frequency region, by using the quantum mechanical effect called tunneling. It was invented in August 1957 by Leo Esaki when he was with Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo, now known as Sony. In 1973 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics, jointly with Brian Josephson, for discovering the electron tunnelingeffect used in these diodes. Robert Noyce independently came up with the idea of a tunnel diode while working for William Shockley, but was discouraged from pursuing it.[1] These diodes have a heavily doped p–n junction only some 10 nm (100 Å) wide. The heavy doping results in a broken bandgap, where conduction band electron states on the n-side are more or less aligned with valence band hole states on the p-side. Tunnel diodes were first manufactured by Sony in 1957[2] followed by General Electric and other companies from about 1960, and are still made in low volume today.[3] Tunnel diodes are usually made from germanium, but can also be made in gallium arsenide and silicon materials. They are used in frequency converters and detectors.[4]They have negative differential resistance in part of their operating range, and therefore are also used asoscillators, amplifiers, and in switching circuits using hysteresis. Figure 6: 8–12 GHz tunnel diode amplifier, circa 1970 In 1977, the Intelsat V satellite receiver used a microstrip tunnel diode amplifier (TDA) front-end in the 14 to 15.5 GHz band. Such amplifiers are considered state-of-the-art, with better performance at high frequencies than any transistor-based front end.[5] The highest frequency room-temperature solid-state oscillators are based on resonant-tunneling diode (RTD).[6] There is another type of tunnel diode called a metal–insulator–metal (MIM) diode, but present application appears restricted to research environments due to inherent sensitivities.[7] Contents [hide] 1 Forward bias operation 2 Reverse bias operation 3 Technical comparisons3.1 Longevity 4 See also 5 References 6 Bibliography 7 External links [edit]Forward bias operation Under normal forward bias operation, as voltage begins to increase, electrons at first tunnel through the very narrow p–n junction barrier because filled electron states in the conduction band on the n-side become aligned with empty valence band hole states on the p-side of the p-n junction. As voltage increases further these states become more misaligned and the current drops – this is called negative resistance because current decreases with increasing voltage. As voltage increases yet further, the diode begins to operate as a normal diode, where electrons travel by conduction across the p–n junction, and no longer by tunneling through the p–n junction barrier. The most important operating region for a tunnel diode is the negative resistance region. [edit]Reverse bias operation Main article: Backward diode When used in the reverse direction they are called back diodes (or backward diodes) and can act as fast rectifiers with zero offset voltage and extreme linearity for power signals (they have an accurate square law characteristic in the reverse direction). Under reverse bias filled states on the p-side become increasingly aligned with empty states on the n-side and electrons now tunnel through the pn junction barrier in reverse direction. [edit]Technical comparisons IV curve similar to a tunnel diode characteristic curve. It has negative resistance in the shaded voltage region, between v1 and v2. In a conventional semiconductor diode, conduction takes place while the p–n junction is forward biased and blocks current flow when the junction is reverse biased. This occurs up to a point known as the “reverse breakdown voltage” when conduction begins (often accompanied by destruction of the device). In the tunnel diode, the dopant concentration in the p and n layers are increased to the point where the reverse breakdown voltage becomes zeroand the diode conducts in the reverse direction. However, when forward-biased, an odd effect occurs called quantum mechanical tunnelling which gives rise to a region where an increase in forward voltage is accompanied by adecrease in forward current. This negative resistance region can be exploited in a solid state version of the dynatron oscillator which normally uses a tetrode thermionic valve (or tube). The tunnel diode showed great promise as an oscillator and high-frequency threshold (trigger) device since it would operate at frequencies far greater than the tetrode would, well into the microwave bands. Applications for tunnel diodes included local oscillators for UHF television tuners, trigger circuits in oscilloscopes, high speed counter circuits, and very fast-rise time pulse generator circuits. The tunnel diode can also be used as low-noise microwave amplifier.[8] However, since its discovery, more conventional semiconductor devices have surpassed its performance using conventional oscillator techniques. For many purposes, a three-terminal device, such as a field-effect transistor, is more flexible than a device with only two terminals. Practical tunnel diodes operate at a few milliamperes and a few tenths of a volt, making them low-power devices.[9] The Gunn diode has similar high frequency capability and can handle more power. Tunnel diodes are also relatively resistant to nuclear radiation, as compared to other diodes. This makes them well suited to higher radiation environments, such as those found in space applications. [edit]Longevity Esaki diodes are notable for their longevity; devices made in the 1960s still function. Writing in Nature, Esaki and coauthors state that semiconductor devices in general are extremely stable, and suggest that their shelf life should be "infinite" if kept at room temperature. They go on to report that a small-scale test of 50-year-old devices revealed a "gratifying confirmation of the diode's longevity". As noticed on some samples of Esaki diodes, the gold plated iron pins can in fact corrode and short out to the case. This can usually be diagnosed, and the diode inside normally still works.[10] [edit]See also Tunnel Diode Action within the framework of The lingual Theory/Observation of everything. The following illustration is an artists impression of two particle potential positions separated by a wall of difference . Eg this could be the wall separating particles either side of a tunnel diode P-N junction. In theory the - ve Electron or + ve Hole should remain separated across the junction. Either by a bias voltage or even by normal semi conductor action. So looking at this conceptual illustration, which does not necessarily show what is actually there, BUT allows one to conceptually , visualize what is roughly going on. We do not really know what the electron looks like, but what we do know, is that it can only occupy agreed locations or energy states, and unless popped out with energy , remains popped in , like some form of press stud or zip fastener section( as illustrated. similarly , the other space shown, is the free location the other side of the Tunnel Diode Junction WALL . In the illustration this wall is represented by the swirling mire between the two locations. Under normal circumstances the jump from one location to the other would not seem possible. However , as this is ,in the area we do not understand, the probability small peak , if it coincides with the other popper position WILL form a leap sometime. And so it does. and re-applies itself to the new popper hole.! Probability wave function of a particle ' one side of the wall . Edited March 12, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted March 12, 2013 Posted March 12, 2013 The problem I have is that there are lots of possible things that have no reason not to occur. I have resistors, capacitors and inductors, which all allow current to flow when they are in a circuit, but the characteristics of that current flow is not the same. So current will flow because there is no reason for it not to flow is pretty much the least descriptive statement you can apply. It doesn't give you the I-V curve you posted, for instance. Any information about the actual behavior of that diode is contained in some other theory. I could present the wrong graph, and your theory would not tell me it's wrong.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 12, 2013 Author Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) The problem I have is that there are lots of possible things that have no reason not to occur. I have resistors, capacitors and inductors, which all allow current to flow when they are in a circuit, but the characteristics of that current flow is not the same. So current will flow because there is no reason for it not to flow is pretty much the least descriptive statement you can apply. It doesn't give you the I-V curve you posted, for instance. Any information about the actual behavior of that diode is contained in some other theory. I could present the wrong graph, and your theory would not tell me it's wrong. I am still editing the post. or attempting to. Here is a (Almadine garnets in a metamorphic rock Schist ) to be going on with ! Only forms under high temperature and Pressure ! Sorry not trying to be rude. Just bought time to finish post. Now done. Ps you showed a certain knowledge of Schists in your post a couple of days ago . Edited March 12, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 12, 2013 Author Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) The problem I have is that there are lots of possible things that have no reason not to occur. I have resistors, capacitors and inductors, which all allow current to flow when they are in a circuit, but the characteristics of that current flow is not the same. So current will flow because there is no reason for it not to flow is pretty much the least descriptive statement you can apply. It doesn't give you the I-V curve you posted, for instance. Any information about the actual behavior of that diode is contained in some other theory. I could present the wrong graph, and your theory would not tell me it's wrong. Quite so , But you are in equation mode, coming from a specified starting condition and with parameters , formula you will come very precisely to my "mold" ( Eng Mould) position. or maybe to you your current state. One unique precise solution. I , on the other hand , will say to you I am already IN the "mold " (Eng Mould) and there are many, many, even occasionally "ANY" ways that you may arrive at the "mold". Starting over there, over here, a million miles away , 3 feet away, whatever occasionally " anywhere " No formula is needed to get you here in my mold you (figuratively ) just arrive. Its not always important to me , where you came from , you just arrived. You perhaps it could be said, did NOT know where you (figuratively) were going to end up. you just had your starting position and your quiver of formula, and off you go , not knowing where you are going , until the calculations said HERE ( in my mold). c, arrives,d arrives e,arrives etc etc Mine has many possible paths ( which is the bit that worries you personally) . I (figuratively) am here in my mold , not too bothered where you (figuratively) came from, other than that you ( figuratively ) arrived. This does have ( though not intended ) slight echo's of Richard Feynman's probability paths for light beams and reflection. However leaving that alone, When there was no mould ( Amer mold ) At the START of the universe :- No mould (possibly ?) Anything and everything is possible .... etc etc We are here now with a substantial universe and so the Universe in its totality IS THE MOLD with all its spaces , curls, flows , pinched poppers etc and things are doing their things in the spaces they find or arrive at. You may give them causality and formula , I may speak of initiative and spaces, and paths of least resistance. Only in this context, I hasten to add. Having spent a lifetime using formula in Electronics, this is somewhat of a different approach. Interesting though. Edited March 12, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
arc Posted March 15, 2013 Posted March 15, 2013 This is my first post. I personally visualize the world in 3-D color process, not in complex mathematical equations. People first imagine a new building as an architectural concept with a given degree of aesthetic design, where the visual (and in this lingual) is given precedent over the numerical. It will go through many revisions as it transitions to those skilled in the numerical “arts” of calculating the loads and limits, maximums and minimums of the structural, mechanical and electrical systems that are in their own paradigm the actual real world being used in this application to support and make possible the aesthetic and sometimes illusionary tricks of dimensional space and architecture. Einstein imagined his famous thought experiments that wereabstract architectural concepts of the universe. Abstract because in them he was for example, traveling towards the speed of light on or adjacent to a light beam. He was then able to work out the equations for his observations made froman abstract reality. There are some, who build from the structural direction, letting the numerical decide where to drawthe boundaries that often lead to structures that are by the simplest term ugly but robust, able to withstand great amounts of stresses. Others, often referred to as crackpots, build only in abstract architectural concepts that crumble as the design is moved to a numerical reality.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 15, 2013 Author Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) This is my first post. I personally visualize the world in 3-D color process, not in complex mathematical equations. People first imagine a new building as an architectural concept with a given degree of aesthetic design, where the visual (and in this lingual) is given precedent over the numerical. It will go through many revisions as it transitions to those skilled in the numerical “arts” of calculating the loads and limits, maximums and minimums of the structural, mechanical and electrical systems that are in their own paradigm the actual real world being used in this application to support and make possible the aesthetic and sometimes illusionary tricks of dimensional space and architecture. Einstein imagined his famous thought experiments that were abstract architectural concepts of the universe. Abstract because in them he was for example, traveling towards the speed of light on or adjacent to a light beam. He was then able to work out the equations for his observations made from an abstract reality. There are some, who build from the structural direction, letting the numerical decide where to draw the boundaries that often lead to structures that are by the simplest term ugly but robust, able to withstand great amounts of stresses. Others, often referred to as crackpots, build only in abstract architectural concepts that crumble as the design is moved to a numerical reality. ARC, You have come forward with a very good post. Good by the way you have structured your response to the theme of this thread, also good by your reasoned argument for the various ways to approach a proposed hypothesis , as if it were a building with its dual requirement for aesthetics as well sound structural performance. The reasoning , which you may or may not agree with , that I have been trying to develop in this thread are based around a goal (mould) orientated way of dealing with the apparently complex way the universe works , ( the Lingual Theory ) as opposed to the starting position plus mathematical calculation CAUSATION method to arrive at predicted effects. This I briefly illustrated in the previous post. I have had a little contact with genetic Algorithms as a means to deal with complex issues. After an initial direction being specified and an end result ( mould ) being specified a computer program or a real life situation may be allowed to run under certain genetic rules. I used this approach 50 years ago while designing electronic circuits from first principles. Having developed a simple circuit that worked ( all-be-it ) not very well , values for components could be sought on a "trial and error" basis, worsened ( thus down graded ), or improved ( thus upgraded ). In genetic algorithms , solutions that are getting nearer to your goal( Mould) are given many duplicate solutions , solutions that are distancing from your goal( Mould ) are given few or no solutions. Changes are regularly added ( best of both ) even total mutations are introduced, and the program repeated over and over. The Program iterates and grows toward your goal ( mold ) without the detailed complex formula. I have proposed this Lingual theory/observation of everything, as a lingual ( initiative , with space or minimal resistance, and goal (mold ) as a means of understanding the way the universe works. " A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ". 1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur " 2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. " 3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. " Within this construct there are no reasons why lines of calculated mathematical systems can not be introduced within this framework to give robust structure to the system in the way you describe in your comments. However letting the genetic algorithm runs to proceed unfettered, have been known to produce better results than those calculated. Sometimes I think we might currently be finding ourselves as part of the Universe, in the middle of some Giant Algorithm Run ! . Edited March 15, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
arc Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) Thank you Mike, I appreciate the encouragement. Back when I was a teen I worked on this problem a little. The great Carl Sagan in his Cosmos series stated that but not for a few fundamental discoveries during an age of discovery that led to an industrial revolution of their own and as they say the rest of the story, the Greeks (ancient) could have been first to land on the moon. When I was younger I wanted to be an inventor and made some observations of the processes involved that led me to some concepts that I think fit into this discussion. I never liked the term inventor, it suggests to me and maybe others that new idea's appear out of nowhere, having no existence until its formation in the inventors mind. But in reality everything we now view as "our" science and technology could have been discovered by the Greeks. And this reality in turn would apply to them. The act of invention or more accurately the act of discovery is the reveling of what was hidden, the uncovering of what has always been here unseen since the beginning of the Universe and maybe before. This physical Universe that we struggle to define in numerical order is viewed by some at its basic descriptive element as information in a numerical format. But the physical Universe is I believe only a part of what is here around us. Your premise that "Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur" is akin to the knowledge that at anytime since at least the Big Bang any discovery of an idea that has been made or ever will by an intelligent being anywhere in the Cosmos has been there, indifferent to our existence or our ability to surmise its value or its existence. This is a measurable content. What is the monetary value of every discovery of mankind. What is the value of everything we haven't discovered yet or sadly never will, the ideas that are forever beyond our reach, discovered long ago, currently and in the future by civilizations greater than ours. This knowledge we covet as our civilizations greatest achievements is as close to receiving something from another dimension as mankind may possibly ever experience. We are predisposed to think that every idea is like the object that it will likely become, a place where it was acquired; The place where it was abandoned. The idea, the discovery is in the same place it has been always, which is everywhere. Every idea (which is innumerably) occupies every place, which is what aligns this post to your mold and your idea of "many possible paths" and "not too bothered where you (figuratively) came from, other than that you (figuratively) arrived". We are ourselves of the same ethereal library of all things possible, even every possible manifestation in the tree of evolution is there. This idea that we find ourselves discussing came to us both at different times and places and its source remains where it has been always and may exist far beyond the lifetime of this possibly mortal Universe. I believe I heard Steven Hawking say "once information is created it cannot be destroyed". I have to respectively disagree with him on this one because it may not be created in this paradigm but only discovered by those driven to learn. Edited March 16, 2013 by arc
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 16, 2013 Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) Before I start commenting, I'd like to thank you mike for taking all the time to write these things out and provide links. It's truly generous of you. That being said, I'll use whatever time I have now to go through them, and hopefully, with the permission of the moderators, I can comment on them within this context. Ok, referring back to the post with links, it seems like it's all saying the same thing, and the math and graphs are incomprehensible to me. What I do know, within the lingual framework, is that if there is a possibility of something occurring, then there is a probability that we will pick up on it in some way. (note that our brains are very sophisticated devices that probably already have all the tools we need to measure events like the quantum tunneling effect and dispersive radiation, they just don't appear as logical measurements, rather, they appear as thought). If the lingual theory of everything is right, then it assumes everything we know (even if it isn't right) and it also assumes everything we don't know. So, in that sense, all the knowledge we will ever gain or need already exists out there, but the problem is that in order for us to recognize it (as a thought or so), in needs to be within our knowledge. Well, refer to my thread on cognitive intemporality if you want the phenomena of knowledge to be a little more clear within this framework. In regards to quantum tunneling, it can be seen and recognized cognitively. Say that someone tells you something you've never previously heard before (example below). Introspect while you read this example and don't allow yourself to read it more than once. After youre done reading it, try to repay the entire message in your head (experimentally, the prediction is something called threading, I'll explain after). As you are reading, take note of the "barriers" or "parameters" that you encounter. Example. When the substances seem to converge, they radiate what is known as "limphosequential operative suction". Now repeat what you can from that statement. Ask yourself, did my thoughts trail off at any point? Did I capture the essence of the message? Did it prompt other information? To me, the answer is always yes. If you encounter a message for the first time that just seems so irrelevant to your general mindset, then youwil encounter parameters, and your thoughts may trail off. This effect of thought is essentially the same thing that occurs with quantum tunneling. A probability "wave" hits whatever is in it's path and essentially prompts every bit of information contained within the barrier. (it essentially tunnels through the barrier in every probable direction that it can), while it does that, time is essentially halted and the computation takes place independent of time. What happens then is that not only the barrier gets prompted, but also, all information associated with that barrier that occurs within it's proximity and is also contained within the knowledge gets prompted as well. There are various directions that the prompting can take place, all of which are called sumptions (assumption, presumption, circumsumption, subsumption). What the sumptions do is prompt the poi (in this case, the barrier [diode]) and all proximal knowledge emerges. However, what becomes observable is (vry possibly) only the unit with the most probabilistic strength (meaning that this particular unit, an electron, is prompted most often, and hence becomes observable beyond the barrier). And, if it is the first thing that emerges, and also bears the strongest probability, then it will be the only thing prompted. This essentially means that the barrier the electron first encountered is actually communicating that electron. However, if this theory is true, then if you simultaneously throw all different types of particles at the barrier, then only the ones with the most probabilistic strength will be communicated (depending on the order that they emerged epistemically). My prediction is that if the barrier didn't contain electrons, and you threw an electron at it, you wouldn't see an electron pop out on the other side. Instead, the electron would get reduced to something that is within its knowledge, and you would probably see that object get prompted on the other side (which could be radiation or light or something else). Edited March 16, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 17, 2013 Author Posted March 17, 2013 (edited) Thank you Mike, I appreciate the encouragement. Back ........................ I need to think about your comments, all of which were interesting and worthy of response. Before I start commenting, I'd like to thank you mike for . Similarly to ARC , I need to think on what you have reasoned , with your own type of reasoning and make a well thought out response. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Needless to say ,I have had a major breakthrough on the theory over the last 24 hours. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As a taster this may give a clue. A science magazine ( think New scientist) had an article about how the pollen on ripe flowers had a 'charge' on each pollen grain, and the Bee or in this case Dragon fly detected the charge and are drawn in or ATTRACTED. On taking the nectar, from the flower , the pollen got onto the bee ( this case dragon fly ) , and took the charge away with it. ! Interesting Mike Edited March 17, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 18, 2013 Author Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) I need to think about your comments, all of which were interesting and worthy of response. Similarly to ARC , I need to think on what you have reasoned , with your own type of reasoning and make a well thought out response. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Needless to say ,I have had a major breakthrough on the theory over the last 24 hours. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As a taster this may give a clue. A science magazine ( think New scientist) had an article about how the pollen on ripe flowers had a 'charge' on each pollen grain, and the Bee or in this case Dragon fly detected the charge and are drawn in or ATTRACTED. On taking the nectar, from the flower , the pollen got onto the bee ( this case dragon fly ) , and took the charge away with it. ! Interesting DSCF3029.JPG Mike Coming from a starting point and assuming causality ( namely one thing causes another thing to happen, then that in turn causes yet another thing to happen ) will not necessarily lead to the End Point defined as a mold previously. As Mr Swansont has previously exclaimed. That is because there is not necessarily ANY causal link between the START and END point. If we look at the Picture above of a Dragon fly going about his business flying about. It may well have had an original 'initiative' to fly about today following its nose for charge. when passing near to the flower illustrated above, the charge was detected and it homes in for the feed. Now , if we return to a group of Dragon Flies some miles away. Can we go to a specific Dragon fly ( DF1 ) can we pose a causal formula or quiver of formulae , such that we can causally say that Dragon fly (DF! ) will arive at our Flower (F1) . No there is no causal connection. All we can do is produce some probable statistic that a given Dragon Fly say (DF1) will arrive at the Flower (F1). Very unlikely unless millions of Dragon Flies and Millions of Flowers. Such is the similarity with electrons and Quantum particles. There is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of probability and in some respects no individual causality. You can often only say , given enough time , number of particles, or number of receivers of particles ( holes) (molds) that a certain something will happen , Back to our picture of the Dragon fly and flower. There is no certainty that a particular Dragon Fly takes the nectar and thus scrapes on board some of the pollen, from a particular flower. BUT there is a very good chance that A dragon fly will visit A flower. This without any specific linked causal route. The universe works with large numbers! And complete breaks in causality. That's one reason why quantum mechanics is difficult to understand in our normal way of looking at things. Edited March 18, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 I'm not following you Mike. What are you trying to say? I can't accept the premise that there is no causality.
arc Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 Sorry Mike didn't mean to wreak your groove. I'm a writer with Asperger's, I get a little carried away. Remind you of somebody else around here ? I'll stick to my own post's so we don't have anymore runaway keyboard accidents.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 19, 2013 Author Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) I'm not following you Mike. What are you trying to say? I can't accept the premise that there is no causality. Sorry, I did not mean that there was no causality at all ( full stop) I mean that a lot of what is happening in the universe HAS BREAKS IN CAUSALITY and depends more on PROBABILITY and so individual links are often by probability of numbers rather than by calculable individual links. Thus it often does not appear like everyday happenings. Namely " this does that because of the other " Often things in Quantum Mechanics seem counter intuitive . Should have read :- The universe often works with large numbers! And often has complete breaks in causality. That's one reason why quantum mechanics is difficult to understand in our normal way of looking at things. Hope that sounds a bit better ! Edited March 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 Indeed. We run into horrible problems with measuring the variables involved in making decisions, theres alot of factors involved. If youre measuring something that has a definitive subjective experience, you would literally need to calculate all bodily activity, so thats obviously not an option unless we create the experiencer.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 19, 2013 Author Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:28 PM Thank you Mike, I appreciate the encouragement. Back ........................ Indeed. We run into horrible problems with measuring the variables involved in making decisions, theres alot of factors involved. If youre measuring something that has a definitive subjective experience, you would literally need to calculate all bodily activity, so thats obviously not an option unless we create the experiencer. Immediate Reply I need to think about your comments, all of which were interesting and worthy of response. I have given a lot of thought to your interesting comments Arc , as well as to Popcorn Sutton who also thinks a lot around a subject. I have come up with some considered comments on 7 illustrated applications of interesting effects which could be considered within the remit of Science ( Which after all this is called a SCIENCE FORUM ). 1. Mechanical Movement by Plate Tectonics 2. Movement of sea waves and light photons. 3. Mechanical movement of heat . 4. Radiation in space of Radio waves. 5 Electron orbital/energy band change. 6. Viral and antibody attack . 7. Quantum tunneling . Could be a bit , all at once. Is there one or two of these that catch your fancy. All have interesting issues. i have touched on electron orbitals and Quantum tunneling but I do have some very interesting further comments on both those subjects. OK Popcorn Sutton I need to go and tend to a few things . Get back to it later on Radiation & Electron orbital .Mike Edited March 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 They all sound very interesting. I want to hear about radiation and the electron orbital charge.
Recommended Posts