Absolutes

[Brian]

Here's a highly reproducible example of a single "particle" not only "acting as a wave" but also being in two places at once. Repeat the experiment for yourself and then it will be part of your own observations of reality.

 

http://people.ku.edu/~matt915/projects/papers/QuantumInterference.pdf

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Brian

[Brian]

Yes Brian, those are waves  They are waves of water particles that have been disturbed, likely by the wind.

 

I know that you must hold to the dogma. 

 

I have no dogma, only my understandings based on my observations.

 

Sure, you might say I'm not seeing the picture clearly, or that I'm not seeing the entier picture or even that I have misunderstood what I have observed.

 

But the bottom line is that you have not yet convinced me that I should reconsider my understanding.

 

But life goes on and I have some work to do in the gardens so I catch up with anything that happens while I am working.  That is, if any distrubance has been applied so that something happens.

I don't consider it my job to convince you of anything, MH. I float out information for the consideration of all the readers of a given thread and then I am largely indifferent to whether any individual chooses to pick up that information and assimilate it into their own worldview. I say "largely" because I still have a preference for seeing light bulbs turn on from time to time.

[Karl]

I still suggest a fourth dimension, that being space/time.

 

I wouldn't call it a dimension. An object can be defined without specifying time.

[Brian]

[Karl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiWKq57uAlk

 

Crap.

[Marblehead]

BTW, electromagnetic waves (and, it would seem, gravitational waves) maintain their waveform as they propagate through a vacuum...

 

Yes, Neil Tyson spoke to that in the program I watched the other night.

 

Both noun and verb -- just another example of the manifest dualities of the physical realm. There's an underlying non-duality we haven't uncovered through rational exploration but there is reason to believe there are things/non-things simply beyond rational exploration.

No shit?  Really?

 

I still haven't figured why I got married three times.  One would think once would be enough.

 

Planck's law is now 116 years old but it explained observations of the behavior of nature which had been discovered generations earlier and solved the "ultraviolet catastrophe" of classical ("objectivist") understanding. I recognize that the nature of reality makes some people uncomfortable but, frankly, the universe doesn't seem to care -- remember Chapter 5 of DDJ?

I highly respect Planck even though he was one of those quantum guys.

 

But still, I cannot understand something I cannot understand.

 

And yes, I know, the universe doesn't care whether or not I understand.  It will continue to do what it does.

[Brian]

 

Crap.

LOL

[Marblehead]

I like this!

 

but methinks, what you say,

 

Thanks.  True, I have missed a lot of stuff because I really have no idea what I'm talking about.  All of what I'm saying is coming out of my brain and we all know how screwed up that is.

 

When I was outside working I thought of the waves of spectators at a football game.  There is no wave until there is a disturbance.

 

Light is neat stuff.  Pure photon energy,  (No, I don't know what a photon is except that it is part of the word photo.)

[Marblehead]

Here's a highly reproducible example of a single "particle" not only "acting as a wave" but also being in two places at once. Repeat the experiment for yourself and then it will be part of your own observations of reality.

 

http://people.ku.edu/~matt915/projects/papers/QuantumInterference.pdf

 

 

That's simply a trick.  Part of the photon is being refracted and other parts are unaffected.  That happens all the time with my radio signals.

[Marblehead]

I say "largely" because I still have a preference for seeing light bulbs turn on from time to time.

And if you don't turn them off when you leave the room you are wasting energy.

[Marblehead]

I wouldn't call it a dimension. An object can be defined without specifying time.

 

But things change over time.  If you don't specify the time of a meeting you have scheduled it is likely that they won't be at that point in space that was agreed upon.

[Brian]

Thanks. True, I have missed a lot of stuff because I really have no idea what I'm talking about. All of what I'm saying is coming out of my brain and we all know how screwed up that is.

 

When I was outside working I thought of the waves of spectators at a football game. There is no wave until there is a disturbance.

 

Light is neat stuff. Pure photon energy, (No, I don't know what a photon is except that it is part of the word photo.)

A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy, the smallest chunk into which this particular type of energy can be divided -- much like the way an electron is the smallest chunk into which electricity can be divided. In the current standard model, it is in the boson family of particles. It has zero rest-mass and always travels at the speed of light, although that speed is dependent upon the medium through which it is traveling. We talk about the energy of a photon in relation to its measured frequency.

[Brian]

That's simply a trick. Part of the photon is being refracted and other parts are unaffected. That happens all the time with my radio signals.

Try reading this one instead:

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_double-slit_experiment

[Marblehead]

Crap.

 

Hehehe.  You responded too quickly.  I always enjoyed listening to Carl.  Remember, he was only "imagining" in that video.  He always spoke strongly against closing the door on possible future knowledge.

 

But I will still hold to space/time as being the forth dimension.

[Marblehead]

A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic energy, the smallest chunk into which this particular type of energy can be divided -- much like the way an electron is the smallest chunk into which electricity can be divided. In the current standard model, it is in the boson family of particles. It has zero rest-mass and always travels at the speed of light, although that speed is dependent upon the medium through which it is traveling. We talk about the energy of a photon in relation to its measured frequency.

 

Okay, I can grasp that except for it having zero rest-mass.  I have the feeling that this will eventually be my understanding but as of yet the concept of some "thing" having no mass is contradictory in my brain.

[Marblehead]

Try reading this one instead:

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_double-slit_experiment

 

Yes, I have listened to and watched that a number of times.  I understand what they are saying, I just can't grasp the conclusion they have drawn from it.

[Brian]

 

Okay, I can grasp that except for it having zero rest-mass. I have the feeling that this will eventually be my understanding but as of yet the concept of some "thing" having no mass is contradictory in my brain.

You've touched on a critical point here -- not understanding something doesn't make it not so.

[Brian]

 

Yes, I have listened to and watched that a number of times. I understand what they are saying, I just can't grasp the conclusion they have drawn from it.

Methinks you may not have actually clicked that link.

[Marblehead]

You've touched on a critical point here -- not understanding something doesn't make it not so.

Another "No shit Dick Tracy" statement.

 

Why do you think I try to live spontaneously except when I am supposed to be using my brain?

 

And as soon as I got hold of 17 million angels I will see if they all will fit on the tip of a pin.

[Karl]

Hehehe.  You responded too quickly.  I always enjoyed listening to Carl.  Remember, he was only "imagining" in that video.  He always spoke strongly against closing the door on possible future knowledge.

 

But I will still hold to space/time as being the forth dimension.

 

so was John Lennon.

 

I don't mind you holding space time as a fourth dimension I'm pretty relaxed about it. My point is that you can describe a cube in terms of three dimensions, certainly no architect or engineer includes time on an orthographic projection. We get all kinds of material specification and surface finishes, but never once does it suggest one side must be 5 hours 3 minutes time plus or minus a tolerance. If it isn't needed for something simple like a cube, then why call it a necessary dimension ? Time, it seems to me, is related to distance as a measurement, but in and of itself it is largely just an arrow pointing forward in which we live-I imagine this is why Brian posted the CS vid.

 

Go on, convince me, I'm easily at the possible stage of thought regarding it so pretty open to a good argument that would sway me. It doesn't upset my objectivist, or economic philosophies in any profound way. My guess, such that it is, that time isn't a thing at all except for its direction towards entropy for materials. That, at the boundaries of a finite universe it is unfolding along with space. In other words, where it isn't, it isn't, because there is no IS.

 

 

[Marblehead]

Methinks you may not have actually clicked that link.

Oh but I did.  I am much faster than one would think a person of my age would be.

 

Did I read the whole thing?  Hell no.  I already know what it says.

[Brian]

Oh but I did. I am much faster than one would think a person of my age would be.

 

Did I read the whole thing? Hell no. I already know what it says.

I thought that because you mentioned having watched it and listened to it...

 

Perhaps you should try the experiment for yourself. It is pretty easy to do. The next step -- isolating a single photon -- is more complicated.

 

You get the exact same results with other types of particles, BTW. Like electrons, for instance. The so-called duality of light applies to matter as well...

[Marblehead]

That, at the boundaries of a finite universe it is unfolding along with space. In other words, where it isn't, it isn't, because there is no IS.

Heavy stuff there Karl.  No, I don't have the capabilities or the capacities to convince you.  I'm not a physicist.  I'm just a practical man trying my best to think practically.

 

If we consider an object in space at a given position, say a star that is 10 light years away, what we are seeing is its position ten years ago.  Where is that star now?  Sure there are people who could tell us exactly where it is, or even will be at given point in time in the future if they have had the opportunity to watch its movement over a period of time.

 

Without time we cannot determine the speed at which an object is moving.  Kinda' like driving a car.  If we drive in a straight line for one hour at 35 miles per hour we will be 35 miles away from where we started.

 

We determine where our moon will be based on where it is now and its travel speed.

 

That's space/time.

[Marblehead]

I thought that because you mentioned having watched it and listened to it...

 

Perhaps you should try the experiment for yourself. It is pretty easy to do. The next step -- isolating a single photon -- is more complicated.

 

You get the exact same results with other types of particles, BTW. Like electrons, for instance. The so-called duality of light applies to matter as well...

 

If you go much further than where we are now you will likely be beyond my level of comprehension.

 

No, I have never tried the experiment myself with light.  I have used the concept many time when using radios in the Army.  With us it was called refraction.  The radio wave hits the ionosphere, refracts back down to a distance far, far away but yet part of the signal radiates horizontally and reaches receivers close by as well.  But they are only differences phases of the same signal.

[Karl]

Heavy stuff there Karl.  No, I don't have the capabilities or the capacities to convince you.  I'm not a physicist.  I'm just a practical man trying my best to think practically.

 

If we consider an object in space at a given position, say a star that is 10 light years away, what we are seeing is its position ten years ago.  Where is that star now?  Sure there are people who could tell us exactly where it is, or even will be at given point in time in the future if they have had the opportunity to watch its movement over a period of time.

 

Without time we cannot determine the speed at which an object is moving.  Kinda' like driving a car.  If we drive in a straight line for one hour at 35 miles per hour we will be 35 miles away from where we started.

 

We determine where our moon will be based on where it is now and its travel speed.

 

That's space/time.

 

Agreed, but we still only need distance and angle in a 3 dimensional universe. Time isn't even linear in respect of speed over distance. We get into all kinds of trouble when we reach speeds approaching that of light. Time passes differently for the observer than for the traveller. Trying to compute the actual time of landing on a journey of several light years, at even fractional light speed becomes a serious obstacle for calculation. You could over shoot you meeting time by several decades by travelling too fast, the faster you go, the later you get there.

 

It's outside my theoretical field of knowledge. Brian probably knows all this stuff, he likes hard sums.