Wave Structure of Matter

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Karl]

Rand said something interesting when discussing the properties of the ultimate constituents:

 

Prof B is theorising that 'particles' would have size and shape.

 

AR: if they are particles. What if they are solid flows of energy, but each is indivisible, and it moves, but it's one entity, moving from left to right and vice versa ?

 

Prof B so you are saying the ultimate constituents need not be particles ...one is not to refer to them as actions without entities.

 

AR exactly and I was objecting to your saying they will have an extension, for instance, or shape. We can't claim that.

 

AR the important thing here is that we cannot say you would define an atom by means of its charge, or that you would look no further..you have no way of knowing in what form you will become aware of the primary stuff. It might be through multiple instruments and the interaction of one upon another, which would only tell you how you became aware of it. You would not have defined it metaphysically. All you could say is 'it is something I discovered by the following method'.

 

You see the job of philosophy is not to tell us what exists, only to tell us what has to be true of everything that exists (identity) and what rules by which you can claim knowledge. In regard of constituent elements of the universe, all we can say is that the would have to have identity . That we can prove. Any other conclusion cannot be drawn philosophically.

 

 

 

I found that interesting, particularly with regard to our modern discovery of the Higgs field/particle which we have not yet defined metaphysically.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Karl

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Karl]

 

Rand said [...]

I found that interesting

I guess Karl will like it, lol.

I was curious. She went into a different world when talking of solid energy streams which veered away from the philosophical. She was only giving an example, but in reference to your post it's interesting. I've shied away from discussing metaphysical aspects, but they have a direct relationship with human concept formation. In other words the universe is not only understandable by man, but it is mans relationship with the universe that makes it understandable.

[Brian]

This might be a good time to mention spontaneous symmetry breaking:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Silent Answers]

Why do you think the breath is so focused upon? The in and out breath are the clinging to life and physical, and the return to death/rest. This is the essential yin yang cycle that we can consciously be aware of in our everyday lives.

[Karl]

Not everything has free will. As far as we know it's only humans. We all act according to our nature, but only man acts in the way of a first actor. First obey nature in order to transform nature.

 

This theory sounds materialistic relating man to substance. That is muscle mysticism. Trying to find free will in mechanics is as crazy as trying to find it through God. Man is neither the product of the pure metaphysical nor the pure consciousness.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification.

 

Existence, consciousness and Identity are interconnected axioms. There is no mind body dichotomy, there is no duality, not can there be non-duality.

 

Explore the metaphysical, but do not relate it to the axiom of consciousnes, nor free will.

[silent thunder]

In my experience, the universe is comprised of manifestations of interwoven, co-arising and completely interdependent patterns of energy within a field of awareness...  yet there are, from certain perspectives, identifiable patterns and thus...

 

Identification with certain patterns arising in this field results in the very understandably yet distinctly illusory sense of 'unique self', 'individuality' and separateness from those patterns not identified with  ("i did this", is a fine example); subsequent actions taken by the 'sense of unique self, identified with one pattern' are not so much expressions of uniqueness as they are predictable patterns themselves.h  The Norse talked about Fate being a river.  You could fight the current (conditions of life beyond your pattern, or control), or you could flow with the river (wu wei), either way, the conditions of the patterns beyond your identifiable pattern, will still carry you in the flow of the overall fields in the reality that is underlying awareness.

  

Perception tied to a specific pattern results in the illusion of 'powerful, personal choice' exerted upon the other 'separate' patterns, when, in my experience, much of what we call choice, is the tendency to apply meaning after an event, to justify the compulsive, predictable response, to assuage the fear response to 'not being in control'.

[Karl]

That's determinism ST. Go down that path at your peril. It means that there is no good/bad or right/wrong, there is no judgement neither in this world, of for the Neo-platonists-in the next. In fact God as an omniscient/omnipotent force/deity also treads this same ground but has attempted to hide the conclusion through some subtle twisting of logic-beginning with the twist of the first mover. The Muslims are heard saying - Gods will.

 

If we have determinism then we have no control and therefore we can do whatever we like because we would have done it anyway. This is clearly incorrect-and believe me, I have argued exactly that point in an entire book by defending determinism, so I'm poacher turned game keeper. Determinism isn't true because you do have a mind and you can think and thinking IS an act of choice. Even to think that there is/is not determinism is an act of choice which throws determinism on the scrap heap.

 

It is the fear of a lack of control, of hopelessness, that creates the need for determinism. It is the system that dictators and tyrants have engaged in for millennia. Tell people they have no choice then choose for them. Determinism is docility, it is to give up and accept whatever is coming at you be it bullets, starvation, slavery or a half eaten rat.'Go with the flow' is not a rational for survival, it will get you drowned.

[silent thunder]

ok

[Karl]

ok

That's not you 'going with the flow' is it ST ? ;-)

[9th]

Was this already posted somewhere else on the forum?

 

The first ever photograph of light as both a particle and wave

 

 

A research team led by Fabrizio Carbone at EPFL has now carried out an experiment with a clever twist: using electrons to image light. The researchers have captured, for the first time ever, a single snapshot of light behaving simultaneously as both a wave and a stream of particles.
 

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Was this already posted somewhere else on the forum?

 

The first ever photograph of light as both a particle and wave

 

 

A research team led by Fabrizio Carbone at EPFL has now carried out an experiment with a clever twist: using electrons to image light. The researchers have captured, for the first time ever, a single snapshot of light behaving simultaneously as both a wave and a stream of particles.

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

Thanks 9th for an interesting and stimulating link, though part of what I found interesting was a link to another article at the site about the solving the wave/particle duality through a mathematical unification in terms of information theory:

 

Information Theory Simplifies Quantum Mechanics

 

Which, as I have posted elsewhere on the Dao Bums, has been something that I first conceived of as possible back circa 1980, but this is only tangental to what I what I want to address here, however, I would recommend people check out the linked article.

 

There are several interesting aspects to the experimental work which is the subject of the article which you referenced, and since I have been following this thread, but have been to busy to post anything, I will take advantage of this opportunity to contribute something to the thread.

 

First in the article written by Wolff that Apeiron&Peiron referenced:

 

Well, from the article, http://wsminfo.org/articles/GREIT6Oct06.htm

While I found the references to Clifford interesting, I am surprised that there is no reference to Maxwell, because these theories is inherent in Maxwell's equations, as is made clear in the famous Wheeler-Feynman papers which are mentioned in the article, and which form the basis of the Wheeler–Feynman Absorber Theory, which is based on the fact that Maxwell's equations have two solutions and these correspond to the inward and outward waves mentioned in the article and which are the basis of this theory. I first read about the two solutions to Maxwell's equations back in the late Seventies in one or another book on the history of science and filed it away as something that was possibly important, just as the dual solutions to the Dirac Eqaution, might open up some interesting, but seemingly otherwise impossible areas of physics, just as the prediction of anti-particles opened up a hitherto unexepected area of physics.  In terms of the actual historical development of physics it could be simplified to Maxwell and Planck to Einstein to Quantum Physics, with Clifford being a fascinating thinker the importance of whose insights were only recognized in retrospect.

 

I also became aware of wave models of particles and particle motion circa 1990, so the subject is something which I have already put some thought into, however, while I found the ideas interesting, they are in many ways as unsatisfying as a purely particle oriented model would be, but in different ways.  As Spacester summarized:

 

Yes, everything that happens and will happen might be determined after all...

Not sure if I am happy about the mechanical world view that one might conclude from his theory.

At least at first sight, his theory not necessarily seems to give room for uncertainty, parallel universes and time travel

...or for free will.

 

I have put a lot of thought into questions of determinism and reductionism, and how one can account for a "knowing mind" in the midst of a universe that seems to be a mindless machine and I hope that I can post a little about that in some follow up posts here.  Though I need to put some thought into how I might organize them.

[Karl]

The universe isn't a mindless machine. It is composed of matter, of things of a specific nature that act and react according to that nature. It is causality that is the creator of an ever evolving set of transformed matter from which consciousness evolved as an axiomatic corollary.

 

As a scientist you can peer into the nature of the specific things of a specific nature and discover things about them, but you should grasp that you are are part of a moving river for which no first cause is necessary. Both determinism and reductionism fall apart because there is no first cause, there is no battery external to the universe. It is a universe of causality that is operating without first cause and so, we are simply the current result of all that activity.

[Eques Peregrinus]

[random philosophical rambling=on]

 

If we assume time exists as an abstract quantity before being "materialised" as a duration as we generally perceive it. And that there is an intellect which exists in the same level of abstraction which "materialise" as reason. Then determinism and free will can coexist, all free-willed decisions being taken by the intellect "outside" of the time which pass. The decisions being taken by reason "inside" of the time which pass, however being determined, therefore not part of free will.

 

A corollary of this hypothesis is that intellect, being unbounded by time, has no beginning nor any ends, it is therefore eternal.

 

[random philosophical rambling=off]

[9th]

I really have almost no knowledge and scholarly background in physics and natural science and so forth, so I cant comment in depth or at length on the specifics of these discoveries and so forth.

 

But I wanted to ask those that do; would you be able to elaborate on some of the discrepancies between the current theoretical models of the universe which requires the postulation of so-called "dark matter" or "dark energy" (such a horribly stupid name, imo... shouldnt it be "unseen matter" or something? I digress..*) as opposed to a theoretical model of the universe which accounts for such activity in a way that does not require the existence of such "dark matter"?  

 

I could be completely off on this so I wanted to get some clarification if its possible.  I was under the impression that a model of the universe based on different principals such as dimensional folding or the fundamental actions of electricity somehow accounted for this in a way that is not addressed by the current model which postulates "dark matter".  Am I completely off here?  I find it rather difficult to get a satisfying layman's consensus by researching the information that is out there.

 

 

_{* and to digress further, this kind of terminology reminds me of the so-called "junk DNA" that made up around 98% of the genome and was termed as such because scientists could not understand how it affected genetics at the time, but have now come around to understand that they were just too stupid to figure it out... but were clearly arrogant enough to call it "junk" at the time}

[Karl]

[random philosophical rambling=on]

 

If we assume time exists as an abstract quantity before being "materialised" as a duration as we generally perceive it. And that there is an intellect which exists in the same level of abstraction which "materialise" as reason. Then determinism and free will can coexist, all free-willed decisions being taken by the intellect "outside" of the time which pass. The decisions being taken by reason "inside" of the time which pass, however being determined, therefore not part of free will.

 

A corollary of this hypothesis is that intellect, being unbounded by time, has no beginning nor any ends, it is therefore eternal.

 

[random philosophical rambling=off]

Time is an abstract relationship between events as compiled by human consciousness through the process of differentiating (the objects which are observed from those that are ignored) and integrating with respect of all other parts in our conceptual hierachy. Time has no meaning to a cat, which has only perceptual intellect.

 

Humans are a prime mover, a volitional consciousness which is as part of human nature as the density of a rock. Causality isn't random and humans are part of that universe, but we are volitional and hence our interactions are causal and not deterministic. If we cut down a tree to make something then we are acting volitionally to convert a present condition into a new condition.

 

Therefore, we must first obey nature before we can transform it. Causality is an abundance of the benevolent universe that we are part of and we utilise it in order to survive- we cannot grow in the ground like a tree, or sit like a rock, we are forced to use our minds and then act to survive, this is our volitional nature and it is added to all natures within the universe.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Karl

[Michael Sternbach]

I really have almost no knowledge and scholarly background in physics and natural science and so forth, so I cant comment in depth or at length on the specifics of these discoveries and so forth.

 

But I wanted to ask those that do; would you be able to elaborate on some of the discrepancies between the current theoretical models of the universe which requires the postulation of so-called "dark matter" or "dark energy" (such a horribly stupid name, imo... shouldnt it be "unseen matter" or something? I digress..*) as opposed to a theoretical model of the universe which accounts for such activity in a way that does not require the existence of such "dark matter"?  

 

I could be completely off on this so I wanted to get some clarification if its possible.  I was under the impression that a model of the universe based on different principals such as dimensional folding or the fundamental actions of electricity somehow accounted for this in a way that is not addressed by the current model which postulates "dark matter".  Am I completely off here?  I find it rather difficult to get a satisfying layman's consensus by researching the information that is out there.

 

 

_{* and to digress further, this kind of terminology reminds me of the so-called "junk DNA" that made up around 98% of the genome and was termed as such because scientists could not understand how it affected genetics at the time, but have now come around to understand that they were just too stupid to figure it out... but were clearly arrogant enough to call it "junk" at the time}

The concept of Dark Matter was introduced to account for the gravitational interactions observed on very large cosmic scales. Another explanation however could be that the known equations describing the behaviour of gravity are not applicable to extremely large cosmic distances for some reason, but need to be modified on those scales.

[Michael Sternbach]

In reply to some earlier posts on this thread, I would emphasize that the "monads" in the centre of the concentric waves flowing from and to everywhere else are entities in their own right - so they are as much senders as they are receivers.

 

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relation demonstrates the impossibility of determining both the location and movement (rigorously, the impulse) of a point particle. On another, but analogous level, free will can be seen as the action of a monadic centre of consciousness whose movement can't be fully predicted, even if the influences from the external universe on the entity are completely understood.

[Karl]

Monads ? In Liebinitzian terminology ? I'm assuming this is another attempt to prove reality is illogical and therefore it is a product of consciousness.