Hi, I am just goign to jump ion here, read the first few posts till it got silly.
Does Light Exist Between Events?
not observably, unless you falliciously posit that it's two defining events as ones in which other interactions occur inbetween. Also, a photon itself doesn't see itself moving at the speed of light, all it sees is two events. The point where it was emitted and the point at which is recieved (to use the crappy language we are trapped in, english is not good for physics). The rest of the 'time' it is isolated (cold and lonely, aw, poor thing) and playing with itself, as a boson it must balance its weak existence from the outside world internally (not suggesting that it has 'structure' like other particles).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hahn%E2%80 ... ch_theorem
this tells us something about the idea of separation, also read up on sober spaces if you have time.
If Einstein should have considered the VOLUME SPEED, it should be exactly 3×10^8 m s^-1.
you are using the idea that the universe cares about our understanding and our way of interacting with it. It does not. Just because the speed of light happens to be close to a nice number does not mean anything at all other than its ease of reproduction in high school text books. The same applies to your base ten math involving angstroms, which are based on an arbitrary choice of distance unit, the meter.
So called 'events' are discrete, as are photons.
Photons may be discrete but this does not isolate them to be discrete in energy, consider red shift, bremstralung, pair production/annihilation doppler effect etc.
It is 'memory/thoughts' which perceive apparent 'motion'.
come on man, INFORMATION, there IS a metaphysics thread here...
Those who perceive know, those who do not, do not.
this is belief, not perception.
All moments/percepts are perceived/manifested synchronously, simultaneously. Not 'FTL' but instantaneously, the same moment.
this is true, but NOT electromagnetically! I think the point has been missed here. Electromagnetic communicatio of information is not instantaneous, gravitational information, apparently, is. You come up with a way to interpret gravimetric data without measuring the relative motions of the entire universe and I will be so chuffed.
(It's all about the he said she said...)
Quote:
Quote:
Is one's brain 'entangled' with the foot? It can be seen that way, or we can be perceived as one integrated 'unit', a harmonious 'whole' wherein one differing feature means everythig must be different.
Perhaps, but there's no hint of quantum entanglement going on in the physical sense.
Sure there is. There are many instances of such 'hocus pocus' and 'phenomena'. But where they were discounted and ignored due to the ignorance of 'classical physics', modern QM theories are integrating those 'holistic events'.
Besides, do you not consider photons to be "physical" (whatever that might be)? What do you think that 'physical' means? To what does it refer? Are our perceived thoughts and dreams 'physical'?
No a brain is not entangled with a foot, just because they are part of the same system. There is some evidence of entanglement in the brain from region to region, though I have just had a quick search for it and can't find it now. You can't just decide what you mean by entanglement and ignore its real meaning. Hmm, are thoughts 'physical'? Good question, no experiments providing answers right now, though there are some pretty damning indications to suggest that, yes, they are. (I don't like that, any more than you may, but as a scientist you haz to go with the dataz.)
Viewed from another Perspective the moment wherein i say 'hello' and the moment where you say 'hello' can be perceived simultaneously, as, perhaps, an instantaneous occurrence.
i blame blame is being generous with his
this is almost true
. This is, almost certainly, untrue. They are events which occur separately. Let us consider that a photon can interact with the outside world upon its travel and passes the initiator of the conversation as he states 'hello', the wave then travels down a wire, at reduced c (due to the physical existence of some imperfect conductor) we then observe the signal (if we suddenly decide that the phton can stop and start wherever we want.) arriving at the end of the phone line and a response from the reciever ('hello') comes after the initiators signal has arrived. We can arrive before the signal from the initiator, but not change the order of events. There is such a thing as causality.
Let us instead consider particle decay, this system is much nicer and easier (no worrying about phone lines n data transmission)
We have some muon bibbing along at some non-relativistic speed. It decays and emits an electron, most probably travelling away at some relativistic speed, but this is a nice 3-body decay so lets decide for the sake of convenience that the two neutrinos take most of the momentum, we are our pretty snazzy photon who has the ability to do pretty much anything we want, and has a nice new paint job.
We travel parallel to our electron and pass it, it appears to be travelling backwards relative to us, does it reform into a muon? No, as we witness the muon decaying earlier, a long way back. The only difference is the time stamp, geometry and direction of the muon prior to its decay.
The action of these events is unchanged and order cannot be changed either, and simultenaity of events destroys this law. The action of an event or group of events remains invarient under the known transforms which model physical reality. I am not discounting that there may be more symmetries we don't know about in physics, but I am saying that you can't abserve ALL events as simultaneous as there needs to be a timelike dimension for all particle motions (governed by their LaGrangians) to be integrated within the bounds of to make physical sense of the reality you are describing.
Only as a naive assumption due to appearances.
supply rhetoric at least.
It's all perception (of 'mindstuff')...
there IS a metaphysics thread......
metazoan wrote:However I would be very interested in seeing your theory formally expressed so please start the thread as you suggested.
I second the motion.
When you can tweak a photon on earth, and an 'entangled' photon, or the same one (superposition), on the other side of the Universe is found to instantly 'respond', predictably, there must be some means of the one 'communicating' with the other, instantaneously.
there is no 'response' the fact is that the information was always there, encoded in that form just waiting to be observed. We have already defined the bounds of the experiment when we tweak the photons, we say, one is like this and the other is like that, there is no informative traffic as we already 'know' the outcome. Any other fiddling with the isolated photons destroys the entanglement by removing the system bounds.
It comes via 'me'. Happy?
I claim 'authorship' not 'ownership'. Do you understand the difference?
It comes 'through me' not from me. Understand?
quite frankly this reeks of insanity, and quite an angry one too. Though I understand the feeling expressed, I often have to write stuff down as though there is no conscious thought in it at all, as though the universe is putting pen to paper for me (and I enjoy it) but I have always told my brain to think about the things that I am writing a few days prior to this. Is it possible that you just love physics and have inadvertantly trained your brain to process data in the background. That's how I do it.
Feel free to read and attempt to understand my posts. They, in sum, express the nuts and bolts.
nameless, you are not some kind of jesus figure leaving cryptic clues for the future generations to follow, your ideas have some merit but production of some sort of mathematical framework is requierd by Physicists to actually give credence to your arguments, so that they can formulate hypothesis and test them. All else is hyperbole.
your nebulous attack is old news and boring
You have posited a nebulous theory, expect retorts of the same kind.
All that is perceived, exists.
I have, too, eaten magic mushrooms. Trust me, not all that is percieved is in existence, at least to others. Thing is, perception is not reality, lots of people have hurt themselves and others in this belief.
I support what I offer.
OK. What IF you're wrong? Now, please don't get uppity, if you were serious about this you would be happy for it to be put to the test, and be happy to be proved wrong, in the pursuit of a ToE or GUT or whatever anyone wants to call it.
metazoan: is it constructive to be so analytical?
Aaaaaaanyway. I hope that I have not offended you nameless, and please don't retort with some high and mighty assumtion that you know more than me and it is my perspective that is flawed, I can see quite well here from the gutter.
<3
