J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Actually, I think they are calling that the “invarient mass” which is also, at times, called the “rest mass”.
But your “E = m” for the case of c = 1 would be fine **as long as **you kept the units straight.
- Status
But your “E = m” for the case of c = 1 would be fine **as long as **you kept the units straight.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
What is “carrying” the photons and all other formations of waves, is a field of “affectance” == mutual effect upon affect.So a photon is a wave of energy. Or all waves are energy. Waves need to pass through some type of medium. So in between, for example, the sun and me sitting in my sun-chair there is some type of medium to carry this energy wave.
If someone tells me it an electric field or suchlike could you model an electric field in 3 dimensions and/or tell me what *it *is made of, and so on and so on.
This gets into the actual metaphysics. And btw, if metaphysics merely observes the universe to explain physics, then how would it be any different than physics? Metaphysics explains physics without the observed and measured details, but rather uses pure logic to explain why physics is the way it is.
Wiki:
Websters online:
Existence IS no more than effect upon affect. That is the fundamental of all existence in any realm. In Science it would be called “force upon force”. Or simply “energy”.
A wave, much like described in aether theory is “carried” because it is a propagation of effect upon the effects that are already there. Such an occurrence absolutely must take what we call time else all effects would instantly occur yielding a state of no change at all = no time at all. But in a state of no time, nothing can “effect” anything because to effect it means to change it. Without effect, there can be no existence.
Energy is the concept of potential to do work or move something in some way, to change it. A propagating wave IS changing the affectance surrounding it that was largely ineffective due to not having sufficient variance to have observable effect. Thus it appears to us as nothingness, because it has too little effect upon us other than to give us something to have effect upon.
Just because there are no waves on the pond doesn’t mean that there is no water.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
A quick primer for metaphysics;
Affectance Types
Since we know that anything that exists does so only due to having effect (by definition), we must consider what effect anything might have. If we only know that the existence has effect and know of nothing else, then we can say that the Affectance possibilities are;
If 2 affecters have the property of reducing each other’s effect, then a negative feedback effect would occur causing both affecters to more slowly fade to nothingness.
If 1 affecter has the property of increasing the other’s effect upon itself and the other has the property of decreasing the effect of the first upon itself, then stability can be reached as the reducer reduces the effect of the increaser and the increaser increases the effect of the reducer. But the end result of such an arrangement is that both are canceling the effect of the other and thus neither would have effect upon the other and thus not exist to each other.
This leaves us merely with the situation of one affecter having the ability to move or relocate the other affecter without altering its potential to effect if the location were to be restored. Thus the only logical option available for affecters is that each affecter must either push or pull each other effecter without changing its original potential.
The end result of this logic is that the total amount of affectance cannot change == “Conservation of Affectance”.
Affectance Types
Since we know that anything that exists does so only due to having effect (by definition), we must consider what effect anything might have. If we only know that the existence has effect and know of nothing else, then we can say that the Affectance possibilities are;
- Increase the effect of other affecters
- Decrease the effect of other affecters
- Push other affecters away
- Pull other affecters closer
If 2 affecters have the property of reducing each other’s effect, then a negative feedback effect would occur causing both affecters to more slowly fade to nothingness.
If 1 affecter has the property of increasing the other’s effect upon itself and the other has the property of decreasing the effect of the first upon itself, then stability can be reached as the reducer reduces the effect of the increaser and the increaser increases the effect of the reducer. But the end result of such an arrangement is that both are canceling the effect of the other and thus neither would have effect upon the other and thus not exist to each other.
This leaves us merely with the situation of one affecter having the ability to move or relocate the other affecter without altering its potential to effect if the location were to be restored. Thus the only logical option available for affecters is that each affecter must either push or pull each other effecter without changing its original potential.
The end result of this logic is that the total amount of affectance cannot change == “Conservation of Affectance”.
T
Thing
Guest
I thought I might understand why the photon moved the way it did, being in two places, seemingly, if I understood the ‘shape’ of the photon, but I don’t mean exactly a physical shape, though it must have one or be a form of something more fundamental.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
That’s why I used the “wheel” analogy. It is formed of no more than waves effecting waves. The positive chasing and being chased by the negative in a circle, but free to move in one direction (axially) together.
But as someone pointed out, it really isn’t in 2 places at once. That is merely part of the “magic” illusion.
I am still looking for a good graphics package to allow me to draw a picture.
T
Thing
Guest
I’ll wait to see what you come up with then, the photon describes something else.That’s why I used the “wheel” analogy. It is formed of no more than waves effecting waves. The positive chasing and being chased by the negative in a circle, but free to move in one direction (axially) together.
I am still looking for a good graphics package to allow me to draw a picture.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
What “else” do you think it describes?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Another example of what was merely a beginning thought was the Bohr model of an atom. Science knows today that the idea of an electron orbiting a proton is not really what is going on, but close. The electron is not really orbiting in the same sense that a moon orbits a planet. The electron is closer to being like a cloud surrounding the proton which is itself a compressed cloud made of smaller compressed clouds.
The understanding always begins with something that isn’t exactly 100% accurate but leads in the right general direction. Much more understanding must be slowly gained and incorporated for greater accuracy to be realized.
I had asked of what principle the spinning wheel concept fundamentally violates. I am not aware of any and don’t think there could be any that are *fundamentally *violated. But to be certain, ALL observed effects involving photons would have to be addressed one at a time in order to show that such a model *generally *depicts what the photon really is.
But I am not saying that a photon IS a spinning wheel, but rather that it is very much like one for sake of the imagination. There are many other aspects and understandings to append to that model to make it *more *real just as there was with the Bohr model of an atom.
The understanding always begins with something that isn’t exactly 100% accurate but leads in the right general direction. Much more understanding must be slowly gained and incorporated for greater accuracy to be realized.
I had asked of what principle the spinning wheel concept fundamentally violates. I am not aware of any and don’t think there could be any that are *fundamentally *violated. But to be certain, ALL observed effects involving photons would have to be addressed one at a time in order to show that such a model *generally *depicts what the photon really is.
But I am not saying that a photon IS a spinning wheel, but rather that it is very much like one for sake of the imagination. There are many other aspects and understandings to append to that model to make it *more *real just as there was with the Bohr model of an atom.
Y
yppop
Guest
James,
I am still struggling with my critique of your thesis, which you’ve apparently spread over several threads and many posts.
I need an answer to the above quote. What do you mean when you imply that Bell is a real scientist, but Schroedinger and Aspect are not?
Thanks,
Yppop
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Don’t over conflate our other thread with these discussions. there are some common points, but the other stands on it’s own (or is supposed to).
Bell was a scientist in the traditional form of understanding that reality has a state that merely needs discovering.
Schrodinger (although really challenging a lot of quantum thought) and most Quantum Magi, affix “possibility” to reality in proposing that every possibility actually exists as a physicality until it is observed. This is actually the result of thinking in terms of concepts being physical entities. They are not. They exist in a SEPARATE realm that was called the “Divine realm”.
But if we pretend that concepts and possibilities have physical existence, then we can create a huge mountain of fun fantasy and superstition with which we can then keep the lower working class preoccupied so as to not notice how we cage them. It is a game of creating a religion of belief so as to enslave a population with misunderstandings. It is popular with Secularism and Satanism (if there is any difference).
But even more, to call it Science is both erroneous and insulting. the idea is that many of the other possibilities existed before us as a physical reality, but when we measured it, only one of the group got affixed due to our observation. This is exactly like saying that there was a ghost in the room until I turned on the light. The light caused the ghost to go away.
Science requires that something be repeatedly demonstrated before it is accepted as fact or even good theory. When was it EVER demonstrated that those possibilities ever had physical form? It wasn’t. The excuse is that, “well you can’t demonstrate it because that would cause it to go away. See, every time we try, it goes away, thus we have proven it to be true.” - the light chases away the ghost that really was there. “Science has proven it.”
I’m sorry, but that is NOT Science.
T
Thing
Guest
It describes what it travels through.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
From Einstein to Schrodinger,
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
The PHOTON describes it?
I agree that it is MADE of it and thus contains the fundamental information of what it is traveling through, but in what way does it being a photon describe the substance of which it is made?
That “substance” is actually no more than effect upon affect, force upon force, or energy. Such is the most fundamental thought of any existence beneath which there can be nothing other than the rules for constructing thought.
The idea that anything of a particulate nature exists at the most fundamental level of existence is false and has been said to be false for thousands of years, “Only spirit is true. Physical/material existence is an illusion.” That is a true statement and provably so with Accurate Logic and Science doesn’t disagree (matter is merely a form of energy). I call matter an “aberration” rather than an illusion along with ALL of the supposed fundamental forces other than that of charge.
T
Thing
Guest
Because the photon must obey the rules of its cause or else it would not be a photon. It surely cannot be independant totally of its cause. 
A photon, in my mind at least, seems to be the result or, it describes a quality of, the thing that its made of and travels through. I find it difficult to imagine just pure energy sitting there, doing nothing. It must be made from nothing, so it must hold a form or it would just simply return to nothing. A photon in my wilder moments of speculation must describe something of the form it needs to travel through or propagate through.
A photon, in my mind at least, seems to be the result or, it describes a quality of, the thing that its made of and travels through. I find it difficult to imagine just pure energy sitting there, doing nothing. It must be made from nothing, so it must hold a form or it would just simply return to nothing. A photon in my wilder moments of speculation must describe something of the form it needs to travel through or propagate through.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Well, I thought that’s what I just said, so I guess I’ll just have to agree.
It was once called “aether” but that term acquired a few misunderstandings too.
It was once called “aether” but that term acquired a few misunderstandings too.
H
hecd2
Guest
Nope - no reasoned argument or explanation presented by James this time eitherhecd2:
As tempting as it is for you to believe that… [An immature tirade that shows only that James gets very upset if his ideas are questioned] …The fact that YOU don’t see the reasons is simply testimony to your ignorance. The fact that you think that you know what all people do or do not know is testimony to your arrogance.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
It’s an oldie but a goodie and relevant to some of our friends on this thread. Numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 22 (it wasn’t obvious to *Newton *that light or gravity propagated at finite speed), 26, 28, 29 (with ref to the quantum and particle physicist John Bell), 36 (particularly with reference to QM), and (gloriously) 37:
John Baez’s Crackpot Index
Alec
evolutionpages.com
John Baez’s Crackpot Index
Alec
evolutionpages.com
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Here is a video description of reality by quantum theory. It is based on the basic idea that truth does not actually exist until we believe it.
Einstein thought that quantum magicians were both dangerous and insane. I agree.
And I have offered no “revolutionary” idea, hecd2. You need not fear heresy of your faith and religion. - - yet.
But at least I made an offer to help. I have seen nothing from you other than a display of your passion of protectionism (pride/ego).
Einstein thought that quantum magicians were both dangerous and insane. I agree.
And I have offered no “revolutionary” idea, hecd2. You need not fear heresy of your faith and religion. - - yet.
But at least I made an offer to help. I have seen nothing from you other than a display of your passion of protectionism (pride/ego).
I
Ismael
Guest
Once you have chosen your units you are done… units do not change at random, they are chosen (arbitrarily) by those who analyze the physical system of interest.
Like I said it’s not in two places at once… the beam-splitter experiments conferm that photons have corpuscular nature. Other experiments conferm it’s ‘wave nature’.
Sub-atomi particles are not particles and are not waves… but something in between we cannot compare directly to the ‘classica’ macroscopic world.
T
Thing
Guest
Thats interesting. So a photon is in some place only in the way that perhaps a flipped coin is both heads and tails until it lands ‘and is destroyed’ and becomes either heads or tails?
- Status