[pbecke]

This is not meant to rain on your parade, folks, since I realise that we were given minds to investigate what we are capable of investigating, not what we can't; and clearly the light that interacts with our universe, as well as the rest of our cosmic habitat, has long been studied with impressive results.

"It seems apparent that the fact of the speed of light being constant and the rest of our space-time universe being intra-relative, necessarily entails that:
a) light belongs to another order of reality, and
b) this order of reality is as superior to that of space-time as it is possible to be; signifying that, while light clearly interacts with space-time, being absolute in its nature and not contingent or relative to any other entity, its essential nature must be divine - be by some manner or means, a deity, just as most of mankind's religions, from the most primitive religions to Christianity, have always held.

I was baffled why no scientist or philosopher had addressed this subject, since, in the overall and ultimate scheme of things, it relegates our universe of space-time to a very footling status, and consequently our scientific questions to a similar level of inconsequentiality. However, I think that is itself the answer to the question. We tend to concetrate on what makes sense to us, to what we can use - and nowhere is this reductionism more extreme than in the sphere of science. Yet it seems that now our physics, finally approaching philosophy and theology in its focus, has at least proved our insignificance in the presence and under the influence of some kind of absolute, some kind of deity.

It has been said that Neils Bohr became fed up with Einstein's repeated references to God, and rebuked him for it. Which makes one suspect that, on on a certain level, he was well aware of the implication of light being an absolute entity. But isn't light held to be quasi-physical, rather than physical. Only Christianity, among mainstream religions, countenances the notion of God having become incarnate in some mysterious way - without leaving Heaven, moreover. Little wonder, perhaps, that even the most innovative of scientific thinkers should prefer to concentrate on the area "proper" to his discipline.

I originally thought this might be an appropriate thread, but now I can't imagine why. I'm going to try to find for a more appropriate thread, post it there, and delete this.

[harmonygirl]

actually, there is some question as to whether the speed of light is constant. There is also some question as to the existence of space-time or time in itself. Have you considered aether rather than light for your likening to your God?

[dleviwing]

Paul;
It is not appropriate to post religion as a solution in a science forum. If you wish to talk religious theology, please use the forums designed for that topic. If you have scientific evidence to prove the existence of a god, then by all means use the science forum.

As to light; it is a wave in a medium regardless whether you call the medium space-time, aether, quantum foam or some other creative name.

[pbecke]

That's all right, David. I've done my dash here. But did I not see folders and threads with religiously-oriented opinions on this forum? Posters here who actually believe that religion holds or may hold the ultimate answers, not science?

Indeed, I might just as easily say to you that science qua the pedestrian application of the scientific method is no substitute for a priori reasoning, armchair thinking. I don't believe Einstein made use of a laboratory, and got a friend to do most of his math. And you know what, he didn't cite any references, either. How unacademically unscientific is that?

And I thought light was a stream of quanta, not waves?

[dleviwing]

Paul;
There are those who attempt to disguise their religious philosophy as a TOE theory and post it in the forum “Your TOE Theory”. You may do the same if you wish or simply post in one of the forums in the “Spirituality” category.

Originally Posted by pbecke And I thought light was a stream of quanta, not waves?

This is one of the problems with improper interpretations of science meant to be more understandable by the layman. Personally I believe the majority of human beings are quite intelligent enough to understand that EM radiation is indeed a wave. The quanta is a unit of energy absorption or emission by atomic matter defined with Planck’s constant.

[pbecke]

David,

You must know perfectly well that light, while described as a wave within the visible range, is considered to exhibit wave and particle properties, and to further quote from my encyclopedia, "the fundamental particle, or quantum of light is called the photon" (from the Greek photos, light). Tut. Tut. And just to score a point!

In the same vein, you appear to cast the majority of mankind as not even being human, since you claim that the majority of human beings are quite intelligent enough to to understand that EM radiation is indeed a wave, and clearly the largely rural and non-academic people in China alone are unlikely to know anything about the technical nature of light, never mind in the more developed West. Then there's India. Heck,you, yourself, forgot it's apparent manifestation of particle and quantum properties. Even after I reminded you. Albeit, that I had, likewise, at least half-forgotten that it is perceived as having dual properties - the memory did dimly nag at the back of my mind.

But I hope you take on board that the future of theoretical physics lies, not in that most limited of reductionists disciplines (are there any others?), that you call "science" (the world means "knowledge"), still less in experimentation, but in the management of paradoxes and a priori reasoning. Not to bring up again the great man's words about what can be counted and what counts. Did you not know that the Holy Spirit coordinates the strands of our intelligence?

I'm sure you know that Neils Bohr chided Albert for keeping on dragging God into everthing. Well, what was good enough for Albert, is good enough for me. And I think it should be good enough for you, too.

Thank you, anyway, for your invitation to me post in another place.

[pbecke]

harmony girl,

I'm presuming to respond to your post here.

Nodland and Ralston indeed claimed that light in the cosmos to a minute degree slowed down, further extrapolating apparently that the universe was anisotropic; putting out certain physicist colleagues no end. Their earlier like-minded brethren had fought a long losing battle against the Big Bang theory (smacking of creation, as it does - they've explained that away, now, of course), while today Nodland and Ralston's critics seem to have the same faith-driven conviction, not only that there is no God, but that consequently, according to their lights, the cosmos must be equal in every direction.

However, this is from the Physicsweb site:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/10/6/5/1 :

"However, some critics like Ronald Bracewell and Von Eshleman from Stanford University have been willing to give Nodland and Ralston the benefit of the doubt. They have submitted a paper to Physical Review Letters proposing that the additional polarization observed by Nodland and Ralston could be to do with the absolute motion of the Sun through the cosmic background radiation, which is also towards Sextans. Nodland also says he has received several e-mails telling him of theoretical papers that show how anisotropic cosmologies are permitted within the framework of general relativity."

Also, I think Heisenberg's UP and the space-time continuum are mutually confirmatory. But the business about the absolute nature of light being the One Without A Second of Vedanta, the ground of all being, the one stand-alone reality, to which our universe and any other universes, the whole of creation, must logically be subsidiary and contingent, is an incontrovertible, 'a priori' inference. The testing, the science, was completed long ago; only recognition of the failure to follow up the logic is still pending."

[dleviwing]

Paul;
As you wish; You are now free to include creationism in your own thread “God and Our Universe”.
BTW: Your dictionary is correct according to “Particle Physicists” but you need to understand how particle physicists define a particle. Basically any phenomena that exhibits quantitative increments of measurable dimensions are particles. That is why they also consider other wave phenomena as particles such as bosons. This makes the concept of light as a particle credible without admitting their screw-up.

[pbecke]

Hi harmonygirl,

Re your question in post #2, concerning aether, I assume you are referring to the extraordinary work of Sahni and his colleagues, reported on the Home Page, which purports to identify a unified field theory.

As I hadn't read that report when I first saw your reference to it, I wondered if you were taking the rise!

It wouldn't, however, as far as I'm aware, meet the criterion of being absolute, or correlate so closely with mankind's historic, religious tendency to equate God with light, and its, I think, universal equation of light with wisdom, insight, etc.

[pbecke]

David,

Interesting about particles being "quantitative increments of measurable dimensions". I couldn't have imagined that. Thank you.