what equals what?! under what condition?

[SB_UK]

So what equals what? under what condition?

- no anything can equal no anyother thing
- at a fundamental level - there's no such thing as equal

- there's synchrony though -
- which kinda' mimics equality

synchrony
- which in the course of evolution
creates
a series of kinda' equal
(regressed to the mean, normally distributed) component
(liberty,egality,fraternity)
component parts in process of polymerization into more complex
(from the perspective of the individual) community.

[SB_UK]

No opinions on anything particularly?

What about 'KILL MONEY'?

I had to ask.........

No opinions in the sense that I can feel the power (and cannot resist the power) of a stronger (logical) argument
- I have no favourite colour
- No character defining attributes to adorn a CV
- to maintain the illusion of separateness.

Our physical structure evolved over millions of years -
until we arrived at a point at which after 9 months in utero - we emerge with our physical body parts
all in place

It feels as though the millions of years which gave rise to gestation has been repeated -
albeit
on a higher abstraction level (the mind)
and
over only the last 30,000 years

over only the last 30,000 years
- giving rise to a body of knowledge which we can impart to future generations -
- a kinda' mental level gestation (education)

- a kinda' mental level post partum gestation to parallel physical level gestation (development of our physical structure within the womb).

mind:body duality.
body -> mind

particle:wave duality
wave -> particle

Just an evolutionary twist.

Large swathes of banking are "socially useless" and serve little purpose other than providing certain individuals "with personal levels of remuneration which are just stunning".

[labelwench]

BUT! you find them different, not equal, not the same. Well what is the difference, how you judge or score them? Do you judge everything in the universe that is so equal to everything else the same? What about grains of sand on a beach. Do you see them all different too, or simple and equally One or the beach? And what ants, are they equal to you or are you so divine that you can measure their differences too. And once you are done measuring, are you absolutely certain of your measurement, or perhaps you should do it again. I think you should. And evertime you measure nature does it come out the same? Is measure the flaw or is it simply You?

Life without measure is One! Originally posted by MJA

By the attributes which nature accords them,

- each grain of sand varies slightly from any other.

- each snowflake is original in form.

- each human being is unique from any other. Science and DNA support this remark.

Collectively, all the unique pieces of life's puzzle are connected as one.

On that, you and I apparently agree.

But perhaps you have a unique perspective on that?

[SteveA]

Really Steve, So Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is incorrect.

It's only incorrect if you look too closely and pay attention to all the details.

How do you measure an electron's speed and position at the same time?

How do you know that two electrons are actually the same electron? Isn't that a paradox?

If I detect an electron in one location and I detect another electron in a different location, then how are these the same electron?

They only get blurred into a motion when you assign these two to be a single electron, in which case you now have the certainty that you detected a single electron as well as a motion, but you're not also seeing the detectors (which define additional contexts regarding positions) unless you have additional measurements etc.

So at some point, you have to stop looking at photons and see the object they describe without photons. If you think a photon is both showing itself as well as revealing properties of something else, well these two things are indistinguishable from each other except via. a mental context which isn't measurable, so yes, you will see uncertainty if you try to compress two distinct objects into a single superimposed object with multiple properties, but notice that at no point was uncertainty ever measured and all events were at specific locations at specific times and all were distinguishable. It was only by assuming that there was no way to distinguish between them (mentally the experimenter knew what he was trying to measure, but physically there was no record) that uncertainty was added.

And yes, uncertainty is something else distinct as well so every element is as clear as day and distinct from the electrons as well as suppositions by the experimenter etc.

In a sense, this statement also says that the mind/body duality is not real. You can consider either, or, or both, but in the end it's just one picture and all the uncertainty arises from trying to append else to separate them that is not known and cannot be measured.

Oh and: is an electron a wave or a particle, or both?

I prefer a particle. You can pick a wave if you want and we can do a fourier transform and convert them back and forth and back and forth ...

Is nature truly measurable, or was Heisenbergs uncertainty only a tip of the real berg?

What do you think?
Thanks,

=
MJA

There's always the "next" particle detection, which is indistinguishable from any other "next" particle detection ... and yes, it's probably the tip of an iceberg.

Thanks

[SB_UK]

How do you know that two electrons are actually the same electron? Isn't that a paradox?

more like a train -

toot toot!

[SteveA]

more like a train -

That looks a lot like a tornado too (a hot and cold inversion and the collapsing of a potential etc.) .

[SteveA]

Hi, MJA

Let me add a little more detail and be less cryptic in my reply.

When a photon is detected, it's a photon. The information it conveys is regarding the photon. This is an intangible mental context though unless all we ever saw were photons.

But let's say that photons also carry information regarding objects and their position etc., such as looking at a tree or an oscilloscope.

Now when you look at a tree are you seeing a tree or are you seeing photons? The answer is generally considered to be both.

Well if that is true then you should be seeing something like a "photontree" that has both tree and photonic properties inseparably linked.

If there is a physical way to see photons and not the tree, then we need something else to denote whether or not a photon detection was in the context of representing the tree or representing the photon.

Well where do we get that physical information to denote whether or not a photon was intended to portray properties of the tree versus simply describing itself?

If we're suppose to use other photons, then the same problems happens - how do we know we actually detected a photon if it's instead interpreted as being a "gate" that changes the context in which another photon is to be interpreted? You have the same problem now ... was the "gate" signal a photon, well if you look at it in the context of a photon, then yes, it's a photon, but it's no longer providing a "gate" function for tree/photon context of another photon.

It may seem as though you can both see this second photon as both a photon and a gate, but that's not verifiably true without yet another photon etc.

So at some point you had to begin with an unmeasurable mental context and simply assign that your detector was where you thought it was and you couldn't have used a photon to verify that assumption.

Now this chain can be broken but it requires ignoring a unmeasurable duality in the context. I think it could be best to consider that photons do not exist as objects that travel through space as typically envisioned. The properties of photons are inherent in the logic of observations of objects - how do you recognize a moving object? Doesn't it take logic to determine how an object has been moved or rotated? What features of logical computation are detectable as properties inherent to any possible change or motion? Atoms already contain orbitals with wavelike properties, photons need not exist with wave functions outside their interaction with an atom, nor does space need to convey this information. In fact there need be no empty space - the universe can be a giant molecule being viewed from the inside out.

In fact, how can Relativity stand up with such a vague definition of what "local" space is?

Consider this, how many photons need exist in the universe?

How can more than a single photon be detected in Relativity? By what mechanism do photons interact with each other? At a point of intersection - matter.

A point of intersection need not (in fact I believe it cannot) be via. two pathways with orthogonal properties. The point of intersection can simply be a point of reflection (with a virtual extension past this).

Consider this, if you have more than a single processor in your computer can they run truly independently and yet communicate to manage information for a single program or draw a single picture on the monitor? No. They need to be synchronized in their communication ... which requires a synchronization in time. What time ultimately do they need to be synchronized with in order that you can see the picture and interact with it? Your (our/universal/common/physical) time. If a computer could run with some clock unrelated to other things in the universe then there would be slim hope it could even detect a single keystroke.

So anyway, if you put your hand in front of the "photontree", does it block photons - no, it simply changes properties of the photon you're seeing - now you're seeing the "photonhand".

If you close your eyes, do you see nothing? Well not really, you're seeing the "blackphotonvoid", which is once again the same photon but conveying different information.

Now in order to avoid being a hypocritic, I can't actually say that you would be seeing a single photon, unless I said you were only seeing this single photon. In reality we can just ignore that photon and simply recognize that we're seeing all the objects it conveys information about - it and the objects are no different and aren't separable.

Consider this as well ... what energy level would a figurative "black"/zero energy/nothing photon have? It would have no physical energy - what would the wavelength be of such a black photon be? It would be reciprocally related and be potentially infinitely long, so "seeing" black or nothing or zero etc. is seeing at wavelengths longer than we could physically measure and at "local" energies less dense than could be physically measured.

Consider this also - if a detector of a single wavelength can detect various intensities of light at a single wavelength, how can this energy density be varied if it can only detect a single wavelength? What fills in the "spaces" between these photon detections ... well if such spaces cannot be measured as a physical energy then the wavelength should be potentially infinitely large, hence the single photon must have done a whole lot in between detections of that single physical wavelength (it was busy constructing time between them).

[MJA]

"The blackphotonvoid" Steve?

Well that would be a great name for my theory on black holes. Only rather than the photons being blocked as per your eye lid example, I believe light not matter is gravitationally pulled away at a speed greater than itself. Thus giving us only the illusion that the star or any other heavenly body or light source is swallowed up or gone. A black hole then merely takes the light or photons away.

Did I just write that? Yikes, I've turned into another mad scientist!!!

And as for your photon measuring expose, I would think it might be simply surmised by saying: A photon is immeasurably inseparable, as truly nature is itself.
Oneness then is the truth of us all.
Do you agree?
Thanks,

=
MJA

[SteveA]

"The blackphotonvoid" Steve?

Well that would be a great name for my theory on black holes. Only rather than the photons being blocked as per your eye lid example, I believe light not matter is gravitationally pulled away at a speed greater than itself. Thus giving us only the illusion that the star or any other heavenly body or light source is swallowed up or gone. A black hole then merely takes the light or photons away.

Did I just write that? Yikes, I've turned into another mad scientist!!!

Looks like we've got another member for the club. Welcome!

I can already see some correlations between your comments and some ideas I've had also.

1) The velocity of photons are only declared constant in a vacuum. It so happens that vacuums do not include observers hence - we can't measure the speed of light as defined by Relativity. (I know how it's intended to be measured, but the truth is that it's only via. mental extrapolation that the velocity is derived - photons don't see photons, we need something sub/super-photon to see a photon).

2) Photons are also not even measured as possessing a constant velocity - every time one is detected, it stops/decelerates. Hence photons are always measured as inconstant velocities.

3) In modern physics distances and times are defined in terms of light speed - this gives us two unknowns to solve with a single variable. How do we know all distances aren't doubled and all velocities doubled? Everyone knows that's just impossible because their yardstick appears the same size, but modern physics doesn't use yardsticks anymore.

The problem is obvious from this: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

Value 299 792 458 m s-1 Standard uncertainty (exact) Relative standard uncertainty (exact) Concise form 299 792 458 m s-1

How convenient that the speed of light happens to not simply be approximately measured as an integer number of meters per second but it "happens" to be exactly an integer number of meters per second.

Did someone who invented the meter happen to have some great insight? No.

The speed of light is not the same as the velocity of a photon. A single photon occurs in a shorted period of time than a(n approximate) wave of light. Interesting huh? (I just realized it )

Consider the NIST definition of distance: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

And the NIST definition of a second http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

Now how many photons does it take to measure a meter's worth of light with 95% confidence to within a single wavelength distance?

The problem is immediately apparent - the definition of the speed of light does not define the velocity of a single photon and the definition of distance contains an inherent uncertainty and is not defined in terms of photons.

The assumptions are inherently statistical and could never give remove this uncertainty from derived results, because it's not measuring discrete units. Any length defined in terms of the NIST meter is statistical.

How much energy does it take to measure a meter? It's significantly more than a single photon provides. How much time does it take to measure a meter? Significantly more time than a photon is assumed to travel it.

If we wanted a 95% confidence that we'd measured a meter to within a single wavelength, we'd a confidence of measurement at each cycle transition to be exp(log(.95)/9192631770), which is greater than 99.999999% confidence for every wavelength.

I'll skip doing detailed analysis, but if we assume a wavelength is determined by a statistical significance between the density of photon detections at each peak and value (we already have a paradox here over time in that we need time to determine whether or not a sufficient accumulation has occured to give us sufficient confidence that we've either seen a peak or valley in the wavelength! So ignoring all the rest, the NIST definitions are already impossible to measure because you can't count cycles over sufficient time to give confidence to the measurement of a meter without already having a definition of time, but that's already defined using the same photons)

It's obvious how people actually measure a meter and it's not per NIST definitions. They rely on mass and inertia to interpolate between these measurements

I drifted quite a bit off replying to your comment. There are a lot of things I can comment on, but basically I just have an inverse view that's compatible with your comment regarding "faster than light" acceleration - it's basically that these statistical measurements give a Gaussian distribution (Bell Curve) to what are otherwise assumed to be linear measurements. If an object actually moves at a constant velocity relative to this Gaussian form, it can appear to be accelerating (you can measure the acceleration of light just as easily as you can measure its velocity - pick a number and noone can prove it wrong, but noone can prove it right either).

And as for your photon measuring expose, I would think it might be simply surmised by saying: A photon is immeasurably inseparable, as truly nature is itself.

Yes, that appears true - though likely the photon I'm referring to is only partially measurable as physically energetic photons, but in either case there's really not much reason to try to measure the photon itself as it will tell you nothing more than the properties of the objects it describes (and we additionally have the confusion over whether we're seeing space via. the photon or whether the photon is seeing itself).

Oneness then is the truth of us all.

Do you agree?

There may be one photon, but there's not one object that it encompasses - there is both a unity in observation as well as a diversity in that being observed.

I don't think it's all "one". The self sees it as one, but there can be other selves (then again, I admit I'm adding that uncertainty there which may not be necessary) - but something needs to hold these all together, though growth appears as an unknown (and to some extent, growth appears required through/within/over time), so I'm still learning and don't know, but it does appear a lot more closely interrelated than first glance makes it appear to be. (I remember hearing things regarding these ideas when I was younger and I admit they stuck with me but it's not obvious and I couldn't take it very literally ... just nice ideas that were maybe true to some extent, but more figurative or subtle ... but I moved away from that and interestingly enough found more concrete steps leading back there ... but there's still something surrounding those steps that logic may never be able to grasp and I'm still trying to see how much of it can fit together rather solidly - from the perspective of logic it may go on forever but never be able to fill in the gaps if there exists things that are simply illogical, and it already appears that are things that are at least inexplicable in their specifics - though an interesting consideration is that ultimately the specifics may not matter - there are drives, emotions and purposes for which the specifics may not be particularly important - if you've got a path to travel, it may not be important where you begin or how you arrange the segments along the way)

Thanks,

=
MJA

Thank you too.

[MJA]

You know Steve don't you, that the only thing in the universe dividing and holding it apart, is ourselves.
Einstein's UFT was simply to understand the flaw of measure. Once One simplifies an equation by removing any uncertainties, by removing the flaw of measure itself ,= or empirical equal is the unity or true Oneness or All that remains.
E = Mc2
= was hiding in front of us All.

Uniting science with God, for God is only another name for One or All will be the deciding evolution we have been waiting and searching for.
TOE!!!

=
MJA