[Profpat]

Hi Farsight;

From the looks of your proton, I guess it would no longer be a hadron but a lepton. ( ie no longer a composite particle ). Is the proton in your theory made up from a single string?

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. BTW Congratulations on being invited to a Physics Symposium. Thats quite an honor.

[Farsight]

It isn't made up of a single string. That's thinking in one dimension. Imagine a two-dimensional rubber sheet, grab hold of the central portion and pull it up, then tie a knot in it like you'd tie a knot in the neck of a balloon. It's a little like that, only it's a knot in three-dimensional space.

The proton is a single knot, but it's a trefoil knot. It's composed of three parts, so it's "composite". You can't separate the three parts and preserve them. That's why we've never seen a free quark. And when you physically break a proton in a collider, the resultant hadrons last for a fraction of a second before they decay. They're "hadronic" debris. Basically they're transient loop configurations. For example the B-sub-meson looks a little like the figure-eight knot, but it's not a knot. That's why it isn't stable. The leptons are the trivial knot configurations, and it isn't a good classification because only the electron and positron are stable. The hadrons are the more complex configurations, of which only the proton and antiproton are stable. Even the neutron isn't stable. Of course there scope for stable more massive configurations, but they aren't common in nature.

PS: Thanks. Will you do me the honour of reading my draft book?

[Profpat]

PS: Thanks. Will you do me the honour of reading my draft book?

Thank you for the offer Farsight, but I want to digest your 41 page paper first. I should tell you however that I'm an accounting professor and not a physics professor and therefore my review of your work is limited to a person interested in the subject but by no means an expert.

Best to you,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Mind if it is energy will have its own equations, also it has to have equations that blend into the equations of gravity if they have to work together..

Good observation, Dipayan, the Mind can have a mind of its own, so when Mind is energy then it may (but not necessarily will) follow a path of its own chosing.

The latter part, however, points to what I was trying to convey: the current situation is already established, and with many minds in place plus all of them having their own contradicting and disconnected quirks, it is highly unlikely that the conditions to affect gravity through the combined and focused actions of all these minds will ever be met. I'd say, not even slightly.

Finally, to consider that the Mind having its own equations therefore follows many different paths from what is more pure energy is according to me not the case. I consider only the option to not do something an additional action available to Mind that is not available to energy not directly connected to Mind. Still, just this single additional action to not do something (albeit on the smaller human level) changes the game entirely (at least at that smaller human level).

You make me curious, Dipayan. Is there an experiment you have in Mind?

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Farsight

It isn't made up of a single string. That's thinking in one dimension. Imagine a two-dimensional rubber sheet, grab hold of the central portion and pull it up, then tie a knot in it like you'd tie a knot in the neck of a balloon. It's a little like that, only it's a knot in three-dimensional space.

The proton is a single knot, but it's a trefoil knot. It's composed of three parts, so it's "composite". You can't separate the three parts and preserve them. That's why we've never seen a free quark. And when you physically break a proton in a collider, the resultant hadrons last for a fraction of a second before they decay. They're "hadronic" debris. Basically they're transient loop configurations. For example the B-sub-meson looks a little like the figure-eight knot, but it's not a knot. That's why it isn't stable. The leptons are the trivial knot configurations, and it isn't a good classification because only the electron and positron are stable. The hadrons are the more complex configurations, of which only the proton and antiproton are stable. Even the neutron isn't stable. Of course there scope for stable more massive configurations, but they aren't common in nature.

Hi Farsight,

I think, from your perspective, I will fit in more with Pat's category: highly interested but not a specialist in your field. Yet you (and Pat) have made me curious enough to ask you a question. Let me first say that in my universe the only measureable entities are always 3D (or if you know my work: 2D+, which is a different way of pointing to what is the same result as described by 3D). The importance of noting this is that the essential physical properties are then found on the collective in-out dimensional feature, not on the up-down, left-right, or back-front directional features each by themselves.

Before I lose your attention, I'll ask my question straight out: do you consider it possible that the Electric and the Magnetic forces are inside-out versions of the E/M entity? They would then both be one and the same, but their properties are experienced/measured differently, depending on which side is in and which side is out. This would be much like the jacket you can wear with the orange either on the inside or on the outside — and the other side being blue. In this case, the whole E/M entity would then be the jacket!

[dipayankar]

My Mind is so full of this 'Mind' thing that it is out of its mind.

By the way what you are suggesting that Mind might use energy. For utilizing energy, there should be some byproducts of energy utilization, like waste heat etc. How do you account for that? Also what would be the source of the energy that mind requires? Is it from the brain? Then we should have some energy that is utilized by the brain that is unaccounted for. Have we been able to identify such energy?

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Good observation, Dipayan, the Mind can have a mind of its own, so when Mind is energy then it may (but not necessarily will) follow a path of its own chosing.

The latter part, however, points to what I was trying to convey: the current situation is already established, and with many minds in place plus all of them having their own contradicting and disconnected quirks, it is highly unlikely that the conditions to affect gravity through the combined and focused actions of all these minds will ever be met. I'd say, not even slightly.

Finally, to consider that the Mind having its own equations therefore follows many different paths from what is more pure energy is according to me not the case. I consider only the option to not do something an additional action available to Mind that is not available to energy not directly connected to Mind. Still, just this single additional action to not do something (albeit on the smaller human level) changes the game entirely (at least at that smaller human level).

You make me curious, Dipayan. Is there an experiment you have in Mind?

[Profpat]

Hi Dipayankar;

The source of the brains energy comes from the blood supply which is a bybroduct of the food we consume.

When we do an MRI of the brains activity heat is being generated in those areas being utilized by the brain. those areas include consciousness, or mental activities. Without a brain you don't have consciousness or mind ( mental ) activities.

Fredrick may have other thoughts regarding your question.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

But what about the mind? Does it exist? If yes, does it also consume energy?

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Dipayankar;

The source of the brains energy comes from the blood supply which is a bybroduct of the food we consume.

When we do an MRI of the brains activity heat is being generated in those areas being utilized by the brain. those areas include consciousness, or mental activities. Without a brain you don't have consciousness or mind ( mental ) activities.

Fredrick may have other thoughts regarding your question.

Best,

Pat

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

...do you consider it possible that the Electric and the Magnetic forces are inside-out versions of the E/M entity? They would then both be one and the same, but their properties are experienced/measured differently, depending on which side is in and which side is out. This would be much like the jacket you can wear with the orange either on the inside or on the outside — and the other side being blue. In this case, the whole E/M entity would then be the jacket!

No.

An "electromagnetic field" is called that because if you are stationary with respect to it you would call it an electric field, but if you moved through it or it moved through you, you would call it a magnetic field. This is regular physics.

Where I come in is that it's very simple to understand this by thinking of an electric field as a "twist field". Hold your arms out like you're an aeroplane and walk forwards:



It will make you turn. And if you didn't know about the relative motion you'd think you were in a "turn field", and you'd call it a magnetic field. Then if you move through that so there's no real relative motion any more, you're in a twist field. That's why you experience an electric field when you move through a magnetic field and vice versa.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Dipayankar;

The source of the brains energy comes from the blood supply which is a bybroduct of the food we consume.

When we do an MRI of the brains activity heat is being generated in those areas being utilized by the brain. those areas include consciousness, or mental activities. Without a brain you don't have consciousness or mind ( mental ) activities.

Fredrick may have other thoughts regarding your question.

Best,

Pat

I am with you on this one, Pat. I do not see Mind as an entity separate from the body, and needing anything other than regular feeding is not required. The bicycle rides when you push the pedals.