An Idea

[dipayankar]

They said photon. As far as I know photons are point particles unless laser photon have 3D and hence mass. I need to check on this..

OK a photon may be viewed as a wave or a particle, but I think that particle they're talking about is a 3 dimensional particle and not a dimensionless point particle. I may be wrong on this, so if you or Greg or somebody could give me a reference as a photon being viewed as a point particle I would like to see it for my own education. Thanks.

Best to all,

Pat

[rybot]

[QUOTE=Profpat;42325]Hi Guys;

I REALLY don't want to get into a philosophic discussion here on semantics, but I find a thought is a REAL THING. You may disagree and thats OK.

Hi profat, I have skimmed most of the posts here and read your PDF "Idea". I love your the premis of simpliciticy in your approaching the "Idea".

I have questions in regards to the "Idea" and would like to share some of my own simplistic geometric ideas that are very *much likened* to yours.

However, first I wanted to find any commonality defintions on our words, in order that yourself others and myself can have rational conversation.

For me there are two fundamental catagories that most if not all of ideas of "things" can fall into;

Metaphysical mathematics being the highest faculity( most complex ) of mind. I want to make clear here that geometry is branch of mathematics and is the science of pattern, wherein, pattern is being the physical medium( energy ) via which we concpetually find the a pattern.

E.g. there are many many mediums from which we have the commnonality of the more generalized concept of wave, spiral, hexagon, plaid etc...

Physical = energy --whether as fermions( matter/assscoiative ) and bosons( force ) with EMRadiation/photon being a radiative dissasociatiing force.


Thoughts may have be energetic EMRadiationl or gravitational, I dunno, but it is importanat to me that we recognize the energless metaphysical also.

Gotta go but that is my introduction and hope to be a part of the conversation here as I am much interested in so many of the topics I've seen in all the posts.

Most of all I'mm interested in the connecting the geometrical metaphysical patterns to our physical energetic universe .

Rybo (aka Rybot)

[dipayankar]

Thoughts are more of electrical neural activity of the brain. It has nothing with physics..

[quote=rybot;43698]

Hi Guys;

I REALLY don't want to get into a philosophic discussion here on semantics, but I find a thought is a REAL THING. You may disagree and thats OK.

Hi profat, I have skimmed most of the posts here and read your PDF "Idea". I love your the premis of simpliciticy in your approaching the "Idea".

I have questions in regards to the "Idea" and would like to share some of my own simplistic geometric ideas that are very *much likened* to yours.

However, first I wanted to find any commonality defintions on our words, in order that yourself others and myself can have rational conversation.

For me there are two fundamental catagories that most if not all of ideas of "things" can fall into;

Metaphysical mathematics being the highest faculity( most complex ) of mind. I want to make clear here that geometry is branch of mathematics and is the science of pattern, wherein, pattern is being the physical medium( energy ) via which we concpetually find the a pattern.

E.g. there are many many mediums from which we have the commnonality of the more generalized concept of wave, spiral, hexagon, plaid etc...

Physical = energy --whether as fermions( matter/assscoiative ) and bosons( force ) with EMRadiation/photon being a radiative dissasociatiing force.


Thoughts may have be energetic EMRadiationl or gravitational, I dunno, but it is importanat to me that we recognize the energless metaphysical also.

Gotta go but that is my introduction and hope to be a part of the conversation here as I am much interested in so many of the topics I've seen in all the posts.

Most of all I'mm interested in the connecting the geometrical metaphysical patterns to our physical energetic universe .

Rybo (aka Rybot)

[rybot]

I've corrected some errors in my original post.

.."Metaphysical mathematics being the highest faculity( most complex ) of mind. I want to make clear here that geometry is a branch of mathematics and is the science of pattern, wherein, pattern exists in mind via physical medium( energy/matter )"

I corrected errors in this brown colored quote above( and as follows ) for clarity.

E.g. there are many many kinds mediums( physical/energy ) from which we have the commnonality of the more generalized concept of wave, spiral, hexagon, plaid etc...


Physical = energy --whether as fermions( matter/asssociative ) and bosons( force ) with EMRadiation/photon being a radiative dissasociatiing force.



Most of all I'm interested in the connecting the geometrical metaphysical patterns[/I] to our physical energetic universe .


Rybo (aka Rybot)

Dipyankar, I don know if thought has an associated physical/energy manifestation.

It was Prophat who brought that into the disscussion. My points were and still are in regards to begining my conversation here, with a common set of definning parameters for our words as 'things' and specifcally by stating that for every word/thing we use it can be catagorized into two cataories.

Metaphysical = energyless conceptual abstraction of or as mind( mathmatics/pattern/wave/spiral etc...)

Physical = energy as fermions and or bosons and any accumulative associations thereof.

Once we have agreement there there can exist a better chance for converstational clarity in regards to Prohats "Idea" idea.
Which idea appears to be bsed in threeness( 3 circles/planes ) which, when overlapped appropriately, creates the internal pattern/shape, tho I'm not yet sure what that exact shape/pattern is, in 3D.

Do you know Dipya?

Rybo

[dipayankar]

I also was inclined to believe that thought has some physical power. But after giving it a lot of 'thought' I came to the conclusion that thought are limit to the createre and has no linkage to the inanimate world directly...

I've corrected some errors in my original post.



Dipyankar, I don know if thought has an associated physical/energy manifestation.

It was Prophat who brought that into the disscussion. My points were and still are in regards to begining my conversation here, with a common set of definning parameters for our words as 'things' and specifcally by stating that for every word/thing we use it can be catagorized into two cataories.

Metaphysical = energyless conceptual abstraction of or as mind( mathmatics/pattern/wave/spiral etc...)

Physical = energy as fermions and or bosons and any accumulative associations thereof.

Once we have agreement there there can exist a better chance for converstational clarity in regards to Prohats "Idea" idea.
Which idea appears to be bsed in threeness( 3 circles/planes ) which, when overlapped appropriately, creates the internal pattern/shape, tho I'm not yet sure what that exact shape/pattern is, in 3D.

Do you know Dipya?

Rybo

[Profpat]

Hi Rybot;

I apologize for the delay in responding to your post but I have been on vacation the past 2 weeks and just now have returned home.

Thank you for your post and WELCOME to Toequest. I hope you enjoy this site as much as I have.

Regarding your post:

You are right I do believe 3 is a fundamental ( Trinity ).

I break things down to 3 major catagories;
MIND: Metaphysical/mental.
BODY: Physical.
SPIRIT; Emotional/spiritual.

As far as the 3 dimensional particle, if you buy 3 pipe cleaners and superpose and interweave them as per my diagram you'll see how the enfold to a 3 dimensional sphere with the 8 internal dimensions inside ( The Octants )

I would be most interested in your geometry.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Dipayankar;

I found this regarding light but nothing yet on it being a dimensionless point particle. In fact if it were, it wouldn't really be anything, similar to the electrons being viewed as VIRTUAL point particles, or the " big bang " coming out of a dimensionless point particle. ( Nothing ).

Actually, photons are not particles in the physical sense that we normally associate with that word. Rather, they consist of discrete bundles of energy which are fixed in magnitude. As a result, each photon takes on some of the characteristics of a physical particle.
Viewed in this context, light still does not change its basic behavior. These apparent particles are electrically neutral, so they tend to travel in straight lines, without being affected by either magnetic fields or electrical fields.
If photons were actual physical particles, we would have trouble using them to explain some of the observed behaviors of light. For example, when light passes from a vacuum to a denser medium, such as Earth's atmosphere, it slows down in accordance with the density of the medium. This much, at least, makes intuitive sense. However, light then maintains a constant speed through the new medium — it does not continue to slow down as it continues to move. This does not seem to make much sense for physical particles, which should be subject to friction effects in a non-vacuum. Furthermore, when the light leaves the denser medium for a less dense one, it speeds up again. Definitely not the behavior one would expect from any kind of particle.

If you find something refering to light being a dimensionless point particle please let me know.

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Dipayankar;

I found this information regarding the photon in Wikipedia:

Rather, the photon seems like a point-like particle, since it is absorbed or emitted as a whole by arbitrarily small systems, systems much smaller than its wavelength, such as an atomic nucleus (≈10–15 m across) or even the point-like electron. Nevertheless, the photon is not a point-like particle whose trajectory is shaped probabilistically by the electromagnetic field, as conceived by Einstein and others; that hypothesis was also refuted by the photon-correlation experiments cited above.[32] According to our present understanding, the electromagnetic field itself is produced by photons, which in turn result from a local gauge symmetry and the laws of quantum field theory (see the Second quantization and Gauge boson sections below).

So unless you can give me more information that a photon can be viewed as a dimensionless point particle, I'm going to stay with my Idea that a 1 dimensional planck lenghth string is the most fundamental of " REAL " entities.

If you or any of our members have information to the contrary, please let me know.

Best to all,

Pat

[dipayankar]

For producing an electromagnetic field, would you require photon to have mass??

Hi Dipayankar;

I found this information regarding the photon in Wikipedia:

Rather, the photon seems like a point-like particle, since it is absorbed or emitted as a whole by arbitrarily small systems, systems much smaller than its wavelength, such as an atomic nucleus (≈10–15 m across) or even the point-like electron. Nevertheless, the photon is not a point-like particle whose trajectory is shaped probabilistically by the electromagnetic field, as conceived by Einstein and others; that hypothesis was also refuted by the photon-correlation experiments cited above.[32] According to our present understanding, the electromagnetic field itself is produced by photons, which in turn result from a local gauge symmetry and the laws of quantum field theory (see the Second quantization and Gauge boson sections below).

So unless you can give me more information that a photon can be viewed as a dimensionless point particle, I'm going to stay with my Idea that a 1 dimensional planck lenghth string is the most fundamental of " REAL " entities.

If you or any of our members have information to the contrary, please let me know.

Best to all,

Pat

[rybot]

Hi Rybot;
I apologize for the delay in responding to your post but I have been on vacation the past 2 weeks and just now have returned home.
Thank you for your post and WELCOME to Toequest. I hope you enjoy this site as much as I have.
You are right I do believe 3 is a fundamental ( Trinity ).

Pat, I had replied to this post several days ago but now I'm looking and don't see it posted. I think it reasons like this that I stopped using this internet some many months ago.

I will try responding again. Argh!!

I break things down to 3 major catagories;
MIND: Metaphysical/mental.

I think we agree on metaphysical being energyless, abstract concepts.

BODY: Physical.

I see "body" being equal to *biological* and that being equal to *soul* --i.e. completely interchangebvale-- and pertains to feeling/emotions as induced by and including, chemical interactions, hormones any electromagnetic fields etc........

SPIRIT; Emotional/spiritual.

"Spirit" has as many, if not more definitions in dictionary than any other word I'm familiar with, except maybe "soul" . I envision "spirit" as having both and energyless metaphysical aspect as "intention" --e.g an intention of goodwill or badwill which is more complicated than quick and simplistic black-white example-- and,

a energetic physical aspect e.g. alcohol is a "spirit" and a young colt kicking its heels high is said to have a lot of energy( very energetic ).

As far as the 3 dimensional particle, if you buy 3 pipe cleaners and superpose and interweave them as per my diagram you'll see how the enfold to a 3 dimensional sphere with the 8 internal dimensions inside ( The Octants )

Pat, I see your 2D version which has 7 polygonal shapes.

I see your 3D( pipe cleaner ) version(s). The open version may be spherical but it is not like a more true sphere. This is because your 3 circles only partially overlap their areas. Know what I mean?

If you were to have a more true spherical the 3 circles would share in common, their exact centers of area and would be called Great Circles i.e. they are equatorial great circles of a sphere --e.g Earth--.

There is a Platonic polyhedron( octahedron ) that is spefically defined by 3 Great Circles at 90 degree orientation to each other.

I'm not sure if the angular orientation of your, only paritally overlapping circles, is critical point or not.

The angle of overlap in 3D will affect the creation of any internal shapes.

Know what I mean?

[SIZE=2]I would be most interested in your geometry.
Best to you,

Yes I do want to share some of my similar geometric ideas. The octahedron is one of them. However, first I was hoping to get some common understanding of how we envision

1) energyless metaphysical --beyond the physical i.e. true nothingness spalialty beyond our finite physical universe and as abstract concepts, cosmic laws etc...

2) energy/energetic as physical e.g fermions and bosons and any accumulative aggregates thereof.

Ok, hope this one gets posted.

Rybo


physical