[dipayankar]

That is if we consider light a wave. But taking the dyality of light into consideration, we also have photon as point particles which are dimensionless....

Originally Posted by Profpat Actually Dipayankar, photons are not dimensionless, but rather a 2 dimensional transverse wave. They have no mass therefore they would be energy. I assume strings are 1 dimensional, vibrating, also with no mass, but this is pure speculation on my part, since strings are theoritical and have never been observed. Nobody your quote: Is it possible that the points without dimension are also within the one-dimensional strings, Pat? Nobody I don't know why not. If my math theory is correct you could place an infinite amount of 0 dimensional points on a line segment. Even if that line segment is planck length. Best, Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar That is if we consider light a wave. But taking the dyality of light into consideration, we also have photon as point particles which are dimensionless....

Hi Dipayankar;

I'm a little confused and parhaps you can help me out.

When I text dyality of light I got this response from the internet:

Based on the concept of Yin and Yang, the premordial Purusha and Prakriti dyality that begins by not being separated, then moves into structured spheres, then complements one another and finally comes together again.

I'm not sure if that is what you meant, though it does appear to be an interesting concept.

I also didn't know that a photon could be viewed as a dimensionless point particle. I know it may be viewed as a particle, but that is a 3 dimensional particle.

Any help you can give me would be appreciated.

Best to you,

Pat

[Graybeard]

Pat ... I think Dip made a typo for the word 'duality' ... the dual nature of light as both a particle and wave. See double slit experiment

cool bananas ... greg

[dipayankar]

You are damn right Greg. Sorry Prof...

Originally Posted by Graybeard Pat ... I think Dip made a typo for the word 'duality' ... the dual nature of light as both a particle and wave. See double slit experiment cool bananas ... greg

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar You are damn right Greg. Sorry Prof...

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

[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..

Originally Posted by Profpat 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]

Originally Posted by Profpat 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.

Originally Posted by rybot .."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...

Originally Posted by rybot 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