[N0B0DY]

I'm having trouble with the attachment coming in clearly. It seems to have a mind of its own, but I'll take your word for it based on what I understand of the gist in Message 29. I don't know about proving anything to hardcore scientists, but more importantly you might prove it probable to yourself and prove a few useful pieces to others.

For myself, based on my own accelerating experience and study I've proven that everything is made of light and the light is fully decelerated. I'm looking for ways to better express a bosonic model to reduce the number of particles, even thought they are sometimes useful in explaining things more clearly pictorially, and eventually eliminate them altogether in an absolute-time model. I thought this was essentially where you were headed, but I'm not sure now.

For what it's worth, our friend RascalPuff might be able to shed a new light on the means of gravity as an expansive measure that would be applicable to your scenario, if at least to offer support to incremental cycles of time as a property you refer us to. If the 4-d light frame is static, I don't see any other alternative unless you're willing to posit multiple observable universe like M Theory, where the universes can exert forces on each other and collide.

I appreciate all the time you've put into this, and look forward to others' participation.

[dleviwing]

Hi Wick;
You’re no fool Wick! I agree that there are many scientist that would rather give you a good story than to simply say “I don’t know”; I think that falls under human nature though; not just scientist.

I share many of the philosophies of Einstein; it’s the interpretation of some of the numbers that I tend to have issue with. You shouldn’t associate having a good press-agent with being intelligent. Though Einstein was intelligent there were many others more qualified than he was in science.

Originally Posted by Wick

I am grateful that one of your learning and experience would read the drivel above. Thanks for taking the time. I have wanted to ask someone like you to describe the tortuous variations on the double slit experiment that have evolved over the years. Of particular interest to me are the variations in which photons are released, one at a time through a pair of slits. When light detectors located at the slits are turned on the photons generate no interference pattern. They strike the detector behind the screen (usually film, I think) and reveal themselves as a particle. The pattern they form also indicates that they are a particle. But when the detectors are turned off, the photons do create an interference pattern (indicative of a wave), even though each photon is temporally separate and could not possibly be interfering with photons that follow it. Yet even though the photons in the unobserved system act like waves, they behave like particles again upon striking the film behind the slits. Curiouser and curiouser. Experiments like this remind me of the smile of the Cheshire Cat!

It’s nice that you bring up an experiment that I’ve actually participated in during a seminar. Though they call it a photon, it’s a pulse. If you recall my previous post that suggested you ask yourself certain questions, this is a good time to ask them. Fundamentally, what is the substance of the light, the apparatus, and the space it all occupies? I tend to believe the light, apparatus, and the space are all made of the same fundamental substance. (FS) This is why there is a limit as to what we can measure before the act of measuring itself interacts with what we’re measuring. We call it the “Uncertainty Principle”and use “Probability” to statistically analyze the data. Some seem to make a big deal out of it but that’s just digging a deeper rabbit hole.

Are you beginning to see the “Big Picture” yet?

I like your idea; you can be the “Mad Hatter”, I’ll be the “Cheshire Cat”, and Robert can be the Rabbit.

[Wick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I'm looking for ways to better express a bosonic model to reduce the number of particles, even thought they are sometimes useful in explaining things more clearly pictorially, and eventually eliminate them altogether in an absolute-time model. I thought this was essentially where you were headed, but I'm not sure now.

For what it's worth, our friend RascalPuff might be able to shed a new light on the means of gravity as an expansive measure that would be applicable to your scenario, if at least to offer support to incremental cycles of time as a property you refer us to. If the 4-d light frame is static, I don't see any other alternative unless you're willing to posit multiple observable universe like M Theory, where the universes can exert forces on each other and collide.

I'm way past hoping to prove this to hardcore scientists, but it would be fun, and probably more efficient, to know how to express what I'm trying to say in English mathematically. Our conversation is the perfect example of why language alone does not suffice. It's hard for us to understand one another perfectly. I am longwinded because I am not a mathematician. I don’t know how else to say these things.

Like you, I believe that light is fully decelerated. I would like to hear more about your idea that everything is made of light. Can you expand more on this idea? You touched on it earlier, and I would like to understand what you mean better. Perhaps you could direct me to other posts in other threads? I’m also interested in what you mean by an “absolute time model”.

I don’t think absolute time is where I’m headed, unless what you mean by absolute time is that condition in absolute space in which objects change position without changing state. I generally refer to absolute space as a place in which there is no need for time.

I am definitely headed toward a model that reduces the number of fermions and bosons. I build on the premise that the greater universe is not a structure. Matter, on the other hand, is a structure as is the hyperplane we call the observable universe. What we perceive on the hyperplane to be the many point particles in an atom are actually multiple cross-sections 4d structures (perhaps even a single structure). I haven’t settled on the nature of these structures, but if I ever get to describing particle collisions, I think the gist of what I'm trying to do will become clear. Sorry its taking so long to get there.

I looked into RascalPuff's work and was unable to find any concrete reference to the cause. Can you direct me to the right thread or post?

[Wick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Fundamentally, what is the substance of the light, the apparatus, and the space it all occupies? I tend to believe the light, apparatus, and the space are all made of the same fundamental substance (FS).

Sounds like the Cheshire Cat might be digging a rabbit hole of his own! That's alright. I'm a big proponent of rabbit holes--as long as we have the good sense not to get lost in them. I'm not saying your idea is not right or true...only that it seems odd that you, without any empirical proof, will classify your belief outside the rabbit hole category, while placing other beliefs (i.e. worm holes and photons) squarely down the rabbit hole.

This is why there is a limit as to what we can measure before the act of measuring itself interacts with what we’re measuring. We call it the “Uncertainty Principle”and use “Probability” to statistically analyze the data. Some seem to make a big deal out of it but that’s just digging a deeper rabbit hole.

For now, I'll take your word for it. Have you read Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner? If so, what's your opinion.

Are you beginning to see the “Big Picture” yet?

Yes. Fiction and Physics are not so different after all! Perhaps I'm not as out of place here as I thought.

I like your idea; you can be the “Mad Hatter”, I’ll be the “Cheshire Cat”, and Robert can be the Rabbit.

Who's Robert? Is that Nobody's name? It's late, and I'm feeling quite drowsy, like the Caterpiller at the crossroads under the influence of his opium pipe. Better get some rest.

A happy UNbirthday to you and thanks for your comments.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Wick

Have you read Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner? If so, what's your opinion.

Hi Wick

I've just finished Quantum Enigma and found the latter part quite a good read. The book is an attempt to cash in on the popular science gravytrain and the first half writes up the Copenhagen Interpretation in a very basic manner. Unfortunately it doesn't work all that well and the neg ahne poC illustrations are just not convincing. I would be surprised if many readers came away with a better understanding of WP duality after reading it than they had before. Perceptive readers may note that they do not include 'objective collapse theory' in the listed alternatives to Copenhagen (pages 156-166) as this would have removed the foundations for the book (as written) at a stroke.

But the latter half has a little more substance and I'm still struggling with Bell's Inequality. I can't decide whether it's outcome depends on Copenhagen or not and every description you read uses different examples. If it does then it falls with the rest of the house of cards once you accept 'objective collapse' which is really a simple explanation rather than a theory.

I suspect your question, Wick, is directed at a view on whether the book adds to the evidence that a concious observer is necessary for matter to exist. The answer is no it doesn't as the Copenhagen Interpretation is easily refuted.

best wishes
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

The particle concept of light only works with the photoelectric effect as an interpretation of what we observe; just like the concept of light rays are convenient for understanding optics the particle concept is convenient for the quantum unit of absorption and emission of energy of atomic structures.

"Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee"

Felix

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by Wick

I looked into RascalPuff's work and was unable to find any concrete reference to the cause. Can you direct me to the right thread or post?

Rascal has a lot of concrete evidence floating around this site and on his site, linked to in his profile, and the cause as it would apply to your scenario is the expansion of matter itself. In this way, and the only way I could fit gravity into how I interpret your proposal, the expansion of a single body would suffice in giving us our gravitational effect. In summary, the expanding ground is pushing against your expanding chair. Although I argue a few points, his points are made very clear.

As for the light, below are what my work is based on. With the condition that the required high energy is largely canceled throughout the scales implied by the second link, and the CMB results from the residual effects of multiple mini bangs of annihilation/creation.

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/science1202.html

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10

As for the maths, I think mathematicians do all the heavy work to formulate principles that philosophers use to explain the various interpretations of reality. You won't find more math than in M Theory, and it is considered a joke by many physicists. So even though we base our interpretations on empirical and theoretical science, the final word is the word imo.

Sorry for cutting your message short, I'm having some multi-quote problems. I obviously agree with most of what you put down. Even the absolute time is what I have in mind, where all variable shapes and sizes are extracted from the absolute fullness of space - like a blank white canvas that already always contains any and all pictures simultaneously - and can change without changing the absolute state of the, I would imagine, "omniverse."

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Wick

Who's Robert? Is that Nobody's name? It's late, and I'm feeling quite drowsy, like the Caterpiller at the crossroads under the influence of his opium pipe. Better get some rest.

Robert is your host, administrator, and creator of the ToeQuest site.


I haven’t read Quantum Enigma; I’ll check it out the next time I get to the library. I’m quite picky about what books I spend my money on these days.

BTW: My concept is based on existing data; it’s just a more rational interpretation of the numbers and observations. That’s what you see when you crawl out of the rabbit hole.

"Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee"

Felix;
Are you comparing me to the MTV generations?

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Felix;
Are you comparing me to the MTV generations?

Of course not, Yoda! The quote (Muhammad Ali) illustrates that we may consider something in two different modes without having to choose between them. They are manifestations of the same thing.

Felix

[N0B0DY]

It's a great book, imo.

"The most successful theory in all of science (and the basis of one third of our economy) says the strangest things about the world and about us. Can you believe that physical reality is created by our observation of it? Physicists were forced to this conclusion, the quantum enigma, by what they observed in their laboratories."

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780195175592-2