Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Understanding Light.


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#35 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 23 April 2017 - 05:04 PM

It is a sadly common misconception that consciousness has to be incorporated in QM.

It's a pathetic denial of clear evidence when people claim it doesn't.

 

John von Neumann

"No matter how far we calculate ... at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer.

Thais is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.

In the [observed system], we can follow up all physical processes ... arbitrarily precisely.

In the [observer], this is meaningless."

"The [measurement chain] ends only when knowledge of the measurement is registered by an 'extra-physical' factor."


Max Planck

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness."


Eugene Wigner

"It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness of the observer.

The very study of the physical world leads to the conclusion that the concept of consciousness is an ultimate reality."


Ewin Schrodinger

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental."


Hisenberg

"Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature... it describes nature as exposed to our method of questioning. This was a possibility of which Descartes could not have thought, but it makes the sharp separation between the world and the I impossible."


Edited by A-wal, 23 April 2017 - 05:09 PM.


#36 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:37 PM

It's a pathetic denial of clear evidence when people claim it doesn't.

I am going to do some experiments on QM and get back to you.



#37 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2806 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 12:56 AM

It's a pathetic denial of clear evidence when people claim it doesn't.

 

John von Neumann

"No matter how far we calculate ... at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer.

Thais is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.

In the [observed system], we can follow up all physical processes ... arbitrarily precisely.

In the [observer], this is meaningless."

"The [measurement chain] ends only when knowledge of the measurement is registered by an 'extra-physical' factor."


Max Planck

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness."


Eugene Wigner

"It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness of the observer.

The very study of the physical world leads to the conclusion that the concept of consciousness is an ultimate reality."


Ewin Schrodinger

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental."


Hisenberg

"Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature... it describes nature as exposed to our method of questioning. This was a possibility of which Descartes could not have thought, but it makes the sharp separation between the world and the I impossible."

Do you think this Wiki article:  https://en.wikipedia...effect_(physics) is also an example of "pathetic denial"?

 

Note also the quotes from Heisenberg and Bell which this article refers to. 

 

In the early days, the role of the observer did cause a lot of soul-searching about consciousness and so forth. But I am pretty sure you will find, if you read what most modern interpretations have to say, that it is more or less in line with the Wiki article. 

 

Which makes sense, seeing as nobody really argues that the reading on a dial changes when the experimenter goes to make a cup of coffee. 

 

The confusion arises, I think, because of the use of the term "observer" when what is really meant is either "measurement" or " interaction". 

 

Popular science descriptions of QM often like to play up this notion of the role of consciousness, as it lends a fashionable air of mystery, which is good for TV ratings or book sales, especially when there is so much Quantum Woo about nowadays. 


Edited by exchemist, 25 April 2017 - 12:59 AM.


#38 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 26 April 2017 - 12:31 PM

I have quotes from von Neumann, Planck, Wigner, Schrodinger and Hisenberg. You have a wiki article.

But I'm not one to let others make my arguments, what matters is what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that it's consciousness, not the act of measurement that collapses the wave function. That what lead those scientists working of QM to make those quotes and the evidence hasn't changed since, other than to confirm it. All that's happened is that materialist idiots have drown out the truth in a sea of denial and ignored blatant evidence in exactly the same way that most creationists deny the evidence for evolution.

Do you know what the Von Neumann chain is? At what point do the quantum potentials become physical actuals? Waves interacting only create more complex waves so where does matter come from? The delayed choice quantum eraser proves that's it's not the act of measuring that collapses the wave function because the measurement has already been made. Suck it!


I was trying to find an Einstein quote, something along the lines of saying that consciousness gives life to the equations of physics. Closest I could find was this:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."


I came across loads of brilliant ones though. I had no idea Einstein was so clever.

"It is nothing short of a miracle that modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.

Education is only a ladder to gather fruit from the tree of knowledge, not the fruit itself.

I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

If A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y and Z, with X being work, Y play, and Z keeping your mouth shut.

Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.

The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.

We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.

Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.

The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.

Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.

To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.

Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.

In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all be a sheep oneself.

Information is not knowledge.

Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

The only real valuable thing is intuition.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.

Any fool can know. The point is to understand.

The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.

Creativity is intelligence having fun.

If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?

Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves.”


He even knew that GR doesn't work as a general theory:

"The present theory of relativity is based on a division of physical reality into a metric field (gravitation) on the one hand and into an electromagnetic field and matter on the other hand. In reality space will probably be of a uniform character and the present theory will be valid only as a limiting case. For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realise is that the equations may not be continued over such regions."

Why didn't he think to just apply SR to gravitational acceleration instead of thinking it's inertial? It solves everything.


Edited by A-wal, 26 April 2017 - 12:36 PM.

  • quickquestion likes this

#39 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 04:00 AM

A charged particle has an electric field. That field basically extends out to infinity. if we move(accelerate) the particle it's field obviously must move with it.From where the old field was to where the new field begins is the photon. In other words the particles own field is the aether.

 
 
 
 
 
 

I am trying to understand light and why it travels at the speed of light.

 

I have been reading Phenomenal Physics by Isaac Mcphee and I've noticed some logical incoherence in the book. On page 62, the author says "Faraday had shown that electricity and magnetism are both one and the same; light is a product of the interaction between these two things." This is logically incoherent, because first he says they are one and the same, then he says they are 2 different things. If electricity and magnetism were one and the same, then why are they called different names, first of all. Saying electricity and magnetism is one and the same, is like saying a fat person jumping into a pool of mud is one and the same, because both affect each other and have related and proportional outputs.

 

He then makes a diagram which implies Light is Normal to electric displacement and magnetic force, according to Maxwell. So I would assume that fire should have some kind of magnetic field, since it emits light. "In Maxwells theory, light is nothing more than a repeated oscillation between elecricity and magnetism...Inside a ray of light one may imagine a complex interaction between electricty and magnetism: electricity is produced, which creates a bit of electricity, which creates a bit of magnetism, and so on. According to Maxwell, the result of this interaction between electricity and magnetism is not just a single ray of light but an entire electromagnetic field." - Phenomenal Physics, Issac McPhee, 2016. If according to Maxwell, light is a magnetic field, then why does it have no effect on magnets.

 

Thus...I have formed a theory.

 

My hypothesis is, that Newton was indeed correct about F=ma.

 

And einstein was semi-correct...what he called spacetime was actually more like a bad description of aether. That is why space time diagrams are dimensionally wrong representations of aether...similar to how 2d pictures of topogrophy fields are dimensionally wrong representations of terrain and are inaccurate and somewhat wrong, but basically more or less give you an idea of the terrain.

 

Thus my theory is that light itself is the aether wobbling. And the F=ma and that aether is so light, that the smallest force will accelerate the aether at an astounding velocity.



#40 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 23 February 2018 - 10:49 AM

A-wal, of the quotes I love this one best. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Good post.



#41 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2806 posts

Posted 23 February 2018 - 12:08 PM

A-wal, of the quotes I love this one best. If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Good post.

I've always thought that statement is complete balls. For example, nobody can explain General Relativity properly without the mathematics of tensors. Even Special Relativity is very hard indeed to convey to a layman. (A-wal was banned many months ago, for being an arsehole.) 


Edited by exchemist, 23 February 2018 - 12:09 PM.


#42 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:58 PM

The reason I like it is because people will sometimes create a name for something they can't explain. Example, " The electron is fundamental therefore needs no explanation." 


Edited by Little Bang, 23 February 2018 - 09:59 PM.


#43 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 23 March 2018 - 03:34 PM

I've always thought that statement is complete balls. For example, nobody can explain General Relativity properly without the mathematics of tensors. Even Special Relativity is very hard indeed to convey to a layman. (A-wal was banned many months ago, for being an arsehole.) 

I don't want start an argument or be called an arse hole but in my experience only people who talk about things they don't understand well enough to explain them simply like to think that.

 

Relativity is easy. The speed of light is always the same relative to an inertial observer so if two observers that are in motion relative to each other measure the same thing moving at the same velocity relative to themselves then they either measure space or time differently. Special relativity simply explains how time has to dilate and length has to contract (always at the same rate) at different relative velocities in order to keep a consistent speed of light in all inertial frames of reference and how this alters the mass of moving objects. General relativity describes time dilation and length contraction cause by gravitation as objects following curved paths through flat space-time.

 

How this is any different from objects following curved paths through flat space-time I don't know because it's the same damn thing, an object following a curved path through space-time. SR could model gravity just fine if it included a tight description of acceleration. The rate an observer's velocity relative to light increases as acceleration increases (and the rate the Rindler horizon approaches behind them) is identical to the rate that an inertial observer's velocity relative to another inertial object increases.