THAT DARNED PHOTON (another repost)
Udut, Kenneth -- on Aug. 8 2008, from Golden Gate Estates, Naples, FLFounder of this Naples site of NeighborHelp Referrals.
1
vote
vote
photons, quarks, massless particles, 4th dimension, uncertainty, belief=reality (only on a personal level, not as global reality), flatlanders, calculus
THAT DARNED PHOTON
The photon is considered a massless particle. [I don't think it really is massless - nobody's figured out the NATURE OF MASS yet (I think I have, at least an explanation that works for me, but I'll get to that later)]
Now when they talk about the uncertainty principle - either a quanta's location OR its direction can be measured, but not both at the same time - it's not so much that we change reality itself by looking at it - but rather it's more akin to watching a baseball get thrown:
You throw a baseball. It arcs and lands in the pitchers mitt. You want to take some measurements. How did the ball travel? (direction) Well, let's say place you are throwing the ball is COMPLETELY DARK - you can't see the ball. So, you throw the ball in a gel substance and, after the fact, you work your way through the gel until you find the arc-shaped gap that the baseball made, and measure the empty space made in the gel that you can't see. This is akin to how they look for trails after they shash atoms - that can see which way the tiny particles went.
But now you want to see WHERE the ball is located while it's being thrown. Again, you're in a pitch black area The ball is being thrown in a gel like substance. You want to find it where it is at any given time? You can throw ANOTHER baseball at it. (that's akin to the photon).
You keep throwing the baseball at the travelling baseball until you hear a "click". You now can shine a flashlight through the hole made in the gel that started from your thrown baseball and stopped where the other baseball was travelling. Eureka! You've found where the ball WAS at one given point in time.
But wait a minute! The ball didn't reach its original destination. Why?
Because when you hit the ball with the other ball, you CHANGED THE BASEBALL'S DIRECTION AND SPEED. No longer is it traveling in that nice arc you had before.
A wave/particle of light (photon) strikes the particle so you can see where it was. Or you follow its trail to see where its been (and can calculate where it's probably going). But you can't do both at the same time. But that doesn't mean that we change reality by looking at reality, because we're not throwing photons at things (our eyes do not eminate photons). BUT the SUN DOES, and artificial lights do. That's where skin cancer comes from. That's why colorful fabrics fade not only in the sunlight, but also under incandescent lights. Photons repeatedly striking something changes it, knocking off bits and pieces of it. That's what makes lasers so powerful -- organized photons, baby.
It's ALL ABOUT THE PHOTON changing the structure of things, not about our minds. Observation=photons in that case. One badly chosen word in science leads to decades of misconceptions, many repeated by vaulted professors who don't look deep enough.
I do believe that all of reality is has at least four spatial dimensions, which would explain protein folding (wanna blow your mind? Look up protein folding and find out what weirdness happens inside your own body when you chow down that 99 cent burger), why quarks seem to disappear and reappear, be in two places at once, etc.
Physics is primarily a 3 dimensional + time endevour, even particle physics.
Something that moves at a 90 degree angle into the 4th dimension would seem to either disappear completely or be in more than one place at once (or in all places at once). We're at the point in particle physics, and physics in general, that the ancients were in when they saw the weird way that planets (wandering stars) travelled across the sky.
They saw the weird ways that planets moved over long periods of time. They charted the movements. Straight line, squiggle, loop-da-loop, loop-da-loop, straight line loop-da-loop, loop-da-loop-, loop-da-look, squiggle. Somebody way back stuck a bit of math to the problem and figured out that these things weren't moving in weird ways across our sky but went OUTSIDE OF THEIR LIMITED PERSPECTIVE (which looked like wandering stars) and realized that the planets are all ORBITING. That was a MAJOR accomplishment, and I should track down who figured it out.
I think the same thing is true with higher dimensions. This "weird behavior" will probably turn out to be higher dimensional particle physics. [can't say if it's 11 dimensions ala String Theory but certainly at least the next higher physical dimension]. Gravity is already explainable in that way (remember the giant stretched out trampoline with the bowling ball in the middle to describe gravity?) . I think proteins seem to mysteriously fold into these critical shapes NOT due to some internal instructions based on DNA, but rather some kind of 4th dimension interaction - rather like slowly dropping a string into a bowl but WAY more complex. A 1 dimensional string dropping into a 4 dimensional bowl might appear in the 3rd dimension as if they "know" what shapes they will fall into, when in fact, it might just be a property of folding in a higher dimension.
Thoughts? ______ Kenneth Udut Webmaster of http://free.naplesplus.us Junkie of "who-am-i" and "what is it, fundamentally" philosphies
what the bleep
I have not seen what the bleep only because I have had several people over the past year fanatically telling me, "You HAVE TO SEE THIS, KEN! IT IS SO-TRUE, MAN!" And I just can't bring myself to watch it, because I do not believe that we create reality. (I posted my "quantum" message before I saw your reply)
I suppose I SHOULD see it. I know I'd enjoy it, and as a teenager I would have eaten it up. (that's why I get along well with people who believe their manifest reality, or believe strongly in quantum-fields-of-influence, or The Power of Positive Thinking (Norman Vincent Peale can be great to read if you're depressed and semi-religious but only as a pick-me-up), or The Force, or Wiccan magic spells, or Karma -it's all versions of the same basic idea. ("What I believe is true, IS true, because I believe it to be true.") Anyway, I get along with them because I believed in it all, once a long time ago).
But I'm 36 years old now and believe the various ideas of "manifesting reality" are not so different than having a dayplanner and setting 20 year, 5-year, 1 year, 1 month goals. It's just a different way of setting goals and setting out to acheive them. It works for some people and I'm cool with it, but I wouldn't use it as a basis for describing reality. Perhaps a small personal reality, but not the reality of reality.
My love of reality, I think, is on the particle and dimensional levels, with analogies to describe perceived phenomena. Not the math of it. Other people can go and do the math. Ugh, Math.
I think a new math is required to describe quantum mechanics. Newton's Calculus was created to describe the motions and workings of big things. Working in ordered sets and with probabilities are great for describing the wind and for calculating return on investment (I'm a Microsoft Excel nut, so I know sets NOT from school (they never taught me sets) but from Excel).
But for describing the actions of the REALLY SMALL - forces, wave-particles and the like - especially the interaction FUNDAMENTAL FORCES, and answering questions such as, "Why do atomic shells jump in and out at prescribed orbits releasing massive amounts of energy? - why don't they move smoothly?) requires a math that hasn't been invented yet.
Or perhaps it just requires working with math in a higher dimension. [I think they jump orbits because of friction against a higher dimension - rather like a flatlander scraping the 3rd dimensional paper beneath him ever so slightly and creating a release of strange particles (the particles of paper he didn't know existed before) and heat from the 3rd dimension (two dimensional creature would know 2 dimensional friction - not friction coming at them from an unseeable dimension).
Thoughts?
Ken ______ Kenneth Udut Webmaster of http://free.naplesplus.us Junkie of "who-am-i" and "what is it, fundamentally" philosphies
The photon is considered a massless particle. [I don't think it really is massless - nobody's figured out the NATURE OF MASS yet (I think I have, at least an explanation that works for me, but I'll get to that later)]
Now when they talk about the uncertainty principle - either a quanta's location OR its direction can be measured, but not both at the same time - it's not so much that we change reality itself by looking at it - but rather it's more akin to watching a baseball get thrown:
You throw a baseball. It arcs and lands in the pitchers mitt. You want to take some measurements. How did the ball travel? (direction) Well, let's say place you are throwing the ball is COMPLETELY DARK - you can't see the ball. So, you throw the ball in a gel substance and, after the fact, you work your way through the gel until you find the arc-shaped gap that the baseball made, and measure the empty space made in the gel that you can't see. This is akin to how they look for trails after they shash atoms - that can see which way the tiny particles went.
But now you want to see WHERE the ball is located while it's being thrown. Again, you're in a pitch black area The ball is being thrown in a gel like substance. You want to find it where it is at any given time? You can throw ANOTHER baseball at it. (that's akin to the photon).
You keep throwing the baseball at the travelling baseball until you hear a "click". You now can shine a flashlight through the hole made in the gel that started from your thrown baseball and stopped where the other baseball was travelling. Eureka! You've found where the ball WAS at one given point in time.
But wait a minute! The ball didn't reach its original destination. Why?
Because when you hit the ball with the other ball, you CHANGED THE BASEBALL'S DIRECTION AND SPEED. No longer is it traveling in that nice arc you had before.
A wave/particle of light (photon) strikes the particle so you can see where it was. Or you follow its trail to see where its been (and can calculate where it's probably going). But you can't do both at the same time. But that doesn't mean that we change reality by looking at reality, because we're not throwing photons at things (our eyes do not eminate photons). BUT the SUN DOES, and artificial lights do. That's where skin cancer comes from. That's why colorful fabrics fade not only in the sunlight, but also under incandescent lights. Photons repeatedly striking something changes it, knocking off bits and pieces of it. That's what makes lasers so powerful -- organized photons, baby.
It's ALL ABOUT THE PHOTON changing the structure of things, not about our minds. Observation=photons in that case. One badly chosen word in science leads to decades of misconceptions, many repeated by vaulted professors who don't look deep enough.
I do believe that all of reality is has at least four spatial dimensions, which would explain protein folding (wanna blow your mind? Look up protein folding and find out what weirdness happens inside your own body when you chow down that 99 cent burger), why quarks seem to disappear and reappear, be in two places at once, etc.
Physics is primarily a 3 dimensional + time endevour, even particle physics.
Something that moves at a 90 degree angle into the 4th dimension would seem to either disappear completely or be in more than one place at once (or in all places at once). We're at the point in particle physics, and physics in general, that the ancients were in when they saw the weird way that planets (wandering stars) travelled across the sky.
They saw the weird ways that planets moved over long periods of time. They charted the movements. Straight line, squiggle, loop-da-loop, loop-da-loop, straight line loop-da-loop, loop-da-loop-, loop-da-look, squiggle. Somebody way back stuck a bit of math to the problem and figured out that these things weren't moving in weird ways across our sky but went OUTSIDE OF THEIR LIMITED PERSPECTIVE (which looked like wandering stars) and realized that the planets are all ORBITING. That was a MAJOR accomplishment, and I should track down who figured it out.
I think the same thing is true with higher dimensions. This "weird behavior" will probably turn out to be higher dimensional particle physics. [can't say if it's 11 dimensions ala String Theory but certainly at least the next higher physical dimension]. Gravity is already explainable in that way (remember the giant stretched out trampoline with the bowling ball in the middle to describe gravity?) . I think proteins seem to mysteriously fold into these critical shapes NOT due to some internal instructions based on DNA, but rather some kind of 4th dimension interaction - rather like slowly dropping a string into a bowl but WAY more complex. A 1 dimensional string dropping into a 4 dimensional bowl might appear in the 3rd dimension as if they "know" what shapes they will fall into, when in fact, it might just be a property of folding in a higher dimension.
Thoughts? ______ Kenneth Udut Webmaster of http://free.naplesplus.us Junkie of "who-am-i" and "what is it, fundamentally" philosphies
what the bleep
" Originally Posted by Cjwalker Well my friend you told me in general what I already knew. Though the religion stuff I did not. Not a big religion guy
Now I have a concern before we get into quantum. There is a series or movie called What the bleep to we know? You can find it on youtube. Can I bother you to get your opinion on there sources of information because it seems ridiculous. I'll provide the link
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...+part+2&page=2 "
I have not seen what the bleep only because I have had several people over the past year fanatically telling me, "You HAVE TO SEE THIS, KEN! IT IS SO-TRUE, MAN!" And I just can't bring myself to watch it, because I do not believe that we create reality. (I posted my "quantum" message before I saw your reply)
I suppose I SHOULD see it. I know I'd enjoy it, and as a teenager I would have eaten it up. (that's why I get along well with people who believe their manifest reality, or believe strongly in quantum-fields-of-influence, or The Power of Positive Thinking (Norman Vincent Peale can be great to read if you're depressed and semi-religious but only as a pick-me-up), or The Force, or Wiccan magic spells, or Karma -it's all versions of the same basic idea. ("What I believe is true, IS true, because I believe it to be true.") Anyway, I get along with them because I believed in it all, once a long time ago).
But I'm 36 years old now and believe the various ideas of "manifesting reality" are not so different than having a dayplanner and setting 20 year, 5-year, 1 year, 1 month goals. It's just a different way of setting goals and setting out to acheive them. It works for some people and I'm cool with it, but I wouldn't use it as a basis for describing reality. Perhaps a small personal reality, but not the reality of reality.
My love of reality, I think, is on the particle and dimensional levels, with analogies to describe perceived phenomena. Not the math of it. Other people can go and do the math. Ugh, Math.
I think a new math is required to describe quantum mechanics. Newton's Calculus was created to describe the motions and workings of big things. Working in ordered sets and with probabilities are great for describing the wind and for calculating return on investment (I'm a Microsoft Excel nut, so I know sets NOT from school (they never taught me sets) but from Excel).
But for describing the actions of the REALLY SMALL - forces, wave-particles and the like - especially the interaction FUNDAMENTAL FORCES, and answering questions such as, "Why do atomic shells jump in and out at prescribed orbits releasing massive amounts of energy? - why don't they move smoothly?) requires a math that hasn't been invented yet.
Or perhaps it just requires working with math in a higher dimension. [I think they jump orbits because of friction against a higher dimension - rather like a flatlander scraping the 3rd dimensional paper beneath him ever so slightly and creating a release of strange particles (the particles of paper he didn't know existed before) and heat from the 3rd dimension (two dimensional creature would know 2 dimensional friction - not friction coming at them from an unseeable dimension).
Thoughts?
Ken ______ Kenneth Udut Webmaster of http://free.naplesplus.us Junkie of "who-am-i" and "what is it, fundamentally" philosphies
Add a review
