Deconstruction Of The Physical

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by Mountain Valley Wolf, Sep 9, 2017.

  1. tikoo

    tikoo Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,978
    Likes Received:
    487
    I have visitation from dimensional entities - some are quite like fish , floating about . How they appear
    to my eye is of course puzzling .

    At first I believed I was seeing 4d and would describe it in words that way . Then I tried to draw what
    I'd seen . The drawing itself become something to observe , to reason from ...

    4d is only a language artifact . It can be abandoned .
     
  2. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,778
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    This all interesting but I rely on my own convoluted logic, I'm not a physicist by any means.
    I only survived physics in college because I had a hippie instructor who enrolled us all in a record of the month club so he could get free albums.

    Be that as It may onward into the morass........
    Here is a very good video I found that explains the superposition principle:
    https://youtu.be/hkmoZ8e5Qn0​
    I had to leave, and I just came back so I'll post this and then read the updates.​
     
  3. Monkey Boy

    Monkey Boy Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,908
    Likes Received:
    391
    Wouldn't the wave actually be a spiral in the third dimension? The particle would always have some rotation.
     
  4. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,778
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    The photon exists, we just can't measure where it exists or its speed because the act of measurement affects the photon, as it imparts energy to that photon.

    It's true that photons exist everywhere, but a particular photon must have location and speed otherwise it isn't a photon...just the "field".
    The field is made up of potential photons which become a particular photon when measured.

    The field has no location, distance, or speed. It just is.
    Now when the transmitter affects the field, it creates localized photons out of the potential field of photons by imparting energy.
    We could say an area of the non locationial field becomes localized.
    The energy that created the localized photon is what is transmitted by wave action, not the localized photon itself.
    It the energy is not affected by a measurement along its way, no photon is seen, as no observation has been made.
    Once the energy carried along by wave action reaches a receiver, it's then measured and a photon is manifested in time and space.

    The wave isn't physical it energy that manifests a physical photon, or whatever, once acted upon by another energy source...observation. This is the classical description of superposition. The "net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses that would have been caused by each stimulus individually."

    1. Time and space are interrelated. Local time can be slow or fast in relation to objects depending on the speed of the objects in relation to each other. I don't think you can say that time always moves at the speed of light. At the speed of light there are no objects and thus no time. Or we could say all objects would have infinite mass which would mean there is only one object and thus no way for movement to be possible as there is no way to determine movement.
    2. A wave is energy and energy must have mass. E = MC2. However, the mass or position and acceleration can only be known by measurement.
    3. When a measurement is taken, the mass and acceleration become known at the time the measurement is made. The mass and acceleration are always there, but a measurement, or observation must be made to determine what they are at a particular moment.?4. The observation is what "causes" the photon of energy/mass to appear out of what you are calling the fourth dimension. It's always been there but each observation imparts the energy necessary for it to appear to us in a particular moment.

    I don't know if that makes any sense. I think we're on the same page. But I enjoy thinking about it anyway!
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    That video describes one of the many variations on the double slit experiment and glosses over more Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is key to superpositioning, then superposition itself, and then it skirts the implications of the superpositioned reality.

    It was experiments like this that actually inspired the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the concept of Superposition. But from what we know today, if we are really going to explain superpositioned realities we have to move away from the idea, as Bernard d'Espagnat (one of the very few philosophers that is also a physicist) claimed, of a corpuscular (particle) reality, and concepts such as wavelike, and trajectory (see for example, pp. 38 - 46, 'On Physics, and Philosophy,' --d'Espagnat) So it is difficult, for example, to talk superpositions and say a particle is moving through a hole, and yet the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is based on velocity or position. As d'Espagnat wrote, "Under such conditions it is but natural that most physicists are reluctant to engage in 'existential' speculations of such a kind and choose to limit themselves to the task of finding formulas making it possible to predict what will be observed." (ibid p.45)

    I tried to find a couple of simplified explanations on superpositions, but my wife kept me busy today. Here is one by the Physicist and author, Brian Greene "...according to quantum mechanics, every probability wave extends throughout all of space, throughout the entire universe. In many circumstances, though, a particle's probability wave quickly drops very close to zero outside of some small region, indicating the overwhelming likelihood that the particle is in that region... Nevertheless, so long as the probability wave somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy has a nonzero value, no matter how small, there is a tiny but genuine--nonzero--chance that the electron could be found there [as opposed to here on earth at a point we expect it to be]" (p. 90 The Fabric of the Cosmos.) In the previous paragraph he points out that, "Eight decades of experiments have shown that the predictions of quantum mechanics are confirmed to spectacular precision." Or at least 8 decades up through 2004 when Greene wrote that.

    "...before one measures the electron's position there is no sense in even asking where it is." (ibid Greene p.94) When the electron's position is defined, or measured, and the electron has a position as a particle, there is a probability wave collapse. "...the collapse happens instantaneously across the universe: once you find the particle here, the thinking goes, the probablility of its being anywhere else immediately drops to zero, and this is reflected in an immediate collapse of the probability wave." (ibid p.118)

    I could continue pulling out more descriptions----but look at it this way---even from the video we can say that light moving at the speed of light is a wave (because according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it has no position). We know from the Special Theory of Relativity that at the speed of light, time = 0 and therefore space = 0. A wave of light is simultaneously everywhere. We think that light travelling 400 Million light years from a distant galaxy, or even just 8 light minutes from the sun, moves through space-time in these examples for 400 Million years, or for 8 minutes, respectively. But it doesn't. As a wave it is 400 Million light years away, and simulataneously right here. It is simultaneously on the sun and in your eyes. And it is everywhere in between, and actually everywhere else from one end of the universe to the other--all ends actually. Space and time equate to zero, because it seems to be everywhere but it is really 4th dimensional. That is Einstein's theory reflecting the quantum superposition. We may say that this is true of light because it travels at light speed, but it is also true of every quantum wave---it is the superpositioned reality.
     
  6. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    A spiral would always have a specific position in space and time. Consider an airplane careening out of control in a graveyard spiral. We could plot its descent, both time and position, all the way till it crashes into the ground.

    A superpositioned wave has no position, and no where at any time. To scientists, stuck in a materialist way of thinking, its position is the whole universe. I say that it appears that way, because it is in the 4th dimension.
     
  7. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Yes---that is good, but let me clarify a few things:


    d'Espagnat would say that the statement,"It's true that photons exist everywhere," implies a corpuscular reality of the wave/field that we need to stray from.



    Your use of non-localized and localized relates to how Planck understood his formula.

    Rather than the terms 'measure' or 'observe' I prefer to use the statement that the 'position was defined.' Measure and observe are older ways of describing the probability collapse, which science has yet to really understand. But both terms imply meanings that are not always correct. For example--an electron in a rock on a cold dead planet at the edge of our galaxy is 'technically' not measured or observed, so does that mean it never actually exists as a particle? The answer is yes, it does because the collapse happens through decoherence. Let's look at the radio antenna to use an example: A nonlocalized electromagnetic wave-field interacts with another wave-field and two positions are defined (decoherence). In these two positions you now have a photon carrying a parcel of energy from a radio transmission, and an atom (or most likely an electron of an atom or a piece of the atom) which represents a quantum piece of the antenna. A moment later the atom's position will again be defined and an electron's position as it emerges from the atom--which then becomes a wave-field until the next decoherent event as it moves down the antenna.

    Quantum information, encoded in the energy, determines when, how, and where, the particle will manifest. Some have even suggested it will even determine what will manifest, as in what kind of particle, and that rather than a wave-field for each kind of quanta, that there is only one wave-field that generates all particles.


    Velocity effects experiential time. This is not the same as someone who sits in a class and time goes very slowly while for someone else in the same class it moves very quickly. In this case we are talking about the bending of space-time through either velocity or gravity. Thus the experience of time is so different that a person who is traveling very fast will age slower than someone who is standing still. We could say that it is as if the three physical dimensions were bending towards the next dimension. But here is the paradoxical thing---no matter how fast that person moves, either to or from a light source, the speed of light still reaches him at the same time. The next paradoxical thing is that you will never see light moving. You cannot see it coming toward you, or moving away from you. The only light you see is what is perceived by you at that moment. For example, let's say the sun exploded. The sun is about 8 light minutes away from you, so it would take 8 minutes for the light of that explosion to reach you. You cannot see it ahead of time---there is absolutely no way to know that it happened within those 8 minutes---even as the light of that explosion is racing towards you at the speed of light. Now you could be circling the sun in earth's orbit in a space craft moving at a very fast pace, and so your experience of that time would be slower, and you would technically--that is experientially--live longer than those on earth, but it would still take the same 8 minutes for that light to reach you, as for those on earth. Because you have stretched space-time, those 8 minutes would be slower for you--you are stretching them out. It is a weird paradox.

    There is a mathematical formula that states that time moves at the speed of light. I can post it if you'd like. But it is also how we define universal time---light does not move in miles per second, though we can measure that way---it moved in light seconds, light minutes, and light days. The math that determines that light moves at zero-space, zero-time, demonstrates that at light speed, one traverses the same space of space-time, as the time of space-time. In other words there is no relative difference in time between the speed of light and time itself. What makes everything really weird is that no matter how we bend space-time light still approaches us at the same constant.

    Actually this is an equivalency. Energy does not have mass. For example, a photon has zero mass--in fact, we say it is a particle, but in truth it doesn't even have size. It can fit into the smallest possible length---1 Planck Length, which is 100 Qunitillion times smaller than the diameter of a proton (a Quintillion has 20 zeroes after it). Below 1 Planck Length the laws of physics break down and reality becomes impossible. We could say that mass is the inverse of energy, as mass is inertia. Consider Newtons law of Motion: F = ma, or Gallileo's formula for an object in free fall: F = mv2 (and notice the similarity to E = mc2). Einstein's formula is about energy converting to mass, or mass converting to energy, because you are right in that they are one and the same, but they are still opposite sides of the coin. Archephenomenalism treats energy as nonphysical, and mass as physical.


    Actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says you can only know one or the other, you cannot know both. So it is either in motion and has momentum or velocity, or it is standing still and you can know position---but what they always forget to tell you is that, because everything is in motion, it would only have a position for an incredibly small point of time.


    The term 'observation' carries implications of consciousness which scientists do not like. There have been some lengthy debates on this in the past, and I actually treat quantum information as an expression of consciousness. Then there is the debate over whether conscious observation actually causes a quantum wave collapse, such as demonstrated by the double slit experiment. Science claims that observation simply means that it has been identified, which could be done, for example, with an electron beam, but science has not proved that the observation cannot involve consciousness. It is still very possible that our conscious observation of reality creates how quanta manifest. The good thing about decoherence is that it allows for a materialist explanation (a physical wave interacts with another physical wave, for example) and an idealist one (it is part of the natural flow of a conscious universe, for example). (Though I will add that decoherence more or less destroys the argument that there is no conscious intent in shaping the outcome of the double slit experiment----I posted muy argument to that about a year or two ago).
     
  8. Monkey Boy

    Monkey Boy Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,908
    Likes Received:
    391
    To MVW: Okay, that makes sense.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,778
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    What I meant is that the field has a potential for the existence of photons. Everywhere is a bad choice of words as there is no "where" in the field.
    I don't care what term you use measure, observe, or position defined.
    In your explanation, I understand you to say that as a radio wave is generated, the energy of the radio wave will emit photons of a certain energy level. That is, energy will be generated down the antenna in the form of photons which cause electrons to flow.
    The potential photon becomes actual when the wave is first defined, (I said observed).
    Another photon related to the first by the original definition will be defined by a second observation (definition), otherwise the second photon will not materialize.
    Time doesn't move at the speed of light, time stops at the speed of light. As the speed of light is approached by an object in motion, the object attains mass, the closer to the speed of light the more mass it acquires until, if it were to reach the speed of light, it would have infinite mass which would require infinite energy to move. Without infinite energy to move infinite mass movement would stop. Without movement there is no time.
    A photon at rest has no mass. Which is to say it has no "physical" existence. But a photon in motion acquires mass.
    In the equation E = mc2.... m is relativistic mass, not rest mass.
    Yes, at the quantum level you can only measure one or the other because the act of measuring disrupts to properties of the one that isn't being measured.
    If you measure velocity, you change position, if you measure position you alter velocity.
    The result of the probe by the electron beam still needs to be observed. You have just moved the observer a little further away from the actual event.
     
  10. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    i would argue that binary opposites exist only in our heads and not in nature at all,
    though we can all find lots of examples that come close or seem to,
    but only within limited contexts.

    i don't believe opposites are themselves what we need to concern ourselves with,
    but the kind of behaviors our perceptions motivate, and the kind of world those behaviors create.

    it isn't "truth" that needs to "known" in any absolute sense,
    but that probability can be known quite adiquitely by simply not denying logic,
    and not pre-interpreting what we observe.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,778
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    Opposites exist in the sense that they are connected to each other.
    You can't have black without its opposite, white.
     
  12. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    this is actually an example of apples not being the opposite of oranges, if you just look a little closer at what each of those things actually are.
     
  13. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    Sorry I have neglected this post lately. MeAgain, your next response to me was very good and I have been trying to write a response to it, but the last few days have been very crazy... We tried to help a couple we have known for many years last weekend and there was a misunderstanding, and we had our own tour into the fathomless depths of insanity... I've always liked to think that my home was open to anybody in a time of need---at least anyone we could trust. But for the sake of my marriage and sanity---I don't think I will ever do that again. Of couse---anything that happens in my house is all my fault...




    First of all let me state that I see deconstruction as a breaking down of this duality as we perceive it and so I agree, that in many ways that is correct. I believe that the universe is a multiplicity----therefore there is a black and white, but in between are countless shades of off-black, grey, and off-white.

    However, there are certainly cases of a duality of binary opposites. Biologically there are men and women. This is not something in our heads, it is a natural occurence for reproductive purposes. However I do believe that the concept of dominant gender is certainly only in our heads.

    Or consider the duality of mind-body, or, physical-nonphysical. This is really the binary opposites I deal with in the article on deconstruction of the physical. There are many levels to answer upon whether it is only in our head or not. Existentially, only physicality exists--the physical world is the only thing real. Here the physical is the dominant binary opposite and the nonphysical has been marginalized to nonexistence. But the mind is by definition nonphysical and therefore we are experiencing the physical through the nonphysical. In this case the idea of a physical and nonphysical realm is one of binary opposites. But the physical world is in many ways an illusion and therefore only mind is real. In this case, the physical is marginalized into nonexistence and we could argue that all binary opposites are only in the mind. But the mind experiences the physical as real, so here we are right back to a reality of binary opposites. Likewise we could focus on how quantum physics fits into this, or the concept of essence and existence. In either case we can argue that physicality and nonphysicality are two sides of the same coin. Therefore we would conclude that we experience the reality of these two binary opposites, but at an absolute level, there is no opposites----only the coin so to speak.

    But the problem with Absolute truth, and the acceptance of logic is that logic doesn't provide us with answers to some of the deeper problems of life. Way up on that list is the problem of our own mortality. Logically speaking, who we are appears to end at death. And that can be very troubling to many people. And then---what is it all for? Why even grudgingly toil at a job one hates in a meaningless life one despises, especially if bad choices and stupid mistakes now leave you without hope for a decent future. Logic and probability in such a case hold nothing for you---because the probability demonstrates that the most likely best case scenario is that you will continue to maintain the level of existence you are on, but the greatest probability is likely to be one of decline and increased struggle.

    While it is wrong to deny logic and probability, overemphasizing logic and rationality denies the irrational elements of our very being and nature. Our subconscious, for example, is most certainly an irrational aspect of our nature and who we are. Jung's classic, Man In Search of Himself, describes the problems of overemphasizing objectivism, logic, and rationality, and writing in the 50's he had the Soviet State to provide the perfect example of what not to be.

    TO return to the example in the previous paragraph to the last one, why should this person even continue his meager, meaningless, painful existence? Obviously for him (or her) without any kind of absolute meaning or truth, suicide is the only escape. And for that matter, to be completely logical, why even allow the handicapped and misfits to continue their illogical and irrational existence, because they will only be a burden to themselves and to everyonw else who will ultimately have to take care of them. Obviously euthansia would be best for everyone concerned. We need feel no guilt because it is the most logical thing to do--especially if we run a probability cost-return study on their existence. Logically we must think of even just the family and caretakers---or let's limit it to the family who will not even receive any salary or income from taking care of these unfortunate leeches. What do they get for their lifetime of physical burden and unrecoverable financial expenditures? Love? Love is unquantifiable, abstract, and irrational, therefore we can't logically account for it. Euthanasia is clearly the best for everyone. Seriously---look at the numbers. What probability does any parapalegic in a wheelchair have of ever walking again?

    OR-----perhaps there is something more to life than just logic and probabilities. An absolute gives meaning to one's existence, even when their is no hope. The absolute accounts for the irrational as well as the rational. Even if those values and truths we once thought were universal, but are in fact, human constructs, and even if all such truths are relative, and overly subjective in perspective, it really wouldn't matter as long as we can sense an answer to the deepest why's---some sort of Absolute truth that gives meaning to our existence.
     
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,778
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    I've been off line for a few days myself.
     
  15. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    The problem is, as d'Espagnat also points out, whatever term we use to describe it is difficult (and yet he didn't even treat it as a nonphysical...), but I know what you mean---I have the same problem trying to explain it. Our language puts us in a Catch 22 in trying to explain what science can’t even define outside of the math. It seems so obvious to me that this superpositioned wave-field, which is neither wave nor field yet it is a wave or a field and both (as scientists have stated), represents a nonphysical dimension, and is therefore hard to define in 3 dimensional physical terms. I am surprised that others haven’t considered that.

    The keyword I was referring to though was, ‘photon’ which, being a particle, implies a corpuscular quality. Not that your statement was wrong---just that even though the photon can potentially manifest anywhere---we just want to be careful about implying that they are anywhere (Your original statement was that the photon exists, we just can’t measure where or at what speed).




    Yes, and as per my philosophy, what you refer to as energy is a nonphysical 4th dimensional wave-field (with the caveat that wave-field is something we can’t really define outside of the math----but, you know…). It is physical only at the point that its position is defined and it manifests as mass—a particle. Therefore when we think of an electron going up the antenna of the transmitter, and going down the antenna of the receiver what is really happening is that an electron and an atom is manifesting in a position in the antenna every time positions are defined either by an electron being emitted from an atom, or an electron being received by an atom. Then of course there are the photons and atoms everywhere a photon is emitted or received by an atom on the antenna. At the same time the antenna simply exists because of any atoms or particles within the antenna that simply interact as decoherence, defining positions, such as bumping into each other, or being mutually involved as a molecule of the antenna’s metal, or even interacting with the atoms of the surrounding air, or absorbing photons of light from the atmosphere around it (in other words reflection of any visible surface on the antennas). In fact even the subatomic particles within the atoms are undergoing this same process of manifesting as physical. In any given moment, only some atoms, some photons, some electrons are even there---and even then it is only a portion of the atoms that are probably even present---only enough to provide the phenomena for that moment-----and so it is that this dance of interdimensional being and nothingness plays out, creating the phenomena of a concrete material world that appears to always be there.




    This is a very fascinating subject for me. Let’s forget about relative mass for a moment. I like the way you worded that—time stops at the speed of light—and in fact, I see it that way as well. I say that time moves at the speed of light, because of the formula I refer to that demonstrates such. But it would mean the same thing to say that time ‘happens’ at the speed of light, and this is probably a better way of saying it. For one thing, can we really say that light moves at the speed of light (ignoring for a moment the position that light does not actually move as a superpositioned wave-field----in other words, I am speaking in terms of the somewhat Newtonian universe that Einstein saw when he worked out his special theory of relativity)—because the speed of light is the only universal constant in terms of speed/time? Because the thing is, if we were to look at it from the perspective of light, it is the universe that is in motion, not light. This is why Fred Alan Wolfe describes light as moving through time, the way we move through space. But where is the movement? Is it light, or the universe?

    Think of it this way----let’s say that you are standing on train tracks in Japan, and the Bullet Train is racing towards you at 100 miles per hour. You are just standing there and the universe is all in its stationary place around you, so obviously it is the bullet train that is in motion. But what if you and the universe actually were in motion and the bullet train was standing still? This would be an interesting thought, picturing the world in motion towards that train. But then you realize it is silly, because of course the bullet train is in motion---that’s why all its passengers got on it.

    But we are simply talking about you and an object. So let’s transform that object into a ring of Bucky Balls----so many Bucky Balls that they can stretch clear around the earth at the equator. SO there you are, standing on those tracks in Japan, and a ring of Bucky Balls that stretches clear around the earth is approaching you at a very high speed. Now the question becomes more significant---are the Bucky Balls moving towards you, or you, and the world around you moving towards the Bucky Balls? To a creature sitting on one of the Bucky Balls, the whole world is passing under it, while the Bucky Ball itself, and all those Bucky Balls on either side of it, all the way around the earth, are standing still. So the question becomes---did the earth, as it moves along with the sun and all the planets of the solar system through the Milky Way Galaxy, pass through a field of Bucky Balls which, due to the magnetic field, became a ring around the earth? Or did a massive collection of Bucky Balls come speeding through the space, and as it encountered the earth, passed around it as a ring? Or is it a combination of the two cases? We could possibly get bearings from background stellar objects and determine which case is which---but then what if the whole universe is moving separately from the Bucky Balls? Everything is easy at this point.

    Since we are still talking of an object versus you as an observer, let’s convert these objects again—this time we will convert it to little tiny balls that have zero mass, and we will say that there is an infinite number of them everywhere. These balls are all moving incredibly fast at the same speed—in fact, it is the universal constant, the speed of light, and the crazy thing is that they are moving in all infinite directions that are possible within our 3 dimensional universe. But as an observer, and because there is an infinite number of them, all you are going to notice is that there is a seemingly infinite number of them coming from all near infinite possible directions directly towards you. Here is the fascinating thing to that which Einstein gave us---because it is the universal constant---it is the only speed that does not change whether you are approaching the object moving at that speed or moving away from it or even moving to it or from it at the same speed----the object will always move to you or away from you at the same universal constant speed. Here is the second thing, speed is always a measure of distance over time, but if these balls are moving at the speed of light there is no distance over time (space and time equal zero), and even if we tried to measure distance over time, it is happening at the very rate we define time, so it becomes meaningless. Granted, from your perspective it does not appear meaningless as these zero-mass balls seem to move across a fixed distance over a light time period, but the fact that they are even a part of your perceived reality is achieved by the fact that there are so many of them. On the other hand, between one zero-mass ball and another, time and distance is particularly meaningless, even if they are moving in different, or even opposite, directions------because their relative speed to each other always remains the same. For example as two approach each other, they do not approach each other at twice the speed, even though they are moving towards each other at the same speed, which, at any other velocity, would tell us that their combined speeds should be double. Therefore any of these balls that are within the same time frame, would be visible to all other balls, as if they were right next to each other, while any other balls outside of that timeframe would be completely invisible. Therefore between themselves, the balls all appear to be in a fixed position. So once again we have this same problem—are the balls moving at the speed of light, or are you and the rest of the universe moving at the speed of light? From your perspective, you and the universe is standing still, but from the perspective of these balls, they are standing still. Going deeper into the rabbit hole, if you run this scenario through your head you will realize that these balls are coming at you from infinite directions---therefore if you are moving, you would have to be moving at the speed of light in every possible infinite direction within the three physical dimensions---in fact, the whole universe would have to be moving simultaneously in all infinite directions. And even if it is only the balls that are moving, that is still the perspective of what is happening from the standpoint of the balls.

    This case with the balls moving at light speed is our perception of the 4th dimension from the physical standpoint. Consider this, what if I asked you to point out the directions of the fourth dimension? You know—which direction did yesterday go, and from where will tomorrow come? You would have to point everywhere, and in between everywhere. This is 4 vector space which we shall revisit shortly.

    Now lets add Quantum Mechanics into the mix---to do this we might as well drop the whole idea of a ball and say light—because now we must speak of this object in terms of wave and particle. The problem with the wave is that it is in every possible position at every possible time, so if we were able to pick a point from this realm of light as a point of perspective, we would have to conclude that there is no longer a question of time frame, as we had with the balls, where only those balls that are localized to the current time frame were visible. In the quantum realm of this scenario we have entered into what is truly zero-space zero-time as all light is visible all the time—or maybe a better way to say it is that all light is present all the time, because to be visible as we understand it, it must have a vector and in this realm there is no vector---no direction, no movement. But then there is a quantum collapse of the wave into a particle—a photon for a single instant, and according to Archephenomenalism the emergence of this photon creates a point of space-time (or actually, as we have seen, there is an emergence of two quantum—a photon and another particle, and around these two particles that have a defined position space-time occurs).

    So how does the speed of light fit into this? The speed of light is the realm at which the 3 physical dimensions, defined by each manifesting particle, comes into being and disappears into nothingness. The perception of movement in infinite directions is the movement from, and then back into, the 4th dimension as the 3 physical dimensions are created in the moment. The appearance of one moment after the next happens at the speed of light. We can describe the appearance of physical reality as time stopping at the speed of light---because it is for that brief moment of physicality that a particle has a position in space-time—that space-time exists as the universal hologram.

    Mass is inertia; inertia is mass. Science understands inertia, but has a hard time defining what it truly is in an ontological sense. But mathematically it is defined, for example in Newtons Law of Motion: F = ma. We could say, based on the last sentence that inertia gives mass its stopping power. An object of mass is ‘there’ within the universe, because inertia keeps it from going everywhere, including into pieces. Galileo calculated the energy of a free falling object with his formula: F = mv2. It is no coincidence that Einstein’s formula is basically the same---E = mc2---and so we can say that it represents mass free falling through time especially in the sense that we can relate light to time (which brings us to the God Theory of Haisch and his co-author, but that is another discussion). But the speed of light represents the wave, which in turn represents the 4th dimension according to Archephenomenalism. So we could see E = mc2 as actually representing mass emergence and disappearance in the sense of the particle emergence from the wave and back. It is the quantum creation and then loss of inertia. In a sense, it is a formula of free falling from the 4th dimension into the 3 physical dimensions and back.

    So what does all this have to do with relativistic mass? Let’s first add your next comment.




    First of all, relativistic mass is a troublesome concept in physics, and is often not used. It is dependent on the velocity of the observer, and involves space-time. It does not actually mean a change of mass in the object, but a change in space-time around that object. Some scientists say that it is fundamental to relativity, while others do not because of the space-time assumptions-----which actually turns out to be very fascinating for what I stated about E = mc2 in my previous paragraph.

    But first, let’s correct the statement above. Relativistic mass of light at the speed of light is also zero, which is why, according to the theory of relativity, only zero-mass objects can move at the speed of light. For any object that has mass greater than zero, the relativistic mass at the speed of light becomes infinite. But as stated earlier, this is not exactly the object itself, but a change in space-time. Since the object itself does not necessarily change per se’ this equation still represents, as I said, an energy – mass equivalency. (Though scientists are still trying to figure out how mass is created in the atom, since the Higgs Boson only provides a very small portion of the actual mass. It is believed that gluons provide the most mass, but the problem is they are themselves zero-mass particles that hold the fundamental particles together. The only thing they can come up with is E = mc2. All of this is still one of the mysteries of particle physics---and of course Archephenomenalism has its own take on it.)

    Now you might spot a potential problem here---if I place the wave in the 4th dimension---a realm we perceive of as light speed, and particles that have mass, also exist as the wave, how can that be if the relativistic mass is infinite? The wave of a proton for example, would have to be infinite in mass it seems. …And yet, how can the wave represent mass?

    Let me remind you, or state for others who are unfamiliar with my philosophy, or new to this discussion, that Archephenomenalism posits that physical time does not exist, except for the present moment, i.e. only the present exists. Physicality only exists in the present moment. Physicality represents only the brief moment when a particle has a position in space-time, in other words, every physical particle has rest mass, because its center of momentum equals zero (the definition of rest mass). It equals zero because time beyond the Now does not exist. Therefore space-time actually becomes space-present. It also posits that the wave is nonphysical, therefore it cannot have mass, just as it has no position, because it exists in a positionless, timeless realm of zero-space, zero-time, but we understand the wave to be everywhere and everytime, which equates to infinite positions and times.

    In the Now, that mass has inertia---it is present in a single position. But outside of the Now, this inertia disappears and becomes relativistic mass----E = mc2. In other words, the quantum collapse represents the creation of space-time where that particle has inertia and a center of momentum of zero. But the position is lost and space-time collapses, or dissolves, back into the 4th dimension----in other words, the inertia is replaced by relative mass and the three physical dimensions stretch back into the next infinite level of the 4th dimension. What the Special Theory of Relativity is stating here is that what we understand as space time, is stretched into what we perceive as infinite---the next dimension. For example, light representes zero-time and zero-space, but superpositioned in this way, we perceive it to be every where and every time---therefore from our physical perspective it represents infinite positions and infinite time. In the same way, the wave is zero-mass, and again nonphysical. But Archephenomenalism states that the 4th dimension, because of its superpositioned status from our perspective represents infinite potentiality. The physical realm is the only point of actuality. But this infinite potentiality represents all potential mass everywhere, in every time----infinite mass. At least, that is how math defines it

    The 4 vector space, or 4 vector calculations that measure relativistic mass represents movement in infinite directions that I described with the balls moving at the speed of light. This is needed because we are trying to explain reality from our physical perspective. But when we add in quantum mechanics as a nonphysical element—then time disappears except for the present. There is no movement, no velocity---except in the mind, because the mind transcends the physical moments of now. Mind puts it all together in a way that we understand.






    To continue from my last statement---therefore measuring velocity means to change present moments. But in each moment, only that moment exists, nothing else.
     
  16. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,778
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    You posted a very long entry, which I'll have to reread several times.

    But just off the cuff (I'm having trouble remembering all your points without rereading).

    You can't have a ball of zero mass moving at light speed. It would have infinite mass or it wouldn't be a ball. If it has identity, it must have mass and if any mass moves at light speed it becomes infinite, that is all inclusive and no longer a single ball.

    I may be completely off target here, I have to reread each of your points when I get time, but....

    Long ago I worked up something related to one of Alan Watts' explanations.
    If I may digress into the mystic, let's assume we have a "field" that is every "thing". All reality. I'll call this Light.
    It has no physicality or movement as there is nothing to compare it to. You can't have physicality without non physicality.

    So Light exists. There is no "Speed of Light" as Light has nothing to compare it to..it can't move as there is nothing to move and nowhere to go, it's already "everything".
    Now image an object suspended in Light. I'm not going to worry about where the object comes from.
    The object can't move and would have infinite mass. In fact Object and Light are the same thing. We know this because just as Light can't be defined as it is everything, so too Object can't be defined; as it too is everything. It has no borders.
    For Object to acquire a border we have to introduce a second object, Object2. With the introduction of Object2 Space comes about as there must be a separation between Object1 and Object2 or they would be the same thing.
    Object1 and Object2 exist in the realm of Light.

    With two objects motion becomes possible but only in relation to each other. If I stand on Object1 I may think that Object2 is moving in relation to me or vise versa.
    But neither object is moving at the speed of Light. Ever. To move at the speed of light Object1 and/or Object2 would acquire infinite mass, meaning they go back to being pure Light and can't move.

    Light moves at the speed of light not because it moves, but because it is everywhere at once. Light never moves.
    What moves is, as I think you stated, everything else moving in relation to everything else.

    So why does it take light time to reach the Earth from the Sun?
    Because the Sun and Earth are moving in relation to each other, not because light is moving. And the observer on either body "sees" the other body as moving or stationary in regards to the field of Light.


    ...and now I quite 'cause I think I confused myself....
    I'll be back later,
     
  17. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    You are correct----I should have explained to ignore that aspect for a moment. I was doing a gedankenexperiment---a thought experiment----which hopefully is not too awkward to illicit the mental images I was trying to create. It is a visualization that hopefully takes one from the classical world that we easily understand to the strange realm of light. From our physical perspective we see light as little particles of zero mass. But the last scenario is how it is from a 4 dimensional perspective---as the quantum wave (I'll have to reread it in a few days to see how clear it is). Unfortunately I was continuously interrupted as I tried to write this.

    Oh----except I just remembered----I did say they represent zero-mass----if I recall. Zero-mass objects, or particles, do not increase in relativistic mass.

    Relativistic mass is still a debate among scientists. But generally, as I explained above the real change is not in the object itself, but in space-time. Therefore the increase towards infinite mass is in the eyes of the observer who is watching the object increase in velocity. As space-time stretches so does the outside perception of the mass of the object. But it is still believed that the increase in mass requires an increase in force to move it according to Newton's laws of Motion. It is important to understand that in order to understand how Archephenomenalism uses it.



    That's right----I dig it. That's a good way to explain the 4th dimension and physical 3 dimensions.
     
  18. Dejavu~

    Dejavu~ Members

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    185
    The 'non-physical' of positive value? Why can't I grasp what that could possibly be?! ;-D Reminds me of the following:


     
    2 people like this.
  19. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes Received:
    933
    I like that quote.


    If we live in a multidimensional universe, and the physical dimensions are the 3 dimensions we find ourselves in, then it stands to reason that anything that is not within our physical dimensions, from a purely physical context, does not exist---Western thought has always treated it as a negative, and so it is.

    But if we were to look at it from a perspective of higher dimensions, then the higher dimensional nonphysical becomes a positive, because it is present in a higher dimension, even if it has no physical presence.

    If we were to consider a case from science fiction (because we really don't have anyway of accessing higher dimensions today except by mathematics) there is the example of teleportation. For us to teleport anything we would have to use a higher dimension to do so. The moment between the object or person disappearing at one place, and that same object or person appearing at another place, would we say that the object or person does not exist? During that moment, they have no physical existence, yet we still know that they are there---somewhere. They still maintain a positive existence, even if we cannot physically see them.

    You might respond that they are still physically present because the idea is that they have been converted to energy and are moving through our physical dimensions as energy. But energy moving in such a fashion represents a wave, and quantum mechanics tells us that the wave represents a very different and strange reality----a superpositioned reality. Such a reality makes far more sense as a higher dimensional reality, in fact, it does not even fit the definition of physical. Mind, for example, is by definition, nonphysical.

    Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity places light in a zero-space, zero-time reality. This is to say that it has a ghost-like semi-presence, until it is actually in our universe for the briefest moment when it is perceived, observed, or somehow interacts with physicality. Can we say that light does not exist then until that brief moment? No, we understand that it is there, somewhere, and it makes the most sense that this somewhere is the 4th dimension, which we perceive as time.
     
  20. Dejavu~

    Dejavu~ Members

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    185
    I was reading some of Rodney A Brooks' quantum field theory book, 'Fields of Color: the theory that escaped Einstein', the free bits specifically, and came across this great Bierce quote from his devil's dictionary:

    As a dyed in the wool physicalist, that is to say, a person who understands everything to be physical, I sympathize wholeheartedly with him. :-D
    I can't say I agree concerning the supposed futility of the activity however. Mind is all interest! lol Look at the thinker over there, profound, aloof... asleep? He won't mind us looking then! Yes, his head is higher in all its dimensions, save its being sunk in slumber! His snoring is not boring, at least not to him! Every flight, every reaching for infinity, is manifest! He is his thoughts, and is at once free from them. No good for us over here though. Wide awake with our dreams, and perhaps too spooked to enact them at all but a distance. Perhaps if the red king is woken, gently, we won't drop off, but rather discover a simultaneous awakening! No nothing in the field to form an interminable trench!


    *Dejavu sits up a little at this juncture, rubs his eyes, and prepares to hit post, to send this poor approximation of his mental musings, this necessarily impoverished embodiment of his neuronal firings into the ether...


    Wait! Wait! Weren't it Alice what dreamed it? We must first confer with the queen! If it's our own invention, we've got to be certain! lol
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice