Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 27 May 2010 12:55 On May 27, 12:30 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "zookumar yelubandi" <zooku...(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message > > news:427sqm5kbq68.1853wdh849ev3.dlg(a)40tude.net... > > > > > On Thu, 27 May 2010 03:57:38 -0400, G. L. Bradford wrote: > >> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:cc22f448-965e-4675-8fe5-569bdbb43527(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com.... > >> On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > >>> Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > >>> "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > >>> the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > >> I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > >> Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > >> - The future determining the past > > >> ======================= > > >> "The future determining the past": > > >> You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the > >> flat > >> today. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the car. > >> GLB > > > What "occurs" and what "can occur" are entirely different propositions. > > > You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the flat > > today. Your friendly neighborhood delinquent slashes all your tires while > > the sky is blinking with stars. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the .... > > wait. Not wanting to damage the wheel bases, you cancel the drive and > > take > > a walk in the yellow pages in search of a ratchet and rubber shop. Shop > > gives you appointment for the next day, the new tomorrow. You cancel car > > activities for the day and reschedule the drive for the new tomorrow.. > > > This example shows how the present (e.g. the discovery of flat tires in > > the interceding interval between plan to drive and actual drive) > > determines > > the future. But if the present determines the future, can it ever > > determine the past? > > > Translating the present to the further present (e.g. the putative future), > > we can port the above example to a different time interval, one with > > terminal points "future" and "further future". And that arrives the > > question in tow, namely, what does the future determine? Can the future > > ever determine the past? Or can it *only* determine a further future > > (e.g. > > the putative far future) as evidenced in the ported example? > > > A related question: where is your proof that the future can ever determine > > the past, if that is indeed your assertion? > > > Uncle Zook > > ====================== > > The future is now (cc=0). The present is now. The future has yet to occur.
From: G. L. Bradford on 27 May 2010 13:11 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f3259210-e66b-4064-a736-44c46d3eef60(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... On May 27, 12:30 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "zookumar yelubandi" <zooku...(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message > > news:427sqm5kbq68.1853wdh849ev3.dlg(a)40tude.net... > > > > > On Thu, 27 May 2010 03:57:38 -0400, G. L. Bradford wrote: > >> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:cc22f448-965e-4675-8fe5-569bdbb43527(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com... > >> On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > >>> Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > >>> "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > >>> the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > >> I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > >> Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > >> - The future determining the past > > >> ======================= > > >> "The future determining the past": > > >> You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the > >> flat > >> today. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the car. > >> GLB > > > What "occurs" and what "can occur" are entirely different propositions. > > > You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the > > flat > > today. Your friendly neighborhood delinquent slashes all your tires > > while > > the sky is blinking with stars. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the ... > > wait. Not wanting to damage the wheel bases, you cancel the drive and > > take > > a walk in the yellow pages in search of a ratchet and rubber shop. Shop > > gives you appointment for the next day, the new tomorrow. You cancel car > > activities for the day and reschedule the drive for the new tomorrow. > > > This example shows how the present (e.g. the discovery of flat tires in > > the interceding interval between plan to drive and actual drive) > > determines > > the future. But if the present determines the future, can it ever > > determine the past? > > > Translating the present to the further present (e.g. the putative > > future), > > we can port the above example to a different time interval, one with > > terminal points "future" and "further future". And that arrives the > > question in tow, namely, what does the future determine? Can the future > > ever determine the past? Or can it *only* determine a further future > > (e.g. > > the putative far future) as evidenced in the ported example? > > > A related question: where is your proof that the future can ever > > determine > > the past, if that is indeed your assertion? > > > Uncle Zook > > ====================== > > The future is now (cc=0). The present is now. The future has yet to occur. ====================== You may be that stupid, but the Universe, as the Universe, isn't. (-1) (+1) (0) GLB =====================
From: mpc755 on 27 May 2010 13:15 On May 27, 1:11 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f3259210-e66b-4064-a736-44c46d3eef60(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... > On May 27, 12:30 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > > > > > "zookumar yelubandi" <zooku...(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message > > >news:427sqm5kbq68.1853wdh849ev3.dlg(a)40tude.net... > > > > On Thu, 27 May 2010 03:57:38 -0400, G. L. Bradford wrote: > > >> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:cc22f448-965e-4675-8fe5-569bdbb43527(a)u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com.... > > >> On May 26, 1:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > >>> Here's some fun then: Define "physical" without the use of "physics", > > >>> "physical", "physically" or any other form of the word "physical" in > > >>> the definition of "physical". Can you do that? > > > >> I will answer that question as soon as you answer the following: > > >> Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > > >> - The future determining the past > > > >> ======================= > > > >> "The future determining the past": > > > >> You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the > > >> flat > > >> today. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the car. > > >> GLB > > > > What "occurs" and what "can occur" are entirely different propositions. > > > > You have a flat tire. You plan to drive the car tomorrow. You fix the > > > flat > > > today. Your friendly neighborhood delinquent slashes all your tires > > > while > > > the sky is blinking with stars. Tomorrow arrives and you drive the .... > > > wait. Not wanting to damage the wheel bases, you cancel the drive and > > > take > > > a walk in the yellow pages in search of a ratchet and rubber shop. Shop > > > gives you appointment for the next day, the new tomorrow. You cancel car > > > activities for the day and reschedule the drive for the new tomorrow. > > > > This example shows how the present (e.g. the discovery of flat tires in > > > the interceding interval between plan to drive and actual drive) > > > determines > > > the future. But if the present determines the future, can it ever > > > determine the past? > > > > Translating the present to the further present (e.g. the putative > > > future), > > > we can port the above example to a different time interval, one with > > > terminal points "future" and "further future". And that arrives the > > > question in tow, namely, what does the future determine? Can the future > > > ever determine the past? Or can it *only* determine a further future > > > (e.g. > > > the putative far future) as evidenced in the ported example? > > > > A related question: where is your proof that the future can ever > > > determine > > > the past, if that is indeed your assertion? > > > > Uncle Zook > > > ====================== > > > The future is now (cc=0). > > The present is now. > The future has yet to occur. > > ====================== > > You may be that stupid, but the Universe, as the Universe, isn't. > > (-1) (+1) (0) > > GLB > > ===================== Of course it is. It is the absurd nonsense of today's 'mainstream' physics which does not understand the future has yet to occur.
From: Androcles on 27 May 2010 14:22 <paparios(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7557827d-0834-453f-b704-d6732d5aa2bf(a)x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com... | On 27 mayo, 10:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: | | Snip continuous and repetitive nonsense!!! Mission accomplished.
From: paparios on 27 May 2010 15:01
On 27 mayo, 12:54, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 27, 12:06 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 27 mayo, 10:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Snip continuous and repetitive mpc755 nonsense!!! > > > The double-slit experiment demonstrates the inseparability of the wave > > and particle behavior of light and other quantum particles. A laser > > illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the > > light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them. The wave > > nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to > > interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands > > on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be > > absorbed as though it were made of discrete particles, called photons. > > > According to classical particle physics the brightness at any point > > should be the sum of the brightness when the right slit is blocked and > > the brightness when the left slit is blocked. However, it is found in > > experiments that unblocking both slits makes some points on the screen > > brighter, and other points darker. This can only be explained by the > > alternately additive and subtractive interference of waves, not the > > exclusively additive nature of particles, so we know that light must > > have some particle-wave duality. > > > Any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a > > photon passes through destroys the interference pattern, illustrating > > the complementarity principle; that the light can demonstrate both > > particle and wave characteristics, but not both at the same time. > > > The double slit experiment can also be performed (using different > > apparatus) with particles of matter such as electrons with the same > > results, demonstrating that they also show particle-wave duality. > > > This is what Nature tells us. QM is the model which allows us to > > explain what we observe and also to predict what would be observed in > > a different situation. > > All modern electronics is based on this model, which demonstrates its > > usefulness and correctness. > > > Miguel Rios > > Everything you say above is correct. Especially the part where you > state, "The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing > through both slits to interfere". > > Where you fail is when you do not make a similar statement for the > particle: > > The particle nature of light causes the light particle to pass through > a single slit. > Learn how to read mpcboy!!!! Fire electrons through a double slit towards a phosphorous screen. What Nature tells us is that the screen will show, again, an interference pattern forms. So light has properties both of a wave and a particle. It shows particle-wave duality. So an electron has properties both of a particle and a wave. It shows particle-wave duality. QM is the model which allows us to explain what we observe and also to predict what would be observed in a different situation. QM is one of the most successful models in its predictive power. Miguel Rios |