PLato said,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle said "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai
So if one wanted to assume the images arise solely from the matter state, then the structure of the matter is a replica used in imagery......then such a model should eventually be used as the tools that are needed, in which we can create consciousness?
Is this the same as consciousness experiencing. What if these tools/matter states require consciousness? That any image created is not the same as what consciousness is capable of creating? So consciousness as the alternative, is producing by how that matter resonates and is used by consciousness?
Just giving an alternative view point other then the one that matter just creates as a question?
Visible light is merely a small part of the full electromagnetic spectrum, which extends from cosmic rays at the highest energies down through the middle range (gamma rays, X- rays, the ultraviolet, the visible, the infrared, and radio waves) all the way to induction-heating and electric-power-transmission frequencies at the lowest energies. Note that this is the energy per quantum (photon if in the visible range) but not the total energy; the latter is a function of the intensity in a beam.http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/1.html
Increasing the range of spectrum with which we see......does this imply we will understand the mechanism for which we believe mind as brain wave state correlate? Does this imply we will understand the mechanism as matter states with which such a process of mind? Mind, is only one aspect of consciousness?
Biofeedback information is helpful with regard to brain wave state....so we know.... That if the body is in a given brain wave state......the body biofeedback system will give us certain information? We are progressively moving toward the orientation of matter defined states.
aWhat is the ground state? What is a node/anti-node in physics?
We are using extensions of the spectrum in order to look at how we see, how we think does not give perspective on what can be seen beyond the senses?
Does the spectrum reveal "the matter" of the thought? If thought is an energy state, then what is it' ground state as a thought? We use analogies all the time.....and we shift between senses, to create a greater perspective on the nature of the matter?
We emulate gravity as sound.......do we know exactly what Gravity is? Can we measure the momentum of a thought? What is the energy range of a thought/many thoughts, to measure its entropy?
If consciousness is not measurable, then how do we see consciousness beyond the senses?
A Unified Field theory has to be able to explain this. All theories of everything, have to explain this. Other then demonstrating the act of consciousness, all Toe's are only metaphors, like sound or light for explaining what consciousness is? Progressively, you are moving beyond the matters as a question of what consciousness is, or what mind is, as a part of our consciousness?
Advanced LIGO is searching for gravitational waves - what will it find, and what will it mean? Caltech LIGO scientists Kip Thorne, Sarah Gossan, and Rana Adhikari answer your questions.
More information: http://ligo.caltech.edu
See Also: LIGO as video source page. Video is for education purposes only.
.....that's where the new material
comes from so with ice you're seeing a subatomic
molecular structure a vice which is based on hexagonal form there's
always a six-sided hexagon but the beautiful part of this
is that an elegant mathematics
Unus mundus, Latin for "one world", is the concept of an underlying unified reality from which everything emerges and to which everything returns.
There is an inclination for one to try and tie everything together. I have mentioned Jim Gates and used him as an example. In the quote above, this may have been Jung's attempt to bring it all together.
The process has been on going for a long time. So given there are two
different academic fields for consideration, A theory of Everything,
would explain a Unified reality theory?
If one has a scientific mind, or, philosophical mind, what does this
mean to you? I am interested on what you have to say about this.....
There are unified fields theories and as a scientist would this play into an aspect of reality as a Unified Reality Theory(Finding a ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics?) See: Theory of Everything -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
As a philosopher( the system-building scope of philosophy is often linked to the rationalist method of philosophy,) as a deeply debated theory of everything? See: -Theory of Everything and philosophy
Now, could "consciousness research" trump both?
Complex ideas, complex shapes Adinkras — geometric objects that
encode mathematical relationships between supersymmetric particles — are
named after symbols that represent wise sayings in West African
culture. This adinkra is called "nea onnim no sua a, ohu," which
translates as "he who does not know can become knowledgeable through
learning. See: From the Mathematics of Supersymmetry to the Music of Arnold Schoenberg
Jim Gates is an example of a scientist, looking for a pattern. His
historical investigation in terms of the culture was used as a template
to show a correlation pattern established in the way in which "pattern
formation" was developed according to his theory. Algorithmic in nature,
as to its identity as to a beginning to the formation of his theory.
Symmetry, as to have formed from the perfect state. Symmetry breaking,
as to become a materialization.
Aperiodic
tilings serve as mathematical models for quasicrystals, physical solids
that were discovered in 1982 by Dan Shechtman[3] who subsequently won
the Nobel prize in 2011.[4] However, the specific local structure of
these materials is still poorly understood .Aperiodic tilings -
Examples of complex diagrams "as E8" was used to demonstrate a whole system. Riemann hypothesis, as sieves, to reveal a much larger pattern regarding as the ulam spiral? Recognizing a pattern, as a quasi-crystal.
"...underwriting
the form languages of ever more domains of mathematics is a set of deep
patterns which not only offer access to a kind of ideality that Plato
claimed to see the universe as created with in the Timaeus; more than
this, the realm of Platonic forms is itself subsumed in this new set of
design elements-- and their most general instances are not the regular
solids, but crystallographic reflection groups. You know, those things
the non-professionals call . . . kaleidoscopes! * (In the next exciting
episode, we'll see how Derrida claims mathematics is the key to freeing
us from 'logocentrism'-- then ask him why, then, he jettisoned the
deepest structures of mathematical patterning just to make his name...)
* H. S. M. Coxeter, Regular Polytopes (New York: Dover, 1973) is the
great classic text by a great creative force in this beautiful area of
geometry (A polytope is an n-dimensional analog of a polygon or
polyhedron. Chapter V of this book is entitled 'The Kaleidoscope'....)"
So in a sense, going back to the beginning of all this material
stuff. In a perceptive recognition of the beauty, as a mental
examination, an understanding evolving of this "spiritual eye."
Now beauty, as we said, shone bright among those visions, and in this
world below we apprehend it through the clearest of our senses, clear
and resplendent. For sight is the keenest of the physical senses, though
wisdom is not seen by it -- how passionate would be our desire for it,
if such a clear image of wisdom were granted as would come through sight
-- and the same is true of the other beloved objects; but beauty alone
has this privilege, to be most clearly seen and most lovely of them all.
[Phaedrus, 250D, after R. Hackford, Plato's Phaedrus, Library of the
Liberal Arts, 1952, p. 93, and the Loeb Classical Library, Euthryphro
Apology Crito Phaedo Phaedrus, Harvard University Press, 1914-1966,
p.485, ]
***
asking the sixty-four dollar question is
consciousness the ultimate reality is it the Unified Field See: Is Consciousness the Unified Field?, John Hagelin
The question about wholeness, as a quest for bringing everything
together seemed to be an underlying need for a foundation to explain a
Unified Reality Theory. A quest for science regarding Relativity ad
Quantum mechanics. A quest for a unified reality theory requires
consciousness?
In a way, the closing of the Tesserack scene in Interstellar while a science fiction, is an interesting cumulative quest for understanding gravity across time. "They are not beings they are us?"
The modern double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. This experiment was performed originally by Thomas Young in 1801 (well before quantum mechanics) simply to demonstrate the wave theory of light and is sometimes referred to as Young's experiment.[1] The experiment belongs to a general class of "double path" experiments, in which a wave is split into two separate waves that later combine into a single wave. Changes in the path lengths of both waves result in a phase shift, creating an interference pattern. Another version is the Mach–Zehnder interferometer, which splits the beam with a mirror.Double-slit experiment
To some researchers, the experiments suggest that quantum objects are as definite as droplets, and that they too are guided by pilot waves — in this case, fluid-like undulations in space and time. These arguments have injected new life into a deterministic (as opposed to probabilistic) theory of the microscopic world first proposed, and rejected, at the birth of quantum mechanics. See: Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?
In youtube example video given, I must say if you have ever seen
Taylor and Hulse's binary system, I couldn't help but see some
relation. Such rotation, would cause gravitational wave that seems to
hold the droplet in position for examination......but the gravitational
wave production, is an affect of this rotation so I am puzzled by this.
Natalie Wolchover is pretty good at her job, and I think drew attention
to the idea of a Bohemian mechanics/Pilot wave theory. This, as an
alteration of choice of quantum mechanics it became clear, how
interpretation was pervasive at the time between these two groups, as a
point of view. Not saying this is the case, but as I read I see the
division between the scientists as to how an interpretation arose
between them, some choose one way and others, another. And still they
did not discard the world of the two groups but leaned specifically to
one side over another.
As
de Broglie explained that day to Bohr, Albert Einstein, Erwin
Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg and two dozen other celebrated
physicists, pilot-wave theory made all the same predictions as the
probabilistic formulation of quantum mechanics (which wouldn’t be
referred to as the “Copenhagen” interpretation until the 1950s), but
without the ghostliness or mysterious collapse. -Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?
I am looking at the experiment itself as illustrated in my link to
youtube video of respective scientists given the relation and analogy
used. This is to see the aspect of their relation to something current
in our understanding "as observation," and something much more to it as
particle and wave together. Still trying to understand the analogy. In
the experiment, what leads the way, the wave, or the particle/droplet?
The "wave function" guides the particle/droplet, yes? Why of course, it
is called pilot-wave theory.
Before the experiment begins then, you know the particles state "as a
wave function," and given that this is already known, "the particle"
rides the wave function, is exemplary of the nature of the perspective
in the first place, as to what is already known. Hmmmm....sounds a
little confusing to me as I was seeing the waves in the experiment, but
given that such state of coalesce exists when experiment is done,
raises questions for me about the shaker as a necessity?
So cosmological you are looking to the past? You look up at the night
sky and when were all these messages received in the classical sense but
to be an observer of what happened a long time ago. You recognize the pathway as a wave function already before the
experimenter of the double slit even begins. It has a trajectory path
already given as the wave function is known with regard to A to B. These
are not probabilities then, if recognized as potential of the wave
function as already defining a pathway.
The pathway expressed as the pattern, had to already been established
as a causative event in the evolution in the recognition of a collision
course regarding any synchronized event located in the quantum world,
as a wave function pattern. You are dealing with a Bohemian
interpretation here.
***
On the flip side, I see spintronics, as a wave function giving
consideration to the y direction. It is a analogy that comes to mind
when I think of the fluid. Whether right or not, I see an association.
The idea, as a wave function is seen in regard to this chain as an illustration of the complexity of the fluid surface https://youtu.be/pWQ3r-2Xjeo
To go further then,
Known
as a major facet in the study of quantum hydrodynamics and macroscopic
quantum phenomena, the superfluidity effect was discovered by Pyotr
Kapitsa[1] and John F. Allen, and Don Misener[2] in 1937. It has since
been described through phenomenological and microscopic theories. The
formation of the superfluid is known to be related to the formation of a
Bose–Einstein condensate. This is made obvious by the fact that
superfluidity occurs in liquid helium-4 at far higher temperatures than
it does in helium-3. Each atom of helium-4 is a boson particle, by virtue of its zero spin.
Bold and underline added for emphasis
A
Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of
bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very
near 0 K or −273.15 °C). Under such conditions, a large fraction of
bosons occupy the lowest quantum state, at which point macroscopic
quantum phenomena become apparent.
So fast forward to the idealistic perception of the analog by
comparison in today's use against a backdrop of the theories and what do
we see?
Nevertheless,
they have proven useful in exploring a wide range of questions in
fundamental physics, and the years since the initial discoveries by the
JILA and MIT groups have seen an increase in experimental and
theoretical activity. Examples include experiments that have demonstrated interference between condensates due to wave–particle duality,[25]
the study of superfluidity and quantized vortices, the creation of
bright matter wave solitons from Bose condensates confined to one
dimension, and the slowing of light pulses to very low speeds using
electromagnetically induced transparency.[26] Vortices in Bose–Einstein
condensates are also currently the subject of analogue gravity research,
studying the possibility of modeling black holes and their related
phenomena in such environments in the laboratory. Experimenters have
also realized "optical lattices", where the interference pattern from
overlapping lasers provides a periodic potential. These have been used
to explore the transition between a superfluid and a Mott insulator,[27]
and may be useful in studying Bose–Einstein condensation in fewer than
three dimensions, for example the Tonks–Girardeau gas. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate#Current_research
I think its the Feynman approached the work of Dirac by using Feyman
diagrams to illustrate a mapping of the interactions. Now to me the
visualization techniques are much as Feynman puts it, where okay you are
an alien, how would you approach the world and you see Feynman comes up
with the method.....I think reiterating what his Father said to him.
Paul Dirac
When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two
different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the
geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down
equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these
equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking
in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way,
and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the
quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to
be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he
will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid
it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical
way.link is evasive http://atomicprecision.com/Topics/Pa...20Geometry.pdf
So Feynman's series sort of helps you to set your self up in such a
way in order to see that perception has to be ignited in such a way as
to ask question in a the approach he discusses.
I
always used these geometrical ideas for getting clear notions about
relationships in relativity although I didn’t refer to them in my
published works.Oral History Transcript — Dr. P. A. M. Dirac
So for Dirac to to help us understand anti-matter as symbol within
the matrices, beauty in the analytical way, also needs as good way to
visualize what he was doing. IN the same breathe Penrose uses Riemann
sphere to elucidate the geometry as a sister approach to developing his
thoughts regarding the universe. A geometrical underpinning.
[ROGER PENROSE]
"One particular thing that struck me... [LAUGHTER]...is the fact
that he found it necessary to translate all the results that he had
achieved with such methods into algebraic notation. It struck me
particularly, because remember I am told of Newton, when he wrote up his
work, it was always exactly the opposite, in that he obtained so much
of his results, so many of his results using analytical techniques and
because of the general way in which things at that time had to be
explained to people, he found it necessary to translate his results into
the language of geometry, so his contemporaries could understand him.
Well, I guess geometry… [INAUDIBLE] not quite the same topic as to
whether one thinks theoretically or analytically, algebraically perhaps.
This rule is perhaps touched upon at the beginning of Professor Dirac's
talk, and I think it is a very interesting topic."http://atomicprecision.com/Topics/Pa...20Geometry.pdf
So this is my suspicion and I am not sure many share it. It goes back
to when Penrose's talks about cohomology and he illustrates, Penrose's
triangle. How would he get anyone to see the way he does and point out
the difficulties and say, maybe you have an answer, because I do not
know? Your invited?
So you develop a model, and lets call it a virtual reality. Once you
climb on board how will your world view have changed that the things you
answer seem so different, had you not answer the question without such a
bias? A alien really, I think this was quite suggestive of Feynman to
help others see away into what he was doing.
Feynman:
‘Maxwell discussed … in terms of a model in which the vacuum was
like an elastic … what counts are the equations themselves and not the
model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are
true or false … If we take away the model he used to build it, Maxwell’s
beautiful edifice stands…’ – Richard P. Feynman, Feynman Lectures on
Physics, v3, c18, p2.
Shut Up and Calculate, you get what was meant.
Maybe, you will invoke different models with analytical functions in
order to help you see differently, add perspectives that without
considering Feynman's approach, this advancement in thinking would not
take place. We get to these points and move the goal post(we get stuck),
in order to see where the ole timers left off, and prepares for the
next generation of thinkers? Feynman came to the realization on his own
by correlating insights over a span of hundreds of years, by himself,
not with others, so how did he do that? He is telling us. Like Penrose
is telling us, requires visualization capabilities that have already
been mapped and can be mapped to higher dimensions? What purpose to see
Adinkras that will light the way toward.....???????
Beauty is understood then, when it came to pass, Dirac's equations lead
the way, and Little did we know how Dirac actually used his perception.
It propelled him forward, as it does for Penrose, but the beauty
remains, and how far forward will somebody else with vision help us
toward the next step?
So cosmological you are looking to the past? You look up at the night sky and when were all these messages received in the classical sense but to be an observer of what happened a long time ago.
