Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Time and Space
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 151 of 204 (306430)
04-25-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by nwr
04-24-2006 5:20 PM


Why am I reminded about the Einstein quote
"reality is an illusion, abeit a very persistant one"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by nwr, posted 04-24-2006 5:20 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 152 of 204 (306445)
04-25-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by GDR
04-25-2006 12:58 AM


Re: Time, Space, Consciousness and Penrose
I have no scientific background but it does seem to me from my reading that the more scientists learn the more they learn they don't know.
That's to be expected.
Assume creationism for a moment, and think about the God's eye view. The creator is outside our universe, having created it. So the creator has an external perspective.
By contrast, we are stuck inside our world, trying to work out what it looks like from the inside. You might imagine you are locked in a cabin in a large ship sailing on the seas. What you can see is limited by your internal perspective. Can you work out that you are in a ship? Can you work out that there is a sea?
Whether or not there is a creator, we are still stuck with looking at our world from the inside. We can never expect to answer all of the questions. The problem with doing metaphysics, the problem with talk about "ultimate reality" or a "theory of everything", is that they pretend we could see what our universe looks like from the outside.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by GDR, posted 04-25-2006 12:58 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by GDR, posted 04-25-2006 9:13 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 153 of 204 (306452)
04-25-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by nwr
04-25-2006 8:42 AM


Re: Time, Space, Consciousness and Penrose
nwr writes:
Assume creationism for a moment, and think about the God's eye view. The creator is outside our universe, having created it. So the creator has an external perspective.
By contrast, we are stuck inside our world, trying to work out what it looks like from the inside. You might imagine you are locked in a cabin in a large ship sailing on the seas. What you can see is limited by your internal perspective. Can you work out that you are in a ship? Can you work out that there is a sea?
Whether or not there is a creator, we are still stuck with looking at our world from the inside. We can never expect to answer all of the questions. The problem with doing metaphysics, the problem with talk about "ultimate reality" or a "theory of everything", is that they pretend we could see what our universe looks like from the outside.
I agree that ID is outside the bounds of science as we now know it but scientists have to go wherever the evidence leads and that is what I assume Penrose is doing. Maybe the sea outside the ship really does exist and it is consciousness. He is obviously one of the top people in his field and I have to assume that this is where the evidence is leading him.
I think that besides the example I gave in my last post there are other examples of time being a variable that we all experience that seem to tie in with consciousness. Everyone agrees that we perceive time as passing much more rapidly as we get older. I read somewhere that half of our perceived life is over by the time we are 21 years old.
Everone also experiences the concept of time passing more quickly when we are occupied and busy than when we aren't.
Maybe at some point in the future the study of physics and metaphysics will be connected. (and maybe not )

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by nwr, posted 04-25-2006 8:42 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 154 of 204 (308588)
05-02-2006 7:02 PM


I’m still trying to sort out in my own mind a concept of the relationship between time, space and consciousness. I’m definitely educationally challenged but I do like to read.
As I understand it many particles including photons move at light speed. Some of these particles that move at light speed, such as photons, have no mass. Gravitons, (if they exist), do have mass as they exert a gravitational force. Mass can only become matter when it is moving at less than the speed of light.
Cavediver who actually knows about this stuff wrote this in another thread.
cavediver writes:
What I am talking about is a universe that only has a finite time dimension. Under the Big Bang, we have an earliest time of about 14 billion years ago. The universe never "came into existence" because there was never a time it didn't exist. It just exists. There was never a nothing and then a something.
The universe is to all intents and purposes four-dimensional... it is our restricted three-dimensional perspective that makes us think that the Big Bang is a "beginning" and requires a "cause". The Big Bang is a beginning to the universe in the same way the South Pole is a beginning to the Earth (i.e. it isn't) It is just a (four-dimensional) point in a universe that just is.
If our entire universe existed in the manner that massless particles do, we would be living in a universe that exists without space or time. Maybe what was in existence, is in existence and always will be in existence is a universe that exists at light speed.
The only way then that matter could exist is for massless particles in our universe to slow down so that they can take on the various forms that we observe in our physical universe. It seems to me that if this slowing of particles had been caused to happen then that would bring about the start of space and time that we see at the BB.
As I understand Penrose and others, they are suggesting that time is based on how our consciousness perceives change. As I mentioned earlier this perception of time changes under periods of high stress and it changes as we age so this seems to make sense from actual experience.
Could this all mean then, that our universe is really governed by the laws of massless particles moving at light speed and that our consciousness causes us to perceive the universe differently in a way that causes us to live in a universe of 3 spatial dimensions made up of matter space and time. This would mean that if all consciousness ceased so would all time and space, but what would go on is a universe where time and space don’t exist.
Julian Barbour suggests that each little chunk of time is really a separate universe whatever that means but it would bring about another way of looking at this.
And by the way, no I don’t do drugs.

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 155 of 204 (310433)
05-08-2006 11:53 PM


Still Googling
Here is a web site devoted to the study of consciousness, space and time.
Welcome | Stuart Hameroff, MD
And here is a short and recent article by Penrose from that site.
Must a "theory of everything" include consciousness?
Marking the century anniversary of Einstein’s first major contributions, an article in Nature (433, 257 - 259, January 2005) surveyed some of the world’s top physicists on the current status of a “Theory of everything”. Roger Penrose remarked that such a theory must include consciousness. Here is his statement:
The terminology 'theory of everything' has always worried me. There is a certain physicist's arrogance about it that suggests that knowing all the physical laws would tell us everything about the world, at least in principle. Does a physical theory of 'everything' include a theory of consciousness? Does it include a theory of morality, or of human behaviour, or of aesthetics? Even if our idea of science could be expanded to incorporate these things, would we still think of it as 'physics', or would it even be reducible to physics?
As for myself, I perhaps have enough of the physicist's arrogance about me to believe that a physical 'theory of everything' should at least contain the seeds of an explanation of the phenomenon of consciousness. It seems to me that this phenomenon is such a fundamental one that it cannot be simply an accidental concomitant of the complexity of brain action. It must be of such sophistication that the brain is enabled to dig more deeply into the fundamental workings of the Universe than are more commonplace physical systems. And if this is so, then we are very much farther from a proper understanding of the laws of nature than most physicists seem to believe.
Indeed, irrespective of the consciousness issue, in my opinion, we are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of everything. I find it remarkable how many physicists will express the view that, despite some missing details and unifying concepts, we know virtually all we need to know to describe the fully detailed physical behaviour of systems ” at least in principle. Yet, there is at least one glaring omission in present physical theory. This is how small-scale quantum processes can add up, for large and complicated systems, to the almost classical behaviour of macroscopic bodies. Indeed, it is not just an omission but an actual fundamental inconsistency, sometimes referred to as the measurement paradox (or Schrdinger's cat). In my view, until this paradox is resolved we must necessarily remain very far from a physical theory of everything ” whether or not such a theory exists.
Roger Penrose

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ramoss, posted 05-09-2006 7:16 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 159 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2006 5:37 AM GDR has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 156 of 204 (310453)
05-09-2006 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by GDR
05-08-2006 11:53 PM


Re: Still Googling
Well, that doesn't look like real science. His credential's are qualified for his claims for one. He doesn't have any experimental data.
The people he quotes are Philosphers, not scientiests. He is an anathesologist.
This is what I would call 'Psuedo-science'. all the big fancy words, but no substance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by GDR, posted 05-08-2006 11:53 PM GDR has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 157 of 204 (311693)
05-13-2006 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by nwr
04-24-2006 3:44 PM


The Framework vs Reality
There seems to be a tendency for physicists to jump into metaphysics. Perhaps that could even be considered an occupational hazard of doing physics.
yesterday's metaphysics is today's physics... just think of relatvistic and quantum concepts presented to the scientists of the 1850s!
The scientist constructs a mathematical framework, in order to study reality. The tendency (the occupational hazard) is to come to believe that the framework is reality, and to forget that it is merely a framework to be used for studying reality.
The old story What you have to remember is that just about all 20th C particle/quantum/relativistic physics proceeded in precisely this way to staggering success... so much so that there was real suspicion that something very odd was going on.
How many "oh well, it's a very nice piece of mathematics but what has it got to do with reality?" were followed by "err, ok, err, wow!"?
Let's see... the whole of GR obviously; negative energy solutions of Dirac equation leading to prediction of anti-matter; the hadron/meson multiplet spectrum via group theory; and probably the most amazing and best example: Yang-Mills non-Abelian gauge theory leading to ElectroWeak and QCD. And that's just off the top of my head.
You can start to see why we don't have a huge amount of patience for comments such as "it is merely a framework to be used for studying reality".
No-one is saying that any of these "frameworks" are reality-incarnate, but to ignore mathematical implications in these theories is to stick one's head in the sand.
As an aside:
Turning it around, the mathematical physics that comes out of such research can reveal itself to be better at mathematics than the original pure mathematicians! Take Witten's topological field theory and its relation to Morse Theory and its ability to generate Donaldson Invariants in a hundredth of the time it takes Donaldson (won Witten the Field's Medal... first physicist to win it I think). The bizarre implications are hard to grasp here and easily missed, but I can talk about this further if anyone is interested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nwr, posted 04-24-2006 3:44 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 158 of 204 (311695)
05-13-2006 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by nwr
04-24-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Time, Space, Consciousness and Penrose
In some respects, physics treats time much as it treats distance. We don't think about a flow of distance. Rather, we think of objects at different distances as being always in existence. So why not consider all of time to have existed forever?
Yep
That's the kind of thinking that leads some physicists to question our understanding of time.
Exactly. Our amazing theory of the universe which works to a degree unparalleled in physics yet tells us that time is nothing special. Yet we know damn well it is... the ability to know depends upon it! This actually has an official name "The Problem of Time".
For example, the wave equation treats time and distance in very similar ways. However, the heat equation does treat time differently from distance, and fits well with the idea of a flow of time.
The problem is that the heat equation is only valid in the non-relativistic regime. It only makes sense at our scale, it is not a universal of the universe. For example, Schrodinger's Equation is just a version of the heat equation, but is of limited use. It is abandoned as soon as relativistic considerations are taken into account and replaced by the Dirac and Klein-Gordon Equations (amongst some others) which all treat space and time equivalently. Our fundemental understanding of matter, quantum field theory, is wholely based upon the equivalence of space and time.
You can see why we call this a "problem". The deeper we go, the less we understand about our relation to time!
It appears that time-flow is an emergent feature of the universe, not a fundemental property.
If time, and the flow of time, is the kind of illusion that Penrose thinks it is, the those parts of science where the flow of time makes sense are also illusory. That would make biological evolution an illusion. It would make human consciousness an illusion. And then science itself, which is a product of human consciousness, must be taken to be an illusion. In my opinion, this "illusion" idea is self-impeaching.
Replace "illusion" with "emergent property" and you pretty much have our current understanding. I don't think "illusion" is too far off the mark. The "flow" seems to require a conciousness to exist to appreciate it. Other than for conciousness, everything is just a static 4 dimensional construct as General Relativity has told us for the past 100 years...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nwr, posted 04-24-2006 3:44 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by GDR, posted 05-29-2006 10:46 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 159 of 204 (311696)
05-13-2006 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by GDR
05-08-2006 11:53 PM


A relevant (long overdue) response to Sidelined
If we take the position that the universe always existed I assume this is the same as saying that time never had a beginning which seems to me to be impossible for the reason that without a beginning how can any point in time ever be arrived at?
Ok, first read my post above. You'll see the problem with thinking of time-flow a fundemental property of the universe. If you read through the Penrose stuff that GDR quotes, you'll see the idea that time is intimately wrapped up in conciousness. I have a lot of sympathy for this idea.
So there is no time variable that montonically increases... there is just a fixed, possibly infinite, time dimension. Part of the four dimensional mess of matter that makes up the universe are these sub-structures that we call humans, although we are more familiar with dealing with single cross-sections of these humans. These strcutures are sufficiently complex that somehow (don't ask me how) this thing known as conciousness arises, and appears as a dynamic 3-d process within the static 4d structure. How this conciousness makes sense of a temporal order is difficult to determine but certainly the thermodynamic arrow of time is involved.
Does this start to answer your question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by GDR, posted 05-08-2006 11:53 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by GDR, posted 05-14-2006 4:46 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 165 by sidelined, posted 05-15-2006 3:18 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 09-05-2006 1:48 AM cavediver has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 160 of 204 (311779)
05-14-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by cavediver
05-13-2006 5:37 AM


Re: A relevant (long overdue) response to Sidelined
Thanks cavediver
I'll take the liberty of quoting from a previous post of mine in this thread.
"I have had experiences, as have most of us, where time definitely slowed for me. One case in particular. I was riding a bike and the peddle snapped off. My leg went under the bike and I rolled over backwards with the bike going over top of me. The process probably took about .5 secs but in my personal time frame it probably took about 3 secs. I remember thinking that I was going to wreck the white jacket I was wearing, and that I was going to have to lift my head and put my chin on my chest or I would crack my coconut on the pavement."
I also contend that time is passing at a considerably faster rate for me now than it did when I was a child. This is a sentiment that everyone seems to have. If time is just what our consciousness perceives it to be it would make sense of a lot of experience in our life. However, as was pointed out, it brings into question a lot of other things that we thought we knew.
My point I guess is just that life experience seems to support Penrose's, and your, thoughts on consciousness. In addition it seems consistent with SR as we all have our own individual time anyway.
Thanks again for your insights.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2006 5:37 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by cavediver, posted 05-14-2006 7:18 PM GDR has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 161 of 204 (311796)
05-14-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by GDR
05-14-2006 4:46 PM


Re: A relevant (long overdue) response to Sidelined
Yes, I had read through your posts. I must admit that I am a little skeptical about the relevance of our perceived passage of time to the deeper notions of the connections of conciousness and time. I'm fairly sure tests have shown that a perceived minute doesn't change much over our lifetime, once we have a good idea of what a minute is. This is really just a function of processing speed. The larger scale perception of time passing seems more to do with the ratio of information gathered to information stored. I would describe both of these as high-level, cognitive issues, and would be true whether time-flow existed completely independent of conciousness or not. Well, that's my thoughts anyway...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by GDR, posted 05-14-2006 4:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by GDR, posted 05-15-2006 12:41 AM cavediver has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 162 of 204 (311853)
05-15-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by cavediver
05-14-2006 7:18 PM


Re: A relevant (long overdue) response to Sidelined
OK. It does seem to me that time doesn't pass at a consistent rate but I get your point of operating with a full hard drive as we get older. It doesn't explain my experience on the bike but that may just be some form of reflex reaction to a particular incident.
Can you tell me what you believe would be left if all consciousness ceased to exist. Presumably time would cease but would matter exist? Is the suggestion then that the existance of the entire universe depends on consciousness?
Can this line of study be tested by empirical means or does this cross over into the strictly philosophic?
Thanks for your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by cavediver, posted 05-14-2006 7:18 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by cavediver, posted 05-15-2006 5:29 AM GDR has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 163 of 204 (311876)
05-15-2006 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by GDR
05-15-2006 12:41 AM


Re: A relevant (long overdue) response to Sidelined
Can you tell me what you believe would be left if all consciousness ceased to exist. Presumably time would cease but would matter exist? Is the suggestion then that the existance of the entire universe depends on consciousness?
Hmmm, starting to stray into Strong Anthropic territory here.
This is a GR-"solution"-inspired view:
The universe does not depend upon conciousness. It just is. It has no dynamics, it does not evolve. Every slice that we think of as a moment in time is fixed and exists "always".
However, us theoretical physicists tend to revere consistency above all else. And so far our only datapoint is that a consistent universe involves conciousness...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by GDR, posted 05-15-2006 12:41 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 05-15-2006 10:33 AM cavediver has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 164 of 204 (311934)
05-15-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by cavediver
05-15-2006 5:29 AM


Re: A relevant (long overdue) response to Sidelined
cavediver writes:
This is a GR-"solution"-inspired view:
The universe does not depend upon conciousness. It just is. It has no dynamics, it does not evolve. Every slice that we think of as a moment in time is fixed and exists "always".
I copied this off the internet. It is from a review of Julian Barbour's book
The moment you stop thought
time too stops dead.
The line between science and mysticism sometimes grows thin. Today physicists would agree that
time is one of the strangest properties of our universe. In fact, there is a story circulating among
scientists of an immigrant to America who has lost his watch. He walks up to a man on a New York
street and asks, "Please, Sir, what is time?" The scientist replies, "I'm sorry, you'll have to ask a
philosopher. I'm just a physicist."
I'm trying to piece together various things that I have read without any real basic knowledge which certainly presents a challenge.
Time then is a series of nows which presumably means that change also occurs in chunks as well. If change is dependent on consciousness it would mean that if consciousness stopped time would no longer exist and there would be nothing to observe our universe.
What do we mean by change in this scenario? Would that include change at the quantum level? I'm way out of my depth here but doesn't the uncertainty principle require an observer to bring about change? If I'm right about that would the end of consciousness, (lack of any observer), mean that all change even at the quantum level stops? If all quantum change stops then wouldn't that mean the universe as we now know it would no longer exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by cavediver, posted 05-15-2006 5:29 AM cavediver has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 165 of 204 (312047)
05-15-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by cavediver
05-13-2006 5:37 AM


Re: A relevant (long overdue) response to Sidelined
cavediver
As for myself, I perhaps have enough of the physicist's arrogance about me to believe that a physical 'theory of everything' should at least contain the seeds of an explanation of the phenomenon of consciousness. It seems to me that this phenomenon is such a fundamental one that it cannot be simply an accidental concomitant of the complexity of brain action. It must be of such sophistication that the brain is enabled to dig more deeply into the fundamental workings of the Universe than are more commonplace physical systems. And if this is so, then we are very much farther from a proper understanding of the laws of nature than most physicists seem to believe.
Indeed, irrespective of the consciousness issue, in my opinion, we are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of everything. I find it remarkable how many physicists will express the view that, despite some missing details and unifying concepts, we know virtually all we need to know to describe the fully detailed physical behaviour of systems ” at least in principle. Yet, there is at least one glaring omission in present physical theory. This is how small-scale quantum processes can add up, for large and complicated systems, to the almost classical behaviour of macroscopic bodies. Indeed, it is not just an omission but an actual fundamental inconsistency, sometimes referred to as the measurement paradox (or Schrdinger's cat). In my view, until this paradox is resolved we must necessarily remain very far from a physical theory of everything ” whether or not such a theory exists.
Roger Penrose
Let us take this a piece at a time
should at least contain the seeds of an explanation of the phenomenon of consciousness.It seems to me that this phenomenon is such a fundamental one that it cannot be simply an accidental concomitant of the complexity of brain action. It must be of such sophistication that the brain is enabled to dig more deeply into the fundamental workings of the Universe than are more commonplace physical systems.
I have difficulty here with this {especially as it applies to perception of time} since if it is not a part of the fundemenatal processes then how does one account for things such as anesthetics or a blow to the head that renders us unconscious because these are both the result of the electormagnetic force ultimatly are they not?
Why would the electromagnetic force have such a consequence if the consciouness itself were not also electromagnetic. If the consciousness we have is a result of the electromagnetic force, even though the complexity is staggering, then the difficulty seems to be simply thatwe have not yet found the key to unlock the complexity , not that consciousness is of a different fundamental force.
The workings of our sun are complex and as we refine our instruments we find it more complex still ,yet the basic process is still the same and this from a sphere of mostly hydrogen ,the simplest element of all.What more is possible with carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen that makes up our bodies and brains?
Yet, there is at least one glaring omission in present physical theory.This is how small-scale quantum processes can add up, for large and complicated systems, to the almost classical behaviour of macroscopic bodies
But is this a correct question? Atoms individually do not have the quantity we call temperature since the aspect that defines it is the average kinetic energy of the collection of atoms present that gives rise to the concept.That the world appears to operate according to an arrow of time can also be considered an averaging of the staistics of vast volumes of atoms in their motons.If the universe must, according to some imbalance or difference in potential,move in a given direction as to effect an arrow of time is it necessary that we discover the mechanism as a consequence of the quantum physics or is the problwem of finding a suitable means of testing by experiment to settle the question?
Indeed, it is not just an omission but an actual fundamental inconsistency, sometimes referred to as the measurement paradox (or Schrdinger's cat). In my view, until this paradox is resolved we must necessarily remain very far from a physical theory of everything ” whether or not such a theory exists.
Here is where I cannot travel to deeply since I am at a loss for the tools of mathematics to investigate with you on the proper level.
However does the fact that the universe is measured by means that the universe uses as opposed to the way humans do for their convenience indicate a paradox or simply an inabilty to imagine in terms that require visualization? Ionce read on the paradox about the wave particle duality and in that same book the author was implying that the wave aspect is simply a measure of the probability of a particle and the particle aspect was the actual matter point itself.
Since probabilty is more an artifact than a reality is this any different than the apparent edge the our sun has? There is not a physical edge but just a edge defined by the probabilty of a photn emission occuring at that level.
I have to get ready for work though I hope I have not appeared too much the idiot in response. I do enjoy the chance to see if I can lay a groundwork to help me as I start to make the attempt to relearn all the algebra and trig calculus etc..
Give me 5 or 6 years to start to be able to manipulate the equations and perhaps I can better appreciate the discourse. In the meantoime feel free to critique me on my views.
Many thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2006 5:37 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by cavediver, posted 05-15-2006 7:22 PM sidelined has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024