Are you a grad student? What university? Compared to other biologists I've talked to, I'm impressed with the amount of math/physics you know. I'm a grad student in physics myself, but I know way less of your field than you seem to know of mine.
You seem to know a lot of E+M, but unless you have a solid background of Quantum Mechanics, I think it would be more trouble than it is worth to go digging into a field theory book yourself. Since you are being offered lab access, if it isn't too costly/time consuming, you might as well just do the lab work first to see if your hypothesis is even reasonable. If it is then you could probably get a physicist interested enough to check out the particle physics ramifications to see if it makes any sense at all on that level. Hell, if you saw positive results I might volunteer to do it myself, even though I'm an experimentalist and I'd be rusty getting back into the old field theory equations.
If you were correct, this would be one of the greatest revolutions in the history of physics. But it is an extreme long shot. QED has been considered a done deal for decades now (for good reason), and I think your change in the Maxwell equations would force a fundamental rethinking of it. I suspect it would change the fundamental particle interactions, and it might even demand the existence of a new particle to preserve gauge invariance - at which point one would have to figure out why it hasn't been created and seen at particle colliders. Given how rusty I am, it would probably require a couple days of work for me to carefully go through and determine the obvious consequences of this change, which I don't have time for right now, but my instinct says they would be very significant.
fgarb: Just to be strictly correct, I think most physicists would not say a photon is matter, yet motion is a property of the photon as well.
True. I didn't mean that motion was a property of matter exclusively. If space is expanding, which is devoid of any matter at all, then that would also count as motion. It would probably be more correct to say that motion was a property of the universe in general.
fgarb I still would argue that quantum mechanics does not allow that, at least based on my interpretation of your wording.
I checked in on the info from that article that I had seen, and I had either misinterpreted it, or was misled. Its not the particle itself that travels, its just that the information of the particle (in this case, photons) instantly correlates to another particle at some distance away. Quantum entanglement apparently. I don't know if this qualifies as motion or not, but a particle changes states due to received information from a distance instaneously (or seemingly so).
If this is the case, then the distant particle is at one state one instant and a completely different state the next. Instants for us might be inperceivably small, but not completely T0 to T0prime, meaning: from one instant to the very next possible instant. Perception affects time interpretation quite a bit.
I saw a show once, one of those mythbuster type shows, that set out to verify or debunk the myth that time slows down for people that think they are about to die. They had an LCD display that flashed a random number fast enough that it was unreadable. Then they gave the display to a guy and hoisted him up a couple hundred feet in the air in a harness, then had him stare at the display to see if he could tell what the number was while he was in freefall. Turns out he could, and even when he was off, he chose a number very close in shape to the actual number.
It could just be that in a danger state, the brain picks up and interprets more information per time slot than usual, hence the perceived 'slowing' down of time. And if time, and therefore change, is simply a matter of perception, time and/or motion could seem different for any other creature. Ever wonder how bumblebees can fly such jagged patterns so quickly, or how a flock of birds can perform such pinpoint aerial manuevers without bumping into each other? They could perceive a LOT more motion and process that info much quicker than we can.
Go for it, this is the great thing about the internet (some kinds of things might get done that others are not doing). It looks like I will be in the lab to do an extraction and make some optical measurements on Dec 3rd.
Penrose is against (but Gladyshev is not against Penrose in general) the quaternionic approach (see below).
I am interested however in the use that it may have to further experiment with the TWO KINDS of phenomenological EMFs (of Bridgman mentioned in the quaterionic link in this thread) (as I also noticed the issue when I designed what I used as an avatar a while back on EVC
) and I am suspecting (I have no proof of this yet) that critters, such as my bugs, might be able to witness to that. We will have to wait till I can get some lab work done to be sure of what material I am dealing with. I was not however first coming to the use of quaternions from the emf perspective and because I came to this form of representation of 3-space from two different lines of reasoning, I became much more convinced of its potential. I need to use them to answer a question I placed to a couple of French biologists about the form of a computer program which is supposed to naturally extract hierarchical data from cladistic information.
Penrose however never really gets to a discrete perspective (in the book as a whole) as his loops still depend on a full surface. But again, this may not be what I need for what is spoiled for Penrose may not be fermenting for me. I am interested in Boltzmann’s notion of atomic divisibility and thus if biology might not be suggesting something different to physics in the long shot. To a physicist it is certainly dubious just hearing biologists talk like I do, but I have completely worked over the linguistics of differences in positions in evolutionary theory and I have come to a conclusion that there is not going to be any changes unless there are theoretical changes.
How far (or even if, to be conservative) they/I have to change physics I do not know. It may be that only better use of math in biology is required. It is important to notice however that strong and weak forces may not be somethings that really impact forced changes on the level of the biology ( unless there is some discovery about mutations I do not know about). I have no doubt however that there has been something missing at the level where one defines acids and bases and I tend to think (thanks to Faraday in part) that the missing relation IS to temperature. Supramolecular chemistry was not available when I was in the Chemistry Major at Cornell. There may be more to temperature than the simple change to random molecular motion as occurred for Einstein etc.
I am not associated with an university at present. I am doing this on my own. The gist of Gladyshev’s law (arrow)can be gleaned from the following (a mention of EvC in Book Form can be seen in the last to thumbnails):
Heh. Quantum entanglement is some fun and wierd stuff. As I recall, Einstein first proposed it as a reason why quantum mechanics must be wrong. He thought the idea of instananeous interactions between widely separated particles was so absurd, that by showing it was a consequence of quantum mechanics, it would undermine the theory. Instead, experimentalists ran out and tested the idea, and sure enough, quantum entangelement is true and particles can interact instantaneously across immense distances. I know there are theories to explain how this can be possible, but as far as I know there is no experimental evidence for any of them.
They had an LCD display that flashed a random number fast enough that it was unreadable. Then they gave the display to a guy and hoisted him up a couple hundred feet in the air in a harness, then had him stare at the display to see if he could tell what the number was while he was in freefall. Turns out he could, and even when he was off, he chose a number very close in shape to the actual number.
Good to know our adrenaline is useful for something! But I don't understand your argument. Are you just saying that it is possible to take in more information in a given amount of time than our brains normally do? If so, then of course that's possible. Or are you saying that this has something to do with a possible "smallest unit of time"? If the latter, you should check up on how precise time measurements have gotten.
If time is quantized, it is at a level that human/animal perception cannot ever hope to detect. For example, there is a particle called the tau that is created at particle colliders. This particle is incredibly unstable and decays almost instantaneously into other, more stable particles. While the lifetime of the particle is inherently random, the average amount of time it lives before decaying has been measured to be 0.29 trillionths of a second (with an uncertainty on that number of ~0.3%). I could probably find better examples than this with some thought, but this at least shows that if time is quantized, and the unit of time is larger than maybe a thousandth of a trillionth of a second, this measurement would be impossible at such precision.
Are you just saying that it is possible to take in more information in a given amount of time than our brains normally do?
Yep. And that different brains could perceive time and motion much faster or slower than we do.
Say you were a giant. A giant so big that a galaxy was about the size of your hand. When you, as this giant, look at a galaxy, would it move very slowly as it does for us here on Earth? I wouldn't think so. A brain that large would not process the visual info as fast as we Earthlings do, because it would take longer for the optic nerve to send that info to the brain and longer for the brain to fire the synapses to process it. So while this giant is watching the galaxy, its brain processes a view of the galaxy and before the brain can process the next wave of info coming in, the galaxy has moved further. Much further than it does when we normal-size beings look at it. So it takes those 2 images, interpolates the movement in between, as our brains do, and sees it has moved somewhat further than we would perceive it with our brain under that same process.
On the opposite end, you have a fly. Its very hard for us to squash a fly with our hand, though we are moving very quick in our frame of reference. The fly moves because it can feel the pressure wave of air caused by the incoming hand and is able to fly away before our hand touches down. Perhaps a fly is really just perceiving so much info in that same instant that we appear to be in slow motion a bit. Ever see the first Spiderman movie? Where the bully picks on Peter Parker soon after he is bitten and the bully tries to punch him? Peter is able to easily dodge the incoming fist and watches as it slowly moves by him. I know thats a movie and not real science, but thats the point Im trying to make.
While the lifetime of the particle is inherently random, the average amount of time it lives before decaying has been measured to be 0.29 trillionths of a second
Amazing! Considering that time could be fractioned down infinitely, I guess theres really no reason to think that any amount of motion could ever occur without some passage of time, no matter how small.
There always has to be motion in the universe. Even though the desk in front of me is completely stationary, the atoms of the desk are moving. And perhaps since motion can never cease, this is why people feel that time is its own separate entity. Things must always move and they move constantly in succession. Like we can never sense a 'present' point in time, its all just the past and the future, because any 'present' moment has moved continually.
"Beliefs - they're the bullets of the wicked." - SOAD
Hawking's BHT tried to show mathematically, that time had a beginning.
IMHO, time is not a man made concept, but an original, promodial and fulcrum entity. It is not akin to a ruler measuring time sequences, but the other way around.
IOW, the period of the moon's revolution follow a precedent time constraint, as opposed time reflecting that period of the moon's movements. While this is difficult to illustrate, an anology can help, by reducing a construct in actual terms. If we ask, how is time factored in the making of a car, for example, we can say this is implicit, even if it is not stated in the manufacturing manual. Because it will be a failure if the car cannot sustain itself to a nominal time factor of usage.
Similarly, if all the engineerings which make up the moon and its revolutions were not time factored - the moon would not exist as we know it. Just as surely as the moon depends on gravity, it also depends on applying itself to a time factor. This applies to everything in the universe.
Is a pineapple, a car or a star displaying a time seen from the view of humans - or are they representing a precedent time factor requirement which makes them what they are: this is the question! And its answer lies in that all those products obey a precedent time factor - as seen by other pineapples, cars and stars, which also align with what is clearly a precedent time constraint.
Is a human pregnancy [generally] reflective of and obeying a 9 month period factor - or is the 9 month period obeying that pregnancy's demands? IMHO, the former prevails here, because the time factor is aligned with other such pregnancies, and with the internal mechanisms of the mother and child, to allign with that time factor. Thus the time is a precedent, fulcrum entity, akin to forces such as gravity and light.
You folks are doing a lot of speculation about the fundamental nature of time. While I am going to remain agnostic about such things, I do notice that there hasn't been much talk about the nature of space. I do want to point out something that humans have learned from the last 100 years of physics: time and space are fundamentally linked to each other. You can't really separate time from space.
At least, not in the way that the discussions on this thread seem to be proceeding. If time is quantized, then chances are that space is also quantized. If time is/is not a fundamental property of the universe, then the same is also probably true of space, and that really should be taken into account if you are trying to decide whether your ideas make sense. To have an intelligent conversation about these things, I think you at least need to have some knowledge of Einstein's theory of special relativity. There are many good books out there that delve into this theory. If people were interested, I could also try and explain some of the basics here when I have time, though a super-detailed discussion might be beyond the scope of the thread.
It is really not "a lot" when one considers how fast the discussion (can) stop(s). It is not that much as compared with the entanglement space of the threads on EvC in general. Whether we are to be talking about quanglement here, I do not yet know.
quote:I do notice that there hasn't been much talk about the nature of space.
Perhaps this is because as Kant said,
quote:I can consider a given point in time in relation to past time only as conditioned, because this given moment comes into existence only through the past time - or rather through the passing of the proceeding time. But as the parts of space are not subordinated, but co-ordinated to each other, one part cannot be the condition of the possibility of the other; and space is not in itself, like time, a series. But the synthesis of the manifold parts of space – (the synthesis whereby we apprehend space) – is nevertheless successive; it takes place, therefore, in time, and contains a series. And as this series of aggregated spaces (for example, the feet in a rood ), beginning with a given portion of space, those which continue to be annexed from the condition of the limitsof the former – the measurement of a space must also be regarded as a synthesis of the series of the conditions of a given conditioned. It differs however, in this respect from that of time, that the side of the conditioned is not in itself distinguishable from the side of the condition; and consequently, regressus and progressusin space seem to be identical.
Kant Critique of Pure Reason page 246 Barnes and Noble 2004 of1781
I intend on working with the two series (quaternion with time and gladyshev’s law)and from there down to the level where quantum discussion resides. My lab date is SET for the 3rd and I should have results that day to see if the talk gets darker or lighter from my side. Space only needs to be within the subordinated places the posts in this thread peek conditioned for the duration. One can obviate this by carrying-on the same conversation in a different thread.
It seems to me that a simple quaternion input devise could be constructed by adding opposite signed magnets to the outside of a powerballand glove and record the two internal rotations and the one with respect to a handed glove as the ijk. This could permit a better heuristic tool for the use of quaternions then simply using one’s mathematical maturity(see original communicationto Dr. Gladyshev on use of powerballs in probing his differential equations). It might also permit one to haptically sense “time” without having necessarily to associate it with the scalar if the output is mathematically equivalent (given conventions on what is “right” and “left”).
From such a vantage point I think I would be in a proper position to adjude if the time interval of this discussion does violence or not to reality. I think from thought beyond Aristotle that such an interval exists.
may be approaching the region I have underconsideration as the circular area is homological to that where the focused light enters (my ostracods) what I presume is chrophyll moved via macrothermodynamical kinematics. The geometry of this material structure may bear the unique properties that Maxwell's non-quaternionic field system does not.
and as Eucledian to some approximation and is about perpendicular through the circular area depicted earlier in this thread. The multicellular formations are in black.
How far this can be brought to an actual origin of/in time I do not know yet. I do now that when Hawking came out with his historical book you mentioned I was supposed to be meeting with a Cornell student AND a Romance Studies Prof who were supportive of my complaints against the rest of Cornell but a lecture on his book prevented me getting both of them together.
quote:So I wondered what the shortest amount of travel would be. We would have to break motion down into individual atom motions, like electron orbits (or some other subatomic motion I'm yet unaware of). How much time passes from an atom being at one distinct point to the very next possible point in motion? I labeled the first point of travel of an atom as A,
There are definitely quantum changes going on inside the ostracods.
Most of the rear guts were expelled of detritus but we can not rule out that the photons we saw fall to the ground state were coming from the fore gut rather than the blue-green hepatopancreas. We are going to try to starve the crustaceans for a couple of days and repeat the test. Hopefully they will have expelled all detritus by then.
We obtained a yield difference (to a lower value) when all of the detritus ( accidentally left behind) not inside the organism was filtered out (out of the test tube). On the positive side it may be that heat dissipation and photochemistry are involved in situ as traits of the animal.
Given that it has been supposed that ostracods are behavioral rather than physiological oxygen regulators and that this is supposed by evolution thinking to reflect an early time period of little oxygen, if this is indeed a signal not from the foregut but is active chlorophyll in the hepatopancreas, evolutionary thought about tissue oxygenization, and possibly the origin of eyes (more in the sequel) may need to be re-thought if the thermodynamics differentiates right and left by gene duplication (as occurred in compound ostracod eyes) depending on the difference of right and left operators in a quaternionic representation of Gladyshev’s law. It is possible that the "problem" is with the thought of a constant rate of speed. It may be that evolutionary thinking has been slowing down but let me not get philosophical too soon, too fast.
In context the time I am attempting to adumbrate in this thread was already paragraphed by Kant when he wrote in The Metaphysical Elements of Justice (page 14-15 The Liberal Arts Press 1965)
It has been shown elsewhere that we must have a priori principles for natural science, which has to do with the objects of the outer senses, and that it is possible – indeed, even necessary – to prefix a system of such principles, under the name of a metaphysical natural science, to physics, which is natural science applied to particular experiences. Metaphysical natural science, if it is to be universal in the strict sense, must be deduced from a priori grounds; although physics (at least when the purpose is to guard its propositions against error) may assume many principles to be universal on the testimony of experience, just as Newton adopted the principle of the equality of action and reaction in the influence of bodies on one another as based on experience and yet extended that principle to all material nature. The chemists go still further and base their most general laws of combination and dissociation of substances by their own forces entirely on experience, and yet they have such confidence in the universality and necessity of these laws that they do not worry about discovering any error in the experiments that they make with them.
In history there was someone who gave expression to this chemistry by deviating from Newton on specifics. This person was Mikhail Lomonosov. He saw material as "mixed bodies" and that there was no room for the speculation that Salamander opened this thread with (unless this is to be or have been associated with the notion of “ether”). I know we have gone a little beyond this so far in this thread but I think that demonstrating that I am was not the only person to respond to Newton's OPTICKS on rest vs relative rest etc. it might be helpful for readers to read some of his work in this place.
Here is the first selection of his works in the book by Leicester(Lomonosov uses the words “chemical operations” in the second selection which can be seen at the end of the first I have copied).
quote: The structure of grammar obscures the truth that has not been communicated or can not be communicated over phone lines but may be “encoded” in the quaternionic approach. How far I succeed with the internet remains to be seen, but I am losing ground every time people are distracted from the topic due to grammar as distinct from contradiction. A 9th grade level ensures that contradictions can be spotted.
So, consider yourself spotted. Perhaps distractions from the topic also come in the form of purposeful loosely connected thoughts, somewhat based on fringe science? I am afraid you ain't deep, you just ain't clear.
What is your idea of the relation between space and time??
I tried to explain a psychological issue in that paragraph not how biology involutes the extension that chemistry gives to physics while math remains plura(vocal)lized.
It's nice to think you have eyes that look over a back.
You may be attributing an error to my self-teaching which rather is a prejudice if anything negative or not constiutative of the others' horizons. The problem is in the communication of the expereience not in the having of it.
You brought it up. I looked at your post, and feel I spotted a confusing thing. For example, I spotted this. "the phone NEVER contained the information on evolution I got from my Grandfather in or about Buffalo."
As touching as the phone call may have been, the Buffalo was interjected without that much of an introduction.
quote: What is the/a contradiction then?
Slow down a bit there. To have one of those would you not need two cohesive thoughts to disconnect?? Or at least to rub together?
quote: What is your idea of the relation between space and time??
I lean toward the opinion that there is some connection. You?
quote: I tried to explain a psychological issue in that paragraph not how biology involutes the extension that chemistry gives to physics while math remains plura(vocal)lized.
How nice. Can you give an example of the extension that chemistry gives to physics, that you mean? Or is this all about the phone call and the buffalo?
quote: It's nice to think you have eyes that look over a back.
A bit like bison, perhaps, peering to the rear somewhat??
quote: You may be attributing an error to my self-teaching which rather is a prejudice if anything negative or not constiutative of the others' horizons. The problem is in the communication of the expereience not in the having of it.
I can see communicating is an area you might have a problem with. What is it you are trying to communicate?