Curving light waves

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Sure,

I am bit incoherrant due to lack of sleep last night



Coupling Constant - Link

Well it makes sense, of course you will have lack of sleep with all that "Constant Coupling" mentioned above...




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Very true



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
This is the Dreamtime....



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I'm reading Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation, and at the end of the book in Appendix B there is a transcript of a dialogue with quantum physicist David Bohm (who died in 1992). The dialogue was first published in ReVision Journal and the editorial notes are by the journal's editor.

This passage made me think of this thread. Is it related?

(Note: My understanding is that "chreodes" are paths.)


Sheldrake, Rupert (2009-09-09). Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation (pp. 255-257). Inner Traditions Bear & Company. Kindle Edition.

Bohm: . . . One of the early interpretations of the quantum theory I developed was in terms of a particle moving in a field.

Sheldrake: The quantum potential.

Bohm: Yes. Now the quantum potential had many of the properties you ascribe to morphogenetic fields and chreodes; that is, it guided the particle in some way, and there are often deep valleys and plateaus, and particles may start to accumulate in plateaus and produce interference fringes. Now the interesting thing is that the quantum potential energy had the same effect regardless of its intensity, so that even far away it may produce a tremendous effect; this effect does not follow an inverse square law. Only the form of the potential has an effect, and not its amplitude or its magnitude. So we compared this to a ship being guided by radar; the radar is carrying form or information from all around. It doesn’t, within its limits, depend on how strong the radio wave is. So we could say that in that sense the quantum potential is acting as a formative field on the movement of the electrons. The formative field could not be put in three-dimensional [or local] space, it would have to be in a three-n dimensional space, so that there would be non-local connections, or subtle connections of distant particles (which we see in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment). So there would be a wholeness about the system such that the formative field could not be attributed to that particle alone; it can be attributed only to the whole, and something happening to faraway particles can affect the formative field of other particles. There could thus be a [non-local] transformation of the formative field of a certain group to another group. So I think that if you attempt to understand what quantum mechanics means by such a model, you get quite a strong analogy to a formative field.

Sheldrake: Yes, it may even be a homology; it may be a different way of talking about the same thing.

Bohm: The major difference is that quantum mechanics doesn’t treat time, and therefore it hasn’t any way to account for the cumulative effect of past forms. To do so would require an extension of the way physics treats time, you see.

Sheldrake: But don’t you get time in physics when you have a collapse of the wave function?

Bohm: Yes, but that’s outside the framework of quantum physics today. That collapse is not treated by any law at all, which means that the past is, as it were, wiped out altogether. [Editor’s note: This is the point where, as earlier mentioned, Bohm discusses some of the inadequacies of present-day quantum mechanics—in particular, its incapacity to explain process, or the influence of the past on the present. He then suggests his re-formulations—injection, projection, the implicate order, etc.—that might remedy these inadequacies. And these re-formulations, apparently, are rather similar to Sheldrake’s theories.] You see, the present quantum mechanics does not have any concept of movement or process or continuity in time; it really deals with one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will be followed by another one. But there is obviously process in the physical world. Now I want to say that that process can be understood from the implicate order as this activity of re-projection and re-injection. So, the theory of the implicate order, carried this far, goes quite beyond present quantum mechanics. It actually deals with process, which quantum mechanics does not, except by reference to an observing apparatus that in turn has to be referred to something else. . . .



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Yes, wow, that’s perfect. Exactly what I was picturing especially the time/3D-n aspects. Everything is connected!




My understanding is that "chreodes" are paths.





The formative field could not be put in three-dimensional [or local] space, it would have to be in a three-n dimensional space, so that there would be non-local connections, or subtle connections of distant particles (which we see in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment). So there would be a wholeness about the system such that the formative field could not be attributed to that particle alone; it can be attributed only to the whole





Bohm: The major difference is that quantum mechanics doesn’t treat time, and therefore it hasn’t any way to account for the cumulative effect of past forms. To do so would require an extension of the way physics treats time, you see.





You see, the present quantum mechanics does not have any concept of movement or process or continuity in time; it really deals with one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will be followed by another one. But there is obviously process in the physical world. Now I want to say that that process can be understood from the implicate order as this activity of re-projection and re-injection. So, the theory of the implicate order, carried this far, goes quite beyond present quantum mechanics.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
"Come you lost Atoms to your Centre draw,
And be the Eternal Mirror that you saw:
Rays that have wander'd into Darkness wide
Return and back into your Sun subside"
-- The Conference of the Birds, Sufi Poems of Farid ud-Din Attar





posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
My understanding is that "chreodes" are paths.



Originally posted by primalfractal
Yes, wow, that’s perfect. Exactly what I was picturing especially the time/3D-n aspects. Everything is connected!





The formative field could not be put in three-dimensional [or local] space, it would have to be in a three-n dimensional space, so that there would be non-local connections, or subtle connections of distant particles (which we see in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment). So there would be a wholeness about the system such that the formative field could not be attributed to that particle alone; it can be attributed only to the whole





Bohm: The major difference is that quantum mechanics doesn’t treat time, and therefore it hasn’t any way to account for the cumulative effect of past forms. To do so would require an extension of the way physics treats time, you see.





You see, the present quantum mechanics does not have any concept of movement or process or continuity in time; it really deals with one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will be followed by another one. But there is obviously process in the physical world. Now I want to say that that process can be understood from the implicate order as this activity of re-projection and re-injection. So, the theory of the implicate order, carried this far, goes quite beyond present quantum mechanics.


For the record, I'm going to correct the taqs for the outside text quotes:



The formative field could not be put in three-dimensional [or local] space, it would have to be in a three-n dimensional space, so that there would be non-local connections, or subtle connections of distant particles (which we see in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment). So there would be a wholeness about the system such that the formative field could not be attributed to that particle alone; it can be attributed only to the whole



Bohm: The major difference is that quantum mechanics doesn’t treat time, and therefore it hasn’t any way to account for the cumulative effect of past forms. To do so would require an extension of the way physics treats time, you see.



You see, the present quantum mechanics does not have any concept of movement or process or continuity in time; it really deals with one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will be followed by another one. But there is obviously process in the physical world. Now I want to say that that process can be understood from the implicate order as this activity of re-projection and re-injection. So, the theory of the implicate order, carried this far, goes quite beyond present quantum mechanics.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


I like that. Is there a link for the photo credit?



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Yes, I liked it to. It is also what I am picturing, curving wave paths with a Kelvin-Helmholtz instability.

This site has a lot of good pictures and info regarding waves and their paths.


Star Theory




posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Liked this one even more though


"Somewhere there was once a Flower, a Stone, a Crystal, a Queen, a King,
a Lover and his Beloved, and this was long ago, on an Island somewhere
in the Ocean 5000 years ago. Such is Love, the Mystic Flower of the Soul.
This is the Center, the Self." --C.G. Jung


HERE BE DRAGONS

edit on 5-10-2012 by primalfractal because: Spell



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I think this one from the above link is a good reflection from 3Dimension-n.



edit on 6-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   
ATS, were the ones who loose the debate get to keep the thread AND share crazy pictures with each other.....



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
This site has a lot of good pictures and info regarding waves and their paths.


I think that in physics when you focus on the wave rather than the particle things make sense and hold together beautifully.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   


I think that in physics when you focus on the wave rather than the particle things make sense and hold together beautifully.



That is certainly what modern physics is missing, sense and beauty.
edit on 6-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I liked animatrix more (it had a better ending).

Might as well have "shill" tatooed on his forehead.

Go ATS!
edit on 6-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Thought it was an appropriate time to put another "crazy" picture in.




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by primalfractal
This site has a lot of good pictures and info regarding waves and their paths.


I think that in physics when you focus on the wave rather than the particle things make sense and hold together beautifully.




Then you don't know enough physics. Cause there are plenty of instances were particles are all that make sense...



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Name one.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
edit on 7-10-2012 by primalfractal because: DP



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Name one.



See Photoelectric effect for one of many examples.






top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join