Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light

From: Laurent (cyberdyno5_at_netzero.net)
Date: 07/10/04 

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 22:18:30 -0400

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:BgGHc.86784$sj4.44626@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:sPudnW37WunmKnPdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:7FxHc.86025$sj4.75131@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > news:ld-dnX5UsbYKHXPdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> > message
> > > > news:cclen3$2q1$2@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:ZaGdnZFwDu_lbXDd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > ]snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > Right, but the relationship between the speed of light,
> > > > permeability
> > > > > > and permittivity would still hold true, the equation
would
> > still
> > > > > > have the same structure, it would look the same way even
if
> > we
> > > > had
> > > > > > different values for those units.
> > > > >
> > > > > All that remains now is for you to give an outline of the
> > > > experiments
> > > > > needed to determine these two properties of space of which
you
> > > > speak.
> > > > >
> > > > > Franz
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's your job, you are the physicist, not me.
> > >
> > > That is pretty obvious.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> >
> > And it is pretty obvious to me that you guys are running away
from
> > the hard questions.
>
> It is pretty obvious you do not understand what science is.
Science is
> simply not concerned with the type of questions you philosophy
types want
> answered - regardless of if you consider them hard or not. From a
link I
> gave previously:
>
> 'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is
"time"? As
> questions of physics these are going to be very different from
similar
> questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get
started, is
> that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
> gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is
what we
> measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with
this clock."
> Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very
satisfying. They
> are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there
is a
> reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only
sufficient, not
> necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to
explain
> something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are
not the only
> possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what
we are
> seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it
is what,
> philosophically, we would like ultimately to have. '
>
> As I have said to others - if you find the above paradigm
unsatisfactory
> then you are not interested in science - you are interested in
philosophy
> and should post to a forum that examines such. This is a science
forum.
> Science actually makes progress unlike philosophy which is bogged
down is a
> perpetual ququagmire.
>
> SR has accepted the POR which rules out an aether. You may not
like it but
> that is the assumption. It is consistent with experiment and that
is all
> that counts. Any other considerations is simply not relevant to
science and
> to put it bluntly, IMHO, pretentious waffle.
>
> Bill
>

I need your physics to do my philosophy.

"Once the physics assumptions are rectified the philosophy will take
care of itself" -- Henry Stapp

-------------------------------------

Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics

Henry P. Stapp

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

University of California

Berkeley, California 94720

Abstract

How is mind related to matter? This ancient question in philosophy
is rapidly becoming a core problem in science, perhaps the most
important of all because it probes the essential nature of man
himself. The origin of the problem is a conflict between the
mechanical conception of human beings that arises from the precepts
of classical physical theory and the very different idea that arises
from our intuition: the former reduces each of us to an automaton,
while the latter allows our thoughts to guide our actions.

The dominant contemporary approaches to the problem attempt to
resolve this conflict by clinging to the classical concepts, and
trying to explain away our misleading intuition. But a detailed
argument given here shows why, in a scientific approach to this
problem, it is necessary to use the more basic principles of quantum
physics, which bring the observer into the dynamics, rather than to
accept classical precepts that are profoundly incorrect precisely at
the crucial point of the role of human consciousness in the dynamics
of human brains. Adherence to the quantum principles yields a
dynamical theory of the mind/brain/body system that is in close
accord with our intuitive idea of what we are. In particular, the
need for a self-observing quantum system to pose certain questions
creates a causal opening that allows mind/brain dynamics to have
three distinguishable but interlocked causal processes, one
micro-local, one stochastic, and the third experiential. Passing to
the classical limit in which the critical difference between zero
and the finite actual value of Planck's constant is ignored not only
eliminates the chemical processes that are absolutely crucial to the
functioning of actual brains, it simultaneously blinds the resulting
theoretical construct to the physical fine structure wherein the
effect of mind on matter lies: the use of this limit in this context
is totally unjustified from a physics perspective.

{This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science,
Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of
Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.}

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/quantum/JCS.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physics & Philosophy
    ... How Western science education has failed. ... Philosophy gets used all over the place in physics. ... impose a formal point of view, as Einstein said: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]
    ... > That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist ... of physics are like that eg the law of conservation of energy is no more ... should not be used - its context is not well defined. ... >> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]
    ... > That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist ... of physics are like that eg the law of conservation of energy is no more ... should not be used - its context is not well defined. ... >> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time
    ... as this is not a Philosophy ng. ... > You seem to be saying the well established norms of science should not be ... Physics doesn't use that term. ... you're mistaken in saying I did that. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light
    ... > It is pretty obvious you do not understand what science is. ... > simply not concerned with the type of questions you philosophy ... In physics, all one need say, to get ... the crucial point of the role of human consciousness in the dynamics ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading