| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"tony fleming" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 02:05:17 AM |
| Object: |
are we so certain about uncertainty? |
heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a long-held tenet of quantum
mechanics, and quantum field theory. Werner's description of the
principle is described in his own words in his book:W. Heisenberg, The
physical principles of the quantum theory, (Dover, New York, NY, 1949).
But are we so certain that uncertainty is fact rather than an
inaccuracy due to the way in which we are measuring?
Some of the assumptions about the wave-packet is that:
(1)we only have light by which to detect some wave disturbance;
(2)the packet has only one subparticle.
(3) there are no other and better ways to determine electric and
magnetic fields.
(4)Anyone who challenges this 'holy grail' of physics had better know
what they are doing since we have the Copenhagen Interpretation.
"We regard quantum mechanics as a complete theory for which the
fundamental physical and mathematical hypotheses are no longer
susceptible of modification."
--Heisenberg and Max Born, paper delivered to Solvay Congress of 1927
Now in case it slips by unnoticed, (4)is one helluva arrogant
assumption; and it mirrors some of the prattle spoken by many
physicists today.IT is totally wrong to say that reality is the same as
the quantum mathematics!! This is something that will not stand the
test of time. Perhaps down the track a bit, maybe a decade or two,
HUP, the two-slit experiment, Bell's inequatlity, will stand out as
beacon's for a silly age where hypotheses were allowed to run to their
own extreme conclusion. BUt today we examine just HUP.
In case anyone doesn't know yet, self-field theory SFT challenges HUP
and calls it a measure of inaccuracy of QM and QFT, since we do NOT
have to assume the field is "coulomb-like". SFT uses centre-of-motion
fields. and the advantage of doing so are that we now obtain the actual
motions of the electronic interaction in the atom. This is
mathematical fact. QM nor QFT cannot obtain the complete analytic
solution (including the fine and hyperfine structure) in closed form.
While the fine structure has been obtained, the hyperfine structure has
not YET been obtained using SFT, although it CAN in principle be
obtained using a composite EM and strong (and weak) field analysis.
What do the fields look like in SFT? They are streams of particles
rather than ubiquitous fields that cover all steradians of coulomb-like
fields and this includes the so-called 'quantized' QFT fields that are
assumed to cover ALL solid angles.
.
|
|
| User: "Ranando King" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
16 Sep 2005 08:13:24 AM |
|
|
"tony fleming" <tfleming1@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message
news:1126767917.142170.57910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a long-held tenet of quantum
mechanics, and quantum field theory. Werner's description of the
principle is described in his own words in his book:W. Heisenberg, The
physical principles of the quantum theory, (Dover, New York, NY, 1949).
But are we so certain that uncertainty is fact rather than an
inaccuracy due to the way in which we are measuring?
<snipped>
Unfortunately, yes. We are all quite certain about the accuracy of the HUP.
As it turns out, it's not really that difficult to understand in a
semi-classical sense. Think about a baseball being tossed back and forth
between 2 kids 10 meters apart. Classically, we think it's fairly easy to
know both the position and momentum of the ball while it's in flight, but
consider this. When we look at the ball's position, it's relative to the 2
kids, and that position is measured in fairly gross (large) units like
meters, centimeters, inches, feet, etc. In all truth, that's not a very
accurate measurement unless we're using a lot of decimal places.
If instead of using large units, we used Planck lengths in trying to get the
position of the ball and it's momentum, then suddenly we run into a
resolution problem. Getting momentum requires knowledge of velocity for
massive items, but velocity requires using 2 temporally distinct points.
Since the ball cannot be in 2 different positions at once, we cannot know
the exact position of the ball when it has the momentum that were
calculating. On the other hand, if we pinpoint the exact position of the
ball, we don't have enough information to determine it's velocity at that
point. So we're unable to get it's momentum for that point.
Long explanation short, the HUP is just a scientific and mathematical
treatment of a painfully obvious catch 22 in measuring things with near
absolute precision.
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
16 Sep 2005 09:48:38 AM |
|
|
Ranando King wrote:
[```SNiP```]
-- On the other hand, if we pinpoint the exact position of the
ball, --
$ Accuracy + or - hbar.
You CANNOT "pinpoint the EXACT position of the ball", duh.!!
This HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.!!
The CLOSEST you can MEASURE position A is LiMiTED by hbar / 2.!!
This is TRUE ..for ANY SiNGLE non-CONjUGATE position ACCURACY.!!
This ALSO HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is CLEARLY shown UN-necessary.
Therefore, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is REDUNDANT.!!
Sincerely,
```Brian
p.s.
Heisenberg OUGHT might have said:..
--[[(( You CAN'T DOUBLE-focus with a SiNGLE lens".!!))]]--
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
we don't have enough information to determine it's velocity at that
point. So we're unable to get it's momentum for that point.
Long explanation short, the HUP is just a scientific and mathematical
treatment of a painfully obvious catch 22 in measuring things with near
absolute precision.
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ranando King" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
16 Sep 2005 01:45:39 PM |
|
|
"brian a m stuckless" <bastuck@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:432ACEB3.3DFA@nf.sympatico.ca...
Ranando King wrote:
[```SNiP```]
-- On the other hand, if we pinpoint the exact position of the
ball, --
$ Accuracy + or - hbar.
You CANNOT "pinpoint the EXACT position of the ball", duh.!!
This HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.!!
The CLOSEST you can MEASURE position A is LiMiTED by hbar / 2.!!
This is TRUE ..for ANY SiNGLE non-CONjUGATE position ACCURACY.!!
This ALSO HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.
<snipped>
Do something. You made an assertion here, that measuring the position of an
object is limited by hbar/2. Now, instead of asserting this, write it down
as a mathematical equation. And please, make sure your units balance. Then
compare that with the mathematical statement of the HUP. You should find
them to be different forms of the same equation.
As I told you before. Scientists are highly intelligent morons who have to
be told explicitly that something is impossible before they'll quit trying
to do it. As such, no matter how redundant the HUP seems to be to you, it is
never the less necessary.
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
16 Sep 2005 04:18:12 PM |
|
|
$ PLANCK UNcertainty
NOTE ..PLANCK, himself, did ORiGiNAL DERiVATiON h EQUATiON = (+ or -)
h.!!
HOWEVER, this was later reduced for the photon and phonon to + or -
hbar.
The PLANCK EQUATiON claims that KNOWLEDGE is, mathematically, QUANTiZED.
[ i.e. This also applies with RESPECT an "..EXACT position of the ball."
]
```Brian
p.s. ..exerpt from below.
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Ranando King wrote:
"brian a m stuckless" <bastuck@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:432ACEB3.3DFA@nf.sympatico.ca...
Ranando King wrote:
[```SNiP```]
-- On the other hand, if we pinpoint the exact position of the
ball, --
$ Accuracy + or - hbar.
You CANNOT "pinpoint the EXACT position of the ball", duh.!!
This HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.!!
The CLOSEST you can MEASURE position A is LiMiTED by hbar / 2.!!
This is TRUE ..for ANY SiNGLE non-CONjUGATE position ACCURACY.!!
This ALSO HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.
<snipped>
Do something. You made an assertion here, that measuring the position of an
object is limited by hbar/2. Now, instead of asserting this, write it down
as a mathematical equation.
$ PLANCK UNcertainty
NOTE ..PLANCK, himself, did ORiGiNAL DERiVATiON h EQUATiON = (+ or -)
h.!!
HOWEVER, this was later reduced for the photon and phonon to + or -
hbar.
The PLANCK EQUATiON claims that KNOWLEDGE is, mathematically, QUANTiZED.
[ i.e. This also applies with RESPECT an "..EXACT position of the ball."
]
$ Heisenberg UNcertainty
CLEARLY one CANNOT (((FOCUS))) on BOTH ENDs of a VELOCiTY vector, at
once.
-[ Especially, since the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the
PATH.]-
o o o o
o o o vector
o o o PROjECTiON
A - - VELOCiTY vector - - -> B - - - - - -> C
o o o
o o o
o o
ANY train-TRACK ..or PATH.
Note ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.
Hope this finally helps,
```Brian
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
-- And please, make sure your units balance. Then
compare that with the mathematical statement of the HUP. You should find
them to be different forms of the same equation.
As I told you before. Scientists are highly intelligent morons who have to
be told explicitly that something is impossible before they'll quit trying
to do it. As such, no matter how redundant the HUP seems to be to you, it is
never the less necessary.
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
16 Sep 2005 05:02:35 PM |
|
|
Humankind living in the macro realm; of the very large can only be
certain of death and taxes. All is different in the microscopic realm
because it is a rolling frenzy,awashed in a violent sea of quantum
fluctuations. Small makes stuff impossible to measure.(Time and space so
small that they fuse into one "blob" This becomes reality once we
realize particles and fields undulate,and jump between all possible
values,and yet are very consistent with the quantum uncertainty
principle. I dare any experiment that tries to measure the velocity of a
particle moving inside a Planck length,let alone its position. Beert
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
16 Sep 2005 09:27:20 PM |
|
|
so uncertainty is more to do with how we measure? noone can go beyond
it? if we could work out what was inside the photon could we then go
beyond its restriction on our measurements? remember, we would have
stared into the night's sky and said much te same things about those
strange 'stars' that moved around against the other more static stars.
until galileo noticed how to blow the picture up in a telescope, we
would have been similarly negative about ever knowing about other solar
systems with other planets!!
my point is we DO now know what is inside the photon, and hence we CAN
overcome uncertainty (in principle) if we could learn how to control
beyond the single photon in the lab!! it seems like theoretical physics
now says we CAN get inside the photon, now we have to find out HOW we
do this experimentally!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 02:39:15 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
so uncertainty is more to do with how we measure? --
NO no no, Tony.
"UNcertainty" is ALL about DELTA + or - hbar/2 ACCURACY.
[And applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT POSiTiON of a ball."]
PLANCK UNcertainty is NOT about "How we measure", duh.!!
Heisenberg Uncertainty is MORE about HOW we ((focus)).!!
i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of ANY vector at once.!!
Sincerely,
```Brian >><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
-- noone can go beyond
it? if we could work out what was inside the photon could we then go
beyond its restriction on our measurements? remember, we would have
stared into the night's sky and said much te same things about those
strange 'stars' that moved around against the other more static stars.
until galileo noticed how to blow the picture up in a telescope, we
would have been similarly negative about ever knowing about other solar
systems with other planets!!
my point is we DO now know what is inside the photon, and hence we CAN
overcome uncertainty (in principle) if we could learn how to control
beyond the single photon in the lab!! it seems like theoretical physics
now says we CAN get inside the photon, now we have to find out HOW we
do this experimentally!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 07:21:25 AM |
|
|
i think we have to learn to do the measurements in a different way.
the fields we are 'measuring' we treat them like blobs yet they have
substructure and and can be treated mathematically like two-subparticle
entities. if we use the centre-of-motion fields that are defined at
http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_08_04.pdf
then we can extrct a phase out of these subparticles, actual motions;
if we combine this with time measurements, maybe we can use the
'clarity' of the centre-of-motion fields (as opposed to the
coulomb-like, charge point-to-charge point fields used by QFT) to
determine both distance and phase within the photon and hence be able
to extend our way of measuring optically.
brian i remain an optimist!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 07:35:48 AM |
|
|
the point-to-point measurement of the field IS a focussing problem but
its within the maths of QFT and it happens to match our way of
focussing by electron micsroscopes etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 10:39:40 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
the point-to-point measurement of the field IS a focussing problem but
its within the maths of QFT and it happens to match our way of
focussing by electron micsroscopes etc.
Airy circle. Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 10:19:53 PM |
|
|
http://www.labbey.com/Telescopes/Airy.html
?? so ?? we use light au naturale when we use the airy telescope. we
don't even process it. what's your point please??
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 10:39:21 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
i think we have to learn to do the measurements in a different way.
Tell it to two-slit diffraction. The screen maximum is *between* the
slits. Diffraction of a C60 molecular beam, not wimpy photons,
http://www.quantum.univie.ac.at/research/matterwave/c60/
the fields we are 'measuring' we treat them like blobs yet they have
substructure and and can be treated mathematically like two-subparticle
entities.
Idiot.
[snip crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 10:16:40 PM |
|
|
as i said al, read heisenberg's own words, he treats the 'blob' as if
we knew nothing about it's insides are. If we treat the 'blob' (I
like that word in this context) as a wave-matter particle then sure, we
get HUP, no worries. Same with photons' electrons, whatever; makes no
difference;
you've got to show me a case where two DIFFERENT slits have been
tested; I've gone through the literature, people have quoted things
to me, but nothing says DEFINITIVELY the two slits are made from a
difference piece of material. Now be clear what I'm saying here,
I'm not saying one should be silver, the other one gold; what I'm
saying is that within the one 'solid' piece of matter, there is a
coherence (at some level) between the atoms, or molecules within its
structure; somewhat like a crystal lattice; all the 'congruent'
electrons say within a crystal will have a coherence with each other.
Hence the two-slit effect may well be the due to the coherence of the
slits! as i've said before, if the slits are made out of one solid
piece of homogeneous material then the atomic structure at the site of
the two slits may well be coherent. then it doesn't matter if the
incoming photons (or whatever) are incoherent, it only matters that we
have a statistical sum of coherent interferences (or additions) it's as
if we let light in en masse, it makes no difference because the
DIFFERENCES (and additions) are coherent. (I'm allowing for the case
where there might be a 180 degree 'anticoherence' between the
slits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
19 Sep 2005 04:30:57 AM |
|
|
In article <1127013400.302837.177960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"tony fleming" <tfleming1@hotkey.net.au> wrote:
as i said al, read heisenberg's own words, he treats the 'blob' as if
we knew nothing about it's insides are. If we treat the 'blob' (I
like that word in this context) as a wave-matter particle then sure, we
get HUP, no worries. Same with photons' electrons, whatever; makes no
difference;
you've got to show me a case where two DIFFERENT slits have been
tested; I've gone through the literature, people have quoted things
to me, but nothing says DEFINITIVELY the two slits are made from a
difference piece of material. Now be clear what I'm saying here,
I'm not saying one should be silver, the other one gold; what I'm
saying is that within the one 'solid' piece of matter, there is a
coherence (at some level) between the atoms, or molecules within its
structure; somewhat like a crystal lattice; all the 'congruent'
electrons say within a crystal will have a coherence with each other.
Hence the two-slit effect may well be the due to the coherence of the
slits! as i've said before, if the slits are made out of one solid
piece of homogeneous material then the atomic structure at the site of
the two slits may well be coherent. then it doesn't matter if the
incoming photons (or whatever) are incoherent, it only matters that we
have a statistical sum of coherent interferences (or additions) it's as
if we let light in en masse, it makes no difference because the
DIFFERENCES (and additions) are coherent. (I'm allowing for the case
where there might be a 180 degree 'anticoherence' between the
slits.
Read about Alain Aspect's experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
19 Sep 2005 07:57:09 PM |
|
|
your referring to his beel's inequality experiments, i guess. Llyod, i
have no problem with the experimental results of any number of the
various QM trials, such as bell's inequality, two-slit, quantum
entanglement, action at a distance, it's just the conclusion in the
framework of QFT or QM that i find issue with. self-field theory sees
each of these (except the two-slit which may be just due to the
coherence between the slits) as due to other physical causes and NOT
'spooky', or 'mysterious' or 'enigmatic' etc, etc, ad nauseum. SFT
gives much more prosaic rationales.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
16 Sep 2005 03:44:57 PM |
|
|
Ranando King wrote:
"brian a m stuckless" <bastuck@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:432ACEB3.3DFA@nf.sympatico.ca...
Ranando King wrote:
[```SNiP```]
-- On the other hand, if we pinpoint the exact position of the
ball, --
$ Accuracy + or - hbar.
You CANNOT "pinpoint the EXACT position of the ball", duh.!!
This HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.!!
The CLOSEST you can MEASURE position A is LiMiTED by hbar / 2.!!
This is TRUE ..for ANY SiNGLE non-CONjUGATE position ACCURACY.!!
This ALSO HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.
[```SNiP```]
Then compare that with the mathematical statement of the HUP.
You should find them to be different forms of the same equation.
GUESS's (+ or -) hbar / 2 does NOT REQUiRE the 2nd said REDUNDANCY.!!
HUP's 2nd REQUiRED MEASUREMENT is REDUNANT, and quite UN-necessary.!!
The FAiLiNG of HUP is the UN-scientifically-POSSiBLE EXACTness of A.
[Like Dylan, "We'll cross that bridge, AFTER we're *WAY* past it".]
QUANTiFY your UN-scientifically-CERTAiN "exactness" of POSiTiON A.!!
```Brian
As I told you before. Scientists are highly intelligent morons who have to
be told explicitly that something is impossible before they'll quit trying
to do it. As such, no matter how redundant the HUP seems to be to you, it is
never the less necessary.
R.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
16 Sep 2005 03:10:30 PM |
|
|
Ranando King wrote:
"brian a m stuckless" <bastuck@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:432ACEB3.3DFA@nf.sympatico.ca...
Ranando King wrote:
[```SNiP```]
-- On the other hand, if we pinpoint the exact position of the
ball, --
$ Accuracy + or - hbar.
You CANNOT "pinpoint the EXACT position of the ball", duh.!!
This HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.!!
The CLOSEST you can MEASURE position A is LiMiTED by hbar / 2.!!
This is TRUE ..for ANY SiNGLE non-CONjUGATE position ACCURACY.!!
This ALSO HAS NOTHiNG to do with "conjugates" or "velocity", duh.
[```SNiP```]
-- Now, instead of asserting this, write it down
as a mathematical equation. And please, make sure your
units balance. Then compare that with the mathematical
statement of the HUP. You should find them to be different
forms of the same equation.
YES ..with the HUP "form of the SAME equation" REDUNDANT.
CLEARLY the HUP "form" is *subsequent* to the GUESS form.
```Brian
As I told you before. Scientists are highly intelligent morons who have to
be told explicitly that something is impossible before they'll quit trying
to do it.
SMART scientists ALL fully understand COLLATERAL BENEFiT.
```Brian
As such, no matter how redundant the HUP seems to be to you,
it is never the less necessary.
Please, quantify that 'necessity'. ```Brian
R.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 07:59:06 AM |
|
|
Stop misspelling its. And you're wrong: the information is gotten by
probing the measurers rather than the measurees. Perturb those the
least by using my cheating method I posted elsewhere.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 09:21:59 AM |
|
|
$ Dr.!! Dr.!! Dr PUSCH.!! COME QUiCKLY.!!
Position A is UNcertain within ACCURACY +or- lp / 2.!!
But should you BEAT that, CALL Dr PUSCH iMMEDiATELY.!!
Sincerely,
``Brian
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Stop misspelling its. And you're wrong: the information is gotten by
probing the measurers rather than the measurees. Perturb those the
least by using my cheating method I posted elsewhere.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
18 Sep 2005 11:29:51 AM |
|
|
i don't think dr pusch needs to run VERY quickly; maybe a slow stroll
for a decade or two yet!! maybe even sit down and have a capuccino and
a cigar for a while too!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian a m stuckless" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
19 Sep 2005 08:58:56 AM |
|
|
$ HOW to get a dOCTORATE from a SPACEtime *COUP*:
A WORLDline POiNT in SPACEtime is >>POiNT-like<<.
-Two POiNTs in SPACEtime CANNOT be SYNCRONiZED.!!
-Two POiNTs in SPACEtime CANNOT exist, at ONCE.!!
NOT even two ones (1)s ARE alike at once in GR.!!
Go Google GROUP SEARCH: >> point-like pusch <<.!!
< http://groups.google.ca/grphp?hl=en&tab=wg&ie=UTF-8 >
Sincerely,
```brian
<> >><> >><> >><> >><>
tony fleming wrote:
i don't think dr pusch needs to run VERY quickly; maybe a slow stroll
for a decade or two yet!! maybe even sit down and have a capuccino and
a cigar for a while too!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
18 Sep 2005 08:22:49 PM |
|
|
but if the photons reaching his eyeball from the coffee cup do have a
subparticle structure, then he will be able to do the maths which i've
done, not the proca lagrangian, but the photon's self-field equations
using periodic physical spinors and centre-of-motion fields. then he
will find that there is this amazing hbar term as one of the
variables!! in other words the planck 'constant' is NOT a constant in
self-field theory, it is NOT just plugged into the equations
heuristically as it is in QFT and QM. now THIS is the biggest proof of
the reality of the photon's substructure.
so, we DO need to change the way we 'see' things experimentally. so
how do we do this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
18 Sep 2005 10:31:44 PM |
|
|
the answer must lie in the hydration physics. DNA, and a whole range
of important biological proteins appear to have a structure that
includes a wide range of different hydrogen bonds. the work of Popp and
other who are involved in the investigations of 'biophotons' (photons
that occur biologically, but really just the same as ordinary photons)
http://www.lifescientists.de/ib_000e_.htm
"What are biophotons ?
Biophotons, or ultraweak photon emissions of biological systems, are
weak electromagnetic waves in the optical range of the spectrum - in
other words: light. All living cells of plants, animals and human
beings emit biophotons which cannot be seen by the naked eye but can be
measured by special equipment developed by German researchers.
This light emission is an expression of the functional state of the
living organism and its measurement therefore can be used to assess
this state. Cancer cells and healthy cells of the same type, for
instance, can be discriminated by typical differences in biophoton
emission. After an initial decade and a half of basic research on this
discovery, biophysicists of various European and Asian countries are
now exploring the many interesting applications which range across such
diverse fields as cancer research, non-invasive early medical
diagnosis, food and water quality testing, chemical and electromagnetic
contamination testing, cell communication, and various applications in
biotechnology."
http://www.transpersonal.de/mbischof/englisch/webbookeng.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 08:27:34 AM |
|
|
autymn, that very assertive of you; and i'm very greviously sorry for
the henous spelling of "it's"; there's nothing so unsettling as
changing perceptions of reality, huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 09:54:12 AM |
|
|
heinous
I was talking to Ranando.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 09:53:54 PM |
|
|
oops!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
17 Sep 2005 11:11:05 PM |
|
|
But it applies to you too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
18 Sep 2005 12:37:11 AM |
|
|
Hi psycho nazi pig
Y.P
----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
18 Sep 2005 09:49:51 AM |
|
|
you
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: are we so certain about uncertainty? |
18 Sep 2005 11:26:41 AM |
|
|
your a mean woman autymn!! LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
