On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

Wrong, James. I'm as open minded as anyone on this planet. It is you and some others who don't make the effort to think through the nature of the Unified Field Theory because you have already been indoctrinated with your Ultimate Creation Theory. Your religious view of the origin of the universe is easy to understand. What could possibly be easier than the whole universe starting from an instantaneous explosion? What could be more fundamentally religious than a light quanta that always was and always will be?

Your view of a particle of light is that it goes on forever and does not experience decay, which is contrary to the law of equivalence. A photon is a unit of energy and so it has mass. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist. A photon is a unit of energy in a radiant state, which means that it exudes energy in the form of heat, which means it is attempting to disperse a portion of it's energy, which is a description of a particle in flux. For any particle to be in a radiant state, it's electromagnetic field must be extended further beyond the surface of the particle than when it is in a non-radiant state. At some point the light stream is going to reach a point in empty space where the leading photons are no longer constrained by the other photons all around them. The law of equivalence dictates that those leading photons will not be able to continue to be radiant and still maintain their total mass. The self preservation principle dictates that they will seek a rest state in which they are not dispensing their limited energy gratuitously. Therefore they will cease to radiate at a point that is most convenient for them to do so. Since they have dispersed some of their energy while in the illuminated state, they will then be a unit of energy of less mass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

John claims:

A photon is a unit of energy and so it has mass.

At this point, I would be remiss not to jump in with both feet and respond, regardless of John's qualifiers for Q:

However, his claim, amongst others, has been directed at James R, who has as yet to receive any response from John up to now. I can almost feel the jubilation James R will experience when he digests Johns latest post. He has most likely been champing-at-the-bit awaiting this opportunity.

Please, James R, take it away... and don't leave out any of the gory details. Thanks in advance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm all aquiver.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is a Photon? The "standard" Quantum Optics approach according to Paul Kinsler--Department of Applied Physics Faculty of Applied Sciences, Technical University Delft.

The calculated photon: Visualization of a quantum field--Martin Ligare, Ryan Oliveri, Department of Physics, Bucknell University

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr.G.,

I was able to visit the "What is a photon?" site and it does seem less religious than a type of site that believers of the Ultimate Creation Theory would be expected to frequent. In there they mention that, "Of course the photon will exist in a another form for a short while:"[sic]. This partially agrees with my view of pre- and post-photonic sub-photonic particles in that it acknowledges the need for other physical states of energy that are pre- and post-photonic. The difference is the "short while" which does not adequately account for the permanent placement of the pre- or post-photonic mass when it is non-radiant.

I was not able to access, due to the previously stated limitations of my inferior equipment, the "The calculated photon" site. Perhaps you could give me a brief synopsis so that I might better understand the idea that you are trying to infer by referencing both site.

 

John MacNeil:

Ah, that's right. You can't see PDF format documents. Sorry.

The point of the two linked sources is to demonstrate that they offer and present observationally supported, mathematically-derived descriptions of photons and, so far, we have not seen your photon theory's mathematically descriptive treatment.

Gotta link?

Science-like talk without a mathematical foundation is just philosophizing-- semantical presentation.

It's not rigorous science.

 

Mr.G.,

Your observation that something is not science unless it is describable mathematically can only be a personal preference. Mathematics is a tool invented by science, therefore science preceded mathematics, not vice versa. There is much in the universe that exists that is unknown to us and to state categorically that such unknown phenomena can't exist because we don't have a mathematical formula for it is not logical.

The mathematically-derived description of photon that you refer to is a theoretical description, not a precise description. When a photon is given a descriptive classification of one spin, that too is theoretical. Everything we believe about photons is theoretical until someone can isolate and mathematically describe a photon to such a degree that there is no dissention on what exactly a photon is.

Whatever the exact mathematical desciption of a photon is, we already know that a photon cannot maintain it's mathematical description without decay. Therefore there is a physical state of matter before there is such a thing as a photon and there is a physical state of matter after there is such a thing as a photon.

The most rigorous science is theoretical science. The idea always precedes invention. Mathematicians are the draftsmen of science. The experimenters and the engineers are the laborers of science. The theorists are the scientists.

 

James,

Tell me what grade you are in and I will recommend some appropriate reading material.

 

John MacNeil:

You insult others' intelligence with certainty. Surely, you must know that those of low IQ are most likely to over-estimate their own?

 

So, John MacNeil:

Show us your math. Or your theory's math, if you have none of your own.

 

John

Mathematics is a tool invented by science, therefore science preceded mathematics, not vice versa. There is much in the universe that exists that is unknown to us and to state categorically that such unknown phenomena can't exist because we don't have a mathematical formula for it is not logical.

Numbers make the science world go round.

Every theory which became scientific fact has been subjected to mathematical treatment of some kind - counting events or individuals, determining population means and distributions, classification and clustering species for studies of evolution, measuring and plotting temperature curves, measuring concentrations of a substance, describing the effectiveness of a toxin or the structure of a virus.

Numbers can represent a visual observation, quantify this observation, and show that this quantification can later be used by someone else to make the same observation over again to say with confidence that it is the same observation. And because reproducibility is key to scientific fact finding, mathematics is central to all things scientific.

Everything we believe about photons is theoretical until someone can isolate and mathematically describe a photon to such a degree that there is no dissention on what exactly a photon is.

The dissention appears to be much of your own opinion loosely based on unknown variables and whimsical terminologies. Well constructed mathematics yield well constructed theories, which have already been presented in some detail. Can we assume your math is pending ?

 

Q:

Pending? Hmm. Check this link and see if you can find any math amongst the pages of conspiracies, paranoia, disestablishmentism, miscontexted quotes, and tortuous, anastomotic reasonings.

It reads rather familiar.

 

So, struck another nerve, did I? I take it I must be communicating with a collective of mathematicians? Well, if you think that there is no such thing as a theory until it is proven mathematically, then you are delusional as well as supporting a clutch of quasi religious theories. Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity and then took nine year to present a mathematical proof of it. Can you logically state that there was no such theory as General Theory of Relativity before the mathematical description of it was complete? If that is your flimsy stance, then where is your mathematical description of the 'big bang' theory, or 'redshift=recession-velocity' theory, or 'infinite density' theory? When you demand mathematical proof from others for their theories and at the same time are without precise mathematical proof of your own theories, while maintaining that your's are true, and defending them with religious fervor,then that is a form of hypocrisy, especially when your theories are based on conjecture and have no supporting science that even relates to them.

You say that I insult other's intelligence, and I assure you that was not my intent. If you believe I am insulting others intelligence then you are not reading my posts from an objective point of view and so you cannot be assimilating any of what I write, or are pretending not to.

If you are referring to my offering to direct James to pertinent reading material relating to his educational development in physics as being insulting to his intelligence, then I tell you that to insult was not my intent. James, and some others, post quotes of mine from my posts and then write under them that they are nonsense and that they don't believe them and then they don't offer any constructive commentary of their own on the topic. That childish behavior of attacking is not discussion. When James stated in his post that he studies physics and stated in the same post that he doesn't know what 'heat' or 'equivalence' is and that he'd never even heard of the 'conservation of energy', then what conclusion could I make other than to believe that he has less than a high school education in physics since the aforementioned are all from the beginners physics books that no one is exempt from reading? And the way he is posting makes it evident that he doesn't understand classical mechanics.

"One dog barks a warning, the others bark at him"--Chinese proverb

And, Yes, Mr.G., I am aware of the psychological phenomena that makes most people believe their intelligence is of the highest order. It is inherent in everyone's limitation to compute data.

 

John MacNeil:

For a scientific theory to be quantifiably consistant it must have a mathematical foundation.

Mathematics is what distinguishes scientific theories from yet-to-be quantified scientific hypotheses; the later only momentarily resembling non-scientific, non-quantifiable theories of philosophy.

The little jackal barks, yet the caravan passes.--Arab Proverb

 

Very amusing post, Mr.G.

Since you've had your SCM, or 'big bang' or Ultimate Creation Theory since 1929, are the proponents of it expecting to have a quantifiably consistent mathematical foundation for it anytime soon?

 

John MacNeil:

You consistantly misunderstand that science has no preconceived notion, or truth, toward which it works. Science does have its momentary, provisional ideas that seem to make the most sense at any particular time but, like Alice at the cross roads, Science doesn't know where it's going, only where it's been. Science makes educated guesses, most wrong. But those guesses that aren't wrong are guesses no longer.

You, on the other hand, know where you want to go idealogically. So your guesses are few and far between. Thus, you are seldom wrong.

Thus, you are not scientific.

(Except you are seldom correct, thus equally not scientific.)

It is in a pretty strange universe we live.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually, Mr.G., science has a very specific goal, and that is to empirically describe all perceivable phenomena. But before science can describe such phenomena, it must have ideas which direct it. These ideas, or theories, are the real science. Putting experiments together or writing up a description of something mathematically are all descendant from an original idea.

Students learn from their instructors and if their instructors are giving them ideas to study that have no relation to reality, then the student's thought processes are going to be stunted by continuously confronting mental images which are illogical and which have no rational progression. Such retarding of student's thought parameters negatively affects the aggregate health of science, and that hinders social development on all level.

And, yes, you are right that I do know exactly where I want to go ideologically, and that is towards a society that is governed by a code of honor. But that is a topic for another thread so I will not expound on it further now, except where it must be dealt with specifically in the realm of science and as it is needed in this thread.

Corporate/government science continues to direct what is permissable to be published in their ever ongoing agenda of controlling society. None of them have any science supporting their Ultimate Creation Theory, yet they continue to support it and simultaneously continue to supress any science that refutes it, which is all the scientific evidence they've gleaned since they came up with their quasi-religious set of theories. Can anyone deny that this censorship is anything but recessive? In the early years of the last century, Einstein lamented the breakdown of the active intercourse between people of learning. He surely would be appalled at just how decrepid society has fallen since his passing.

But further discussion on the validity of the Ultimate Creation Theory as opposed to the Unified Field Theory is not necessary at this point. I believe a sufficient amount has been stated about Unified Field Theory so that we all know that no one can ever shake my belief in it or out-argue me on the subject of it, so we should look at some evidence that is scientifically verifiable as having a physical existence, and which is a different avenue to the ultimate conclusion of this thread, whatever that should end up being.

 

In earlier posts we accessed the Smithsonian Instituion and noted the anatomical differences in skull design between our present type of human and the Neanderthals and Skhul V. From those observations we must conclude that for science to be served we must entertain a theory of accounting for our presence on this planet that is not requiring us to be descendant from a common ancestor as the Neanderthals and Skhul V. As there is other evidence of hominid type beings, evidence which has been unconscionably supressed by the corporate/science since it's discovery, having lived on this planet, I will present a page and let someone respond to it so as to continue the discussion.

www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/archeo/askulls.shtml