Steve, chemical changes occur when photons are absorbed and if sufficient in intensity a signal may be produced that is amalgamated into colour or intensity channels and the information may or may not eventually reach the brain. A significant amount of processing occurs prior to arrival and the individual photon information may have been filtered out en route (possibly at arrival because there were insufficient photon numbers to elicit an impulse.) Reading your last post it sound like you are talking about photons being part of thought. When it is only the information that is utilized in the brain not the received photons themselves. By the time all of the processing has happened any connection (your argument )between an object and observer by an individual photon has ceased to exist. It seems to me the thought and the object in external reality can be usefully considered as separate (non local).

The basic fundamental frequency of thought is the EEG alpha mode at 11 Hz or so. In contrast, the fundamental mode of sleep and of unconscious thought is the delta mode at 1.4 Hz or so.

Although science does not yet understand why these frequencies are important for consciousness, many measurements show that they are important for consciousness. Once again you imply that photon absorption and emission are instantaneous events and that is simply not true.

We approximate photon absorption and emission as instantaneous and then lots of otherwise very smart people can argue endlessly about the meaning of the instantaneous collapse of wavefunctions.

Photons are much more interesting because each photon has a different spectrum and the resonance between a source and an absorber is a strongly entangled event. Many of the supposed paradoxes of wavefunctions are just due to how science simplifies photon sensation.

Sensing a photon sets up a resonance between the source and observer and the resonance does not always excite the observer. Sometimes the source retains the photon, but the event does communicate phase information between the source and observer. There is a certain amount of entanglement with every event, not just with absorption events.

There is much discourse about photon emission and absorption by people who do not use the so-called time dependent formalism of quantum mechanics. This misleads many including Bell into very strange interpretations of the electrodynamic reality of photonics.

Yes, photons are a part of thought...is that really surprising? Given the well known lifetimes of photonics and neuronics, what is really amazing is that science often ignores time dependent QM when they study the time dependence of neural aware matter.

A photon never really ceases to exist. An emitted photon leaves a complementary photon hole behind in the source and an observed photon creates new matter in the observer. The photon therefore never ceases to exist but rather the source becomes decoherent with the observer with some rate.

You seem to believe that photon decoherence is not important for reality while I believe and have quantitatively shown that decoherence is what drives all force and all action. Decoherence is fun because decoherence is what drives action.

Hi Steve, I don't really follow everything you are saying. You wrote "Once again you imply that photon absorption and emission are instantaneous events and that is simply not true." I don't think I implied any such thing. There may be photons working in the brain as a part of the biochemistry. I don't know about that, it isn't something I have learned. Certainly a photon being absorbed by the pigment in the retina is not itself a part of thought in the brain. Only the information it is imparting potentially becomes a part of thought later on. There is spatial and temporal separation of the back of the eyes and brain. The chemical changes of the pigment can lead to charges being transmitted. The incident photon does not travel to the brain. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood what you are saying.

Hi Georgina ,Mr Fisher ,Mr Agnew,All,

You can answer you on the post of sky ?It is bizare there you know, my net is totally crazy.People are with me and others against, a real film there.I need help in fact.But why this planet is like that ?

Hi Steve D.,

if you are talking about 'Sky Leach wrote on Jun. 23, 2016 @ 14:13 GMT on another page' I'm afraid I have no idea what he/she is talking about, so have nothing worthwhile to say in reply to that post.

@Georgina Woodward

Don't worry about it, very few do. They all get this glassy-eyed stare when I share the 60-page formulae too. Just the definitions of the sets required to explain the linear algebra is 3 pages. Then I start in on the n-dimensional transforms for functions between causation frames (see https://see.stanford.edu/materials/lsoftaee261/chap8.pdf ) and the first thing I get back is something like 'but you can't prove it because it is NP-HARD'.

Nobody ever said explaining the universe was going to be easy eh?

@Joe Fisher

That's not quite accurate. You can't sum infinity, but you can describe set interactions at specific points without bounding the set itself. This gives behavior in regions.

What are your geometrical algebras implying this ? Lie,Clifford,Magma,Hopf....Tell me I will show you your errors in all humility.I will share if you want my spherical algebras with the spherical volumes and p adics numbers correlated with the universal serie of spherical volume giving the serie of uniqueness.This is for the stable gravitational serien encoding ,not the particles produced by cosmological sphères of course.Nothing is easy and we know nothing still about our universe?THE UNIVERSAL SPHERE and its sphères, quantic and cosmological.But we evolve indeed.The linear algebras you say ,explain us.And tell us also your name ,it is tranparent here.Regards

14 days later

Let us be very careful about classical and quantum concepts. Sometimes we talk of one such idea in quantum gravity which will also explain classical. The question of GR and its application in quantum is a huge problem Time ideas in both the theories does not match . We do not even know whether Einstein is correct in his GR approach. The fact of matter is gravity is not a potential or field of infinite range etc. Gravity is emergent due two types of gravitons. One is FERMION GRAVITON with mass and another is BOSON GRAVITON with zero mass. FERMION GRAVITONS DEVELOP PUSH MOLECULES FOR EQUAL FALL OF ALL MOLECULES IN CLASSICAL GRAVITY DUE TO M/R.R CONSTANT FOR ALL MOLECULES. But BOSON GRAVITONS act at quantum level inside protons and neutrons for short range reaction with color charge quarks for a strong nuclear force . Here BOSON GRAVITONS play the role of force carrier as has been assumed in gluon. As such quantum gravity is strong nuclear force. I am attaching a paper for your perusal and deliberation, publication etc.Attachment #1: TWO_PRONGED_EMERGENT_GRAVITY_MECHANISM_AND_A_NEW_PHYSICS..doc

a year later

thank you for sharing meet girl facebook

Thanks for sharing, very useful information. You can visit my site for more information.

[link:howtoget.wiki/category/personal-care-and-style/[/link]

Write a Reply...