Collapsing Physics: Q&A with Catalina Oana Curceanu

Hello Mr Fisher,

I try really to encircle your line of reasoning.All surface you say must be unified and infinite.I have really difficulties to accept this.The finite series are essential.I beleive strongly that it is due to an infinite aether luminerous in your reasoning where the infinite is connected with all finite systems.If the luminerous aether is not really infinite but the real infinite aether is the gravitational aether from the central singularity in my line of reasoning.The photonic sphere aged of 13;7 billions years is not infinite because the main codes are not from a super mega star , central to our universe.The infinite surface is gravitational Mr Fisher at this wall separating our universe and the physicality, the universal sphere in my model.The universal sphere is not a photonic sphere, this phot sphere is Inside.That is why we must even restudy really our universal age because we cannot consider only photons for our universal laws.The photons are just a tool,they are not the foundamental bricks of evolution but gravitation yes.Real light has so a finite sphere in increasing but the gravitational sphere is different because we tends towards infinity at these singularities.One cosmologic and the quantum singularities.All islinked but with relativity.Take care Jedi ofthe sphere........We are finite but our entropy is infinite.:)

Hi Steve, I think it is good that you differentiate the photons in the environment from the matter of the universe and identify a problem in only considering the photons. It is important, as I see it, because photons when received can be used to form an image of the universe. Giving two kinds of universe -the observed image and the unobserved material universe.

I think it is good that you have given Joe's ideas consideration but I have found that they are not founded on reasoning that can be debated but his own 'indisputable 'belief.

When talking about the cannon ball and balloon he is talking about outputs of the human visual system and yet his 'model' does not permit functioning of that system as it does not permit the movement of photons that are the inputs to the system.

Steve,

One real observable Universe only has one observable infinite surface.

Georgina,

Real observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light does not have to be differentiated from invisible finite photons wafting about in an invisible finite environment. Please concentrate on utterly simple visible infinite surface and stop trying to make sense of invisible codswallop.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi to both of you?

The photons are for coded by gravitation.They are like a fuel in fact.They decrease their velocities in beeing encoded in our nuclei respecting the evolution of matter energy.The photons are not all the same indeed because they are coded.But the problem witha lot of scientists is to consider the photons like primordial codes form God.I see differently because photons are not only one particles of evolution.W must explain dark matter, grvitationa and BH.Insisting on photons is not the solution to encircle the obserrvable universe and the entire universe.I prefer to speak about a known universe and an unknown universe.We know the effects of photons and it is a tool.But it is not sufficient to understand our gravitation.The gravitation is an universal equilibrium correlated for me with the natural rotations of sphères,quant and cosm.This force is not electromagnetic,the sphères turn not due to thermo and speciaal relativity.That has no sense in fact.It is a big problem to insist on photons instead of particles of gravitation.Because it is like resting in a prison simply.God does not play at dices and evolution permits to see the steps towards our singuarities coded gravitationally.It is there Mr Fisher that you have made an error considering God like an infinite light.It is more than that, so the real infinite surface are gravitational and not luminerous.The physicality is a specific system with intrinsic universal laws and domains respecting the finite series.Gravitation tends to infinity .....Not light in fact .Regards

Dear Joe, your description of how the surface is seen to change with relative motion of the observer tells me that you re talking about a manifestation produced by the visual system of that observer. Whether you recognize it as such or not. You are using sight in your argument and therefore that process of vision has to be allowed. I am not trying to make sense of invisible 'codswallop', it is not codswallop to me but makes sense as it explains the phenomena investigated by physics experiments and biological processes. Your proposal lacks the equivalent explanatory power and can not be supported by logical arguments. So I humbly suggest you go back to the drawing board.

Finite matter and finite action are what define the universe and it is just from a large number of finite particles that a surface or a line or a volume appear infinitely divisible.

Infinite divisibility and infinite extent are very useful approximations that allow us to predict many actions of reality quite well. However, the universe is not made up of infinitely continuous matter.

Discrete photon exchange is the way charge works and photon emission is how we see objects. We measure objects with the matter spectrometer of consciousness and use that information to predict object action. However, our spectrometer does not record instantaneously but rather takes data over a moment of thought.

During that moment of thought, we entangle with the object's future and that entanglement means that we cannot ever precisely know the future since we become a part of the object and therefore a part of its possible futures. This also means that any choice we make is neither absolutely certain nor predictable. This is the essence of free will...

Hi Steve, you do not seem to be differentiating object in external reality ( as you say seen by photon emission ) and the information received from that, processed by the CNS ( you say we become a part of the object ). The information in the brain and the external object made of atoms seem categorically different to me although you are referring to both as 'the object'. I agree that the manifestation produced and experienced is affected by the biological processes by which it comes into being. However the object in external reality is unaffected by what is going on inside the observer. Its future is independent of the processes of observation.

Georgina,

One real observable Universe only has one observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light Observable infinite surface is whole. No part of it can seem to change due to the invisible relative finite motion of an invisible observer. It is not my idea. It is real and you can prove it to yourself by looking. Please stop repeating nonsense about the finite logic of the invisible. Newton and Einstein failed to notice that the surface of all objects travels at the same speed whether they are at rest or whether they are in motion. The quantum quacks that claim that two invisible particles scooting through invisible space can occupy the same invisible position are incorrect.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Steve,

There is no such a thing as "finite matter." All observable matter, whether it is solid, liquid, or vaporous is part of one unified infinite surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,

can you try to address the conundrum that you say "It is real and you can prove it to yourself by looking." and yet you do not have a belief that permits seeing to occur. Joe, with respect, I do not repeat nonsense but use concepts and ideas that are useful to me because of their explanatory power. What I am proposing works with the biggest areas of classical and quantum physics but addresses those parts that have paradoxes,indicating something is not quite right in the understanding of the the theory and experimental results.

Steve, I don't understand the connection you posit with the object once you start talking about thought. The sensory cells are stimulated by whole photons not part photons. So a photon in flight between object and observer is not information within the observer. Not yet a part of thought.I can accept that there are visible light photons emitted from the observer too that can affect a near object and if very close and thermal radiation emitted by an observer might affect the very near object. I don't have reason to believe that internal thought processes are directly producing an effect on the external object. You say that "That is just the way that the universe works and sort of at the root of uncertainty and entanglement." What actual evidence do you have of that 'magical' proposition?

Steve and Georgina,

All visible objects have apparent complete finite measurable surfaces. But not one visible object can ever be isolated. It is impossible to see the frontal surface of oneself in a mirror without also seeing what appears to be the partial surface of the mirror, and the wall the mirror is attached to, and an INFINITE number of other partial surfaces.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Joe,

I think you have said something coherent that helps demonstrate what you mean by the 'surface". The 'partial surfaces" you mention are manifestations formed from received information and only show that part of the object from which information could be received at that particular observer location and time. Information is received together from many locations and amalgamated into a present visual experience. The most interesting thing for me is that depending on the distance the objects were from the observer when the information was emitted it has taken different lengths of time for the information to arrive together. Which means the Present manifestation is an amalgamation of information with different temporal origins. I will just reiterate that the processes of sight must be possible for that manifestation to be produced.

Photon emission and absorption are not instantaneous events although people often approximate state to state wavefunction collapse as instantaneous. However, photon emission and absorption both take time and for sufficient lifetimes, photons can connect objects and people for nanoseconds, microseconds, milliseconds, seconds, and so on.

It is photon exchange that bonds two charged objects and biphoton exchange that bonds two gravity objects. Retinal pigments absorb light, but also emit light as well. In fact, there is some definite fraction of photons that simply reflect from the retina and return to the source somewhat shifted in phase.

When we observe an object, each photon represents a transient bond between us and the object just as discrete photon and biphoton exchanges are what binds all of the universe in one way or another.

In other words, the action of thought actually has some affect on the object of discovery due to the bonding time of the photon. The experimental evidence for photon bonding is in the QED of Feynman. The lifetimes of emission and the times for absorption are experimental measurements.

The wonder to me is that this notion of reality has not been put together by some people who are much smarter than I am. Thought is simply the bonding of aware matter, which are the action potentials of neural synapses. Thought is composed of neural synapses but the coding of neural aware matter has not yet been well defined.

However, we know that the sensation of a photon on the retina excites neural matter on the order of 11 Hz, the alpha mode of neural matter's EEG. That means that within a 1/11th of a second, a moment of thought entangles a photon event with neural aware matter and so any photon event longer than that is a two way street.

Thought actually affects the object in an entanglement by quantum logic. This is actually the essence of the uncertainty principle and is why the future is not completely predictable. Before any action, the fact of that action affects that action in a recursion of sensation, feeling, and action as neural aware matter moment. How we feel actually affects what we sense and therefore how we act and that neural matter moment is not completely deterministic.

This should not be much of a surprise. A discrete quantum universe is made up of both discrete particles and discrete actions. We think of time and space as infinitely continuous, but infinities are only approximations that work extremely well for most predictions of action, but there are no infinities in reality.

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.