A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by Greta »

Serendipper wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:55 am
Greta wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:55 amAgain, I don't think that sense of self is an absolute but a continuum; we experience those gradations as we grow just as other species have a stronger or weaker sense of self (while species like dogs routinely pass an olfactory version of the mirror test - they failed the visual test because they are smell-oriented).
If it's a continuum, then there was never a point when sense of self didn't exist, right? Alan Watts said he was the evil gleam in his father's eyes. He would say "When were you born? Let's go back. When was it? Parturition? Conception?" There are no separate events. He said "You are the big bang still coming on at me."
I don't think the continuum entirely consists of consciousness but reactivity, of which conscious responsiveness is only a small part when one considers the huge range of possible reactions between entities. So, before a conscious self came reflex actions. In a sense, consciousness is constructed of reflexes, that are turned on and off like switches. Hence all the computer / brain analogies.

There must logically be a "shoreline" between reflexes and the development of a sense of self, both in the flow of evolution and in our personal growth as infants.
Serendipper wrote:
The human advantage is to not only be able to control our responses, but to be able to control our controls - to deliberately shape and improve our responses rather than relying on genetics, health and luck. That is self awareness - the control of the controls. If AI start learns to control the controls of the controls then that will be literally mind-bending!
That's interesting. I used to define terms as follows:

Perception - the interception of information
Awareness - the perception of perception (interception of the information that information had been intercepted)
Consciousness - the perception of awareness (interception of the information that interception of the information that information had been intercepted)

I'm not sure what to call the perception of consciousness.
It looks like we have similar divisions based on different angles - you focused more on the input and I was thinking about output.
So we have reactions.
Then control.
Then control over that control.

Note that the way we control our responses has been successful but far from flawless. Consider the athlete who tells himself sweet lies so he has a chance in a game where he will almost certainly be thrashed. Maybe there's a better a batter way for people to perform above themselves, to better achieve their potential?

That is a meta-control over the way we control our basic animal-style controls - largely science, philosophy, religion and law. That's the next level you asked about. However, these methods, these institutions, are also far from flawless and can be improved in how they do things. What if a methodology is devised by AI that supersedes all of these means of better regulating ourselves?

At this point the whole affair is hard to keep wrapping one's head around.
Serendipper wrote:When a bacteria dies, what changes? The shell remains, but why is it inanimate?
I'd go back to the video I posted to IC - Martin Hanczyc's TED Talk about the line between life and non life. Basically the difference is that the carcass will no longer sustain itself and be absorbed back into the environment like a still-living microbe continues to heroically fight off the forces of entropy :)
Ok I'll listen to it now. But what I mean is if we build a cell one atom at a time, will it then be animate? Will it spring to life or will it require some intangible element? When I think about that problem, I always return to wondering what changes when a cell dies. Is a dead cell and live cell identical on the atomic level? If so, then what changes? If not, then how does the position of a few atoms determine life from death?[/quote]
Emergence. If you build a car, one piece at a time, at what point does it drive? This comes down to systems integration but I don't know anything about it, just that if certain critical parts of systems, even very small ones, are not present or functional then an entire system can break down (obviously enough).
Serendipper wrote:Dna is memory (anamnesis), but I don't think memory is necessary to have an experience. We've learned how to beat our hearts, but we don't need to be conscious of how we do it nor remember the experience of the learning process.
The more consciously aware and adaptable we are, the more likely we can place our bodies in places where danger isn't, and in this roundabout way our consciousness helps our heart to keep beating.
That's another good question: what divides the conscious from the unconscious? [/quote]
Language :) As per one our earlier chats, we are still minimally conscious when we are asleep; we just call it "unconscious" because when we are unconscious from an outside perspective, which translates to "all intents and purposes". This brings us back to the opacity of other minds observed by Nagle. That may yet change with technology too as brain states and thoughts are increasingly correlated.
Serendipper wrote:Anything that is not part of our conscious then becomes part of our unconscious, which not only includes our dna, but the sun and stars.

The Zen school says our unconscious is infinitely more wise than our conscious, so it almost seems the conscious is a mulling-around, processing and then filtering into the unconscious repository for encoding into the universe when key puzzles are solved. I may have just stumbled upon how Alan Watts said he is the sun; it's an extension of his subconscious mind. "Below consciousness" is fundamental knowledge that has been learned previously in other iterations/generations. So the conscious is the organism and the unconscious is the environment. Every organism then is an inkjet writing on the universe, but also an eye for reading it. The organism is made by, but also contributes to, the universe in a loop of feedback and it is that which produces the feeling of self because the loop is an infinite regression which negates determination and institutes randomness.

Obviously, randomness is the only thing that can guarantee discovery of the absolute best solution otherwise any presupposition affecting/determining outcome will taint/bias the data; therefore, in that case, nothing could be known for certain and no absolute could be found, but unlimited random samples will guarantee if there exists any superior intrinsic property, it will be discovered. I think we can say that this universe is indeed the best one because it survived the ultimate test. There can be no more ultimate test because random is random and there is no more-randomer. Maybe absolutes can exist.
Yet chaos and randomness can be hard to distinguish. This suggests that the possibilities afforded by chaos are not deterministic or uncreative, unless you feel straitjacketed by possibilities for the universe that would probably dwarf a googol :) It reminds me of people talking about a "lonely universe" as dark energy separates the galaxies. I keep wanting to ask them why hundreds of billions of stars and planetary systems are not enough to keep them company.

Bottom line is there is incredible freedom in chaos - the hard part is limiting it to a point where we survive.
Serendipper wrote:
This is all very hard to wrap one's head around and I think this is because the fundamental makeup of society has changed with specialisation. Today we have many more exemplars (largely by virtue of larger populations) whose knowledge and skills dwarf that of those in the past due to accumulated knowledge - "standing on the shoulders of giants". Meanwhile the masses seem to become ever more obtuse and base. Equality is reducing between centres of power and/or excellence and the rest.
Idk, you think the masses of today are dumber than the peasants of the victorian? I know people are stupid today, but victorians threw buckets of poo out of their windows onto the street everyday. How could those people be smarter than we are?

Then again, I can feel technology making me stupid: I can't speel, can't do math, can't remember phone numbers all because machines do that for me, so I forgot how. Now with gps navigation, we're going to loose our spacial ability. Soon we'll be skin-bag blobs with a smudgy device hanging out the side :lol:
Excellent response! :lol: I made the same mistake as I criticise others for - thinking in too short a time frame. In a broader historical sense, the early 20th century is "now".

On the other hand, societal and environmental change are accelerating, in which case the time frame references will shrink until we spin down whatever "plug hole" that's awaiting us. We are becoming like cells - pretty useless at almost everything aside from communicating with the "larger body", and in that cells and humans are virtuosos.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by Dontaskme »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:41 am
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:27 pmIt is out of the mind that the illusion of the universe arises...

...uwot want's evidence of an already self evident phenomena.
Yes please.
I've given the answer, you also have the answer. Why are you requesting the answer again?

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:27 pmEvidence is in the sufi quote ''The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection, The water has no mind to receive their image.''
uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:41 amThat's not evidence, Dontaskme.
Yes it is. The universe doesn't know it exists, it has no mind for knowledge of itself...knowledge is on reflection. Which is no thing looking at its nothingness..rendering knowledge of the universe an illusion...since this reflection is a conceptual idea arising within the same nothingness...aka oneness.

Nothingness doesn't mean what it implies, it means there is just everything without a label...labels divide everything into parts, but labels are thoughts which are reflections of the no thing reflecting itself.

The universe IS...as self evident, but that knowing is not known by a someone existing separate from the universe itself, ''the someone knowing'' is the illusion...the knower is produced by the reflection of no thing looking at itself, the image appearing is a phantom...aka a mirage of no thing.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:27 pmObviously that's not going to make sense in the common sense of the world...
uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:41 amThat's because it's gibberish.
Well we always rubbish that which is too subtle for the mind to see, especially when the mind thinks it is the seer, when in fact the mind doesn't see or know anything at all, the mind is the SEEN. Even the mind is perceived..known.

It's self evident, but sometimes that's too simple for the intellect, the intellect always looks for complication and detail, it doesn't do subtle.

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:27 pm...but one has to really study self to see it.
uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:41 amIn which case, it isn't self-evident.
It is self evident, no one thinks this until one thinks about it, in the same sense, no one sees an object until one conceptualises it into existence. Identification with an object is a ''thought'', which arises in no thing... that which arises ..falls...the thought I AM...can reverse to I AM NOT ..leaving pure self evident presence in it's wake....this is called the unidentified SELF....it's the SELF that has no self.

To see through the illusion of mind, one has to stop looking at the thing the no thing is thinging, and turn toward the no thing that things to see the thing is not a thing at all, but a mirage of no thing.

This is not what we are conditioned to believe and for one very good reason, it's too deep for one to comprehend, humans don't do deep. Humans have been programmed to think only at the conceptual surface level of reality, which is the reality made of concepts. Words are very powerful at creating realities that are not really there, belief in those words further enforce the reality. And yes the illusion of a world full of known things is appearing very real, that's the power of magic.

Life for the human being who lives the conceptual world really is made of magic...see my thread in the lounge explaining the phenomena of how words have a powerful magic spell over us.






It's all self evident in that it's right here now, it's never not here.

.

.

You can reject this all you like, it isn't going to make one iota of difference to the fact that oneness is all there is. I'm just discussing it, because that's my topic, and it's what i like to talk about.

We've all got the answers to our questions about what ever it is we want to know...all truth is within you..not in the external world of mirage.

.

.

.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by uwot »

Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 am
uwot wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:17 am https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
That's a great link! Especially the part about the atom.
Thank you.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 amThere's a few errors about light though. Light is not slowed by glass, or anything, but there's a phase shift when light is re-emitted that combines with the original that produces the bending and slowing effect.
Well, in the link Professor Merrifield points out that there are several ways to interpret the fact that light takes longer to pass through glass than air. I'm not really claiming that anything in the book is 'true'; being a fairly hard-nosed empiricist, I believe all hypotheses are necessarily underdetermined (not to be confused with undetermined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination ) I just happen to think that it is easier to conceptualise matter and energy as patterns in some physical stuff, rather than as mathematical point sources of abstract forces.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 amOpaque objects do not block light, but cancel it. As far as I know, nothing stops light.
Well, it's yer basic conservation of energy. Photons get absorbed by atoms, this increases the energy level of the atom. Sooner or later, it will return to its ground state and spit the exact same amount of energy out again; almost certainly in a completely different direction to the trajectory of the original photon; hence 'absorption lines' in spectra.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 amThe "big bang stuff" could only affect light if it has charge.
Charge is just the mysterious power that moves 'charged particles' one way or the other. Photons aren't charged so the effect of charge on them is something between nil and not much. Gravity on the other hand, does affect light and there's a pedagogical device. p33-37, that some people might find helpful.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 amThis video should explain it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHN0ZWE5bk
Thanks for that; well worth watching.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by uwot »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:56 amI've given the answer, you also have the answer. Why are you requesting the answer again?
Someone saying "There's a monster in the forest. It's got a big foot, but it doesn't know it's there." is testimony, not evidence. A photograph of a big foot print is evidence.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:27 pmWell we always rubbish that which is too subtle for the mind to see...
No, Dontaskme, some of us just rubbish that which is just rubbish. Some make up excuses for why other people are too stupid to believe what they regard as self-evident.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:56 amYou can reject this all you like, it isn't going to make one iota of difference to the fact that oneness is all there is. I'm just discussing it, because that's my topic, and it's what i like to talk about.

We've all got the answers to our questions about what ever it is we want to know...all truth is within you..not in the external world of mirage.
Well, you are free to gaze at your own reflection or at your navel. But if others don't see what you see, at least have the humility to admit that perhaps the Emperor is butt-naked, rather than blame the coarseness of our vision.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by Dontaskme »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:53 am
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:56 amI've given the answer, you also have the answer. Why are you requesting the answer again?
Someone saying "There's a monster in the forest. It's got a big foot, but it doesn't know it's there." is testimony, not evidence. A photograph of a big foot print is evidence.
Yes, the photograph is the evidence, that there is a mind present ..you need a mind to know what a thing is. The mind generates an image out of itself.
uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:53 amWell, you are free to gaze at your own reflection or at your navel. But if others don't see what you see, at least have the humility to admit that perhaps the Emperor is butt-naked, rather than blame the coarseness of our vision.
We all see the same things. Since there is only seeing.

No thing has ever been seen, objects are known, not seen as seer and seen are one and the same no thing.

Seeing is knowing.

There is only ONE SEER

But there are many things known by this one seer...as images of itself.

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by Dontaskme »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:53 am
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:27 pmWell we always rubbish that which is too subtle for the mind to see...
No, Dontaskme, some of us just rubbish that which is just rubbish. Some make up excuses for why other people are too stupid to believe what they regard as self-evident.
You asked for evidence...I gave you the evidence you asked for.

Now you rubbish my evidence, so then I tell you ..you too have the evidence of what you seek.

Then you rubbish that too.

So tell me, when are you going to stop rubbishing yourself and see the light?

Why ask for evidence ? if all you're going to do is rubbish the evidence when it is shown?

I never mentioned the word too stupid to see ..I said it is a subtle seeing.

It's very difficult to see the streaming light that is self evidence as seen through the heavy dense gross matter when the attention is on the matter only.

.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by uwot »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:26 amSo tell me, when are you going to stop rubbishing yourself and see the light?
The light? No, Dontaskme, it is your light. In order that anyone should accept your interpretation of phenomena, you need to demonstrate why all other interpretations are false.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:26 amWhy ask for evidence ? if all you're going to do is rubbish the evidence when it is shown?

I never mentioned the word too stupid to see ..I said it is a subtle seeing.
Call it stupid, call it a lack of subtlety, but if the only reason anyone disagrees with you is that they lack your refinement, you are wasting your time trying to persuade them with insults.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by Dontaskme »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:37 am
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:26 amSo tell me, when are you going to stop rubbishing yourself and see the light?
The light? No, Dontaskme, it is your light. In order that anyone should accept your interpretation of phenomena, you need to demonstrate why all other interpretations are false.
I'm showing you my light...I'm pretty sure it's everyones light too...but if my light is different to your light then so be it, there is nothing to interpret why some lights seem to be different to other lights... except the light's own interpretation of itself which can be many and varied.

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:37 amCall it stupid, call it a lack of subtlety, but if the only reason anyone disagrees with you is that they lack your refinement, you are wasting your time trying to persuade them with insults.
Again, you asked for evidence, which I gave, I never once mentioned that one has to agree with that evidence. I'm simply showing the evidence on request for it. If that evidence is not what you are looking for then I have no problem with that..you will make up your own mind about what constitutes evidence...like I said, the mind generates it's own images out of itself, and then interprets those images to suit it's own understanding.

I've already stated, we all know the answers to our own questions...but when one asks another for the evidence like you did, why then go all defensive when the answer is given, why not just say that's not the answer I was looking for thanks, so I'll just keep searching for the evidence myself.

How is that being insulting when all I'm doing is showing you the answer to the question, the one you asked for? It's not my problem that the answer I have given you has insulted you. I'm just sharing the love that is light.

.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by uwot »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:05 am...but if my light is different to your light then so be it, there is nothing to interpret why some lights seem to be different to other lights... except the light's own interpretation of itself which can be many and varied.
You're doing it again, Dontaskme. That 'light' interprets itself is something you present as a given. It is something you believe, which is entirely your prerogative, but you haven't provided any evidence to support it.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:05 amHow is that being insulting when all I'm doing is showing you the answer to the question, the one you asked for? It's not my problem that the answer I have given you has insulted you.
Attributing someone's disagreement to their lack of subtlety is insulting. Clearly you do not have the empathic subtlety to appreciate this.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:05 amI'm just sharing the love that is light.
Thanks for that, but it is your light.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by Dontaskme »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:00 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:05 am...but if my light is different to your light then so be it, there is nothing to interpret why some lights seem to be different to other lights... except the light's own interpretation of itself which can be many and varied.
You're doing it again, Dontaskme. That 'light' interprets itself is something you present as a given. It is something you believe, which is entirely your prerogative, but you haven't provided any evidence to support it.
That is the evidence.

Just as a photograph is evidence, the image supports the evidence wanted. There is not evidence of anything except on demand for it.


uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:00 pmAttributing someone's disagreement to their lack of subtlety is insulting. Clearly you do not have the empathic subtlety to appreciate this.
No it's not insulting. How does one insult nothing. When one insults a photograph, does the photograph get insulted?
uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:00 pmThanks for that, but it is your light.
Don't you mean Y (our) light..

No one is the custodial owner of light, everything is light...which is not-a-thing.


Light is just another word for consciousness.


.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by uwot »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:55 pmDon't you mean Y (our) light..
No.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:55 pmLight is just another word for consciousness.
Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. It is certainly true that the only thing that we know for certain is that consciousness exists. How do you make the leap from that fact to the conclusion that consciousness is the only thing that actually exists?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by Dontaskme »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:55 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:55 pmDon't you mean Y (our) light..
No.
Yes. Your light is not different to my light. The view maybe difference but not the capacity to view.
For you and me 'the moment of now' is continuously unfolding in the form of electrical activity (light) relative to the structure of the brain (atoms). Therefore we are always in the centre of our own reference frame.The brain being in 'the moment of now' in the centre of its own frame of reference that gives us the concept of 'mind' with each one of us having our own unique personal view of the Universe.
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:55 pmLight is just another word for consciousness.
uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:55 pm Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. It is certainly true that the only thing that we know for certain is that consciousness exists. How do you make the leap from that fact to the conclusion that consciousness is the only thing that actually exists?

Well it's always nice to know we are getting nowhere.
I know consciousness is the only thing that exists because it is not a thing, and that which is not a thing does not exist.

.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by uwot »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:08 pmWell it's always nice to know we are getting nowhere.
I know consciousness is the only thing that exists because it is not a thing, and that which is not a thing does not exist.
So the only thing that you know exists doesn't exist, because it isn't a thing. Can you at least see how that might confuse the unsubtle?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by Dontaskme »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:26 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:08 pmWell it's always nice to know we are getting nowhere.
I know consciousness is the only thing that exists because it is not a thing, and that which is not a thing does not exist.
So the only thing that you know exists doesn't exist, because it isn't a thing. Can you at least see how that might confuse the unsubtle?

No it's not confusing, because all known knowledge comes from not knowing.

.
Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

Re: A strange spiritual consequence of the multiverse theory

Post by Serendipper »

uwot wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:18 am
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 am
uwot wrote: Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:17 am https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
That's a great link! Especially the part about the atom.
Thank you.
Is that your work?
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 amThere's a few errors about light though. Light is not slowed by glass, or anything, but there's a phase shift when light is re-emitted that combines with the original that produces the bending and slowing effect.
Well, in the link Professor Merrifield points out that there are several ways to interpret the fact that light takes longer to pass through glass than air.

There are two other ways to interpret it, yes, but the problem with the pinball analogy is we'd expect to see diffusion, but we don't, and the problem with the absorption/delay hypothesis is we'd expect to see frequency dependence, but we don't. So neither of those hypotheses accurately reflect what is going on.
I'm not really claiming that anything in the book is 'true'; being a fairly hard-nosed empiricist, I believe all hypotheses are necessarily underdetermined (not to be confused with undetermined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination )

Oh ok, but the wiki links says some possibilities, like 6 oranges, can be eliminated and that's what's going on here with the two hypotheses that have been eliminated.
I just happen to think that it is easier to conceptualise matter and energy as patterns in some physical stuff, rather than as mathematical point sources of abstract forces.
That makes sense.
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 amOpaque objects do not block light, but cancel it. As far as I know, nothing stops light.
Well, it's yer basic conservation of energy. Photons get absorbed by atoms, this increases the energy level of the atom.
Even in the video professor Merrifield said that atoms absorb photons, but that is not the right way to conceptualize the effect. What actually happens is the atom resonates in response to the EM wave. Resonance always produces a 180 degree phase shift and it's that which cancels the original light wave producing the *appearance* of absorption. I struggled with developing an understanding for quite a while when I took it upon myself to learn why co2 affects IR light, but not visible.

Resonance will kick the electron up to the next level as a function of the mass/spring relationship involved in the atom or molecule.

Image
Sooner or later, it will return to its ground state and spit the exact same amount of energy out again; almost certainly in a completely different direction to the trajectory of the original photon; hence 'absorption lines' in spectra.
I think the absorption lines in spectra are the frequencies where resonance takes place. I'm pretty sure the cooling of an atom radiates in all directions (one of my objections to the co2 hypothesis since most of the IR re-radiates into space and not to earth).
Serendipper wrote: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:08 amThe "big bang stuff" could only affect light if it has charge.
Charge is just the mysterious power that moves 'charged particles' one way or the other. Photons aren't charged so the effect of charge on them is something between nil and not much. Gravity on the other hand, does affect light and there's a pedagogical device. p33-37, that some people might find helpful.
Acceleration of charge is what causes an electromagnetic wave and so the presence of charge is affected by the wave as it passes. My understanding of gravity assumes it affects space itself rather than the light. For instance a black hole pulls space in so fast that light cannot escape, but essentially has no direct effect on light itself since it doesn't contain anything to be affected as it's just an electric field that generates a magnetic field that generates an electric field and so on forever.

Physics is a complete mess that is chocked full of misconceptions and vague terms. Like the idea that mass increases with velocity. And try to find two physicists who can give you consistent definitions for heat and work or definitively say what gamma rays are. Someone needs to clean it up and provide clear and exclusive definitions across all the sciences and stop teaching conceptions that work 90% of the time but aren't actually representing reality properly, such as: photon absorption, gravitational effects on EM waves, F=ma, mass changes with velocity, and who knows what all artifacts of laziness persist.

I enjoy Don Lincoln's videos at Fermilab because he will tell you when conceptions will only work some times rather than painting an improper picture of reality either out of ignorance or laziness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM
Post Reply