Wednesday, May 20, 2015

The Two Categories of Language: Object & Concept

Object refers to an abstraction or a category used to organize names. Object nests together all the names which relate a human to that which has form. Form is a property used to describe and to define object synonym of thing, entity, body, etc. Below I have a list of quotes from many different thinkers who thought the same, but they never worked out the two categories of language. Concept is defined as a relation between objects worked out by the brain and is used as another category. Some synonyms of concept are idea, intellection, thought, understanding, etc. The Concept Category nests together all other names that cannot possibly be organized into the Object Category.

In this complex naming is a primal concept. Humans enact what we conceive and name: naming. This is a primal relation. We do this all the time. We are doing it now. Object and Concept are two abstractions used to organize our modes of naming so as to clarify our understanding, name usage and communication.

A human can possibly name that which has form, e.g. star, tree, man, woman, apple, door, chair, etc. Form is defined as that which is bounded or contained or demarcated from an immediate surrounding. How an object assumes it's form could be explained in a theory but this is irrelevant here.  This mode of naming that which has form is described in the second chapter of the Bible. Adam names that which has form. That which has form is led to him by God and he relates to that in the act of naming:

The Lord God also said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. Let us make a helper for him similar to himself.” Therefore, the Lord God, having formed from the soil all the animals of the earth and all the flying creatures of the air, brought them to Adam, in order to see what he would name them. For whatever Adam would call any living creature, that would be its name. And Adam called each of the living things by their names: all the flying creatures of the air, and all the wild beasts of the land. Yet truly, for Adam, there was not found a helper similar to himself. And so the Lord God sent a deep sleep upon Adam. And when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and he completed it with flesh for it. And the Lord God built up the rib, which he took from Adam, into a woman. And he led her to Adam. And Adam said: “Now this is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. This one shall be called woman, because she was taken from man.” (Genesis 2:18-23)

A child does a similar action, however a child adopts nominal conceptions fed by mom and dad in accord with convention. And a human will continue to name that which has form until he dies. This manner of naming relates a human to that which has form and is organized into a language category called Object. We can trace the human act of naming back to that which has form, (both ways, since a human also has form). This naming serves as a basis for language, thinking, and all intellectual endeavor. All languages have the same roots! They are rooted in that which has form. We cannot even have motion (a verb) without that which has form.

A human can also possibly name that which lacks form. In other words a human can name a relation or a comparison between objects which he has worked out via his or her brain e.g. love, justice, gravity, space, time, identity, location, color, dimension, etc. So to play off of Adam above, after Adam named that which has form he retired and started thinking about all these objects. And he began naming his thought. In the act of naming, a human cannot literally relate to a relation which his brain has worked out, let alone a natural relation that happens independent of him. This would break the law of contradiction. One cannot possibly relate to relation.  How is a human suppose to literally relate to a motion of his neural objects rooted in the brain? And so what a human does to remedy this impossible situation is stealthily treat this relation AS IF an object (i.e. that which has form). Humans routinely do this. This mimics the other mode of naming, i.e. naming that which has form (above). They reify their brain-works so as to use in higher order abstractions in thinking, and also in communication. Reification is a human, mentally converting his conception into that which has form. For example, a human will routinely treat space as if it has form. A human can even reify his primal concept called naming. That is he can treat word concepts referencing that which has form as if the nominal relation had form.

Humans speak of concept formation. But strictly speaking this is all impossible. Concept lacks form and cannot possibly form. Concept happens via the brain. Philosophers also speak of thinking in figures of speech or metaphor. And this is it! Converting a concept into that which has form is the ultimate figuration!!! There is no deeper poetry than this trick.  And this is done surreptitiously. No one seems to understand what they are doing!!! And only humans seem to have the ability to do this! Atoms, molecules, stars, cells, plants, animals, in short all of Mother Nature does not seem to be able to convert a concept into an object, but humans seem do it all the time! This ability could perhaps be named:  preternatural.  This is really one of the actions that categorizes a human. And this has it's uses, however if one does not understand this it will lead to epic nonsense. And we see this everyday in physics.

And so to enlighten this process . . . to clarify thinking and communication . . . proposed categories seem to help. These categories come later in the development of the human family or of the child, if we take a child as a reboot of the human race. Adam did not first have abstractions, categories and clear definitions to work with before he began naming and neither do children. Greeks started categorizing and Medieval philosophers followed them. Object and Concept are two proposed categories of language. They are radical. They have their uses.

Some other ways to work out these categories are as follows:
  

One can possibly lift one's finger and point to that which has form (object). And if one decides one can utter or trace a name.

One cannot possibly lift one's finger and point to that which lacks form (concept). But mentally humans still treat concepts as if they have form anyway. And they can still name their conceptions of the brain.

Captain Ahab lifts his finger to the Sun and says "I'd strike the Sun if it insulted me." This of course is crazy, but at least he is relating to an object (Sun). But if Ahab lifted his finger and pointed to nothing and said "I'd strike space if it insulted me" then Ahab would be beyond crazy because space lacks form as do all concepts.


Quotes to give an idea about how I am using the word Form above:

by form I mean the essence of each thing, and its primary substance -- Aristotle, (Metaphysics, Ch. 7)

For the form cannot desert matter, because it is inseparable from it and matter itself cannot be deprived of form -- Robert Grosseteste (On Light)

The first corporeal form is in my opinion light ---Grosseteste (On Light)

The chief point of divergence is that for Grosseteste matter is not pure potency, as it was for Aristotle, but possesses in its own right a certain minimal reality. (Riedl, Clare C. (Translator) Notes on Grosseteste)

Form, that is to say, the first corporeal form, or light, is in his view more than the 'form of corporeity,' the principle of extension, it is also a principle of activity. . . The intrinsic principle from which this motion or activity proceeds must be the form . . . (From Notes on Grosseteste)

Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.' (From Notes on Grosseteste)

For where there is no shape nor order, nothing either cometh or goeth -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 9)

where there is no form there can be no distinction between "this" or "that” -- Augustine (Confessions, Book 12, Ch. 13)

The term 'body' [object] therefore can signify that which has such a form as allows the determination of three dimensions in it, prescinding from everything else, so that from that form no further perfection may follow. If anything else is added, it will be outside the meaning of body thus understood. (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there are extrinsic and artificial properties that we relate but these cannot define an object. Only form can define an object]

The term body [object] can also be taken to mean a thing having a form such that three dimensions can be counted in it, no matter what the form may be . . . (Aquinas, On Being and Essence)

Now matter and form are so related that form gives being to matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words all objects in the set named matter have the native-inherent property called form and this may qualify them under the category existence].

Matter then cannot exist without some form but there can be a form without matter (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words he realized that there is a fundamental form that underlies the set of objects, i.e. matter.  In other words, a set of fundamental subatomic objects constitute all hydrogen atoms (or protons and neutrons) and these same mediate light and gravity between them all].

As Avicenna says, "The quiddity of a simple substance is the simple entity itself," (Aquinas, On Being and Essence) [in other words there is a fundamental object that belongs to all objects in the set of matter and this object is what is bound of itself]

A boundary is that which is an extremity of anything. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

A figure is that which is contained by a boundary or boundaries.” (Euclid, Elements)

the knowledge of the universal consents of things …. I … understand as the science which applies the knowledge of hidden forms to the production of wonderful operations; and by uniting (as they say) actives with passives, displays the wonderful works of nature. (Francis Bacon IV, 366–7: De Augmentis III.5)

Who existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped (Saint Paul) [Even God has Form].

A complete answer would amount to a history of thought, for in one sense everything possesses form. In some contexts the Greek words Eidos, Schema, and Morphe, and the Latin word Forma, which are often translated as “form” mean no less than “the qualities which make anything what it is.” (Notes from Accent on Form by Whyte)

Around 1250 we find Thomas Aquinas regarding forma as the essential quality or determining principle of every individual thing. (Notes on Accent on Form by Whyte)

But more importantly, shape is what an object has before light even reaches our eyes from the object. (Fatfist, Physics--What is Shape and Why Does it Define an Object?)

[for fun add a quote from Avengers: Age of Ultron . . . ]

Ultron to Jarvis: Where is your body?
Jarvis to Ultron: I am a program. I have no form.]

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Naming Our Brain Works

We have the ability to name objects (that which has form) or relation between objects that our brain has worked out.

In assumption each and every name first and foremost refers to concept. Once we think beyond (or transcend) this assumption then we realize that these nominal conceptions either reference an object (whether real, imaginary, hypothetical, and so on and so forth)  . . . or they reference some sort of relation or comparison between objects that our brain has worked out (for example love, gravity, number, etc.) and we decided to label by the act of naming. The act of naming always relates the human who named to the object named or the conception conceived and so this is a sort of primal concept. And the criteria for figuring out whether or not a human named an object or a concept is form. This Gottlob Frege never figured out when he said "the concept horse is not a concept". He had his own complex categories, but his investigations are still useful to borrow from.

But the sort of furtive act in all this is naming our conceptions. We work out a relation or comparison between objects and name this relation or comparison. So naming sort of works an affinity between us and our brain-work. We reify our brain-work (that is convert concept into object) and establish a sort of false relation in this. We cannot literally relate to a work our brain consummated so we do a trick by reifying, that is imagining that it is an object and ourselves relating to it. This is sort of a transcendental if you want. And this is what is confusing I think. Its easy to imagine Adam waking up, and naming that which has form (objects). But then Adam went to retire for the day and started working out relations between all these objects he named and then he named or traced these relations. The way we can resolve whether or not a word concept relates back to object or concept is form.  Does the referent have form?  Yes or no?

Blah

I have this concept. . . I call it blah blah blah. Blah, blah, blah, is not a thing.  Blah has no form, but I treat blah like a thing in the act of naming, thinking and communication. I reified. I converted this idea into an object. But I just ignore the fact I reified blah blah blah. Now I literally think that blah is an object that performs verbs and is involved in causal relations and undergoes change effects with the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the stars and all atoms. Blah does it all. Blah is real. And with blah we can work miracles like travel back in time! Blah will take us to new galaxies. With blah we will inhabit new worlds!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

But remember blah is just an idea I thought so don't take me too seriously. This is just for shits and giggles, and we make millions off of this concept. And besides we need another trillion dollars to validate this concept.

What is Real?

Real is about as Latin of a word as one can find.
It comes from the Latin realis.

Re is a variation on the Latin word res
alis just means: of, related to, connected with, belonging to

So realis is literally that which is related to things.

Res was a Roman staple, e.g. res publica literally public matter or public things.

In the dictionary they also try a trace Res back to Sanskrit:

"From Proto-Italic *reis, from Proto-Indo-European *reh₁ís (“wealth, goods”). Cognate to Old Persian [script needed] (rāy-, “paradise, wealth”), Avestan (rāy-, “paradise, wealth”) and Sanskrit रयि (rayí, “property, goods”)."

And note that in Latin the spelling RES is the same for singular and plural. So its like res are your things. Your land, your house, your bike, your car, your husband or wife, your body, your children, your money, your clothes, your food supply, and any relation in regards to your things. Your stuff! A very simple down to earth word and much less technical than the other Latin word: Existentia

There are hundreds of English words that use RES, e.g. resurrection, residue, reservoir, residence, etc.

The way the Romans used the word is similar to how people use the English word 'thing' or 'matter' or 'stuff'. In English 'thing' or 'matter' is basically used as a placeholder for any word in an ordinary conversation. But in physics and philosophy these words are used differently and people will be trying to figure this stuff out until the Sun explodes.

If we are to use the word REAL in physics and philosophy then we have to define it.

The Latin is literally that which belongs to things. Thing is just synonymous with object, entity, body, etc. What belongs to all things I ask? Form. Form is the primary quality of all things. So real has a lot to do with form. Form refers to that which is bounded or contained from the immediate surrounding. Then if you want you can add the idea of location. So this form has a location. That star you see every morning has form and location. And guess what? Your act of observing it or thinking about it doesn't determine this. The Sun is just there. It stimulates the atoms in your body and forces you to wake up. Very profound!!! So in real there is this sense that the thing is independent to your thought or act of perception.

Your wife you wake up to every morning has form and location. Once you tie the knot you can't escape her. Your car or bike or skateboard has form and location, that magnet you used in science class has form and location, as do all the atoms that constitute these. HOWEVER that woman you dreamed about last night seemed to have a form but no location. If you look around you will not find her. You can think about her, but you can't relate TO HER. Your brain just generated a picture and made a movie of her. Or that triangle you traced in geometry has a form but no location. Or those spacetime lines your curved don't seem to be found. These forms are not real. They have no relation to all the atoms of the Universe.

So its very simple. The Romans were no fools. They conceived and used words like REALIS and EXISTENTIA because some of their Greek neighbors were insane. These are static concepts used to describe objects.

In philosophy and mathematics they start messing around with the word real and for thousands of years this word is never resolved or defined. And then we have mentally ill philosophers, mathematicians and so called physicists preaching to the masses about the word real. And then they build trillion dollar devices to decide what is real or what is not real because they are confused about how the philosophers use the word real.

All these imaginary problems could be resolved in an instant if the philosopher, physicist or mathematician defined the term REAL and used it consistently in his presentations. Simple as that.

so in summary for physics and philosophy I would define

Real: that which has form (object) and location independent of any human action whether thinking, perceiving, observing, measuring, dreaming, hallucinating, etc. Not all objects qualify as real.

Location & Real vs. Existence

Location refers to a static concept (a picture imaged by the brain). Where form is a primary quality of objects used to resolve the ontology of the word referent, location refers to a sort of secondary quality sometimes used to resolve whether or not an object is real and/or exists.

Real and existence are often used to mean the same, however they are strictly speaking a little different. Real is more down to Earth. A sober concept and has to do more with that which has form independent of any sort of human intervention. Existence is more technical. Existence literally refers to that which STANDS OUT and seems to imply the three classic dimension (length, width, and height). So one could argue that existence implies a human observer. But on the other hand if one has a perfect understanding of the crucial word 'Form' and takes into account mercurial assumptions, I think one can do away with need to toy around so much.

But location can be defined more or less in an observer independent manner so as to resolve whether or not an object is real and/or exists

Location refers to the set of static distances from an object to all other objects.

If an object is described by real or exist, one should hypothetically be able to measure its distance to all objects of the Universe. So if superman is real and/or exists he should be located X distance from the Sun, Y from the Moon, Z from the Earth, A from you and so on. One doesn't have to do the measuring but the basic concept is powerful. It serves as a sound conceptual exercise.

Location can tell you right away whether or not some form is imagined or traced. For example a triangle. A triangle is an object. It has form, HOWEVER. does it have location? And even more 'what' could we possibly imagine bounded or contained of a triangle? In between the boundaries all one does is conceptualize space or some other imaginary forms. Space lacks form. So obviously a triangle is an abstract or imaginary form used in some context of utility. A triangle has nothing to do with reality and/or existence and all to do with a human brain conceptualizing. Similar with all concepts such as love, justice, gravity, etc. These concepts have no form, and neither to they have location. Where are you literally going to find love? Love is what an object does.

Really once one takes on some mercurial assumptions all one needs is Form. But now one can make a list of objects and ask whether or not they have location so as to help resolve whether or not they are real or exist. And so it becomes clear that humans imagine objects, hallucinate objects, project objects unto their environment, trace objects on paper and via computers, dream objects, abstracts objects, idealize objects, hypothesize objects, etc. However none of these can be located and strictly speaking they have no form. Their form also has to be described with the same modifiers. They have imaginary form and so on. We thought of them, we pictured them via our brain and used them to think, but there is no what contained, or bounded from immediate surrounding, no essence, no three classic dimensions, etc. You will never be able to locate a triangle or the ideal woman or superman. None of these objects stand out, none have three dimensions, none of them are connected to all the atoms of the Universe much less constituted by atoms. None of them are qualified in the abstract nest called matter. These imaginary objects have no foundation.

Are Memories Real?

Memory is a brain capacity. The brain or neural objects move to re-image an object of the past or imagine objects collectively mediating an event which happened in the past. The objects used in memory are not real since they lack location or a 'foundation' object from which they derive their form. They are imaginary objects or objects of memory. Just like dream objects or objects in hallucination. In this scenario we could just assume the brain and neural objects or human performing an act of memory are real.

Memory refers to a concept about what an object (brain) is able to do. Memory or memories lack form. There aren't any objects called memories constituting one's brain. Strictly speaking, real describes object. Memory lacks form and so relates back to a concept that we worked out about what our brain is able to do. Thus memory is not object and cannot be described by a static comparison called real. Similar with event. Event lacks form.

REAL is a word that describes and helps to discern objects in our act of understanding and communication.

Naming Our Brain-work

We have the ability to name objects (that which has form) or relation between objects that our brain has worked out.

So in assumption each and every name first and foremost refers to concept. Once we think beyond (or transcend) this assumption then we realize that these nominal conceptions either reference an object (whether real, imaginary, hypothetical, and so on and so forth) or they reference some sort of relation or comparison between objects that our brain has worked out (for example love, gravity, number,) and we decided to label by the act of naming or even tracing. The act of naming always relates the human who named to the object named or the conception conceived and so this is a sort of primal concept. And the criteria for figuring out whether or not a human named an object or a concept is form. This Gottlob Frege never figured out. He had his own complex categories, but his investigations are still useful to borrow from.

But the sort of furtive act in all this is naming our conceptions. We work out a relation or comparison between objects and name this relation. So naming sort of works an affinity between us and our brainwork. We reify our brainwork (that is convert concept into object) and establish a sort of false relation in this. We cannot literally relate to a work our brain consummated so we do a trick by reifying. This is sort of a transcendental if you want. And this is what is confusing I think. Its easy to imagine Adam waking up, discerning that which has form and naming it. But then Adam went to retire for the day and started working out relations between all these objects he named and then he named these relations. The way we can resolve whether or not a word concept relates back to object or concept is form.  Does the word referent have form?  Yes or no?

The Continuity of Mother Nature

I share this growing list of quotes from the best thinkers of all generations so people can get accustomed to the concept that all the atoms of the Universe are fundamentally connected by an object, perhaps a double stranded thread like object or (EM Rope as Gaede calls it). Not only does this object interconnect all atoms, but also all atoms derive their form from this object. So this hypothesized object is not a discrete background object. This object has certain singular properties. It is inordinately long, and yet it has the tiniest height and width of all supposed real objects. It has the ability to superpose and intersect without disturbance up to a critical density which is met for example when protons and/or neutrons collide. Near the atom there are anomalies where basic interactions happen, and ideas like electron try to explain this.

Imagine a hydrogen atom as a crisscrossing convergence of gazillions of these double stranded threads supplied by all other hydrogen atoms of the Universe. The proton is an intersection of one set of threads of the converging double strands and perhaps the other set of threads emanate out in a double helical mode (electron threads of various lengths). The atom is a double star like pattern of Thread. This Thread underpins all things. An atom, especially a proton is a sort of critical density of this Thread and so an atom is distinct and unequal to that which connects it to all others, and from which it derives its form. There is no empty space within the bounds of an atom. The atom constantly restructures itself by this Thread.

A light event consummates because electron threads superposes with the converging EM Rope. They take control of one another and switch between turning one another in a critically anomalous locations around the nucleus where converging EM Ropes and emanating electron threads superpose in different ratios. This could be basically how the atom signals through the thread to atoms and picks certain frequencies to torque the Thread. In electricity and chemical bonding electron threads could superpose and take control of electron threads from adjacent atoms and vice versa. There are also extraneous double stranded threads constantly passing through an atom. These begin and end on other atoms. So for example not only are all the atoms of the Earth connected to all the atoms of the Sun by EM Ropes, but Earth is always passing through EM Ropes connecting the Sun to all the stars. This is similar to a mainstream neutrino concept.

But the idea that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by an EM Rope is a lofty fundamental assumption. It will never be able to be experimentally verified, or even logically validated, however it can be reasoned to and almost seems necessary to explain phenomena such as light and gravity, not to mention the form and architecture of the atom. And this basic idea can be used to clearly interpret certain famous equations and so called laws.

Throughout the centuries many physicists and philosophers have flirted with this assumption, but they cowered in figures of speech. Taking on this assumption is a gargantuan task. It forces one to rethink everything you may have thought you knew. Its a lot of fun. And you know what no one has to take it seriously. Who cares?

"Light furnishes therefore the principle of continuity in nature, for as the first corporeal form it is common to all things in the universe from the lowest of the elements, earth, up to and including even the firmament. Thus 'all things are one by the perfection of one light.'" --- (From Notes on Robert Grosseteste's De Luce)

"Bohr and Heisenberg were separated from Schrodinger by basic philosophical convictions and they were unable to reach common ground from which to consider the atom. Each of them accepted and used the same body of experimental evidence, but they could not agree on the conceptual means to embrace the evidence. Schrodinger looked at the natural world and saw continuity, so he was intellectually offended by energy states and quantum jumps." --- (From Hydrogen, the Essential Element)

"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language." ---(From "Introductory" in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) as translated by Carl Eckhart and Frank C. Hoyt, p. 10.)

"Nor is it divisible, since it all alike is. Nor is there any more of it here than there, to hinder it from holding together, nor any less of it, but it is all a plenum, full of what-is. Therefore, it is all continuous, for what-is touches what-is. . ." --- (Parmenides, Peri Physis)

"He welded all the diverse parts of the universe by links of indissoluble attachment and established between them so perfect a fellowship and harmony that the most distant, in spite of their distance, appeared united in one universal sympathy." --- (Basil, Hexemeron, Homily II)

The sun appears to be poured down, and in all directions indeed it is diffused, yet it is not effused. For this diffusion is extension: Accordingly its rays are called Extensions [aktines] because they are extended [apo tou ekteinesthai]. But one may judge what kind of a thing a ray is, if he looks at the sun's light passing through a narrow opening into a darkened room, for it is extended in a right line, and as it were is divided when it meets with any solid body which stands in the way and intercepts the air beyond; but there the light remains fixed and does not glide or fall off. Such then ought to be the out-pouring and diffusion of the understanding, and it should in no way be an effusion, but an extension, and it should make no violent or impetuous collision with the obstacles which are in its way; nor yet fall down, but be fixed and enlighten that which receives it. For a body will deprive itself of the illumination, if it does not admit it.” --- (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Eight)

“Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”

---From Leonardo Da Vinci's notebook


"When we try to pick out anything by itself we find that it is bound fast by a thousand invisible cords that cannot be broken, to everything in the universe." --- (Jon Muir, 19th Century Naturalist)

"If light takes several years to reach us from a distant star, it is no longer on the star, nor is it on the earth. It must be somewhere, and supported . . . by some material agency." --- (Henri Poincare, Physicist, Engineer, Mathematician)

"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry." ---(Richard Feynaman, The Character of Physical Law)

“A chemical bond acts like a stiff spring connecting nuclei. As a result, the nuclei in a molecule vibrate rather than maintaining fixed positions relative to each other. ” --- (Darrell Ebbing, General Chemistry)

[The] investigator must feel the need of... knowledge of the immediate connections, say, of the masses of the universe. There will hover before him as an ideal insight into the principles of the whole matter, from which accelerated and inertial motions will result in the same way. --- (Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics)

...inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies... ---(Einstein, Letter to Ernst Mach)

“ the electromagnetic theory is not based on action at a distance as was Newton’s. Space is thought of as being threaded throughout with electrical and magnetic tensions.” --- (Michael Disney, The Hidden Universe)

“ Somehow, Nature contrives to build a consistent world in which particles and field-oscillations are the same thing! Or, rather, her world consists of some more subtle ingredient, the words ‘particle’ and ‘wave’ conveying but partially appropriate pictures.” --- (Roger Penrose, The emperor’s new mind)

“Although Thompson came to accept the electron as an electromagnetic particle, his view was different from that held by Lorentz and the German electrodynamicists. In a little known work of 1907 he pictured aether as an “ethereal astral body” glued to electrical particles and thought that these were “connected by some invisible universal something which we call aether . . . [and that] this aether must possess mass . . . when the electrified body is brought into motion.” Thomson concluded his 1907 discourse on matter and aether with a formulation that illustrates how little his thoughts had changed since the 1870s when he first encountered The Unseen Universe: “We are led to the conclusion that the invisible universe, and the natural phenomena that we observe are pictures woven on the looms of this invisible universe.” From Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics by Jed Z. Buchwald p. 212 (J.J. Thomson, “Die Beziehung zwischen Materie un Ather im Lichte der neureren Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Elektrizitat” (This paper was the Adamson lecture of 4 November 1907)

“most of us [physical scientists] are convinced in our innermost hearts that matter is ultimately of one kind, whatever ideas we may have formed as to the nature of the primordial substance. That opinion is not under discussion.” ---(Arthur Schuster On the Chemical Constitution of the Stars, 1897)


"It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. . . not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation."  (Pope Francis Laudato Si, 2015)


Popular Expressions by Artists

"At this Mylo tour it is the first tour I have really looked at people in the eye while we’re playing. When we look at each other it’s a great feeling and you might never look at that person in the eyes again in either of your lives. So you have a little connection. I probably get to look at a thousand people a night. Not many people get to do that. I’ve never tried to explain it before . . . its sort of like every time you look at someone in the eyes you put a little thread between you . . ." ---Chris Martin

"All things by immortal power,
Near and far
Hiddenly
To each other linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star."
--- (Francis Thompson, Book: The Mistress of Vision, Poems (1913))

And finally Rumi's Poem of the Atoms!

O’ day, arise!
Shine your light, the atoms are dancing
Thanks to him heaven and earth is dancing
overcome with ecstasy,

Free from body and mind
I’ll whisper in your ear where their dance is leading them.
All the atoms in the air and in the desert are dancing,
puzzled and drunken to the ray of light,
they seem insane.

All these atoms are not so different than we are,
happy or miserable,
perplexed and bewildered,
we are all beings in the ray of light from the beloved,
nothing can be said.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Einstein's Equation vs. Planck's Equation

Here I share a little brainstorm I made after having read Einstein's article On Quantum Theory of Radiation from March 1917. I am perennially interested in physical models of the atom, how atoms possibly consummate light and electrical events and so on. Although his mathematical ideas were useful and revolutionary, I think Bohr's quantum jumping concept was figurative.  And now our models of the atom are mathematical.  In enjoy certain equations and like to think how I can provide a physical interpretation for them.  

E = hv is a microcosm of E = mc2. E = mc2 is macro. Einstein's equation subsumes all the atoms of the Universe.
E refers to an object's capacity to do the work of light. This capacity is based in an object's fundamental connection to all the atoms of the Universe. A single Hydrogen atom's (or proton's) capacity to work light is rooted in its fundamental connection to every single other H atom of the Universe. Einstein seems to think direction is important and this is essential to understanding the atom. All atoms have a mutual line of sight, so to speak via via this mediator. All atoms face all others.

This capacity is proportional to m. M refers to the permanent # of existing connections rooted in the atom. The atoms are connected each to the other by a fundamental object that mediates light and gravity, (call it the EM Rope) the same from which the atom assumes its form . All these objects converge and crisscross to form the atom, and the atom is constantly reforming itself by these. Fusion increases the number of fundamental connections an atom has. Or if an object say a star is comprised of many atoms and molecules this increases its permanent number of connections and makes it more resistant to push or pull mediated by encircling objects.

C squared refers to the atom's ability to communicate light with all atoms via the mediators inherently connecting them all. So an atom can potentially signal (emit) or be signaled to (absorb) along these mediators described by m. This is why c is squared. This work helps maintain tension between all atoms so that they have inertia and gravitational potential.

When I get to Planck-Einstein's equation and the way it is divided I come into some blind spots. A quantum refers to a double stranded link of this fundamental entity called thread. But how does emission and absorption happen? What are all the parameters?

The Planck-Einstein equation, E = hv is a microcosm of Einstein's. This equation basically refers to an atoms ability to work together with the very objects which connects it to all others as well as the extraneous ones crossing through. It does this via a set of objects protruding from it's proton.  These are two stranded double helical electron threads in my Hairy Head model of the atom.  They are probably about half the # of permanent existing connections to all atoms it has established of itself per atom. So there may always be a disproportionate ratio of EM Ropes to electron threads superposing at all the locations around the nucleus. The atom is a double star-like pattern of thread. An atom is like a little star.  In totality the ratio of EM Rope to electron thread is about 2/1 for each atom (but note there are always extraneous EM Ropes crossing through an atom so this ratio is idealized). For every 2 EM Ropes converging upon a proton there is one electron thread emanating. I think this is significant and can be used to explain emission (spontaneous and stimulated) as well as absorption as well as electricity, photoelectric effect, etc,

Around the nucleus sets of these electron threads and EM Ropes can temporarily align and superpose perfectly so as to establish a critical anomaly. I call this Critical Ethereal Thread Anomaly.  This is why I describe the atom as a double star like pattern. This critical anomaly establishes a potential for the atom to signal in emission or to be signaled from other atoms in absorption. Emission and absorption probably depends upon a ratio of EM Ropes to electron threads or vice versa at any given location.

Generally in the E2 - E1 relation it seems to me that when an atom is in E2 that means that a set of electron threads are outnumbering the EM Ropes at critically anomalous locations. This is an excited state. This enables the electron threads to temporarily take charge of the EM Ropes and torque them, signaling in emission and a reaction happens. Once this happens the electron threads relocate and reorganize.  In higher numbered atomic elements the atoms have been so crushed together in fusion that there are some locations where electron threads naturally outnumber EM Ropes in this critical anomaly and this makes it resistant to photoelectric effect because in order for irradiation (ionizing radiation) to occur perhaps EM Ropes have to take control of the electron threads so as to spin adjacent ones out to greater lengths.

In quantum electrodynamics we have this idea that the "EM Field" has an E2 - E1 relation. So perhaps at some other locations around the nucleus a superposing bunch of EM Ropes outnumber electron threads 2 to 1 in the critical anamoly. This sets up the atom for absorption. The EM Ropes take charge of the electron thread and torque it CW or CCW.  And the fractions could be different at different locations pursuant to this critically anomaly. And this could have something to do with frequency. At an E3 favoring the EM Ropes, they could outnumber in higher ratio and vice versa favoring electron threads. In a dynamic mode this is all made more complex because if nucleons rotate electron threads would always be realigning at different rates. And perhaps a critical number can only be aligned at once and this forces extra electron threads to react perpendicular to the superposing line (in a fanning mechanism). And from here it is a game of chance. If at an anomalous location all the electron threads are turning in the same direction there may be a spontaneous emission. If they are not then they may need to be stimulated by the outnumbered EM Ropes so as to get them all torquing in the same direction so as to enact coherent light.

Quantum Jump?


Quantum Jump is also called atomic electron transition.

I think Bohr was using analogy to illustrate an abstract mathematical concept. In order for an electron to literally jump or even orbit around a nucleus an object would have to be referenced in place of of the word electron and some object or set of objects would have to connect that electron to the nucleus. But even though that is how electron is usually taught at elementary levels this is not at all clear. And Bohr never took his own illustrations literally. Electron to me references a primal or basic light or electrical event mediated by a superposing set of fundamental subatomic objects. It is a sort of anomaly. Almost impossible to explain. I call it Critical Ethereal Thread Anomaly. If you want call it elementary charge.

This event never happens at the same make believe conceptual position twice in a row, and it is impossible to predict precisely where it will happen next, thus a more modern conception is electron cloud (a cloud of probabilities where a primal event will happen in reference to the nucleus). So physicists are led to believe or simply know better that electron does not motion, i.e. assume a succession of locations.  If electron references a motion or event it would be irrational to think that this motion assumes a succession of locations (i.e. moves).  Motion cannot possibly move.  Electron is a motion, one of the simplest possible motions of the Universe.  It always happens. To explain how it happens one will have to think critically, make profound assumptions about the atom and the entire Universe, study a bunch of literature about experiments, etc.

The E2 - E1 = hv is simple, idealized and a completely different context than Einstein's equation. Energy refers to an objects capacity to do work. A decrease in energy means that some sort of object transitions from consummating more of these primal light events to less per unit time. And this translates along the mediators connecting all atoms to longer wavelengths (really linklengths), since the mediators are being turned CW or CCW less frequently. And the object can be induced in many ways to do the opposite.

If atom is the quantum system let’s just say that 'at' E2 the atom actively consummates two gazillion light events per unit time. At E1 the atom consummates one gazillion light events per unit time. If the quantum system is the superposing alignment of mediators, it would consummate 2 events per unit time at E2 as opposed to 1 at E1. This is all idealized. Each atom has its own complex rhythm of consummating these light events. How it does this is what I'm mainly interested in. But its difficult to imagine.

In electricity when they say electrons are flowing this is crazy. It's more about consummating these primal events across a set of atoms. In order to do this something or some object may have to be forced out of the atom in order to establish these events further away from the nucleus. And this translates along a line of mediators as shorter wavelengths, more pressure, push, etc. Or perhaps in a collision of atoms something temporarily lines up in superposition so as to consummate more of these events.

There are probably thousands of ways of doing this for example shining a high frequency light source on an atom. This may may reel something from the atom so that more and more of these events can happen further and further away from the atom. But this is not very efficient. Or rotating a magnet next to a wire. Or atoms being crushed together or colliding at the core of a star.

Well this is sort of how I see things at this moment.