Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Quantum Electrodynamics Unplugged

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on August 3, 2002 11:12:46 UTC


Rough and quick sketch for now:

(see also explanation of Dr. Dick's equations 1.1 and 1.2)

Quantum electrodynamics: Define "cow":

Add the categories that define "cow". Those categories that point in much the same direction will be the bulk of your definition of "cow", according to the frequency within the defining categories that "cow" turns up (?).

The final "arrow" is the region "mostly "cow", the region of the most attributes for defining "cow". You can get to the definition of "cow" by many paths (there could theoretically be a cow on a planet orbiting Sirius perhaps?); but the final arrow that has the highest probability density of finding your DEFINITION of "cow" is where you will find "cow".

(Make the right kind of observation though, that is bring in an appropriate new category (E.g. cow teleportion machine) and lo, "cow" observation definition might "jump" to a planet near Sirius)
(Over "time" (many category interactions) your "cow" definition might "leak out" (quantum tunnelling?).

For the event "I observe cow" you will have to "turn and shrink" your arrows in accordance with QED techniques as required by the logic of definition interactions to produce a final definition of your observation.

QED is the comparing and matching of patterns. Apparantly it is the adding of frequencies of defining-category overlap (probability amplitudes) to get interaction of categories to get definition to get what you see.

Consider a dictionary in a language that is foreign to you. You look up the meaning of a word, and find other words.

You look up the other words, and find more words.
After studying the dictionary for a long time you notice there are certain pattern structures in the way words "contain" other words.

Consider the word: "telephone". Consider the word "communication". Knowing English, you know that in an English dictionary you will discover that one way or another (quantum-electrodynamics here: many possible paths can be travelled in the process of definition) the word "telephone PARTIALLY CONTAINS the word "communication", and the word "communication" PARTIALLY CONTAINS the word "telephone".

Already it is evident that we may have: Chris Langan's ideas of "mutual containment" in his CTMU (Cognitive theoretic model of the universe);
John Cramer's "handshake" interpretation of quantum electrodynamics (mutually AGREED definitions; Dr. Richard Stafford's presentation of how laws of physics may be laws of mutually-agreed definition (communicable concepts) and the idea of a partial differential equation; John Hospers explanation of what happens when you define something (intersection of categories gives a region of probability of finding the defined object).

"Telephone" is a way of looking at "communication" which is a way of looking at "telephone". A way of looking at a way of looking: sounds like consciousness. A dictionary of interdependent pattern-matches; of logically consistent structures built on arbitrary word-matches into multi-faceted deals with a global consciousness: looks like Chris Langan's CTMU. Freedom and consciousness inherent to this.

The word "communication" we know is too broad a definition for "telephone". So I add a new category: "long-distance". But telephones can be used over short distances. So that was to narrow.
The process of defining a word involves adding (or subtracting I guess) categories to get regions of probability within which the defined object rests.

I think that the procedure called "quantum electrodynamics" is readily explainable as the adding of categories to get the overall definition of something. The direction of the "arrows" you add in Feynman QED represents how near or far the categories are to pointing in the same direction so-to-speak. The length of the arrow is the predominance of the category (the mass or frequency).

The adding of complex numbers occurs because you are comparing and matching patterns. At base this involves two patterns compared; two gives 2D view of the comparison.

The description of events being built up by turning and shrinking the arrows in Feynman QED seems to readily fit the idea of building up a complex definition from simple definitions.

I think it will be simple to show exactly that QED accurately maps the process of definition. Short of time to fully spell it out here.

Definition atoms: I think it might be shown that the nucleus of definitions involves the addition of two comparison/pattern/pattern objects. A table of patterns can be drawn up (see "Interdimensional DNA) from which superstring patterns and quark patterns seem to be derivable.

Within a definition I think you can map the definition quarks and the definition neutrons, definition protons, definition electrons, etc.

It looks like:

the five forces of nature turn out to be along the lines of:

electro/magnetic: addition/subtraction
(photon: comparison)

strong force: division (2D specification)

weak force: multiplication (2D generalisation)

gravity: The "equals" sign (very weak generalisation, associated with the mass of a definition and its distance from other definitions; generating an imaginary category that contains them both perhaps?)

Dr. Dick talks about looking for a "rule".

By "rule" Dr. D apparantly means "Is there any way
of getting something other than the one way that defines it (uniquely)?"

So he says "random" is when you don't know how to get it any other way than meeting it uniquely.


Space: distance. Time: self-referent reference distance.

Draw a circle called "3" containing two circles "1" and "2". Regard these as "categories" involved in defining something. Bring along a new category called "4". Here are your four dimensions of an event or observation: the interaction of two definitions each of which is viewable as a category made itself of an intersection of two categories.
The pattern of a meeting of a 10 and a 10 dimension as an 11th can be obtained.

Look at this intersection in different ways and you find the 'six curled up' dimensions. This basic interaction "geometry" can be shown to be "curved" by "mass", where "mass" involves numerous additional category intersections.

Intersect enough categories and the mass becomes so heavy of your central definition that it becomes singular, a singularity or "black hole" definition.

Over time, new categories can erode the "singular definition" or "black hole" by virtual particle creation; allowing its "mass" (meaning) to leak away. The "alternative views" of the singularity generated by the new categories are the "Hawking radiation".

If you go through physics, the four quantum numbers, entropy, energy, E=mc squared; Schrodinger's equation; all sorts of stuff seems to dissolve easily into being described in terms of "mutually freely chosen pattern matches that build structures of definition through (a) comunication (matching)(comparison) (b) agreement (common ground) (c) logical consistency


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins