- Did Plato Create Socrates? [X]
No. It is most probable that Paul have created Christ. The Greek texts possess historicity, very well-known by other People: they were not just lost in Alexandria, but were incinerated in other times: On the contrary of the Gospels, which don’t possess any historicity. The Platonic love, so understood as the ‘unreachable love’, which, in the Greek case, could be understood as the love between men, it’s not exactly in the concordance of the homosexualism of the Jews nor of Christians. The love described by Plato to Socrates is a physical love, a man which he met, this not only in the Symposium, but also in his Laws VIII – 838e-839a, the Law of the Seed :
Plato: “It was exactly this my own meaning when I said that I knew a device for the establishing of this law of restricting the procreative intercourse to its function by abstention of congress with one’s own sex, with his deliberate murder of the race and his waste of seed of life, in a petrified and rocky soil, where it will never root up and give his natural fruit, and equal abstention of any field-woman where you don’t desire harvest”
And, in this sense, it’s most probable that Miletus have created Plato.
The love hasn’t such a reach, the understanding of an homosexualism: because, the homosexualism is the understanding of a disease, and not exactly the understanding of a sentiment. Plato doesn’t report himself to an image, as being Socrates an ‘imaginary cave which he inhabited’, but as the big love of his life, with which he developed a grand obsession, due to his own personal misunderstanding towards a non-correspondence: and not an acceptation of the imaginary, in the latu sensu of a Creation.
What is known, in the latu sensu of that which was preserved by the current historicity is less than one third of his works, and this includes Aristotle as well, who, just as most of the Greeks of his time, questioned the sexuality between men as something not being natural. These things are finisher, in that which you’ve asked.
The understanding of Socrates wasn’t dialectical, he didn’t move in dualities, in the latu sensu of spirit-and-body, which would fatally lead to a metaphor between the changing and the fix. Plato, in no form at all tries to compose a character as a form of explaining himself and neither lesser yet of misunderstanding himself.
In Socrates phylogeny, the love was the first: and this was an embarrass for the Law: for not existing nothing above the love. For Socrates, the love wasn’t in the earth, nor wasn’t in heaven, the love wasn’t, it’s something which passes, and which cannot be transmitted through the touch: being the love something that always existed: This was the condition of Eros of Urania. The understanding of Socrates was the simplest possible: those who don’t pass, created the Law. I think so Socrates created an embarrass for himself, in the sense of trying to explain what he felt to the others, and by sexual matters inherent to his own personality, he may have somehow have been obliged to understand himself as man, in the conditions of the Law: and he have opted in not being, because, in such conditions, being something wouldn’t have the slightest importance.
Plato in no form at all felt himself like this: Plato’s thought it’s involved in continuity, in the latu sensu of a growth, elevation and learning: where the contrariety is the constant in his entire known work: where the human is the natural of God, and only for this, the sex is ‘the natural of the earth’: it’s the Creationist understanding: and even for this, Plato’s thought have survived somehow, and the of his antecessor have disappeared: and this have given margin for that which you’ve asked. But, are different understandings, Socrates isn’t in no form at all a duality of Plato: but someone who indeed Plato never understood: for this, he could never be him, nor equal to him, nor follow him as well, nor in death nor in life: because, if Plato indeed loved Socrates, he would have gone together with him.
- How do you justify the existence of the Universe and all the creation from a single fly to human to all the Universe? How did it start? How did it become so perfect the plants in its orbits and the perfection that is in everything exist? [X]
Well, you want to justify God in the Universe, but, you’d have to, firstly, proving that such a thing happened, a Creation: Such instant, the absence, doesn’t prove itself in the nature… the nature is bela [pt]… .
- What do you think of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12? What is meant by this? [X]
God created the man at His image and resemblance, and the quality of this is the sin and the death. It was God who mounted the human couple. The nature of God cannot be denied.
'nisi venerit discessio': unless the dispersion comes - it's the latu sensu of a stepping-away - the evil won't be revealed. Christ possesses the quality of Demonstration: that who proves what that is, and, for this, isn't that.
Paul justifies his action in his body, the flesh, of the why that he acted that way. You may find strange the concordance of 'Satan', but, in Isaiah 45:7 God affirms that it was Himself who created the evil. Satan will be always in the path, and Christ will be always killing the evil. The standard understanding of Paul is that the Sin is a continuity: It’s the sin who leads to death: For the Christians, the truth is something compactuado, only dying infinite times one will arrive in God: everybody knows what needs to be held: the quality of this nature. “Anne, are you affirming that Christ and Satan are the same thing?”: yes, it’s what’s Written. Now, if Satan is the Nature, is something that the Bible didn’t know and doesn’t know explaining: but certainly, it’s what it would like to have affirmed. Now, you can see these ambiguities happening, in other kind of literature's, demonstrations few usual, which involves another kind of language. I’ll leave some sources here for you:
39 views · Answer requested by John Bonham
Thank you Anne. If I told you that “Isaiah 45:7 God affirms that it was Himself who created the evil” is a serious mistranslation, how would that affect the remainder of your position?
Original Author · September 2, 2019
“…ego Dominus et non est amplius extra me non est deus accinxi te et non cognovisti me, ut sciant hii qui ab ortu solis et qui ab occidente quoniam absque me non est ego Dominus et non est alter, formans lucem et creans tenebras faciens pacem et creans malum ego Dominus faciens omnia haec” [Isaiah 45:5-7 – Parallel from KJV and St Jerome’s Vulgata]
‘I am The Lord, and there’s no other besides me, it doesn’t exist another God for thee. It’s not God around you, and thou didn’t recognize me: For that anyone knows this from the rise of the sun, and even all those from the Occident, because without me, nothing is. I am thy Lord, and there’s no other. I create the light and create the darkness, I make the peace and I create the evil, I thy Lord create all these things.’ [translation base – Notredame Latin Dictionary]
Yes, we do may tear this page, but… the problem of the genome would continue existing: the DNA of the evil.
There were Shadows, Abysses, and God called tenebrous what He saw: “…terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebrae super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas” (Gen1:2 – Jerome’s Vulgata): a strange sentiment, God affirms the unknown, as not being Him that which He creates: Deus criou a terra à face de quem? [pt] The Creationist sequence points to the latu sensu of an evolution: the original from God is the unfinished, where the growth develops itself in the death, where the life would be the eternal rebirth, and this closes with the resurrection: the evil doesn’t lose its continuity in the time, as much as the good, its counterpart. Such understanding doesn’t lose its symmetry in Paul, on the otherwise, the lapse is a sine qua non condition as a functioning, and this is basically the understanding of Thessalonians, the text which you’ve quoted, which’s polarized with both texts, the Deuteronomy, which you’ve quoted in the other question, as well as with the one I’ve quoted, Isaiah 45. In Gen6:6, God affirms that He erred when He Created the man, for having made the man from the face of the earth: God changed the time of the man, and this changes the space: God modifies the body of the man: God changed His creation: God goes back behind in that which He did. In mode that the origin of the Evil cannot take an assembling of unspecific just because the Christians preferred to follow in misunderstanding, turning the truth as a pact with the evil and a permission for sinning, in the latu sensu of a continuity, misunderstanding, with this, where such existence was possible… .
Whether you assume that God is Dominus, or the good will have always a relative value.
Yes, I may change my interpretation, provided that you give me another understanding, which be possible of being rationalized outside of a metaphor, parables: if you tell me that Isaiah is wrong, that St Jerome committed a gross error and that the understanding of Paul is another, simply because the ‘Septuagint transliteration it’s wrong’, I’d really like to see the originals, because, the exclusion of anything is terminative.
In mode that the answer has to be simple, objective and direct, not fitting any other kind of rationalist recursiveness : Who created the evil? The evil exists, doesn’t it..? if the evil didn’t exist, there wouldn’t exist the sins, and Christ would be unserveable. It’s the understanding of Pope Francis, and even for this, none human being may be judged in a capital penalty, because, for God, “everything is recoverable, even that which degrades the life, His foremost Creation”, the Cardinals that don’t leave me lie, because, otherwise, the basic mantra of the current Christianism wouldn’t be “everyone will be forgiven, that the life it’s the solid unrecoverable evil and only for this we follow doing the good”, because, the Spiritual Elevation supports the understanding that God changes, that God evolves, and it’s passible of errors, just as the human beings: and only for this, the humanity walks in the straight line, so, I think so the moment it’s opportune for ones to question themselves on the naturalness of the error… is it original from who, exactly..?
“Yes, Anne, God created the evil, it’s not quite exactly as the prophet Isaiah spoke, even because, the prophet Isaiah it’s involved with anachronism, technically, there exists three Isaiah’s…”, because, the Babylonian Torah isn’t equal to the Torah of Jerusalem, so, if the Scriptures survived to so many versions, there should already be the correct literature of that which was considered valid and be removed all the other Biblical interpretations: and what I say is that this is impossible, what ones want it’s indeed follow in misunderstanding, and this seems to be the pact of the truth, that which’s not had, but that everyone knows being from God.
I think so it doesn’t fit any other understanding, I mean, whether God affirms everything, or God denies everything: He proposed a totality, the loss of any part is the loss of an integrality. It’s what the Vatican it’s discussing, in the latu sensu of Pope Benedict, the relative good.
The Science questioned Genesis in its structural sequence, and this structural sequence showed itself fail towards the nature: in nothing the unity may be found, lesser yet a beginning or an end.
Scientists of China along with others reunited, discovered in 2014, through a deepening on the studies of the meiosis interphase that none plant carries its own seed [x]: none separation considered plena [pt] may be extensive to the known universe: the nature doesn’t possess an adiabatic principle, of the inside and of the outside.
I think so that there isn’t other alternative left, for the Christianism, towards the happenings, and the current understanding of the majority of the Scholars, is that the evil is the counterpart of God, in the condition of the other side of the good, so..
God signs it doing it, independently of the posteriors clearing ups of the ones said cleared ups by Him: I mean, God signs the evil, independently of Isaiah’s understanding, or of Moses, or of Paul.. and Christ, yes, without Satan, Christ would never be a proper of his own actions, it was how he understood the flesh, and only for this, he denied God in the cross, God wasn’t with him in that moment: it wasn’t God dying, but the man: this was the body which the man received from God to exist. If we understand the humanity as an action, it doesn’t go beyond the time, because the time doesn’t go beyond an idea, geologically speaking, the humanity won’t leave tracks in the earth, except its own bones, not being the humanity able to be, nor even, understood , in the latu sensu of an Anthropocene. The human being already arrived in his result, if God isn’t the nature, definitely, He didn’t create it.
Thank you Anne. As I am not Christian, I appreciate your Christianized references for their value within your religion. To my original question, the citation of Isaiah 45:7 refers to calamity; not evil, as there is no evil in Elohim: both Adonai and Attiyq Yom. 1
Original Author · September 2, 2019
No, John, Isaiah’s evil is unspecific, it’s a spiritual action, it doesn’t possess materialness, such things cannot be seen in the earth, only in the human actions, because the Biblical God has dominion over all the things: it’s the understanding of all’s. To any angle, it doesn’t fit another interpretation, the procedence has to be God, obligatorily, in the latu sensu of a unicity: otherwise, we’d be always relativizing things up. And you also didn’t answer me the origin of the evil. Yes, I’ve founded the passages which you’ve quoted way top, because they possess the same understanding. But they don’t finish the matter of the relative good, and for this the question’s at the table. But, if you believe that something was created, you will be in the condition of a Christian even though not being. As I’ve already said a lot of times here at Quora, I’m not a Christian and my status is of undesirable, so, my procedence of the Biblical understanding is another. But yes, I’d like to understand better your definition of evil, because, the denial of the evil it’s also the denial of Christ, and even for this, the protestant vertente [pt] existed. My understanding is analogous to the understanding of the Amazonian indigenes, it’s where I live, the nature isn’t, in nothing, similar to the nature narrated in Biblical terms, my understanding it’s the of the forest, I see serpents and ounces almost every day and I’ve never seen the evil in the nature: and I not having how to have such understanding I went to see the understanding of the white-man, because, the pale-face seems to not have color in his eyes, and his sound it’s the word… there never existed such a moment in the nature, the silence, a day on which the sound didn’t pass… so, é pela cor, é pela flor, é pelo amor à terra [pt].. the life was something that only begun. Yes, thank you for your preoccupation, indeed such behavior would never come from a Christian. We talk in the topics. In my language it’s ehr ahkinow, that who passes,.. it’s how the animals see each other, in the forest. There isn’t a sentiment of separation.
Hugs back Anne. Thank you for explaining further. Most scholars of the Tanakh agree this citation speaks of calamity; not evil as we commonly define it. Here is a third-party source which reasonably explains this: Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil?
And you are not undesirable. It has been a pleasure understanding things from your perspective.
Original Author · September 3, 2019
Thanks, John. My name, by father’s part, curiously, is Levy… yes, of Judaic origin.. and understanding the Hebrew, and translating the Hebrew was something that I did, before studying the Latin: even because, the Judaic writings also passed by a process of formatting, and the Yahwehist standard was, in a certain form, forgotten and modified by rationalities more positivists. But I descend from a tribe which writing dates from 10 thousand years, and the etiologic standard of the words, in their most ancient language, possesses a similarity to the of the Ancient Judaism. The Yanomami language is dated from more than 10 thousand years. However, the Yahwehist standard it’s involved with a horrible definition of the evil as being the nature, and due to my limitations in the Hebraic idiom I could never clear up, I mean, having a literature of firsthand, which was not cleaved in transliteration, and stayed difficult making a study of approximation. But, I think so the Judaism stepped itself away too much due to this, submitting the love to the condition of a result: that which didn’t exist in the beginning, because the pleasure and the taste entered in opposition. I’ve been seen many Judaic scholars trying to reestablish a new order in the understanding of the Torah, in an understanding closer to the nature, but I don’t know indeed which’s the importance in this review, in the latu sensu of which’re the sentiments involved, what does one wants with this exactly, once the creation it’s not the Love: and outside this, constructions too failure, the own geometry of the comparisons possesses impossible angles, the sentiment’s that indeed ones still wants to hide something, in mode that I don’t have how to take seriously such propositions. i think so the Judaism from the beginning was more honest in that which they believed, it wasn’t exactly an acceptation nor a sentiment of reward, but , a better concordance in that which they believed, it wasn’t an imposition over the others, but a relation between them. As I said, I can’t elongate too much, but we may talk yes about these things, because, that which was lost was the earth… havia terra no olhar…e ela nunca foi seca [pt], the earth was never separated from the waters.. and the Yahwehist stories of my people are incredibly not-humans as much as the day on which the humanity didn’t exist: but indeed, I’m skeptical as to the practical results of the reparation, in mode that my sentiment isn’t neither of destroying nor lesser yet of fixing something, I think so the clearing up must be given, independently of the result, because, something was Written: the Creation: and sentiments were violated in name of a proof. The dry earth only existed because of the Sins, it was from the end that Abraham departed. The end is the procedence of the command which they follow as servants: it’s very strange the word having been constructed from the end, and not from the sound: Abraham, oriented by God, through the end, could direct Babel: how could this be so hardly misunderstood as the procedence of something on the natural..? it’s lacking the goddess, it’s lacking the love, I think so the Judaism does has to explain these things up to the Christianism, an it won’t get to do this, misunderstanding the Natural, or using it one more time as escapism of their ideas. Satan isn’t Nature: period. I think so the clearing up must, primarily, begin by there. The current status of God, in both religions, is that who points the evil, which proves that which He causes to the man: and so it is how He occurs. The nature doesn’t agree with this, and this vision needs to be, somehow, exceeded. You ask me anything about the natural, and I’ll have pleasure in answering you.
Just as you, at Quora I’m limited to not clearing things up, so, I will make you some questions and you reply when you can, and we go talking. I’ll leave you a quite interesting text, from King David - he really loved Bathsheba: it’s a natural vision of the Torah, you will like: [The Bird: X]
Thank you Anne. Very enlightening. I look forward to many more times of communicating with you.
Big Hugs back and Shalom
- Do neutrinos exist? How can something neutral create something negative? [X] – Question made by Anne Henriques
“How can something neutral create something negative?”
They don’t. What are you referring to?
Original Author · March 9
Hi, Erik, I too am trying to understand…
Yeahhhhh, I just skimmed that page, and it’s nonsense. Not only does it just ignore that last several decades’ worth of experimental evidence, it also completely makes stuff up (neutrinos aren’t claimed to be able to create charge).
I recommend against getting your information about physics from some random personal website.
Original Author · March 9
Who wrote the article is a theoretical physicist from the University of Chicago, it’s not so independent like this.. .it is of 2020. Along these 10 years, many false experimentalisms appeared, which don’t offer explanations for the formation of the matter conform the Theoretic Theology which Albert Einstein would like. I don’t have motives to believe that the cosmology be so certain about that which it affirms and disaffirms constantly. The neutrino already existed before being proven, bosons already existed before being proven… Where’s the Cause?
But, yes, I don’t pego [pt] anything: at least from a big university, and from physicists who represent grand property and knowledge on that which they affirm, and they do add legitimacy to the facts, on that where they seem to have perfect understanding of that which is broken. The problem of the physics it’s its understanding of space, even more than its understanding of energy: the problem of the physics is geometrical. In mode that, I would do a drawing for you, interrelating the spaces, because, I’m a drawer, and in the same mode that you could present me a theoretical problem, and I’d have difficulty on understanding, attributions of hypothetical properties wouldn’t go beyond an hypothesis: the hypothetical science hasn’t any certainty at all on what it says: and much of these things on “3th hand” seem to make irrefutable sense of the wrong.. I’ll stop by here,
But thanks anyway.
“a theoretical physicist from the University of Chicago”
No, definitely not.
I think there was a guy on Quora a while back who used to make similar claims, and he had a bachelor’s degree (possibly U Chicago) that he hadn’t used / kept current with for half a century. He is not an academic, is not affiliated with the U Chicago physics faculty, has no advanced training in the subject, and is not familiar with modern advancements.
Neutrinos are not controversial. We use them for things, like getting early warning of supernovae. We can also use them to send messages through the Earth. You may as well doubt the existence of electrons.
Original Author · March 10
Anson, thanks for all the informations, but you didn’t help absolutely nothing in my topic.. . using something doesn’t mean, necessarily, knowing it. Yes, the electron exists because it is a name, and the name it’s an attribution of the owner. I discuss the shape of the electron, the shape of the neutrino, the shape of the atom, the shape of the physics.. : it isn’t natural.
The system of mass attribution, be it in the quantum mechanics or in quantum fields, is fail, thus, it’s coherent the understanding of Carl W. Johnson.
Now, it’s logical, for being an understanding contrary to the Standard understanding, the space-plan, the problem of two bodies different in shape for being different symmetries, the hypothesis happened: it’s what a Theory is: the property of hypothetical properties, a hypothesis: The electron is only a hypothesis in the nature, nothing more than this, the nature is perceivable, if it has the shape of the formula is another thing: The problem is that the symmetry broke because God disappeared from the table, as an object not found in the certainty: it wasn’t exactly the nature who wasn’t found. The nature is beautiful,.. how good being able to see a movement in the nature, and being able to call this anything.. . good, being able to call the symmetry of something as being a movement, the expressive result of an observation, the fix.. .: none electron is equal to the other, nor in mass, nor in length, nor in time..: ‘are the minimal of phenomenological constants that any theory can have… one cannot explain that the constants explain the mass nor any part of it’: the scalar construction of an atomic structure has problem of spatial interrelations, because the drawing is plan, there will be always vacuum, creating a separation-object: the problem of the physics it’s of conception, the mathematics is geometric, for this, the drawing, in the nature, will always be plan, it’s a problem of angles, and not a natural existent problem, that where ‘the nature hides’ .. .
Could you inform me, for example, what’s the origin of the neutrino..? things like, is it possible that the neutrino always existed..? and, when was he seen, exactly, for the first time, outside the theory..? this will help me on giving continuity on my studies on the problems of the physics, and when I arrive to a conclusion I post it here at Quora.. Right, Erik..? if you have some papers, send some links, things of this kind.
That’s a good place to start.
If you reject my advice to stop reading nonsense written by crackpots, I can’t really help much.
Carl W. Johnson, Theoretical Physics & Physics, University of Chicago (1967)
No, they don’t. Your second question is very important and insightful. We Physicists believe in several important Laws, including the Conservation of electrical charge, and you have noted that the claim of any neutrino would have to violate that. You may enjoy my Paper at Neutrinos Do Not Exist
You may especially enjoy examining the logic of the specific experiment (done only 25 years AFTER Pauli had speculated about the (Scalar) existence of neutrinos in 1930 (where Newton’s analysis of Gravitation 300 years earlier established that gravitation is instead a Vector quantity. Therefore, the “Nuclear Spin” upon which Pauli had based his (incorrect) Scalar reasoning is obviously a Vector quantity (where Pauli had clearly erred in his Scalar logic).
But the 1956 experiment which is considered the “PROOF” of neutrinos is so logically flawed that it is hilarious, for the reasons which you are aware of. I AM impressed!
· Answer requested by Anne Henriques
I am impressed, I don’t have words, your understanding it’s right: the scalar logic in mater it’s wrong.
My understanding isn’t exactly physics, but the conception of space.. .
I’ve read your paper, it is of significative importance for the Science, specially for the physics,
…And, indeed, there exists some ‘magic’ which disexplains the physic understanding on the construction of the mass, in the quantum universe. Indeed, I do have some questionings, but, what you’ve answered is already enough.
Thank you :)
Original Author · March 11
Hi, Anne, I am impressed. I hope we might have long conversations! Where are you? I am near Chicago.
Yes, of certain, it would be a pleasure talking, yes.. . I’m in the middle of the Amazon, near the Waimiri Atroari’s tribe (yes, the rainforest). I’m involved with environmental causes, and with that which’s my specialty, the botanic.. the physics, for me, isn’t exactly a passion, but an upsetment, not by the physics itself, but for that which ceased being science, in the latu sensu of misunderstandings. But if you ever come into the Amazon someday, search for me, the forest possesses a certain magia [pt], and the sensation-universe is different, something that I try to contextualize better in my drawings.. . I’ll grab some of your papers at Academia, and, if you allow me, doing some questionings (you answer whenever you can).
A big hug, and thanks for all your attention.
Adam Jacholkowski, former experimental particle physicist at CERN (1983-2015)
It is a question of the global curvature of the universe, depending on its energy content. Flat universe would mean that is equivalent to a plane in 2 dimensions, while positive curvature analogy is a sphere which is closed but has no limits. Shape of the universe - Wikipedia
29 views · Answer requested by Anne Henriques
Any bidimensional thing is flat, independently of its geometrical form. The gravity may be parameter, in the maximum, of a shape, it hasn’t how to explain the form: the universe would have to have, obligatorily, a center: and in this sense, the form of the universe wouldn’t go beyond the understanding of a particle.. . I really do respect your credentials, but I expected a less flat thing, in the latu sensu of the fix: curvatures have face of angle: carrying limits of concepts implicit, to such an unspecific form as the nature… .not being able to be an infinite straight-line: The laterality has in the outside the reach of its interior.
Original Author · March 11
Joseph Lazar, Senior Multimedia Developer at Pipitone Group (2001-present)
Are you asking about the universe being flat? It doesn’t really mean it is flat ..it just means you are not going to travel in one direction and end up back where you started.
· Answer requested by Anne Henriques
March 11 ·
1 upvote from Joseph Lazar
A simple thought, it may seem no sense (in the good physics understanding of the mater): the matter is a property of the form: being the form something of undefinable symmetry, it cannot be flat: Form isn’t shape, for if so it was, the space would be the vacuum, the basic property of any field: there exists a problem in mater, the matter isn’t as elemental from the point of view of its precedence over all the things, the space-time, but the symmetry of the nature defines itself, primordially, in its form, if it’s not known the structural form of the nature, any attribution will be always an hypothetical property, because the structural understanding of the atom is flat, independently of its dispositions in fields and their scalar relation and quantitative interrelations, it’s linear, it’s flat.. relation of sides.. .: a drawing which doesn’t go beyond the square.. In mode that I need this answer, of what’s the understanding of the physics, in 2020, of the shape of the universe, if it’s still the understanding of the flat: there exists a lot of independent declaration, but, what it seems to me is that even today, in current understandings, the understanding is yet analogous to the of Albert Einstein, that the universe is ‘indeed flat, not fitting any other possible understanding’, so… .
You’ve made an important observation, thank you.
- If an electromagnetic wave doesn’t have mass, why is it also called a particle? [X]
- Question made by Anne Henriques.
Jeffrey Werbock, musician, lecturer
Before I address the question about a particle, let me mention that there are two kinds of waves; statistical and geometric. A wave on water is a geometric wave and that is what the word “wave” originally referred to. An electromagnetic wave is not a geometry wave, it is a statistical wave. Yes, all those illustrations in all those physics textbooks and published papers depicting EM “wave” as a wave-like graphic. It is an illustration that does not represent physical reality; it represents statistical reality. It is the distribution of amplitudes. Now, you could argue that a geometric wave like a wave on water, rises up from the surface of the pool of water on account of a statistical distribution of amplitudes of the pulse of energy which caused the wave, and this is true. However, a wave on water (any geometrical, physical wave) does not have a wavelength or a frequency; that takes two waves to establish. But for EM “waves” it is presumed that each individual photon has a wavelength and a frequency. In reality, it only has these characteristics the instant it is absorbed by the bound EM field surrounding the atomic nuclei of the molecules composing the detector machine that “observes” and measures that EM quantum (photon). That’s right, a photon has no such thing as a wavelength or a frequency until it interacts with a bound EM field. In transit, an EM quantum (photon) has three attributes; velocity, direction (vector) and a certain amount of kinetic energy. No wavelength, no frequency, only KE. It is neither a wave nor a particle. And this is explained by QFT.
Bob Myers, Science: best method we have for figuring out what's true
The term “particle” in quantum physics doesn’t mean quite the same thing as what you might normally think; in particular, it does not necessarily mean a nice, neat little sphere of “something,” somewhat like an ultra-microscopic billiard ball. A “particle” is not even necessarily matter as you normally would think of it. In the case of a photon or similar energy-carrying “particle,” think of it instead as a tiny packet of energy. What that might actually mean is not as important as the fact that looking at it in this way lets us correctly predict how it’s going to behave.
Electromagnetic energy such as radio waves or light has the seemingly odd quality of somehow being a wave and a particle at the same time; both are models of what is “really” there, and are each useful in explaining the behavior of EM in certain specific situations. In other words, sometimes we are forced to consider EM/light as a wave, and sometimes we must view it as a particle, in order to correctly predict its behavior. (Which is all a scientific model or theory, to give it the correct name, is supposed to do.) Neither is quite correct as a complete description of what is “really” there, but as long as a theory is useful in a predictive sense - i.e., it correctly describes and predicts the behavior of a given phenomenon - it is accepted at least for a given range of applications.
For example, Newton’s theories (or models) of motion are still very widely used, because they are valid/correct/useful for prediction in the vast majority of situations. It’s only when we start looking at the cases of the very large, very small, or very fast that we realize that Newton didn’t have things quite right, and have to turn to a different model (Einstein’s, in this case) in order to be able to properly describe the behavior of the system in question.
David Wrixon EurIng, Relativistic Quantum Determinism - The Mechanics of Quanta
Because Physicist will make any fudge to cobble a theory together.
There are no Electromagnetic Waves.
Noboby has ever detected one.
But they cannot make particle Physics work either.
But it all started with Newton who simply invented Mass.
There really is no such thing.
Ayush Tyagi, aspiring theoretical physicist
see my friend you could not have been wronger photons do not have a rest mass butbutbuuut they do have a mass while moving at a high enough velocity as einstein himself had stated
- Did the physicists arrive to any conclusion if the photon, that one, fundamental of the beginning, is a particle or a wave? [X] -Question made by Anne Henriques.
Simon Bridge, Scientist
It’s neither. I’ll explain, bear with me:
There is a story of blind men investigating an elephant to find out for themselves what manner of creature it is… in this version there are two.
One gets the front end, and handles the trunk. He notices how it squirms and coils like a snake and concludes that an elephant is a kind of snake.
The other gets the back end and handles the tail. He notices how it is hard but wippy like a tough rope, and concludes that an Elephant is a rope-creature.
They are both happy until they compare notes … surely one of them is wrong?
They agree to repeat each other’s experiments … and verify each other’s findings!! What could be going on?
After a lot of discussion, conferences where other blind people repeated the experiments and so on, they realize that Elephant’s display snake-like and rope-like properties depending on the circumstances.
They announce to the World that Elephant’s display snake-rope duality.
See the problem?
Investigating light, we find that light displays properties of the classical particle in some situations and classical waves in other situations… historically, the conclusion was that light displays wave-particle duality. You’ve heard this term.
Now we understand that light is the emergent result of the statistics of many many photons.
Photons are called “particles”, yes, but they are not classical particles. They are quanta of energy.
The individual quanta are what is noticed when light has particle-like behavior (by which we mean like the behavior of classical particles) and the statistics of the quanta is what gives rise to the wave-like behavior (by which we mean like the behavior of classical waves).
What has happened is that we have discovered the rest of the elephant.
An elephant is not it’s trunk and not it’s tail, it is the whole elephant.
Photons are the substance of the elephant, and quantum mechanics is the stuff that holds it all together so it is elephant shaped.
That’s why the short answer was “neither”.
For more see Richard Feynmans excellent series on how light works. Still relevant and accessible.
Jeffrey Werbock, musician, lecturer
We don’t often hear from practicing physicists who talk about wave particle duality since QFT evolved from QM. In QFT, there are no (classical) waves or particles, there are quantum excitations of the field. To help visualize this description of physical reality at quantum scale, we can think of a field as the physical expression of two fundamental forces in oppositional states that are dynamic, not static, and that dynamism makes the field oscillate and the oscillations have peaks and that’s what quantum excitations are, the peaks of the field’s oscillations. That is why a wavelength and corresponding frequency can be assigned to quanta. The wave form is statistical not geometric like a wave on water. A wave on water doesn’t have a wavelength or a frequency; it would take two waves to establish that for a geometric wave. Quanta are not geometric waves, they are statistical waves that, when represented graphically, look like a geometric wave. That geometry is a compilation of amplitudes.
- ANY statistical fluctuation is geometrical: the understanding that the length of anything is Euclidian, is flat, a surface measure: it is X and Y, and the graphic is Cartesian: any coordinate is geometrical, independently of the logic of abstraction of the invisible, the energy without space is a formless mass, turning impossible the definition of the matter as a body. In mode that the form in mater is well-known, it is geometrical. What happens is that the mathematical formulas have binned the interpretation of the time in two different logics: the time in the condition of moment, it’s understood as space; and the time in the condition of distance is understood as vacuum, the speed-of-light. And even for this, the logic ceased to be geometrical, for a simple mathematical escapism: for not knowing exactly which’s the exact form of that which one’s calculating, at the same time on which’s affirmed completely that the form of the quantum field is analogous to the surface of the water: flat. In mode that, the dissimulation of something doesn’t step-away that the understanding of something hasn’t indeed the geometrical understanding.
Ratan Kumar, Thinker (2005-present)
Yes they have arrived on a definite conclusion long long before. And the conclusion is that of you are looking at the photon then it is a particle and if you are not then it is a wave.
Let me explain it in a little more detail. Looking or observing is simply possible when you interact with a quantum system and the moment this interaction takes place photon appears to be a particle. Here particle simply means countable. You can count their number. But if no such Interaction takes place then it remains as probability wave. The superposition of a large number of probable particles.
In oversimplified terms, light is emerged and absorbed in form of a particle known as photon and travels in form of electromagnetic probability wave.”
Jon Therkildsen, MSc MBA from University of Århus (2004)
Everything in the quantum realm can be described entirely in terms of waves, or entirely in terms of particles, whichever one prefers.
It is not only photons, it is so for all the fundamental particles (quarks, leptons, bosons, gluons and photons). Paul Dirac proved both versions are exactly equivalent. However, they cannot be both right. Even Niels Bohr believed that they were neither waves or particles, let alone both. He, however, was content with not asking this question further.
A way to view it, is, that they travel like waves, and arrive like particles. The “like” her is important, as we have no way of knowing what they actually are. The problem is, there is nothing in our theories that explain what goes on in between the “transition from the possible to the actual (as Heisenberg called it) - experiments show waves, and they show particles, not the transition. There has never been an experiment ever to catch a wave-function in the act of a collapse. Leslie Ballentine argues there never is a collapse. Schrodinger hoped, at one point, to show what happens in-between these states, but he never did - and for good reasons.
The wave-function is describing this nature of quanta and quantum systems accurately. To Schrödinger, his wave-function was the literal description of a quanta. To him, the tiniest particles are wave-functions. And the fact is, nothing in his equations (or any of the equations) is about an actual collapse. In their true form, they ARE wave-functions. There is no better description, and it is an accurate description. However, and if we have to get anal about it, the wave-function does not live in our ordinary Euclidean space; it lives in Hilbert space - which for all sense and purposes is the space of quanta, and so demands, at the very least, a mentioning in an article like this.
The takeaway here is that the tiniest constituents of our reality are fluctuating wave-functions rather than particles or manifested waves - more like some third sort of indefinable mix between these two.
The truth is that neither “wave” nor “particle” are good labels for the tiniest constituents - but it is the best we can think of when figuratively describing something like this beyond the elegant language of mathematics. A more adequate label would simply be to acknowledge these quanta as wave-functions and call them this:
Meticulous, the above description may be, but it is not very satisfying when writing an essay. Alas, we continue to call them particles or waves or both, depending on what we are trying to communicate.
Neither, unfortunately, are correct, but often correct enough.
Dan Brigham, former Transportation at Professional Transportation Incorporated (2005-2019)
I think the photon is like a string of sausages like structures that are hollow. I think they contain liquid like energies one a constant now and the forward one representing a step into the future. Literally we perceive the light of the now and as it extends into the future hence what comprises its velocity. As it is liquid energy that is contained it sloshes around as a wave and has particle like properties.
- ¿Por qué en la física teórica se permite especular con teorías sobre las que no se puede probar ni si es cierta, ni lo contrario? ¿Hasta qué punto es inteligente aceptar algo en base al “argumentum ad ignorantiam”? [X]
Anne Henriques, Escritora, editora, botánica
Respondido inicialmente: ¿Por qué en la física teórica se permite especular con teorías sobre las que no se puede probar lo contrario? ¿Hasta qué punto es inteligente aceptar algo en base al “argumentum ad ignorantiam”?
La ignorancia es algo Institucional: algo sustentado por la defensa antrópica de todas las cosas, sin una prueba real. Los físicos pueden ser manipulados, sí, sites como ResearchGate , por ejemplo, sufrieron restricciones, después de 2016, fueron prohibidas publicaciones en el latu sensu de aquello que puede ser considerado valido y liberado en la defensa de uno interese común que no pueda causar danos al sentido del espacio-plano, el campo imaginario de la verdad donde el fundamentalismo de una idea se estableció como vacuo: y prohibirán estudios abiertos y cualificaron apenas los que son sustentados institucionalmente y que defienden los intereses de la comunidad: comunidad esa ampliamente conocida en el mundo de las cartas como proteccionista de una Teología de la cual la moderna física se alejó años-luz del entendimiento de la materia, en relación a su predecesora física clásica, frente la explicación natural de alguna cosa, la teoría estándar y todas sus variantes no va allá de una basura cosmológica: polvo, que jamás serán estrellas.. . La verdad, aquella, que debería ser un estándar, virou [pt] un sistema de caños, cuya conexión con el inicio desapareció en el agujero negro de la mente, para siempre. Lo que aconteció en agosto de 2016 en la CERN, desapareció de la internet. Maria Spiropulo, habló el siguiente: “la data de expiración está amarrada al tiempo de vida de nuestro sol, tal vez billones de años de distancia. Pero sí, es así que nosotros hablamos sobre inicios y fines – extrapolando y retropolando y teniendo modelos para sistemas complejos (como el universo, la tierra y el sol). Así como nosotros no sabemos realmente si la Teoría Big Bang fue uno “ato de la naturaleza”. El Big Bang es aún una teoría.” [x]
Ver votos positivos
- ¿Realmente existe el campo de Higgs? [X]
Anne Henriques, Escritora, editora, botánica
“¿Fotones libres interactuando con el nada, forman una partícula..?”.. la Partícula Higgs no fue probada, ella existe en la Teoría: Sí: no fue probada. Y la misma teoría explica que las partículas Higgs existieron, y que esa es la prueba de toda la veracidad que ‘el Big Bang aconteció’: pero que, misteriosamente no pueden más ser encontradas, en todo el universo cuántico hipotetizado, excepto en el Big Bang… ¿usted no acha extraño la afirmación?.. Yo pienso que no debes estar mucho satisfecho con las respuestas… la explicación de una teoría no es una prueba de existencia. Se afirmó que una existencia puede ser probada en teoría.
Yo voy a seguir la pregunta también, muchas gracias por preguntar y cuestionar la vergüenza en la naturaleza - el Big Bang, la Creación.. ¿Cómo puede el campo de Higgs existir sin Higgs.. ? Con licencia.. .yo preciso mucho de esa respuesta para volver a mi tribu, que quiere saber se el Dios-Uno fue encontrado, se afirmaron su grandeza como una procedencia en la naturaleza…
Por no haber un experimentalismo compatible con la cuestión, entonces, estoy esperando el esclarecimiento del desaparecimiento de algo tan importante de la ciencia, la explicación del universo conocido en la lente.
Ver votos positivos
- ¿Por qué se dice que la nada no equivale al vacío? [X]
Anne Henriques, Escritora, editora, botánica
El problema de la cuestión está exactamente en el entendimiento del espacio: el espacio, en la naturaleza, es entendido como una proyección de planos, lo que es básicamente condiciones trigonométricas, que cuando aplicadas en una racionalidad, en el latu sensu de una abstracción, genera una racionalidad geométrica y tanto puede ser explicado de una forma algébrica, matemática, o, modelos físicos: Egipcios, griegos, ya tingan eses conceptos espaciales: Imhotep, Euclides, Pitágoras, Ptolomeo, Newton, Einstein, Pedro Higgs…: no es privilegio de los judíos el entendimiento del plano. De modo que la noción del vacío, la ausencia, es el latu sensu de una separación, onde el nada fue angulado. Al contrario del vacío, en el nada no hay espacios para ser extraídos. Entonces, el espacio es entendido, de una forma regular – digo, censo común – como cuerpos, obyectos, que, en el modelo físico es entendido como simetría. Ya el nada es algo que no tiene simetría. El vacío es el espacio proyectado en el plano, en términos físicos, ‘landscape’, que puede no contener nada, y por eso, estar vacío. El nada antecede la creación del espacio, en términos Creacionistas, pero no en términos físicos. El creacionismo creó un problema imposible para la ciencia responder, porque, el vacío precisa existir en lo después, antes de la formación del movimiento, y esa es una condición del momento, T1 y T2, A y B, porque el espacio, en términos Bíblicos es creado siempre en la frente, como el después de Dios: Dios si define creando, es el ángulo entre el nada y el todo.
Encontrar un obyecto en la naturaleza en tales condiciones es imposible, porque se estaría siempre violando una secuencia. El pésimo entendimiento físico de la analogía del primero: él no es un número, pero una posición, el centro.
Entonces, existe uno sistema estándar de disposición de obyectos, cuando se va a crear alguna cosa, sea en la mente o en lo papel, que no es nada más que una construcción espacial. Si los espacios proyectados invaden el espacio del otro, habrá una superposición o una intersección, en la fórmula o en la imagen. Por eso, en términos físicos, el vacío jamás será el T0 , el observador puede ser el centro si entender la recta como uno segmento. Por eso, el bueno diseñador, al desinar alguna cosa en lo papel, usará técnicas de profundidad, relacionará el punto de fuga, su horizonte, como algo vino del fundo para la frente: esa es la noción del Big Bang. Ese también es el ángulo del observador: él no está en aquello que ve: porque aquello que él ve está en el fuera de él. A nivel de ToM eso es entendido como abismo de la mente. Los ojos humanos son ojos espectrales, formados por conos RGB, y por cuenta de eso, generó una especie de contraste de la visión, una especie de apagón: él ve el negro, el oscuro, y precisa colocar el blanco en la frente. Entonces, el entendimiento de espacio, de vacío y del nada son también los principales factores que crearon la religión, por ser la racionalidad el sistema de navegación, uno sistema de localización, un posicionamiento. Esa posición levó el ser humano a establecer una relación con la naturaleza, y de esa relación nasció el ángulo con Dios: por ser Dios el fijo de una observación del movimiento: pero eso también puede ser entendido como el después del nada: porque, la proyección es el latu sensu también de una reflexion: la recta solo puede existir después del plano. Usted puedes decir que ‘la dilatación del espacio es el tiempo aconteciendo’, pero el tiempo solo existe después que la aresta se forma en un punto más afrente: el fin, en el latu sensu del horizonte: el alcance de una distancia visual, definida en horizonte racional.
La mayoría de los teólogos y teoréticos entienden así, en sus fórmulas geométricas. Fue onde el vacío fue colocado como uno estado de sin movimiento. Ese estado, esa localización, no es en el nada, pero en el obyecto ya creado, donde el inicio fue marcado.
Entonces, es evidente que, para que esa formulación pueda existir, el espacio tiene que existir tanto en el antes como en el después, y ser tratados como espacios diferentes: esa es una condición Teológica, y non física. Yo me bato con eso, porque, los físicos fueron obligados a secuenciar la naturaleza, siendo la secuencia imposible: ir de 1 para el 3 sin pasar por el 2: es obvio que la teoría estándar está errada, y cualquier cosa que se apoyar en ella, va a errar también, cualquier constante será siempre la evolución de uno defecto. Einstein era uno tierra-planista [pt], en todo él vía uno centro, al mismo tiempo en que desentendía la permanencia, el fijo de una observación: su antes estaba siempre en el después. En esa condición, el tamaño será siempre la grandeza en la mesa, la condición de medir la naturaleza: Desentendiendo, con eso, que fue el nada que dio la capacidad humana de atribución, y hasta por eso, Dios.
Un bueno ejemplo de vacío es el cuerpo humano [Adán], un bueno ejemplo de nada es el espíritu de la creación: antes del universo ser creado, el nada había, y por tanto, no había espacio: el espacio apareció solo después, en la condición de plano, y su bipartición: por eso el ángulo Dios no es encontrado en nada en la naturaleza, por ser el estado nada una ficción, uno problema de la visión, y no exactamente una interpretación del natural.
Por eso que la mayoría de los físicos salieron de la condición de ciencia para quedaren en la condición de perturbados, por aceptaren la condición que el nada un día existió, y llamaren el después del nada de vacío, como una forma de entender la ocurrencia de Dios. La creación de cualquier constante en la naturaleza, es la condición de uno desesperado: Llamar el invariante de variable.
46 visitas · Respuesta solicitada por Juanjo Gabiña
Vas bien Anne pero la explicación es mucho más simple. Acuérdate de la navaja de Ockham.
Autor/a original · 22 de febrero
¿navaja de Ockham, Juanjo? ¿es un conto español..? El nada es el vacío sin espacio. Acontece que el nada en cuestión es el ángulo de 2 espacios. Nada^2 = 1. Yo podría hablar eso, pero ningún iba entender.. .
En tiempo: El cuadrado de la distancia del nada es igual a cero. Por eso, 1=0. El vacío es una atribución del nada, una constante. Es lo que una ecuación es, la atribución de un vacío a la naturaleza.
Por eso, cuando hablo a terra-campistas [pt], que atribuyen espacios en sus ecuaciones, esclarezco el sentido exacto de su representación en la naturaleza, el nada.. . Yo mi aborrecí con el bosón-nada y con su atribución, el vacío-Higgs, el sistema de caños para conectarse con el Big Bang. Los teoréticos van a entender eso. Yo no gusto de mentira, Juanjo, ni de falsedad, e involucrar la naturaleza en más uno credo, peor que lo de AD 400.. y lo silencio de los físicos mi indignó. Infelizmente yo no puedo cotar aquí uno desino de mi entendimiento del nada.. . Yo también conozco la historia de otra espada, del legendario Rei Arthur, aquel que enfió la espada en la piedra, diciendo que aquello era amor, después elevó su nombre a su señor… ¿Cómo consiguieron ver la naturaleza con ese ojos.. los ojos de una maquina..? saber lo que tiene dentro, como si el pensamiento tuviese la capacidad de penetrar todas las cosas… porque, si tal cosa acontece en la naturaleza, ciertamente será una invasión, creer que cosas separadas pueden juntarse para formar un entero .. la naturaleza no está esparcida en pedacitos.. sí, ellos se f***** : y lo que ellos querían ver, desapareció: el vacío decayó tan rápido, que el nada apareció… pero, no ver nada es la prueba de Dios, entonces, ellos continuaron, completamente ciegos en sus atribuciones, como si nada tuviese acontecido. ¿usted no acha extraño eso, ningún hablar nada..? por 2 años ellos quedaron calados, y solo ahora están manifestándose, afirmando que la pesquisa está continuando, como si de hecho tuviesen encontrado alguna cosa.. . aquella historia de “usted gaña 1 millón o muere en ese instante”… ¿usted acha mismo que la inquisición acabó..? ellos no pierden uno centavo, porque ellos quedarían sin uno entero, perderían todo: hablamos tanto del nada, pero ¿Quién es el todo en cuestión..? ¿Quién es el dono de la ecuación..? ¿Para quién la ciencia trabaja..? usted puede decir, “ Anne, y ¿ya fue alguno día diferente..?”: sí, ya… había tierra en el olhar [pt]. Peor, yo preciso de esa respuesta para volver a mi tribu.. yo no puedo volver con el nada en las manos.. y solo por eso, yo voy a quedar un poco más por aquí..
El nada, el vacío, es el menos, las pierdas. Lo sistema humano es una troca de señales, onde aquél que dio quedó sin nada, entregó al otro todas sus pierdas, por eso, del otro, todo recibió: quedó con Dios: quedó positivo. El sistema físico es igual al de los seres humanos, sea en la contabilidad o en el económico: la relación de troca es una relación de uso de los señales, onde el menos vale más. Es un sentimiento, el sentimiento que el nada creó: porque el nada no quería ser nada, el nada es aquel que nada obtiene, el nada es aquel que toma de aquel que tiene, lo que es del otro es su. “está bien, Anne, pero, ya fue así un día, diferente..? ya.. la tierra no está.. la tierra no está en una relación de troca, la naturaleza no si usa.. no existe uso en la naturaleza. Yo no habité la tierra, yo no a usé. “pero, Anne, ¿y la tecnología..?”: no va allá de la hinchada.
Mi tribu está aquí a más de 10000 años.. Es lo que los salvajes quieren saber, ¿lo que los seres humanos aprendieron de la naturaleza, durante todo ese tiempo que estuvieron abastados de la tierra..? en lo momento, la respuesta es nada. Si 2 protones se encontrasen en una torrente sanguínea, el cuerpo explotaría… ¿lo que es una explosión..? ¿aun ya se vio una explosión en la naturaleza, que causalidad es esa..? dinamites explotan porque alguien ha ascendido la mecha, la iris del hambre se conectó al buraco oscuro del estómago: fue por onde la trompa salió, y pegó un pedacito de pan.. la comida: alimenta-acción, un pensamiento, “ni solo de pan vive el hombre”: el hombre no precisa de nada, solo de Dios.. : piense en lo que es eso, y usted estará comiendo: eso no son sentimientos, son otras cosas.. el vacío, atribuyéndose en una acción: el hambre.. ¿Qué ojos son eses, que miraron la naturaleza como comida..? es porque no sente nada por aquello que vio: si eso aconteció, es porque él siempre se sintió solo, en el nada, porque el nada es el sentimiento de Dios, y hasta por eso él creó alguna cosa. Por todos eses años de civilización, fue un sentimiento que yo nunca entendí, el sentimiento de la creación. Aquel que se reduce acabará desapareciendo, acabará virando nada, de tanto que se separó. Sí, Juanjo, no quede me provocando.. yo puedo acabar hablando demás. Pero, para la naturaleza, el nada no es de más ni de menos, la naturaleza no tiene tamaño.. es una formula mucho complicada, bien diferente de la del nada y del vacío también, el hambre, y solo por eso el hombre come.
- What are quantum fields made up of? How do you measure or “deducing" its constitutive material? [X]
Until the present moment, without an answer, because indeed, no one knows what’s the answer. Many theories are related, as the own understanding of the black matter, but.. the quantum properties aren’t properties of the space-form: the logic has the reach of defining the object, and relating it with another object, but it hasn’t the capacity of relating the object with its own time: because the properties of the field in matter are unknown by the own Science, and they will never know this answer. The Science stopped there: FINAL SYSTEM, INEXISTENT PROCESS… .