Philosophy Discussion Forums

Bill Gaede says when talking about light: "This is a physical model, light has the shape of a rope: an electric thread and a magnetic thread, not a field. A field is a concept, as opposed to a thread."

Hope this helps everyone understand that light IS an object in Bill's rope hypothesis.

Julius Caesar wrote:If EM ropes are objects that necessarily have shape, how do the EM ropes superimpose each other as if the EM ropes are absolute nothing.

One more question, if absolute nothing can't be described as infinite, aren't absolute nothing don't have limits and non-finite?

I have explained my problem with ropes before. They perform to obervations and logical reasoning but as objects I have a problem. How do you describe energy even though it appears to have shape, shape is outcome of mass not energy. Photons are described as particles even though there is no mass. The difference between ropes and particles is that ropes do not have the illogical consequences photons create. You can't make something out of nothing. Something you appear to be determined to do.

Xris wrote:

Julius Caesar wrote:If EM ropes are objects that necessarily have shape, how do the EM ropes superimpose each other as if the EM ropes are absolute nothing.

One more question, if absolute nothing can't be described as infinite, aren't absolute nothing don't have limits and non-finite?

I have explained my problem with ropes before. They perform to obervations and logical reasoning but as objects I have a problem. How do you describe energy even though it appears to have shape, shape is outcome of mass not energy. Photons are described as particles even though there is no mass. The difference between ropes and particles is that ropes do not have the illogical consequences photons create. You can't make something out of nothing. Something you appear to be determined to do.

If those EM ropes don't have shape then those EM ropes are infinite. It seems it is akin to absolute nothing but it can mediate phenomena on its surroundings. I don't even try to or determined to make something out of nothing. But if those EM ropes indeed have shape, still, its shape aren't real and it is kind of holographic.

I have said many times before these ropes represent EM radiation in a way that resolves all the anomolies photons create. If they have shape in way that Bill Gaede describes, I have no idea. The description in detail is sufficient to understand how light permeates. It resolves the double slit experiment. It explains how electrons appear to be in two locations. It resolves the observational expectations of curved space. They do not require a medium to permeate empty space. They are explained as a permanent relationship of all mass. They resolve many unexplained quantum quandries. They destroy the notion that Higgs Boson particles create mass. They explain gravity exactly. Gives us a universe that is understandable. I can go on and on so why ponder on the impossible concept of nothing or infinity?

Xris wrote:It resolves the double slit experiment.

Not quite correct. It resolves the double slit experiment with photons (aka EM waves, aka rope threads). However it seems to break down when explaining how large molecules can behave like waves.

Cornernote wrote:

Xris wrote:It resolves the double slit experiment.

Not quite correct. It resolves the double slit experiment with photons (aka EM waves, aka rope threads). However it seems to break down when explaining how large molecules can behave like waves.

Sorry but are you saying there is not a problem with photons? That the idea of them being influenced by the observer is a logcal consequence of particles travelling as a wave function?

-- Updated Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:40 am to add the following --

I have been thinking about your post. My question still remains to confirm we understand each other but when do we see molecules travelling without a medium and travelling as a wave function.

Under the rope hypothesis em rope connects all atoms to all other atoms in the universe. Photons are described as torque travelling along the thread. You stated that this description resolves the double slit experiment. The explanation given by the rope hypothesis is that the atoms in the emitter are already connected by em rope to the detector, therefore the torque along the em rope travels through both slits.

The issue I pointed out was that larger molecules also behave in a particle/wave duality when applied to the double-slit experiment. The rope hypothesis does not provide any explanation of this phenomena. It's not just a photon going through both slits, but instead its a whole molecule (an entire cluster of atoms).

Here's a link to an article on diffraction experiments with large molecules that may be of interest:

scitechdaily.com/quantum-interference-s ... molecules/

Cornernote wrote:Under the rope hypothesis em rope connects all atoms to all other atoms in the universe. Photons are described as torque travelling along the thread. You stated that this description resolves the double slit experiment. The explanation given by the rope hypothesis is that the atoms in the emitter are already connected by em rope to the detector, therefore the torque along the em rope travels through both slits.

The issue I pointed out was that larger molecules also behave in a particle/wave duality when applied to the double-slit experiment. The rope hypothesis does not provide any explanation of this phenomena. It's not just a photon going through both slits, but instead its a whole molecule (an entire cluster of atoms).

I might not be understanding you but these molecules as particles must be travelling through a medium. If they travel through a medium, surely they will be detected as waves? Do we reject the rope hypothesis in favour of photons simply because particle photons came first? Science has spent countless years attempting to understand the quantum world using particles without really resolving the anomolies they created. Ropes without too much effort have shown much more promise.

Steve3007 wrote:Here's a link to an article on diffraction experiments with large molecules that may be of interest:

scitechdaily.com/quantum-interference-s ... molecules/

Steve I may be called a doubting thomas but how can they confirm that one molecule at a time is being fired? Does this effect really apply to any particle or simply subatomic particles.Do these particles apply the same observer influence and do they act like photons in the delayed double slit experiment.? Thanks xris.

Xris wrote:Steve I may be called a doubting thomas but how can they confirm that one molecule at a time is being fired? Does this effect really apply to any particle or simply subatomic particles.Do these particles apply the same observer influence and do they act like photons in the delayed double slit experiment.? Thanks xris.

One shot from the projector only ever produces one hit on the detector.

Molecules are made of atoms, therefore they are not sub-atomic by definition. I believe that in theory it can apply to any particle, but it is a function of the momentum and mass (I could be incorrect here, have to do more research).

Yes, the wave function breaks down when you try to observe which slit the molecule passed through, just like the standard double-slit experiment with photons.

Xris: I suspect that the answers to your questions are in the research somewhere, but I don't know that for sure. And I think it's good to be a doubting Thomas. Keep on doubting. (I wonder if there was, at some distant time in history, an extremely sceptical person called Thomas who gave rise to that expression?)

Cornernote wrote:

Xris wrote:Steve I may be called a doubting thomas but how can they confirm that one molecule at a time is being fired? Does this effect really apply to any particle or simply subatomic particles.Do these particles apply the same observer influence and do they act like photons in the delayed double slit experiment.? Thanks xris.

One shot from the projector only ever produces one hit on the detector.

Molecules are made of atoms, therefore they are not sub-atomic by definition. I believe that in theory it can apply to any particle, but it is a function of the momentum and mass (I could be incorrect here, have to do more research).

Yes, the wave function breaks down when you try to observe which slit the molecule passed through, just like the standard double-slit experiment with photons.

So if we fired footballs they would travel as waves? Im still not convinced that individual atoms or molecules can be fired. If they are teavelling through a mediurm. The idea that one molecule can make it without encountering atoms has to be my concern. Are we sure there is no EM transmission?

Steve it's an interesting change of argument. Is the new argument against these ropes now centred around the observation that they do not answer how particles such as molecules have this dual nature? If this true then I feel that certain individuals are accepting they do answer the photon quandry.

The rope hypothesis offers an explanation to the double slit experiment when performed with photons. Not to say this explanation describes reality, but its an explanation none the less. If you want to examine if it matches reality then we should also apply the explanation to observed results with larger molecules, however when we try to do this it seems the hypothesis breaks down.

Regarding footballs, it is my understanding they would behave with a particle wave duality if they had enough momentum.