One for Physics heads
-
Let there be light cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Let there be light cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Let there be light cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Let there be light Wow, Can you explain that ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
-
Chris Maunder wrote: Let there be light Wow, Can you explain that ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
There's gotta be someone here who has seen this (or at least the equations) before... cheers, Chris Maunder
-
There's gotta be someone here who has seen this (or at least the equations) before... cheers, Chris Maunder
Maybe, but even so, it was at least three years ago, and I didn't really understand some of the mumbo jumbo they were throwing at me. Is the electron inside the box? Is the electron outside the box? Is the electron in the middle of the wall of the box? Is the cat dead inside the box? What happens if the cat poops on the electron? Or rather, in the box? Yech. X| Jon Sagara There is no spoon. Best Miniputt score: 21
-
There's gotta be someone here who has seen this (or at least the equations) before... cheers, Chris Maunder
Hmmmm Guess 1, Maxwells Electromagnetic equations to explain light however the equations appear a bit verbose
V.E == 4Pi*P
V.B == 0V*E == 1aB / c a t
V*B == (4Pi / c )J + 1aE / c a t
(note: the a is a theta.) God said "the light is good". So now we can have night and day due to the oscillating field. This all assumes that light is made from electro magnetic forces, (which I personally doubt) And then on the second day... Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
-
Hmmmm Guess 1, Maxwells Electromagnetic equations to explain light however the equations appear a bit verbose
V.E == 4Pi*P
V.B == 0V*E == 1aB / c a t
V*B == (4Pi / c )J + 1aE / c a t
(note: the a is a theta.) God said "the light is good". So now we can have night and day due to the oscillating field. This all assumes that light is made from electro magnetic forces, (which I personally doubt) And then on the second day... Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
if V.E = Div E and V*E (should be V x E) = curl E then we have a winner! :) Well done. ****Colin Davies wrote: however the equations appear a bit verbose LOL. Now there's a Colin remark if ever I've heard one :D ****Colin Davies wrote: This all assumes that light is made from electro magnetic forces, (which I personally doubt) Huh? Er...light is electromagnetic radiation. By definition. It's just at a frequency we can see. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
if V.E = Div E and V*E (should be V x E) = curl E then we have a winner! :) Well done. ****Colin Davies wrote: however the equations appear a bit verbose LOL. Now there's a Colin remark if ever I've heard one :D ****Colin Davies wrote: This all assumes that light is made from electro magnetic forces, (which I personally doubt) Huh? Er...light is electromagnetic radiation. By definition. It's just at a frequency we can see. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Huh? Er...light is electromagnetic radiation. By definition. It's just at a frequency we can see. Yes, I realise they still teach it that way. My belief is light is effectively seen as electromagnetic radiation in our 3D Spartial observable universe. However light is infact vibrations that occur across non observable dimensions which accounts for why they have trouble calling light a wave or particle or particle/wave. If we consider a higher number of dimensions we easily can cause electron activity in one location and have it vibrated to other locations very quickly. My 4 cents :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
-
Chris Maunder wrote: Huh? Er...light is electromagnetic radiation. By definition. It's just at a frequency we can see. Yes, I realise they still teach it that way. My belief is light is effectively seen as electromagnetic radiation in our 3D Spartial observable universe. However light is infact vibrations that occur across non observable dimensions which accounts for why they have trouble calling light a wave or particle or particle/wave. If we consider a higher number of dimensions we easily can cause electron activity in one location and have it vibrated to other locations very quickly. My 4 cents :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
****Colin Davies wrote: vibrations that occur across non observable dimensions Where's my 'WTF' icon when I need it ;) OK - so what are these vibrations, and how do they allow us to see things. ****Colin Davies wrote: which accounts for why they have trouble calling light a wave or particle or particle/wave. In what way does it account for that, and why do you say there is any difficulty in reconciling the dual particle/wave nature of all matter (it's not just light that has wave properties - all matter does it). cheers, Chris Maunder
-
****Colin Davies wrote: vibrations that occur across non observable dimensions Where's my 'WTF' icon when I need it ;) OK - so what are these vibrations, and how do they allow us to see things. ****Colin Davies wrote: which accounts for why they have trouble calling light a wave or particle or particle/wave. In what way does it account for that, and why do you say there is any difficulty in reconciling the dual particle/wave nature of all matter (it's not just light that has wave properties - all matter does it). cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Where's my 'WTF' icon when I need it Yes it'd come in useful :-) Chris Maunder wrote: OK - so what are these vibrations, and how do they allow us to see things. Ok the vibrations are in real thin dimensions, and as the dimensions vibrate we effectivly see light. Since the dimensions exist they must be interactible and when they are agitated, light is transmitted. Chris Maunder wrote: In what way does it account for that, and why do you say there is any difficulty in reconciling the dual particle/wave nature of all matter (it's not just light that has wave properties - all matter does it). Gosh, I remember at high school being taught both theories as the physics dudes couldn't agree. Light is a wave due to the nodes it creates. Light is a particle because it can be measured. { from memory } So then they reconciled the two theories to make wave/particle. Chris Maunder wrote: (it's not just light that has wave properties - all matter does it). I agree, and all matter has multiple non visible dimensions. Quite likely at the initial Big Bang the Cosmos divided into a 3D and 6D universe with other little dimensions scattered about. The 11D theory is the 3D + 6D + Time + Special Time. Anyhow in the 11D view vibrations in the other 6D would cause us to have light. This would also explain all the weird math needed to describe how sub-atomic particles behave. Also I doubt that either photons or ether actually exist. Don't worry, I'm just explaining my beliefs, and am not trying to convince you. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
-
Chris Maunder wrote: Where's my 'WTF' icon when I need it Yes it'd come in useful :-) Chris Maunder wrote: OK - so what are these vibrations, and how do they allow us to see things. Ok the vibrations are in real thin dimensions, and as the dimensions vibrate we effectivly see light. Since the dimensions exist they must be interactible and when they are agitated, light is transmitted. Chris Maunder wrote: In what way does it account for that, and why do you say there is any difficulty in reconciling the dual particle/wave nature of all matter (it's not just light that has wave properties - all matter does it). Gosh, I remember at high school being taught both theories as the physics dudes couldn't agree. Light is a wave due to the nodes it creates. Light is a particle because it can be measured. { from memory } So then they reconciled the two theories to make wave/particle. Chris Maunder wrote: (it's not just light that has wave properties - all matter does it). I agree, and all matter has multiple non visible dimensions. Quite likely at the initial Big Bang the Cosmos divided into a 3D and 6D universe with other little dimensions scattered about. The 11D theory is the 3D + 6D + Time + Special Time. Anyhow in the 11D view vibrations in the other 6D would cause us to have light. This would also explain all the weird math needed to describe how sub-atomic particles behave. Also I doubt that either photons or ether actually exist. Don't worry, I'm just explaining my beliefs, and am not trying to convince you. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
So some more questions then so I can wrap my head around what you're trying to say: o How can a dimension be 'thin'? o What is it that's vibrating? A dimension is like a direction, a coordinate. It doesn't have anything intrinsically physical that can vibrate. o How does a vibrating dimension translate into photons hitting the recepticals in our retina? o "Since the dimensions exist" - which dimensions, and also 'says who'? o "they must be interactible" - why does this follow? ****Colin Davies wrote: Gosh, I remember at high school being taught both theories as the physics dudes couldn't agree. Light is a wave due to the nodes it creates. Light is a particle because it can be measured. You mean 'light displays wave properties because of diffration patterns' and 'light behaves like a particle because it comes in measurable quanta'? So what - just because it looks like a horse and smells like a horse doesn't mean it isn't a pony. There's no contradiction in the particle/wave duality - it's just that matter exhibits both properties. ****Colin Davies wrote: I agree, and all matter has multiple non visible dimensions. You mean matter inhabits non-visible dimensions, or matter has non-visible dimensions? ****Colin Davies wrote: Don't worry, I'm just explaining my beliefs, and am not trying to convince you. Don't worry - you won't :D I'm just fascinated - but I also firmly believe that hand waving isn't a replacement for verifiable experimental proof and sound logic. I'm just curious as to where your ideas originated so I can read up and get a firmer grasp of your ideas. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
So some more questions then so I can wrap my head around what you're trying to say: o How can a dimension be 'thin'? o What is it that's vibrating? A dimension is like a direction, a coordinate. It doesn't have anything intrinsically physical that can vibrate. o How does a vibrating dimension translate into photons hitting the recepticals in our retina? o "Since the dimensions exist" - which dimensions, and also 'says who'? o "they must be interactible" - why does this follow? ****Colin Davies wrote: Gosh, I remember at high school being taught both theories as the physics dudes couldn't agree. Light is a wave due to the nodes it creates. Light is a particle because it can be measured. You mean 'light displays wave properties because of diffration patterns' and 'light behaves like a particle because it comes in measurable quanta'? So what - just because it looks like a horse and smells like a horse doesn't mean it isn't a pony. There's no contradiction in the particle/wave duality - it's just that matter exhibits both properties. ****Colin Davies wrote: I agree, and all matter has multiple non visible dimensions. You mean matter inhabits non-visible dimensions, or matter has non-visible dimensions? ****Colin Davies wrote: Don't worry, I'm just explaining my beliefs, and am not trying to convince you. Don't worry - you won't :D I'm just fascinated - but I also firmly believe that hand waving isn't a replacement for verifiable experimental proof and sound logic. I'm just curious as to where your ideas originated so I can read up and get a firmer grasp of your ideas. cheers, Chris Maunder
I think I speak for a few of us when I say: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: and :confused: Interesting read though :-D James Sonork: Hasaki "I left there in the morning with their God tucked underneath my arm their half-assed smiles and the book of rules. So I asked this God a question and by way of firm reply, He said - I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays." "Wind Up" from Aqualung, Jethro Tull 1971
-
I think I speak for a few of us when I say: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: and :confused: Interesting read though :-D James Sonork: Hasaki "I left there in the morning with their God tucked underneath my arm their half-assed smiles and the book of rules. So I asked this God a question and by way of firm reply, He said - I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays." "Wind Up" from Aqualung, Jethro Tull 1971
Ditto. Well said. :) Jon Sagara There is no spoon. Best Miniputt score: 21
-
So some more questions then so I can wrap my head around what you're trying to say: o How can a dimension be 'thin'? o What is it that's vibrating? A dimension is like a direction, a coordinate. It doesn't have anything intrinsically physical that can vibrate. o How does a vibrating dimension translate into photons hitting the recepticals in our retina? o "Since the dimensions exist" - which dimensions, and also 'says who'? o "they must be interactible" - why does this follow? ****Colin Davies wrote: Gosh, I remember at high school being taught both theories as the physics dudes couldn't agree. Light is a wave due to the nodes it creates. Light is a particle because it can be measured. You mean 'light displays wave properties because of diffration patterns' and 'light behaves like a particle because it comes in measurable quanta'? So what - just because it looks like a horse and smells like a horse doesn't mean it isn't a pony. There's no contradiction in the particle/wave duality - it's just that matter exhibits both properties. ****Colin Davies wrote: I agree, and all matter has multiple non visible dimensions. You mean matter inhabits non-visible dimensions, or matter has non-visible dimensions? ****Colin Davies wrote: Don't worry, I'm just explaining my beliefs, and am not trying to convince you. Don't worry - you won't :D I'm just fascinated - but I also firmly believe that hand waving isn't a replacement for verifiable experimental proof and sound logic. I'm just curious as to where your ideas originated so I can read up and get a firmer grasp of your ideas. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: So some more questions then so I can wrap my head around what you're trying to say: Sure if I can answer them :-) To the best of my knowledge. Chris Maunder wrote: o How can a dimension be 'thin'? These extra dimensions are so thin we can't measure how thin they are. Chris Maunder wrote: o What is it that's vibrating? A dimension is like a direction, a coordinate. It doesn't have anything intrinsically physical that can vibrate. OK the dimensions/planes in the other 6D reality are what are vibrated. Chris Maunder wrote: How does a vibrating dimension translate into photons hitting the recepticals in our retina? Ok, I believe photons don't actually exist. The retina is detecting the vibrations. Chris Maunder wrote: "Since the dimensions exist" - which dimensions, and also 'says who'? Yeah, the whole thing colapses here because as yet humanity can't prove that other dimensions exist, and physical proof isn't going to appear anytime soon. Even imagining these tiny dimensions to exist is difficult enough. The only way to get a grasp of it is to do your Math in a Metric Tensor environment similar to what Kaluza did with the Riemann metric, for 5D space. What eventuated to be the Kaluza-Klein theory I consider to be correct contrary to popular belief, as it put both Reimann and Einsteins theories in good stead. The heart of hyperspace is based at the Quantum Mechanics where the current "standard model" is incorrect due to its ugliness.
36 quarks of 6 flavors and 3 colours (plus the antimatter)
6 types of leptons
8 Yangs-Mills to bind the quarks as gluons
4 Yang-Mills fields to show the weak interactions
Many, many very mysterious Higgs particles.
Almost 20 constants to describe the masses of the stuffIf what I'm saying sounds like gibberish consider the above and what can be proved of the above rather than just subjective analysis. Plausably the Universe is made up easier using the SuperString theory as a model. Chris Maunder wrote: "they must be interactible" - why does this follow? Every action has a counter reaction. Chris Maunder wrote: You mean matter inhabits non-visible dimensions, or matter has non-visible dimensions? I'm unsure, I haven't thought that one through yet, :-) possible the dimensions exist but are non measura
-
Chris Maunder wrote: So some more questions then so I can wrap my head around what you're trying to say: Sure if I can answer them :-) To the best of my knowledge. Chris Maunder wrote: o How can a dimension be 'thin'? These extra dimensions are so thin we can't measure how thin they are. Chris Maunder wrote: o What is it that's vibrating? A dimension is like a direction, a coordinate. It doesn't have anything intrinsically physical that can vibrate. OK the dimensions/planes in the other 6D reality are what are vibrated. Chris Maunder wrote: How does a vibrating dimension translate into photons hitting the recepticals in our retina? Ok, I believe photons don't actually exist. The retina is detecting the vibrations. Chris Maunder wrote: "Since the dimensions exist" - which dimensions, and also 'says who'? Yeah, the whole thing colapses here because as yet humanity can't prove that other dimensions exist, and physical proof isn't going to appear anytime soon. Even imagining these tiny dimensions to exist is difficult enough. The only way to get a grasp of it is to do your Math in a Metric Tensor environment similar to what Kaluza did with the Riemann metric, for 5D space. What eventuated to be the Kaluza-Klein theory I consider to be correct contrary to popular belief, as it put both Reimann and Einsteins theories in good stead. The heart of hyperspace is based at the Quantum Mechanics where the current "standard model" is incorrect due to its ugliness.
36 quarks of 6 flavors and 3 colours (plus the antimatter)
6 types of leptons
8 Yangs-Mills to bind the quarks as gluons
4 Yang-Mills fields to show the weak interactions
Many, many very mysterious Higgs particles.
Almost 20 constants to describe the masses of the stuffIf what I'm saying sounds like gibberish consider the above and what can be proved of the above rather than just subjective analysis. Plausably the Universe is made up easier using the SuperString theory as a model. Chris Maunder wrote: "they must be interactible" - why does this follow? Every action has a counter reaction. Chris Maunder wrote: You mean matter inhabits non-visible dimensions, or matter has non-visible dimensions? I'm unsure, I haven't thought that one through yet, :-) possible the dimensions exist but are non measura
****Colin Davies wrote: These extra dimensions are so thin we can't measure how thin they are. What I was asking is 'how do you measure the dimensions of a dimension'? Saying a dimension is thin is the same as saying the x-axis is short. Are you saying the other dimensions are finite? ****Colin Davies wrote: OK the dimensions/planes in the other 6D reality are what are vibrated. But what is vibrating. Again, saying a dimension is vibrating is like saying the x-axis is vibrating. A dimension is just a direction - it has nothing intrinsic that can vibrate. If the dimension (or whatever) is vibrating, then in what direction of motion are these vibrations? and into what dimensions? ****Colin Davies wrote: I believe photons don't actually exist. So do you believe energy exists? ****Colin Davies wrote: The only way to get a grasp of it is to do your Math in a Metric Tensor environment similar to what Kaluza did with the Riemann metric, for 5D space So point me to some papers. I'd be keen to brush up on my differential geometry and take a look. I have absolutely no problem in you saying that our current understanding of high energy physics results in a seeming zoo of particles, and that there's probably a deeper truth that may possibly show all these particles are merely aspects of something bigger - but I also am a strong believer in basing each step of a theory on solid footings cheers, Chris Maunder
-
****Colin Davies wrote: These extra dimensions are so thin we can't measure how thin they are. What I was asking is 'how do you measure the dimensions of a dimension'? Saying a dimension is thin is the same as saying the x-axis is short. Are you saying the other dimensions are finite? ****Colin Davies wrote: OK the dimensions/planes in the other 6D reality are what are vibrated. But what is vibrating. Again, saying a dimension is vibrating is like saying the x-axis is vibrating. A dimension is just a direction - it has nothing intrinsic that can vibrate. If the dimension (or whatever) is vibrating, then in what direction of motion are these vibrations? and into what dimensions? ****Colin Davies wrote: I believe photons don't actually exist. So do you believe energy exists? ****Colin Davies wrote: The only way to get a grasp of it is to do your Math in a Metric Tensor environment similar to what Kaluza did with the Riemann metric, for 5D space So point me to some papers. I'd be keen to brush up on my differential geometry and take a look. I have absolutely no problem in you saying that our current understanding of high energy physics results in a seeming zoo of particles, and that there's probably a deeper truth that may possibly show all these particles are merely aspects of something bigger - but I also am a strong believer in basing each step of a theory on solid footings cheers, Chris Maunder
Obviously I don't understand this stuff at all well, or I'd be able to explain it better. :-) So heres some links Michio Kaku extra dimensions Chris Maunder wrote: What I was asking is 'how do you measure the dimensions of a dimension'? Tough one, It is so small the best way to measure it would be the immense energy needed to split it apart. :-) Sorry can't explain it better than that. Chris Maunder wrote: But what is vibrating. Again, saying a dimension is vibrating is like saying the x-axis is vibrating. Yes but because these dimensions are so small/thin its like a string vibrating. Sorry can't explain it better than that. Chris Maunder wrote: So do you believe energy exists? Yes so does mass. :-) Chris Maunder wrote: I have absolutely no problem in you saying that our current understanding of high energy physics results in a seeming zoo of particles, I like that but maybe it should be a zoo with uncaged particles. :-) M-Theory seems to be the next big thing in theoretical physics, but I have my doubts as it seems so darn complicated, The real truth I'm sure will be real simple stuff and seem logical similar to how we percieve the theory of relativity now. Hey, perhaps you already know all this stuff and are winding me up? Remember I'm just one Kiwi living at the beach not an academic type :-( Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
-
So some more questions then so I can wrap my head around what you're trying to say: o How can a dimension be 'thin'? o What is it that's vibrating? A dimension is like a direction, a coordinate. It doesn't have anything intrinsically physical that can vibrate. o How does a vibrating dimension translate into photons hitting the recepticals in our retina? o "Since the dimensions exist" - which dimensions, and also 'says who'? o "they must be interactible" - why does this follow? ****Colin Davies wrote: Gosh, I remember at high school being taught both theories as the physics dudes couldn't agree. Light is a wave due to the nodes it creates. Light is a particle because it can be measured. You mean 'light displays wave properties because of diffration patterns' and 'light behaves like a particle because it comes in measurable quanta'? So what - just because it looks like a horse and smells like a horse doesn't mean it isn't a pony. There's no contradiction in the particle/wave duality - it's just that matter exhibits both properties. ****Colin Davies wrote: I agree, and all matter has multiple non visible dimensions. You mean matter inhabits non-visible dimensions, or matter has non-visible dimensions? ****Colin Davies wrote: Don't worry, I'm just explaining my beliefs, and am not trying to convince you. Don't worry - you won't :D I'm just fascinated - but I also firmly believe that hand waving isn't a replacement for verifiable experimental proof and sound logic. I'm just curious as to where your ideas originated so I can read up and get a firmer grasp of your ideas. cheers, Chris Maunder
I may not know what I'm talking about, but I'm going to jump in and have a go anyway. :) Chris Maunder wrote: How can a dimension be 'thin'? If there were a two dimensional place, its residents would not think it was thin, but to us 3D'ers it would be. Chris Maunder wrote: particle/wave duality I remember a little about this. Is there anything besides photons that exhibit this behaviour? "There is a fine line between lunacy and genius; it is my goal in life to keep them guessing just where the line lies..." -- Unknown
-
I may not know what I'm talking about, but I'm going to jump in and have a go anyway. :) Chris Maunder wrote: How can a dimension be 'thin'? If there were a two dimensional place, its residents would not think it was thin, but to us 3D'ers it would be. Chris Maunder wrote: particle/wave duality I remember a little about this. Is there anything besides photons that exhibit this behaviour? "There is a fine line between lunacy and genius; it is my goal in life to keep them guessing just where the line lies..." -- Unknown
Daniel Ferguson wrote: If there were a two dimensional place, its residents would not think it was thin, but to us 3D'ers it would be. Good analogy of what is called the flatworlders, 2d people aka flatworlders can not imagine a 3rd dimension like we can not imagine a 4th an n+ dimensions. Daniel Ferguson wrote: I remember a little about this. Is there anything besides photons that exhibit this behaviour? I'm pretty sure photons are haven't been prooved to exist, although a lot of research has been done on them. Another form is gravitons which would show similar characteristics. But they are even more theoretical. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I think it's interesting that we often qu-ote each other in our sigs and attribute the qu-otes to "The Lounge". --- Daniel Fergusson, "The Lounge"
