tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post3248628877129977079..comments2023-10-10T13:06:04.750+03:00Comments on No_Angel: Quantam philosphy - ImplicationsNo_Angelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11443783795297272286noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-19599205117116498932008-03-13T14:21:00.000+03:002008-03-13T14:21:00.000+03:00You were taught wrong my son...You were taught wrong my son...Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-5603505939697151232008-03-13T10:20:00.000+03:002008-03-13T10:20:00.000+03:00you mean this bunch of philistine blabber ?think t...you mean this bunch of philistine blabber ?<BR/><B>think that the state of being a particle, and being a wave, are contradictory states. While in fact, waves and particles are a duality!<BR/><BR/>Duality means that light is BOTH a particle and a wave, and the two are NOT CONTRADICTORY!!</B><BR/><BR/>lol son, at some point i did learn a few things and i said that, but hardly from you. you might as well go get fossilizedNo_Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443783795297272286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-46359600001851540962008-03-13T10:02:00.000+03:002008-03-13T10:02:00.000+03:00PS: Sorry if my language seemed harsh, but I am no...PS: Sorry if my language seemed harsh, but I am not the kind of person who "sugar coats" what he says, because truth must be told, whether it sounds nice or harsh... I suggest you take my criticism in positive light, and try to actually learn something!Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-71855305464348258502008-03-13T09:09:00.000+03:002008-03-13T09:09:00.000+03:00It seems to me that you have no idea what logic is...It seems to me that you have no idea what logic is.. And no idea what proof is... And I suggest for you own sake, to read something about the theory of argumentation!<BR/><BR/>I already provided my proof... But you were unable to understand it... Next time, I suggest you learn how to argue before getting into an argument - especially a scientific argument.<BR/><BR/>Science is not about kids who shout at each other, whose voice is louder... Science is based on proof!Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-76784170716681521102008-03-11T11:58:00.000+03:002008-03-11T11:58:00.000+03:00I expect you had some time to think through of the...<B>I expect you had some time to think through of the whole discussion, and your perception of a contradiction!</B> <BR/>lol not at all, i just lost interest in discussing it with you since you always like to use bad analogies and tend to branch up from the subject...<BR/>but anyways since u asked, thats the last relevant thing on the topic. <BR/><I>when you can give me experimental evidence that light can be BOTH a particle and a wave and not just either or then you can claim that chain of thought :)</I><BR/><BR/>so since you can't, that means that light being a particle and light being a wave is mutually exclusive. <BR/>since they are mutually exclusive light can be a particle. and light is also not a particle. <BR/><BR/>so unless you can give me a case where you can prove that light is both particle and wave at the same time you can't really argue with the fact that its not a particle. <BR/><BR/>but then again ur going to use an analogy and repeat what you have been repeating. so unless u have something new and relevant to add in reply to that don't bother.<BR/>i am not interested in discussing analogies, they murk the discussionNo_Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443783795297272286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-51802604645420742092008-03-11T10:56:00.000+03:002008-03-11T10:56:00.000+03:00So can't you prove that "light is not a particle" ...So can't you prove that "light is not a particle" and "light is a particle"?!<BR/><BR/>I expect you had some time to think through of the whole discussion, and your perception of a contradiction!Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-20004762114094921542008-03-02T22:07:00.000+03:002008-03-02T22:07:00.000+03:002 is in fact complex. Revise your mathematical kno...2 is in fact complex. Revise your mathematical knowledge!<BR/><BR/>Anyways, if you wish to take another shot at proving that light is not a particle, be my guest!<BR/><BR/><I>"when you set it to zero it ceases to be complex ...</I> - No, it does not. But either way, thats irrelevant... It just depends on the definition... And definitions don't change mathematical facts.Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-39049040667095211812008-03-02T17:45:00.000+03:002008-03-02T17:45:00.000+03:00"2"- I proved that 2 is complex." huh ? where ? co...<B>"2"- I proved that 2 is complex."</B> <BR/>huh ? where ? complex is of the form <BR/>a + bi where i^2 = -1 .... <BR/>when you set it to zero it ceases to be complex ... it becomes real. <BR/>so i'd like that u run that by me again. <BR/>and i proved it with what i said plus the experiment that i mentioned way back when ... that when perceived as a wave light is not a particle ... its just you fail to comprehend that part for some rzn :PNo_Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443783795297272286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-30647892082652115082008-03-02T17:37:00.000+03:002008-03-02T17:37:00.000+03:00Ok, lets do this a third time:1- You proved that l...Ok, lets do this a third time:<BR/><BR/>1- You proved that light is a particle.<BR/>1'- I proved that 2 is even.<BR/>1"- I proved that 2 is real.<BR/><BR/>2- You proved that light is a wave.<BR/>2'- I proved that 2 is primary.<BR/>2"- I proved that 2 is complex.<BR/><BR/>3- And you proved that a particle is not a wave.<BR/>3'- I proved that even is not primary.<BR/>3"- I proved that complex is not real (*)<BR/><BR/>Still, 2 is both complex and real.<BR/><BR/>Dude, its not about the analogy. The concept hold that you did NOT prove that "light is not a particle"!!<BR/><BR/>(*) The other way around is not valid, that is: Real is complexDevil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-35225860487447287032008-03-02T10:22:00.000+03:002008-03-02T10:22:00.000+03:00ok, i explained to you why the even and prime is a...ok, i explained to you why the even and prime is a really bad analogy. if you want to use an analogy to numbers use real and complex for a number.<BR/><BR/><B>"Duality means that light is BOTH a particle and a wave, and the two are NOT CONTRADICTORY!!"</B><BR/>when you can give me experimental evidence that light can be BOTH a particle and a wave and not just either or then you can claim that chain of thought :)No_Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443783795297272286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-17751501708292967022008-03-02T03:59:00.000+03:002008-03-02T03:59:00.000+03:00I have to conclude that your mistake is that you t...I have to conclude that your mistake is that you think that the state of being a particle, and being a wave, are contradictory states. While in fact, waves and particles are a duality!<BR/><BR/>Duality means that light is BOTH a particle and a wave, and the two are NOT CONTRADICTORY!!<BR/><BR/>This is what I said in the <A HREF="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31883295&postID=192650826247602442" REL="nofollow">prologue</A>. Ok, I returned there and found that you asked something and I didn't answer... Well, I should have checked there before.Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-31438173850344799302008-03-02T03:50:00.000+03:002008-03-02T03:50:00.000+03:00"so light is not a particle is true." - Nope, that...<I>"so light is not a particle is true."</I> - Nope, thats not the logical conclusion!<BR/><BR/>1- You proved that light is a particle.<BR/>2- You proved that light is a wave.<BR/>3- And you proved that a particle is not a wave.<BR/><BR/>BUT, you did NOT prove that light is not a particle! Thats a false conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Let me show you (sorry, but I will use a logical analogy):<BR/><BR/>1- You proved that light is a particle.<BR/>1'- I proved that 2 is even.<BR/><BR/>2- You proved that light is a wave.<BR/>2'- I proved that 2 is primary.<BR/><BR/>3- And you proved that a particle is not a wave.<BR/>3'- I proved that even is not primary.<BR/><BR/>So, 2 is even and primary. And the property of evenness is not the same as primeness. Yet, 2 is still even and primary!!<BR/><BR/>Hope you see your logical mistake!Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-10506207206677146472008-03-01T21:29:00.000+03:002008-03-01T21:29:00.000+03:00light is an electromagnetic wave an electro magnet...light is an electromagnetic wave <BR/>an electro magnetic wave is not a particle it's radiation<BR/>so light is not a particle is true. <BR/><BR/>waves exhibit interference, have a wavelength, frequency and a speed of propagation, refraction ...etcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-63675416322932655802008-02-29T16:30:00.000+03:002008-02-29T16:30:00.000+03:00Ok, so far so good.... If thats the definition tha...Ok, so far so good.... If thats the definition that suits you...<BR/><BR/>Ok, you explained why "light is a particle"!!<BR/><BR/>Then explain how you think that "light is not a particle"?!Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-57601631999404949262008-02-29T11:21:00.000+03:002008-02-29T11:21:00.000+03:00Dude! Just make a definition that suits you... Its...<B>Dude! Just make a definition that suits you... Its not that hard.</B><BR/><BR/>dude ! i did but you don't like it!<BR/>light == photon<BR/>photon == particle<BR/>so light is a particle :D<BR/>simple enough to show the relationship between light and a particle since that is ur concern there right ? <BR/>unless you want to challenge any of those premises there, am only interested in finding your reasoning for light is a particle and light is not a particle. <BR/><BR/>otherwise your just talking filler to me which you been for the past few comments re-itterating things that has nothing to do with the statement i made. so whatever you are trying to get at do so ... or concedeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-57060924404329322402008-02-28T22:20:00.000+03:002008-02-28T22:20:00.000+03:00Dude! Just make a definition that suits you... Its...Dude! Just make a definition that suits you... Its not that hard.<BR/><BR/>Ok, I'll make a definition that might work for you:<BR/><BR/>particles - travel in straight lines, bounce of obstacles or passes through them, and doesn't exhibit interference(*).<BR/><BR/>light - travel in straight lines, bounce of obstacles or passes through them, and doesn't exhibit interference(*), travels in vacuum at the speed of light<BR/><BR/>(*): This might seem counter-intuitive, but if you state that "light is a particle" then light must have all the properties of a particle. Otherwise, you should say: "light is not a particle"...Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-45541352734380532712008-02-28T20:55:00.000+03:002008-02-28T20:55:00.000+03:00"You did not mention anything that is in common be...<B>"You did not mention anything that is in common between light and particles!! So it seemed to me that you were having trouble making good definitions."</B><BR/>I thought that was simple since photons are particles because they adhere to the set definition<BR/>since it isn't as simple as i thought i'll leave defining a photon to u if you disagree that photons are particlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-12707347505553378192008-02-28T20:29:00.000+03:002008-02-28T20:29:00.000+03:00y represents what differentiates a particle from l...y represents what differentiates a particle from light.<BR/><BR/>Now, you have a particle. How do you judge whether or not it's light?!<BR/><BR/>Anyways, the definitions I gave are just suggestions. If you wish to make different definitions be my guest.<BR/><BR/>If you go back to your initial definitions:<BR/><I>light - photons make up light, so u can interchange it with photons to be specific<BR/><BR/>particles - travel in straight lines, bounce of obstacles, or passes through, and doesn't exhibit interference.</I><BR/><BR/>You did not mention anything that is in common between light and particles!! So it seemed to me that you were having trouble making good definitions.<BR/><BR/>Because based on the two definitions you gave above, you practically have no case to establish any statement about the relationship between the two concepts!<BR/><BR/>As I said, my suggestions are only "suggestions". Just to avoid definitions that are incomplete.Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-16887825842500587532008-02-28T19:16:00.000+03:002008-02-28T19:16:00.000+03:00so yeah i agree with the redefinition tho u are co...so yeah i agree with the redefinition tho u are complicating things way too much and you are the one that started discussing the analogies rather than the term it self so i treat like am treated. <BR/><BR/>ok so given that x represents a particle, y represents what ? thats what am asking since its mutually exclusiveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-24643433520252167752008-02-28T17:59:00.000+03:002008-02-28T17:59:00.000+03:00Dude, you asked about the "set of Y", and said: "t...Dude, you asked about the "set of Y", and said: <I>"tho am not sure what you mean by Y so i can't define what i don't know"</I> - So I explained to you why we need set Y.<BR/><BR/>I don't want to make analogies between numbers and physical particle. Just to explain the need for set Y!!Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-49984039869416792942008-02-28T17:51:00.000+03:002008-02-28T17:51:00.000+03:00Set of X: A collection of phenomenaSet of Y: A col...<B>Set of X: A collection of phenomena<BR/>Set of Y: A collection of phenomena</B><BR/><BR/>Again, yes you are right. Same definition might lead to confusion. There is a solution to this.<BR/><BR/><B>Set of X: An instance of a collection of phenomena<BR/>Set of Y: An instance of a collection of phenomena</B><BR/><BR/>With the inclusion of the previously stated qualifiers, things should go fine.Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-86683143056972569362008-02-28T17:48:00.000+03:002008-02-28T17:48:00.000+03:00just so i would point out why your allegory doesn'...just so i would point out why your allegory doesn't work... <BR/>i am saying that there are real (analogous to particle) and complex(analogous to waves) numbers <BR/><BR/>but you reply to me that there are integers(iron atoms) and there are even numbers(neutrons or whatever u find analogous here). but then you go and define integers wrongly.<BR/><BR/>So based on occam's razor drop the analogies and speak clearly since it seems that they are confusing u.No_Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443783795297272286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-42406075534152802202008-02-28T17:44:00.000+03:002008-02-28T17:44:00.000+03:00Set of X: A collection of phenomenaSet of Y: A col...<B>Set of X: A collection of phenomena<BR/>Set of Y: A collection of phenomena</B><BR/><BR/>Well, yes... Set of X shall have the same collection of phenomena through out the discussion. Same goes for set of Y. But set of X is not necessarily same as set Y.<BR/><BR/>I proposed this just for simplification.<BR/><BR/>If you wish, we can add those three qualifiers:<BR/>Set of X and Set of Y are two mutually exclusive sets.<BR/>Set of X is a non-empty set.<BR/>Set of Y is a non-empty set.<BR/><BR/>We can have any -or all- of those qualifiers - if you wish.Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-42141327749611078432008-02-28T17:30:00.000+03:002008-02-28T17:30:00.000+03:00Set of Y is the set of phenomena that identifies t...Set of Y is the set of phenomena that identifies the concept of the light.<BR/><BR/>For example, in mathematics, if we are talking about numbers:<BR/><BR/>Property X: Being divisible by 1<BR/>Property Y: Being divisible by 2<BR/><BR/>Now:<BR/>Integers: Numbers that have Property X<BR/>Even numbers: Numbers that have Property X and Property Y<BR/><BR/>Here Property Y is used to tell the difference between the general concept of an integer, and the general concept of an even number.<BR/><BR/>So, we can say:<BR/>Even numbers are integers [because they share Property X]<BR/><BR/>But not all integers are even numbers [because Property Y is not shared by them]Devil's Mindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541884626112839842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31883295.post-34353209319654876972008-02-28T17:27:00.000+03:002008-02-28T17:27:00.000+03:00Set of X: A collection of phenomenaSet of Y: A col...<B>Set of X: A collection of phenomena<BR/>Set of Y: A collection of phenomena<BR/></B><BR/>since they have the same definition why aren't they the same ? you have to explain that to me, what is the special case you have in mind? I don't want an element by element definition. even a general one would do.<BR/><BR/>i won't digress in symantecs so again. based on the definitions of everything given so far<BR/>"light is a particle, light is not a particle"<BR/>is a valid contradiction or not ? with reasons to which ever answer like i gave it when i proposed that<BR/><BR/>Don't navigate the discussion while leaving yourself a back door to tread out off, commit to somethingNo_Angelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11443783795297272286noreply@blogger.com