Photons come from matter. Well, particles. No particles, no photons.

Photons come from matter. Well, particles. No particles, no photons.

==

You can have particles without photons but you can’t have photons without particles. I mean yeah they’re pretty much equivalent, E=MC2 and all that but thanks to en….
 
Here. Read up on relational quantum mechanics. The short of it is you treat the measuring system differently from the system being measured. Keep those values distinct and you can measure interactions without resorting to an artificial grid to plot off of as it were.
 
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/#RelEveRelStaInt
===
 One of the strengths *and* weaknesses of relationship quantum mechanics is that’s it’s based upon the assumptions of information theory. But there’s been more than enough pragmatic support of some of the tenets of information theory (computers, data files, networking, compression and such) that it gives the potential for it to hold water and not be overly leaky.
====
  matter/anti-matter pair interacting leads to photon production. In short, if God said “let there be light” and his words started Light, then his words were a matter/anti-matter pair interacting.Of course high energy gamma rays (high energy photons) can product electrons + positrons but that’s the tricky bit: Which came first?Once the process was started, did the matter/anti-mater pairs make the photons which then collided to make matter/anti-matter pairs, or did the photons collide to make the matter-antimatter pairs to make the photons?Answer’s both really. Chain reaction. But realistically, matter makes photons. It’s common and everyday for matter to make photons.But you want photons to make matter? Not so easy for us.
====
 If I want to make photons, I just have to snap my fingers. Some electrons will move their positions and emit photons. Might even be measurable if I have the right powder on my fingers.
===
  [I bring up relational quantum mechanics because the “magic” isn’t the “nothing to something”. The “magic” is in the chain reaction.How did the first thing happen? Could be “God said” (maybe this Universe is the experiment of a 12 yr old boy in the 12th dimension) or some equally contrived tale of Universes collapsing and expanding and collapsing without end (the Universe that makes itself)… or two m-Branes sparking us off (which is again matter interacting to start it off)… .. in the end, the magic is everything from that point on. The quibble over the starting bit is a religion issue.
====
 ‘m reading it now – thanks for the link. So Dawkins REALLY wrote this?“. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.””I read two other articles, one of whom was VERY supportive of Krauss’ position, said the same thing: “Get rid of Dawkin’s afterward.”
====
  I liked Krauss a few years back ’til he got into his New Atheist kick. Before that, he was just “random physicist dude who figured out something cool” that would get interviewed now and again. But once he put on his Atheist Superhero cape on it was a bit of a turnoff.
====
  New atheist philosophy doesn’t belong in theoretical physics. Neither does any religious talk.
===
  Krauss has an agenda that the blind can see and it runs through all of his writings and he’s proud of it. That’s fine if that’s his thing but it spoils what he’s writing about.I’ll give an analogy: Have you ever known a convert to Fundamentalist Christianity? People who say “Jesus” every third sentence?Krauss has gotten that way. He wasn’t always.
====
 This “Unknown old physicist” guy set up a conference to help flesh out issues in theoretical physicists, gathering 100 of some of the biggest names (in working theoretical physics, not the guys you see on TV and write popular books) to hash these things out in the open.
====
 There’s a time and place. If I was reading a theoretical physicist who talked about Jesus every second paragraph, after a while it would be hard to read him even if he had some good ideas.
====
  He can write what he likes. But it restricts his audience the way he’s been doing it lately.
He’s become a religious writer of theoretical physics
====
  Religious as in he commonly brings in traditionally religious discussions (god / no-god, religion / no religion) into his field, the same way that a very Christian writer will freely talk about God while writing about their field (a lot of engineers are religious people for some reason, probably because the “watchmaker” thing appeals to them).
====
  I’m sure Dawkins has an entire book on it. He would. It’s his “thing”.
===
  It wasn’t always. At one time, he stuck to his field. It’s fine he’s expanded to include his philosophy about the nature of things and whatnot. I’d expect an evolutionary biologist to eventually see *everything* as a form of evolutionary biology.
—-
  I don’t have a problem with it. They’re doing philosophy. It’s when they’re calling philosophy “science” when it’s not that i take issue with.
====
  It’s not wordplay. The sciences are fields of inquiry having certain parameters and constraints. Same with philosophy. They have areas of overlap like any Venn diagram but then they are also distinct.When in the blurry area it’s important to know which is which.
=====
 That’s scientists “acting as philosophers” who are “undoing the mess”. Not acting as scientists. Philosophers.
====
 Both are sciences following the scientific methods.
===
 You’re shifting goals. Neuroscience requires psychology as basis for a number of their assumptions and then builds upon psychology. But that’s another discussion.
====
  As far as science-disproving-religion, it depends on what’s being discussed in particular and how something is being disproved.Is the earth 6000 years old? No. Is evolution the best explanation for how life happened on the planet? Yes.
====
 I doubt “religionists” (is that a real word?) bother with him if that’s what he’s doing. In short, he’s preaching to the already converted.
====
 Well, I’m not a fan of zealots, religious or otherwise. Too “in your face”.
====
 To me, as an outside to all of that, it seems like converting from one religion to another, even if one says “but we’re not a religion”. Still gives the appearance of one from the outside.
====
  I’m not religious nor am I an atheist. I’m not even trying to say “MY WAY IS BETTER THAN YOURS” here. But I find the whole need to grab people from one group and bring them into the group you like kind of odd human behavior.
=====
 That group is the wrong group. My group is the right group. If you don’t join my group, then you’re in the wrong group and you need to join the right group”.

This is what it looks like to me.

=====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 + = six

Leave a Reply