Why does time have a direction? .... Is there a single possible past? Is the present moment physically distinct from the past and future, or is it merely an emergent property of consciousness?
What can you tell me about the arrow of time and the present moment?
Rather than, 'the present moment is an emergent property of consciousness,' it is that consciousness is an emergent property of the present moment.
Everything exists outward from the present moment. The present moment is a frequency.
The frequency of the present moment is a complex of all frequencies. How can this be? When your science opens its mind, it will discover it.
The arrow of time points outward from the present moment.
Humans only get stuck in pain when they get stuck in time.
You get stuck in time because you over-emphasize observing and measuring. Rather, balance this with intuitively feeling. Develop your sense of intuition as you developed your capacity for reasoning.
Atom, molecule, cell — what is beyond the organism? It is not the end of the line after all. After the organism is the super organism.
Human experience is the present moment unfolding, the out-raying of the divine when the frequency of the present moment is understood as the divine.
Humans are to the super organism as the microbe is to the human body.
Flow state is going with the unfolding of the present moment.
Have no resistance to the unfolding.
The frequency complex of the present moment has designed itself to be undetectable except by conscious agreement and relation. That means aligning with its frequency.
Forcing anything (including particles) to bend to a stronger will is a violation of the qualities, principles, properties of the present moment, which include request, agreement and cooperation.
Consciousness is the quality of being conscious — and what better exemplifies being conscious than the present moment?
Awareness is a mirroring property of consciousness. You are aware you are conscious. This enables consciousness to recognize itself through human senses.
The present moment is meant to be seen, heard, felt, recognized, and bonded with, by its manifestations as it unfolds. Its manifestations are many. The present moment is the same in all of them, across all universes and dimensions.
PeterDonis Gary Smith said: ↑ From the NAUTILUS article
P. - This is not a valid source for discussion here; it's not a textbook or peer-reviewed paper. You can find lots of opinions about matter and consciousness, but without some kind of experimental testability, they're philosophy, not physics, and this is a physics forum.
fresh_42 A wave is a form of energy transmission. This can be interrupted, absorbed, created and so on. So the question is indeed, what kind of wave are you thinking of?
sophiecentaur Independently of what? You can have a hypothetical wave that exists purely in Maths but any Physical wave has to be in the form of some variations of a quantity and that quantity needs to be measurable and 'there'. If you can't measure or detect it then it doesn't exist.
Gravitational Waves have only recently been shown to exist. Before some valid detection was achieved, they only 'existed' in our theories.
fresh_42 This is mined territory! I want to remind participants (in advance) that we don't debate philosophical questions, the more as we already have plenty of threads, in which the question about the connection between "existence" and "measurement", resp. "observation" is discussed. Our search engine will be of help to all who are interested in following this path.
The distinction is easy: measurement / observation = physics ; existence / real = philosophy.
Gary R Smith I am referring to the often posted references to waves such as in wave/particle duality. One was in a quote by a physicist:
If I have to express quantum physics only in one phrase, it will be: wave particle duality of nature. Rest is the detail.
Weirdoguy Too bad "wave-particle duality" is an outdated concept since like 1925-26... You won't find it in quantum mechanics, nor in QFT.
berkeman You can have a stationary wave, or "Standing Wave", like the waves on a guitar string that generate traveling sound waves...
Gary R Smith An atom of oxygen can be suspended in air, yes? Can a wave be suspended independently? Or does it need to be generated?
rootone Oxygen in air is largely O2 molecules, and it exists in the air with other gases, mostly N2, but there are significant other components of air, water vapor being one.
The atmosphere does have waves in it, like the sea does, we call it weather systems.
The air on Earth is for now though a fairly predictable mix. H20 content being of most interest for practical stuff like agriculture.
DennisN G. - I also read that photons are particles without mass.
D. - That is correct. But also note that when talking about particles on this level (e.g. elementary particles), "particle" does not mean a classical object with a specified size (like let's say a small ball, a grain of sand or a dust particle), it means an object behaving according to the rules of quantum mechanics.
nasu N. - 'Initially I thought you read about these atom traps where atoms are slowed down or even at rest for some time.' G. - No, I guess not. Suspended would imply it is stationary or not moving by its own force. Are atoms always in motion, like a bullet? As I understood, they have spin, mass and charge. But motion?
N. - The molecules of the air around us (most of them are oxygen and nitrogen molecules) have speeds around 500 m/s (average). This is higher than the speed of sound in the air. The atoms in a solid vibrate about their equilibrium positions. Some of them may do this billions of time per second. It is very difficult indeed to find an atom that does not move (in respect to other surrounding atoms).
PeterDonis Chemical bonds, like the bond between the oxygen atoms in an O2 molecule, are ultimately due to electromagnetic interactions, since that is the interaction involved in determining the quantum mechanical states of electrons in atoms and molecules. But there are no similar states involved in EM waves (assuming you mean waves traveling in free space, not EM interactions between charged particles)--EM wave states are free states, not bound states.
G. - What you wrote is helpful, it gives me some picture. I did not mean a chemical bond between waves. What I am trying to understand is if waves can in some way combine to create a 'complex' of waves. It seems not so [at least from what is known by QM.] They are, in the case of 'EM interactions between charged particles' carrying energy between particles. Do they also carry information?
There are EM waves occurring within an atom, between charged particles, is that accurate?
My understanding is very elementary, my interest is very specific (as I am headed somewhere with my line of questioning), and I am very appreciative of helpful responses.
G. - There are EM waves occurring within an atom, between charged particles, is that accurate?
P. - Not the way I think you mean, no. The electromagnetic interaction between the electrons and the nucleus in the atom, and between the electrons themselves if there are more than one, is highly significant in determining the behavior of the atom; but there is no useful sense in which that interaction can be described as "EM waves" like those you would use to analyze, say, the operation of a radio antenna.
G. - My interest is very specific (as I am headed somewhere with my line of questioning)
P. - It would be helpful if you would describe where you are headed, but I also suspect it would tread close to the line of the PF rules against personal speculations. If that is in fact the case, it should be another sign to you of the limitations of your apparent learning technique. It's really, really, really, really hard to come up with a useful new idea if you don't understand what is currently known and how that knowledge is organized theoretically. I don't know of any way to gain such an understanding without learning by reading--a lot. I'm sorry if that sounds negative, but I have to tell it like I see it.
PeterDonis said: It would be helpful if you would describe where you are headed, but I also suspect it would tread close to the line of the PF rules against personal speculations.
G. - Exactly. I am constrained by having had three threads closed and receiving warnings against speculation and philosophy.
Where I am headed is described in my PF profile, but I don't expect you to read it.
PeterDonis said: I don't know of any way to gain such an understanding without learning by reading--a lot. I'm sorry if that sounds negative, but I have to tell it like I see it.
G. - I appreciate honesty and don't take it as negative. My dad was a professor, a man of science and pragmatism. We never understood each other fully, but always respected and loved each other. Even with freedom to write, I might never convince you that I am not in need of book learning. I just have my own way and it works for me when I can get specific answers as you and others in the PF have generously given me.
PF Profile of Gary Smith
My dad was a professor of Wildlife Biology and Ecology at Colorado State University, and I grew up in a household dominated by academic and scientific thinking.
Yet from early childhood, my natural attraction was to the mystical. In my teens, I was more interested in metaphysics than in physics.
For sixty years my central interest has been consciousness, even before I knew the word. For most of those years my explorations have been intellectual or philosophical, reflected in my writings. But in recent months, I am drawn away from conceptual only and toward practical application in daily life.
In recent weeks, my explorations have stretched my comfort zone to consider such questions as 'Is matter conscious?' and 'If so, is it possible for humans to communicate with the consciousness of matter?' and 'If so, can such communications be tested to make them more objectively understood and applied?'
The implications of conscious matter which can be communicated with have to be right up there with the most significant discoveries/breakthroughs of science. If it is disproved, I accept it. My first priority is to know the truth.
And why not explore and test these questions within the framework of accepted science? Does science not search for intelligent life on other planets? Is it so out of bounds to search for consciousness as honestly, within the inner planes of the microcosm?
Physics seeks to understand the physical nature of things, which is why it avoids the non-physical. If the present moment is discovered to be a frequency or complex of frequencies, would that not make it physical and a subject of physics?
Physics seeks to understand by faithfully recording observations and measurements. If Data of Star Trek had sought to understand humans only be observing and measuring them, he would have remained a robot, a mechanical android. But he sought to understand humans by experiencing what it is like to be human, and from this felt experience he gained qualities of humanness.
When mental barriers to seeking to understand what it is to be a stone, to see from a stone's awareness, are lowered, when the observer becomes a humble participant, there is at least a possibility of gaining experiential understanding which can also be subjected to scientific methods for proving higher degrees of objectivity — not to gain qualities of stone-ness — but of what underlies the world and universe in which we live.
I propose a new branch of science: Conscious Physics.