Tony,

I am working on a project that involves the modelling of visual awareness. It turns out that the the phenomenon of vision is non-photographically rendered! It sets out radially from the locus of fixation. Within the field space 'presents' as proximity cues - appreciable distance from fixation. This implicit holistic form of spatial awareness is very different to the explicit form of awareness in central vision where we contemplate objective form.

The suggestion is that the retina takes two distinct and independent data-potentials from the light array, not one! So my question to you is: could the electric and magnetic components of light experience environmental space differently and hence have enfolded with it two distinct impressions?

These distinct impressions would be 'processed' by us in entirely different ways. Intensity by rods and cones and phase through scattering, speckles, mesocopic physics and nano scale cell-to-cell communication probably using biophotons and the glial network. The structure in the retina most suited to the new implicit function appears to be the retinal Muller cell where its end-feet would 'sample' this data-potential prior to light being guided to the photoreceptors.

It's the visible side. It's hard to calculate the invisible side force from the surrounded impacts: http://drpulos.com/blog/cell-talk-or-plants-never-die/.

Photon is fundamental as a particle of energy in the longitudinal direction, but it can be decomposed into electric scalar potential and magnetic vector potential in the transverse. There is no way to separate a photon from the polarized space it passes through, which is another way to describe results of the two slit experiment.

Dear Dr. Decker,

Theoretically, you are right. But, how can you calculate the energy of the photon especially when the other creature's willing power involved and acting on it? Or, the photon belongs to a living creature's and there is the feeling involved. The feeling is another form of energy and it has its own frequency.

Frieda

Jerry

You refer to the photon being fundamental in the longitudinal direction. I've always referred to this longitudinal field as a 'phonon' and the two transverse particles as 'photons' being of different orientations, one is a 'quantum' of the electric field and the other a quantum of the magnetic field. To me each of these field particles is identical with the other two except for the orientation (direction in which the field particle spins). Can you give me your theoretical basis for what you say please?

Dear Frieda

Science is at the start of investigating the humble photon. What you refer to is what I would call a 'biophoton' and I don't think it's the same as an 'ordinary' photon. I think biophotons are very different and somehow encapsulate our spirits, our conscious thoughts, our feelings, etc, etc. They are in addition to what the biophysical sciences currently think, and are not really considered by many biophysicists. But I'm one who does think like you, but those 'special photons' are different to what occurs inside atoms.

kind regards Tony

Dear Tony,

It's so interesting. I am so glad that the invisible world is gradually being noticed in the science world. Thanks for your sharing!

Frieda

It would be worth starting a similar thread about the electron.

Wether photon or electron, these are supposed to be tiny compared to other particles behind unified physics quest.

One aspect of the *composite* between photon and electron internal structure: obviously when the electron falls its level to get closer from nucleus (i.e. Hydrogen atom), it will liberate a photon... what is the real physical or bio-physical or animated effect in charge of this effect including the bio-photons !

Yes I agree Albert, our ideas about 'elementary' particles were conceived when quantum theory was seen as the only solution to atomic problems. We now know that there are more ways to obtain the atomic solutions than just quantum theory; it is interesting that the deterministic solutions of self-field theory agree with quantum theory except for the physical (and indeed biophysical) implications.

Our methods of microscopy have been growing in the same manner as our telescopes. Soon we will perhaps be able to observe what we now suspect theoretically. Of course this takes time and science will have to keep on trying to do better. As Jerry says our current understanding is based on quantum theory with its Copenhagen Interpretation which I for one don't buy.

"From 1923 to 1926 using a 100 inch telescope atMount Wilson Observatory, Hubble discovered that the local group “stars” were in fact other galaxies outside our Milky Way. Similarly the discovery of structure within the photon is an extension of our physical knowledge at the very small end of the size spectrum. It appears there is an identifiable organization behind the structure of photons and other field particles, bosons, known to particle physics. Previously thought to be “elementary,” the composite structure of ordinary photons appears similar to that of the hydrogen atom obeying a similar SFT system of equations. This provides a “photon chemistry,” similar to atomic chemistry, to explain some features of bosons including W+,W− and Z 0 bosons of the electroweak force and gluons of the strong nuclear force. Phonons also sit under this theoretical umbrella and a stoichiometric equation can be written in terms of gluons, photons and phonons. Three gluons rotating in three orthogonal directions fit within a modified system of Maxwell–Lorentz equations providing a basis for a dynamic solution inside nuclear regions."

extracted from Self-Field Theory: A New Mathematical Description of Physics, Tony Fleming Pan Stanford Publishing www.panstanford.com

Tony,

I am working on a project that involves the modelling of visual awareness. It turns out that the the phenomenon of vision is non-photographically rendered! It sets out radially from the locus of fixation. Within the field space 'presents' as proximity cues - appreciable distance from fixation. This implicit holistic form of spatial awareness is very different to the explicit form of awareness in central vision where we contemplate objective form.

The suggestion is that the retina takes two distinct and independent data-potentials from the light array, not one! So my question to you is: could the electric and magnetic components of light experience environmental space differently and hence have enfolded with it two distinct impressions?

These distinct impressions would be 'processed' by us in entirely different ways. Intensity by rods and cones and phase through scattering, speckles, mesocopic physics and nano scale cell-to-cell communication probably using biophotons and the glial network. The structure in the retina most suited to the new implicit function appears to be the retinal Muller cell where its end-feet would 'sample' this data-potential prior to light being guided to the photoreceptors.

Dear Tony and John,

Thanks for sharing. It's a brand new world.

Frieda

John

That's pretty good biophysics for a mere artist!! (lots of laughs) Believe it or not, I'm involved with just this question; does the human eye have a peripheral vision and a centre of vision: we see the famous Shroud of Turin as a 'negative' image and not a positive image. Question is 'Why?' And I was talking about rods (or cylinders) and cones in that discussion too. I imagine and perhaps you can help me: does the retina have a different form of 'capture' for the central vision than the peripheral vision?

In answer to your question: I can imagine that the central vision is related to electric fields while the peripheral vision could well be associated with magnetic fields.

Hi Tony

I have been at this for some time - modelling visual awareness!

The term 'peripheral vision' tells us all we need to know about the Western approach to investigation - it's explicit in nature and the rest is meaningless? However 90% of phenomenal field is not a degraded form of central vision. There is no information structure 'blur' (it's disorder), no motion blur, no depth of field, no frames, no frames per-second, no pictures and as there are no picture to call up then there is no binocular fusion. So called peripheral vision is a highly significant if not foundational capability to 'contextualise' the world. It's prior-to what occurs to us in central vision. We instantly understand where things are - this form of spatial awareness is not gained by working out occlusion cues and perspective cues having worked out what all the objects are that surround us - way too slow.

What we attend to through central vision would have very little meaning if it were not for the other 90% providing the context for it to appear within. In central vision we track motion, in contract we attend to contextual space holistically in flow. The radial field factors us into our presentations of vision via self-reference. There is a reason why our nose sticks out in front of us!

Central vision and contextual vision are in my opinion totally different ecologies. We need both to infer 'where' we are and 'what' we are attending to. The 'measure' is in neither one. None of our current forms of information display do this because we don't understand how it's achieved or even why it occurs. We don't know what's involved in us being 'objective'. That's some oversight. If we can't plot our way out of our heads we are not doing physics - we are playing at it? What do the records from our current data-capture technologies mean? What's absent?

There are some words on my RG page if you are interested. Below a rather long list of on-line presentations. As far as I can workout, it's those retinal Muller cells with their end-feet just beneath the surface of the retina feeding a data-potential through cell-to-cell activity that are key. Then the glial network?

If you have any more info from me please pass it through. There is a Vision-Space project on RG that you may also like to take a look at.

Tony - It would appear that your Self Field would equate to Vision-Space's 'all possibilities field'? There's a 'perceptual structure' behind experiential awareness that we are generating. The point about studying phenomenal field is that it implies that there's implicit spatial data to be presented/unfolded from the light array (probably related to phase and not intensity).

Making anything from this external data-potential REQUIRED us to generate a comparable structure for it to unfold/playout within. This is why I came up with the notion of the foundational structure to awareness being QM by proxy. Our relationship to external EM was made possible by us setting up a system to 'pick' it based on EM and involving SOC and dynamical systems? If any of that is going to be meaningful then the retina must be involved in something we have yet to 'observe' or at least understand beyond dismissing it as 'noise'.

We won't observe it until we change from exclusively using a 3rd party ontology and adopt the experiential ontology. We need to study the structure of the phenomenon as it occurs to us. This is actually what artists do (well the useful ones!), we render visible aspects of visual awareness that simply don't occur to our instrumentation. Artist supply us with a crib sheet if we take their work seriously and know how to use it.

That's really good stuff John. So I guess there's a lot of computer graphics, or 'novel photography' involved in your work?

I've just watched the first video on 'vision space' vs 'picture space' and the salient points are well made John.

I can see how electric fields may be a way of defining the position of an object by direct magnification. At the same time, magnetic fields could be involved in how the motion of the object varies across space.

If we look at the shapes of the rods and cones they follow this arrangement of photons on the retina. The rods are working out the magnetic field within each 'pixel' (which will give the eye a knowledge of the object's speed), while the electric field is characterizing the position of the object rather than its speed!!

I worked with a computational vision scientist Jan Koenderink (physics and astronomy background), computer gaming programmers and computer scientists. Our post production tool 'illustrates' aspects of visual awareness by mimicking perceptual structure. It was just a first step (I had to write patents and raise investment to do this). We know what we need to do next and move to a programming architecture that deploys aspects of neural firing and phase activity etc. i.e. move to a dynamical system that 'generates' the outcomes.

We need to construct a real-time engine where the 'picture' is never formed! No output frames. (no bloody conceptual inertial frames either etc etc!).

We would need to set up an all possibilities field that we feed segmented data from the environment into. Paradigm shift.

The TRIZ system for evaluating patents identifies Vision-Space as a level 4/5 breakthrough. A paradigm shift with over 200 commercial applications across 12 industries. Seriously disruptive technology. Not that anyone was interested enough to fund it's further development or ongoing R&D! Apparently "there is no appetite for this sort of thing you know!"

The thing about rods is that they are saturated at photopic levels. They are intensity receptors. The Muller cell is more interesting. It could be 'feeling-up!' (pressure) the light as it guides it to the photoreceptors. It would be this function that's operational at photopic levels and only when the luminance levels fall away (scotopic) and the pressure reading becomes impossibleto maintain /too unreliable do the rods start to function.

John you mentioned 'potentials' in a previous post; I'm presuming this is a cellular membrane potential?

I think you should read my paper on fields within the cell cycle:

Conference Paper A range of fields over the spectrum in a cell colony may con...

What should I read of yours next?

It is interesting to start thinking bio-centered, the only way to step forwards.

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the ref: I am reading though some of your work as best I can. I just don't have the math but try to find my way through.

'Potentials': I think the all possibilities field of VS has to be linked to homeostasis? If you look at the paintings the sky are not to empty i.e. blue backdrops. They are full - a medium. So the default setting is firing off 'all possibilities' until data from the environment is segmented by visual processing to 'specific values'. Corresponding small areas of the all possibilities field we are generating suppress the random firing to register specific spatial values.

I use data potentials in place of 'signal'. There is no 'signal in the light array - it's a data potential. Signals are sent by a sender and receiver sharing a common code. Signals are exchanges between sentient beings. This is non trivial. i.e a branch falling in a forest make no sound if there is no one there to hear it. The sentient being is the resonator.

Dear John

"The sentient being is the resonator".

Maybe the whole universe is sentient ....then there would be signals not data potentials... every action has a reaction being one of the laws.This means that even a branch falling does not go unnoticed.

Warm regards Tina

Hi Tina,

It's possible but out of my league. We form a relationship with the real and that is reality (as distinct from the physically real).

However, if the basis of VS has merit (I bloody hope it does as I spent decades of unpaid time of it!) we receive two primary data potentials from light. We have to 'infer' between them to establish the measure (hence the measurement problem - conceptually we haven't encountered the implicit data-potential so neither has our instrumentation). It's not a matter of addition or alignment. (what and where). So if these two are data-potentials the basis of any 'signal' from the universe involving light would be the inference we generate from dealing with them.

The possibility for the involvement of the universe would come through the implicit. This had to fire us up in the first place. The processes that make us who we are were generated in response to the universe.

Dear John,

"We form a relationship with the real and that is reality (as distinct from the physically real)."

This presupposes a duality - and if it isn´t - if there is just one Being of which we all are?

Maybe one of the properties of that one Being is sentience?

Hope this finds some resonance in you - but it is easier to understand through inner investigation which eventually culminates in experience

With warmth - tina

(PS you line of investigation regarding vision is really interesting)

Dear Tina,

The proof will be in the pudding as it were. We know we have two visual pathways and if the Muller cell functions in response to speckles created by a spatial medium then Bob's your uncle!.

Dear Tina and John

The Big Bang may be the ultimate in resonance structures. We humans were made to resonate with the structures around us and that certainly includes our Sun and Moon (many biological studies to that effect). We also resonate with the Galaxy. How our biology relates to phonons within the Galactic structure was to give vertebrate structures their solidity, same as so-called 'dark matter' gave the Milky Way its solidity over evolutionary time periods.

Conference Paper Self-field Theory-biodiversity May Be a Resonance Process

I also found this paper " Muller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina "

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/20/8287.full.pdf

Tony,

This is perhaps as far as we can go in that direction but what VS ultimately implies about the big bang needs to be through about. I think the critical thing to get some handles on perceptual structure. Our ability to conceptualise emerges from it but our experiential awareness and the human umwelt depends on it.

I am not interested in God and the notion that light has two orientations for us as macro bodies with a mental facility working on the micro/nano scale fired up by light is not related to the question of 'oneness of being', just that we need both data-potentials to make the judgments we need to operate in the environment. It does suggest, as far as I can determine, that the physical universe is likely to be composite.

Light having a physical presence in both camps? It's this that embeds us into the universe in the special way that we are?

Ultimately, it's about consciousness. as long as this is not understood we must try to prove it. A good start is with autopoiesis, synchronicities, coincidences, the appearance and disappearance of time.

Medical Definition of pareidolia: tendency to perceive a specific, often meaningful, image in a random or ambiguous visual pattern. The human brain is optimized to recognize faces, which could also explain why we are so good at picking out meaningful shapes in random patterns.

In terms of the Shroud of Turin there are patterns that appear to some to be coins, letters and numbers. See Paolo Di Lazzaro, Daniele Murra and Barrie Schwortz

http://www.frascati.enea.it/fis/lac/excimer/sindone/2012_12_ENEA.pdf

The question is whether these images seen on the Shroud are pareidolia or subliminal (low level) images. These are the two sides of the same coin.

Dear Tony

Thanks for the references - I will take a look - I have already read some of your work and it interests me. But I am not very much pro the Big Bang theory - I have a paper coming up which once it is published, will give my reasons why.

Kind regards Tina

Hi Tina, John and All

Many thanks to you both. Allow me to speculate. I think you are both seemingly involved in 'perception', perhaps even 'artistic perception' but from a scientific perspective. And there is no doubt that 'light' (and 'sound') is involved in our individual artistic perception. As a former working musician (Beatles-like band) when I was young I am keenly interested in this amazing sense we have within us; there nothing too grandiose in this but my parents were both opera singers Verdi, Turandot, Carmen, etc; I gave up this artistic life for the cut and thrust of physics and mathematics because I felt the various demands on an artist were too great.

So I appreciate your angles on light. However...

This question was originally written to discuss the numbers of variables in the photon. It's a mathematical assumption at the heart of quantum thinking. I mentioned 'qubit's in the question because it's the bedrock of cryptographic reasoning about methods of encryption, as well as methods of 'quantum computing'. It is apparent that it may well be wrong to continue to think the photon is fundamental or 'elemental'. In my mathematics (read my papers) it seems the photon is composite; it has sub-structure.

I've been mentioning the Big Bang (or as John would say 'the big bang') because I have reason to think that the original blackbody radiation theory discovered by Planck in about 1899 is based on the same theory as quantum theory. It's a question about mathematical history. As in all things, history plays a good part of the resolution of the problem; 'those who don't learn the lessons of history...'.

That is the real heart of the original question.

However, I am also fascinated with John's work in trying to nail down visual perception; apart from anything else John it is 'synchronistic' and 'coincidental' with a study of the Shroud of Turin I am currenty involved with in working on a hypothesis about how the image of what is called 'Turin-Shroud Man' came about, and how that image came to be like a 'negative photo'.

Such a conflagration of ideas!!

Tony,

You are right we should get focused!

The reason I went off on the VS thing is related. If we have two orientations towards light - intensity and phase from perhaps electric and magnetic components - and neither holds the measure, the measure being a matter of inference WE take complex biosystems, then we have to be careful with the data that our current information gathering devices record for us. We have do consider that an entire data-potential is missing! Also that light can't bring us a 'true' fix. A true 'fix' has to be inferred from both data-potentials. This is what I mean about the importance about plotting a way out of our heads. It's counter productive to take us out of an act of observation. Until we get this right - the ontology and the insights - we should not let our current instrumentation stand in for us and develop physical theory from its records (however powerful,accurate/finely tuned they are). There are people challenging red shift etc.

Article Mathematical Theory Of Cosmological Redshift in a Static Lob...

So I agree with you - the insight is fundamental. The trick is to understand that and apply it. Hence the first perceptual technology - Vision-Space. I should point out that the radial field with 'fixation' (locus setting capability) includes audition!

PS. Both my parents were doctors - doctors in the family for generations and no artists. I was put down to do physics, chemistry and biology for 'A levels' and had to physically sit in Art, English (I am dyslexic!) and History until they all gave up! Why: because it was clear that in science classes I was going to be told what and how to think. In theory that makes us a good team!

So I guess with respect to the question. Does the photon as a form of energy, become composite as it traverses macro space and the various mediums constituting it and which influences nature?

Does it start off belonging entirely in one (micro) domaine but as it passes through space, pick up enough influences from the other (macro) to constitute it as having a form of existence in both?

Is it this that requires us to have evolved a system with 2 visual pathways to deal with the data-structures from each component. The tales they individually tell about the environment ?

I try to look at these issues in the written work:

"Having the courage of your perceptions"

"The experiential ontology"

Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real – Part 2 https://youtu.be/hbFtIIHOQ9Y

If we are tracing matter back to its origin (BB) via photons and the 'intensity' related record takes time to become 'evident or form' (i.e there wasn't a medium to travel through) could we require an inflation period to explain the situation? Is this a form of optical illusion?

If it were possible to understand/compile the situation from the implicit phase point of view what would that look like and would we be a able to infer anything more meaningful from looking at both accounts?

It is a good question. According to me a photon may be fundamental or not.

A photon can be split into two photons. Because photon is consists of a group of waves or wave packets. Since it can be split, in this way it is not fundamental.

But the photon created after splitting are also photons whose properties are same as parent photon. In this point of view photon is fundamental.

Hi Dibyendu,

Perhaps we need to look closely at what is meant by split? To whom was it split? In terms of what technology/experimental circumstance? In terms of the photon itself, was it split? Are we looking at a conditions of contingent or non-contingent measurement? Are we system bound with the photon or following/permitting only the detached 3rd party ontology? What is our relationship to situation under observation? What is our relationship to the records our instrumentation provide? Can we assume the validity of direct observation in all circumstances?

"According to me a photon may be fundamental or not."

I am straying from the specifics of your comment but its still relevant I think. The 'me' bit is important.

I think the retina, our visual system and perceptual structure work with with outcomes from both circumstances? The photon is fundamental in terms of the micro system it belongs to but in terms of our macro spatial context it can be engineered that it has an orientation/presence in both.

The subjective world is inextricably with us. If it isn't it will eventually turn out that we are lost?

John said some time ago: "The suggestion is that the retina takes two distinct and independent data-potentials from the light array, not one! So my question to you is: could the electric and magnetic components of light experience environmental space differently and hence have enfolded with it two distinct impressions? "

This is the nub of your question; my answer is a resounding ABSOLUTELY. If you look at my work on the cell cycle attached you'll see that there are both magnetic fields and electric fields are both involved in the timing of the cell cycle.

BOTH fields are involved initially by diffusion of dipolar integral membrane proteins that are involved in charge separation within individual cells. The electric field is seen via the extracellular ionic currents which induces a mutual electric field at the plasma membranes of all cells. This causes the dipolar proteins in the plasma membranes to ROTATE within the membranes. This causes a feedback between these rotating proteins in many cells inducing mutual magnetic fields in a cell colony. So initially there's a mutual diffusion between cells in two DISTINCT ways; two different rotations for each field ( a 'bispinor'). There's a lot more within the cell cycle about how electric and magnetic fields are produced but this to here is the start of the way the endogenous E- and H-fields are produced within biological tissues.

Although I didn't involve self-field theory in the paper attached below, the one I want you to read, this is indeed SFT within each cell and within the cell colony.

Conference Paper A range of fields over the spectrum in a cell colony may con...

Dear Dibyendu Chatterjee

Thank you for your comment. I think you're possibly right; think of this: the biological cell can become two cells via mitosis or meiosis. If what I'm saying about the insides of the photon having substructure, and the 'biophoton' having a bit more substructure than the 'ordinary' photon, then can the biophoton act like a biological cell and replicate into two biophotons?

In terms of the Big Bang we know that energy cannot be created as Guth taught us in the 1980's; but bosons are dipolar and hence energy may not be created.

This is really interesting Tony. I tried to read the article you pointed us to a few days ago. I am not equipped to take on board this level of expertise. The tactic I use is to read what I can and let that brew for a while then read again and then again. Eventually I both get some form of orientation both in terms of the article and also Vision-Space!

In terms of BB and cosmology (about which I know sod all by the way) is that when we encounter the limits of our model we 'invent' or 'evoke' huge forces and energies to keep on track. Actually there is nothing wrong with this as we are articulating as if by negative, aspects of the oversight and this is useful if not essential. The activity provokes the necessary introspection to come up with solutions where they are not required as opposed to 'explained' by the existing model.

This could be seen as a very fatuous remark of course!

Hi John

I'm watching your well made video called " Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real - part 2". I'm seeing how we (you and I) are saying the same thing!! My mathematics says that quantum theory is 'missing the magnetic fields'. In the same way as you say our photographic devices are missing the magnetic field.

But it goes much further which might interest your parents. The eye (retina) does collect the magnetic diffusion in normal sighted people. I'm wondering if autism is a failure of the rods so these sufferers only see the central part of the vision and are occluded from the 'real'; their reality is tunnel vision with no perception of velocities of objects around them!!

Good! That's a hook up. I have only been looking for this for 30-40 years!

Keep going with the presentations. They all make some sort of new point - but I can't prove any of it and the research funders won't permit the premise - subjectivity is non-compliant with science! How stupid is that?

I try to make the point with respect to ASD and even Alzheimers in these two presentations:

Typical and atypical perceptual structures

Potential links to ASD and stroke related conditions

http://youtu.be/Pss3UOoiuyQ

Health implications of non-perceptually
structured content and screen technology
http://youtu.be/6gizIuLL9mg

Its not a trivial matter. Our current technology that's not perceptually structured could be the biggest health issue ever? I think its all highly logical.

Also ty this one that gets the most hits on Frontiers

The protagonists http://youtu.be/516mjrU3aC0

The business that goes on between Rods, Cones, Gap junctions, Muller cells, IPRGanglion Cells is exceptionally complex. The more the relationships are studied the more interaction becomes evident and the complexity level raises and we get no closer to understanding the experiential phenomenon that actually occurs to us.

So I take a different line. I start with the structure of the phenomenon and seek to understand the retina via the encounter - I adopt an experiential ontology.

It's logically clear to me that there is a non-neuronal function taking place at photopic light levels that's foundational. This would acknowledge the saturation of rods at photopic levels but would imply a relationship between saturated rods, Muller cell activity and cell-to-cell coms. If this isn't bad enough it also implies that we are taking 'something' other that intensity related information from the light array.

We as complex biological systems have a relationship with light that none of our current forms of technology engages with. We are embedded in the universe in ways that it is not. This should not be a surprise really?

If Vision-Space is correct about this then nothing remains the same? This is why and how the Vision-Space technology can be identified by the TRIZ process as representing a paradigm shift for all forms of information display. Also for data-capture as far as I can see? What do all the records taken by our current forms of technology actually mean?

Tony,

I have just sat down to your web site - Unified Physics. Thanks for the link. Your ability to sum up highly complex issues is both helpful and suggests that the underlying theory can scale etc.

The helpful bit is that it enables hight level comparison and overlay with conceptualisations appearing from other disciplines. So I quickly noticed this: "At its most basic level SFT is a new field theory that allows us to zoom in on particles and see them as 'self-fields'."

This does overlay with what Vision-Space suggests but there are differences that may just be a matter of semantics?  

The principle issue is with the phrase 'zoom in'. The structure of the phenomenon of vision is composite - two independent data-sets are involved that can't be reconciled so have to be 'juxtapositioned' as opposed to 'integrated'. Via decoherence or mesoscopic scattering/phase and intensity detection we are in possession of two independent data-potentials that we propagate into two-takes-on the real. Light has embedded within it two 'experiences' of the environment that we can tap into. Probably related to the magnetic and electrical components to the photon and their 'environmental conditioning' as it passes through space.

Neither one of these data-potentials carries 'the measure'. This having to be inferred from both by the sentient being. This process ensures that we have to develop a relationship with the real as opposed to organising the transposition of a record.

So 'zoom in' has to the wrong metaphor? It reenforces the notional reductionism? The point is we can't zoom! The relationship of micro light to our marco environment makes that impossible. We need to appreciate the nature of the relationship we have with light if we want to to use it effectively at remote scales or learn how to penetrate what is currently 'dark' to us.

"Hence in SFT there is no need for any 'dark matter'."

I like this! Do I take it that to find a way into what's envisaged to be 'dark matter' we need to look into the structure of the photon and what that's telling us? I think we need to be looking very closely at the retinal membrane in order that we can see and understand other membranes?

The seeing of 'self fields' is kind of empathetic? Knowing what we are required to be in order to understand the reality of another. We have to dematerialise to some extent to momentarily become/understand something other. But it is something other! A different dimension? Our universe is spatially composite and the photon develops some sort of basis in our dimension as well as the one it's aligned to? Perhaps this is the origin of the BB?

The linkage will be an expression of 'interacting fields' however. How could it be anything else?

Albert You are ahead of me by about a few hours!!

I agree there's a wealth of knowledge we've uncovered by working together. Actually it was John who hijacked us with his wonderful ideas.

I'll think up a question in a day or two if you want.

Hi Tony et al,

I have been trying to tie something together and posted this on the VS project:

Should we be looking at the role of carotenoids in the retina? Concentrations are seen in the Muller cell but they are also present in rods and cones? Could they be link between light and a chemical response to light that gets incorporated into the visual response within the retina? i.e. they are not just involved in the the visual cycle and health related issues. Could they be involved in rods at photopic levels where they are deemed saturated with respect to their photoreceptive function? There is a link again with blue light - carotenoids 'filter' it out. Is blue light the area of the spectrum that's linked with implicit spatial awareness?

Blue light and magnetism have a linkage.

I am a tourist in the fields of course (no pun intended!)

"The universe is great and amazing. It can be as big as no boundary or as small as the Plnck P length, denoted lP, equal to 1.6161199(97) x 10 'to the power of -35) meters that contains ultimate mystery and fun. You may bounce between them as freely as you wish." is my view to the universe.

Hi Frieda,

I think there are membranes the mechanics of which we must understand as they will help us acknowledge it's structure/fabric?

The membrane is the boundary. To the tangible things, it's the surface for none living stuffs. For living stuffs, it's the cell membrane. To the invisible world, it's the limitation of our thinking and acts. Willing power can penetrate it. Ethics can melt it out or away.

The membrane is the interface? It's business?

Tony Fleming

First of all, what is the Photon?

Einstein introduced quanta to knock electron from atom when he solved the photoelectric effect in 1905, it was opposed by most scientists, till he was rescued by Compton in 1923, who claimed electromagnetic radiation contain quantum (photon), with momentum p=hv/c, but this important formula is found to be derived from Einstein mass energy equivalent with Planck's radiation formula, and his claim is proved to be untrue, and the formula of momentum used by Compton can't remove electron from atom, because it's a formula for particle with mass, meaning photon doesn’t exist, this is tackled in:

"Compton was Greatly Mistaken Using the Quantum"

Researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322835620_Compton_was_Greatly_Mistaken_Using_the_Quantum

Since this is the backbone of quantum mechanics, then the question is how did this state occurred? It’s thought there were three historical mistakes which allowed such fault to happened.

When Orstead discovered the relation between magnetism and electricity in 1820, the first mistake occurred when Ampere presented his formula based on electric components, although it was correct mathematically, but since dynamical activities occurred between magnetism due to the production of magnetic field, then a dynamic solution exist, we presented this in “The Magnetic Interaction”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215870160_The_Magnetic_Interaction

To understand the micro-world, you need to better understand the electromagnetic radiation, how the electric and magnetic fields integrated to form electromagnetic radiation, this was not solved by Maxwell, although scientists thought he solved what been developed by QE, which was the second mistake, this is resolved through the Flip-Flop mechanism in “The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266143373_The_Electromagnetic_Radiation_Mechanism

The radiation energy, it’s relation with Planck constant, condition to start radiation are given in “Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271703848_Electromagnetic_Radiation_Energy_and_Planck'_Constant

As Planck’s formula gives us the radiation energy, there is a magnetic force embedded in radiation, Einstein and his contemporary scientists couldn’t get it, instead of looking for the formula, thy invoked photon, that was the third mistake, the force is named the Radiation Magnetic Force (FmR) given by Eq. (24), in: “The Photoelectric Effects: Radiation Based With Atomic Model”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274509898_The_Photoelectric_Effects-Radiation_Based_With_Atomic_Model

When the above magnetic force formula FM=B1 B2 r^2 c, is known, and above electromagnetic radiation is known and the above Eq. (24) is known, then the Compton effect is solved as suggested by the Indian scientist Raman a century ago, as the reproduction of secondary electromagnetic radiation, as given in: “The Compton Effect Re-Visited”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299347018_The_Compton_Effect_Re-Visited

While the Double Slit Experiment which Richard Feynman said it’s impossible to be solved classically, it’s solved in: “The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307122920_The_Double_Slit_Experiment_Re-Explained

The last experiment for wave particle duality is the electron Diffraction, we solve this in: “Electron Diffraction Re-Explained (The Intense Magnetic Field Interaction with Crystals)”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308947884_Electron_Diffraction_Re-Explained_The_Intense_Magnetic_Fields_Interactions_within_Crystals

Einstein wrote before his death "All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to the answer to the question: What are light quants (photon)? Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself." (Developing ideas about photons: since the first paper about photoelectric effect by Einstein in 1905, AAPPS Bulletin Vol. 15, No.1, 2005.).

So, why Einstein couldn’t know photon? This is simply because photon doesn’t exist, it’s the reason why we didn’t need photon in all the above mechanisms, and Einstein spent the 50 years thinking about it in vain, because of the above three historical mistakes which hindered the physical truth!

For those who want to consider the 'photon' as well as other 'elementary' particles as composite objects made up of two alleged fundamental building blocks of 'matter' ( and 'radiation' ) this project

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Hypotron-Theory

might be of interest.