i think this was the same subject maybe a different source?
if i found the right source it is the term 'photonic chemistry'
or 'photonic atoms' but these might be different than my original?
Quote:
The group has been experimenting, for example, with larger photonic
molecules (Figure 2), which might be used to make waveguides that
steer certain wavelengths of light down particular paths—a function
useful in optical telecommunications.
Whether photonic chemistry will ever match the productivity or
richness of electronic chemistry remains to be seen. Since photonic
atoms are less dynamic than real atoms—they are, after all, fixed to
a semiconductor substrate—it isn't clear how one could produce real-
time "reactions." But even if practical applications are elusive,
the most lasting effect of the work may be that it provokes further
creative extensions of a scientific metaphor with an illustrious past
and a bright future.—Daniel B. Radov
everything is true, the opposite of everything is also true
We are talking about the Universal Entropy. If you read carefully the article you will realize that all "entropies" are conected and can be transformed into each other. And can be used at different physical scales, from quantum to cosmological. In fact, black holes have entropy at the even horizon. We know those fellows are laureated, and have our highest respect. And are quoted in our job. However, we can connect Entropy/Information with Chaos Theory and Cybernetics (admitedlly we are not the first). But, to best of our knowledge, we may be the first putting Smax and Suniverse faceto face.
Interesting article, Dr. Vishnu. And thanks, Tullio, for your comments on Schrodinger's What is Life?... When reading both, I kept expecting to see a framework or template that would suffice for perspective on the 'cause of life', and for calculations of entropy in systems of 'competing orders' (this term I got from Dr. Nai-Chang Yeh, which she used to explain how high-temperature superconductivity arises in some materials, ref: "Superconductivity: Resistance is Futile" lecture at Caltech Today Streaming Theater)
I don't know if this is viable, or useful to you, Dr. Vishnu, but it's what I was trying to picture while reading...
I tried identifying something as either a system s()or a function f() (or process), but I think the distinction may be superfluous. Note: C[...] is defined as "some combination of" whatever is in the brackets, and s(C[...]) denotes "a system with some combination of"... The letters m, n, p, q, r can be any whole number {1, 2, 3, ...} Also note that it's possible to have C[s(...)] which is "some combination of systems of Order..." The arrow "--->" may be accompanied by an Order, principle, or physical law, to highlight a primary causal factor that leads to the higher Order.
[pre]
"Competing Orders: Disorder Order Order ..."
Disorder_LambdaCDM --------> Order_alpha, which is the Standard Model
Disorder_LambdaCDM + Order_alpha ------->
gravity
Order_beta_s(n), n=1 for galaxy, 2 for solar system, 3 for a planet with composition & location suitable for life
. . .
Disorder_LambdaCDM + Order_beta_s(3) --------->
Statistics
Order_gamma_f(n), n=1 for diffusion
Disorder_LambdaCDM + Order_beta_s(3) -------------->
Combinatorics
Order_gamma_f(n), n=2 for polymerization
Note that all higher Orders have Disorder_LambdaCDM + Order_beta_s(3), so call this s(T), for a terrestrial system.
. . .
s(T) + C[Order_gamma_f(2)] ---------------> Order_delta_s(n) = functional group number n
s(T) + m * s(C[Order_epsilon_s(n)]) ---------------->
Order_beta_s(3)
Order_zeta_s(p) = ecosystem or symbiotic framework or cellular function that is a precursor to cellular metabolism, e.g., photo-reactivity, diffusion
Note: "m * " is read as "some number m times..."
s(T) + m * C[Order_zeta_s(n)+ Order_epsilon_s(p)] ---------->
Order_theta_s(q) = cellular organelle type
s(T) + Order_iota_s(n) + m * C[Order_theta_s(p)] ------>
Order_chi_s(q) = level of awareness (which can pertain to anything from a cellular awareness of a pH change, to the human brain's awareness of s(T) )
and per Schrodinger,
s(T) + Sum over all [Order_chi_s(n)] --------->
Order_omega_s(q) = level of mastery (or control) over a system (or point of equilibrium between systems)
and, incidentally, the profession of a medical doctor can be stated as
s(T) + Order_chi_s[Order_iota_s(human)] ---> Order_omega_s(doctor)
[/pre]
- - -
From this perspective, it looks like the cause of life is synonymous with the cause of the Big Bang...
At any rate, hopefully this may be useful for calculating Smax and Suniv, or possibly for showing the manner in which the entropies of different orders are interconnected...
Your line of argument is excellent. Can you send me a email with more elaboration and kindly with more explanation, and a copy to my friend Dr. Zevallos-Giampietri (edzevallos-[at]-yahoo.com). Possibly we may write a whole article together. But, take into account that we do not use words such "order" and "disorder" to prevent biases. What ever is "order" to somebody is at the same time "disorder" for another. Thanks a lot.
Your line of argument is excellent. Can you send me a email with more elaboration and kindly with more explanation, and a copy to my friend Dr. Zevallos-Giampietri (edzevallos-[at]-yahoo.com). Possibly we may write a whole article together. But, take into account that we do not use words such "order" and "disorder" to prevent biases. What ever is "order" to somebody is at the same time "disorder" for another. Thanks a lot.
Thank you for your kind comments. I've searched the thread and article several times for your email, Dr. Vishnu, and I don't see it. But I'll certainly be more than happy to send an elaboration to the email listed for Dr. Zevallos-Giampietri...
I sent a copy of the following to the email listed. In case it was missed, and in the interest of further discussion, I uploaded images of the pages to the web, so they can be posted here. It's refined a bit from my original post, with some elaboration, and use of the subscripts hopefully makes it easier to read...
Chipper. so for you the end point of evolution is a medical doctor? I disagree, having interacted with too many of them. As for me, I am more inclined to agree with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The omega point is the Christ. See "The human phenomenon", which I have read in the original French edition, Seuil(1955). Cheers.
Tullio
Chipper. so for you the end point of evolution is a medical doctor? I disagree, having interacted with too many of them. As for me, I am more inclined to agree with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The omega point is the Christ. See "The human phenomenon", which I have read in the original French edition, Seuil(1955). Cheers.
Tullio
If I understand it right, it finally results into interaction with the environment. A medical doctor is merely stated as an example.
But then I would even go further. If you can interact with your environment, it's possible to change it, resulting in a feedback loop entering at some point in the iteration depending on the sophistication. Perhaps even upto the first iteration.
Chipper. so for you the end point of evolution is a medical doctor? I disagree, having interacted with too many of them. As for me, I am more inclined to agree with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The omega point is the Christ. See "The human phenomenon", which I have read in the original French edition, Seuil(1955). Cheers.
Tullio
Not quite. I didn't mean to imply that (16) was an end point. In the original post, (16) was just an incidental remark, to highlight one of the many possible iterations of H_omega. Furthermore, if you look carefully at (10), (11), and (12), then evolution is seen to be a process that continues for as long as s(T), the terrestrial system, remains viable for evolution of the more evolved hierarchies. Awareness of something, at a quantum mechanical level, implies some kind of observation of the system.
This 'awareness', I think, is the first necessary step towards 'mastery' or 'control' of the circumstances of the specific system. A cell can be aware of the pH level of its surroundings, and the human brain, vastly more evolved than a single cell, can be aware of many more things, including the possibility of entities with the highest possible level of awareness. Such an entity would be considered a god or an angel or whatever, in a less evolved H_chi (or awareness)...
It's frankly hard, however, for me to believe that such an entity, upon sending to this s(T) a savior or 'Christ', who would in turn have to pay any 'price' whatsoever, for actions of the lesser creatures (who were only 'doing what comes natural to them') by way of some kind of 'salvation' or 'redemption'. Easier for me to believe are statements like, "What isn't possible for a man, is possible with God...", and "...greater things than this shall ye do, because I'm going to the Father..."
I tried to do the iteration for "God", or what I think "God" is for the people who believe in "God":
Actually, all the terms other than H_omega(God) should be placed under the arrow, and might possibly be summed together, and termed H_omega(glory of God).... Best I can do on that iteration :)
yikes after a whole month of
)
yikes after a whole month of searching:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v2/st14
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/26613
i think this was the same subject maybe a different source?
if i found the right source it is the term 'photonic chemistry'
or 'photonic atoms' but these might be different than my original?
everything is true, the opposite of everything is also true
From all I know, quantum dots
)
From all I know, quantum dots are researched in the hope of building quantum computers. See www.qubit.org and related links.
Tullio
what a coincidence,
)
what a coincidence, everything i know is described here :)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothingness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunyata
my twofold version of Zen:
ANYTHING that can be spoken, is NOT the REAL ANYTHING :)
NOTHINGNESS [emptiness of concept] is the ONLY REALITY :)
i.e. to be empty of concept is to experience the infinite ;-}
everything is true, the opposite of everything is also true
RE: RE: We are talking
)
Your line of argument is excellent. Can you send me a email with more elaboration and kindly with more explanation, and a copy to my friend Dr. Zevallos-Giampietri (edzevallos-[at]-yahoo.com). Possibly we may write a whole article together. But, take into account that we do not use words such "order" and "disorder" to prevent biases. What ever is "order" to somebody is at the same time "disorder" for another. Thanks a lot.
RE: Your line of argument
)
How about "Class Hierarchy"? Or just "Class"?
Thank you for your kind comments. I've searched the thread and article several times for your email, Dr. Vishnu, and I don't see it. But I'll certainly be more than happy to send an elaboration to the email listed for Dr. Zevallos-Giampietri...
Hi Dr. Vishnu, I sent a
)
Hi Dr. Vishnu,
I sent a copy of the following to the email listed. In case it was missed, and in the interest of further discussion, I uploaded images of the pages to the web, so they can be posted here. It's refined a bit from my original post, with some elaboration, and use of the subscripts hopefully makes it easier to read...
Chipper. so for you the end
)
Chipper. so for you the end point of evolution is a medical doctor? I disagree, having interacted with too many of them. As for me, I am more inclined to agree with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The omega point is the Christ. See "The human phenomenon", which I have read in the original French edition, Seuil(1955). Cheers.
Tullio
RE: Chipper. so for you the
)
If I understand it right, it finally results into interaction with the environment. A medical doctor is merely stated as an example.
But then I would even go further. If you can interact with your environment, it's possible to change it, resulting in a feedback loop entering at some point in the iteration depending on the sophistication. Perhaps even upto the first iteration.
Regards,
Bert
Somnio ergo sum
RE: Chipper. so for you the
)
Not quite. I didn't mean to imply that (16) was an end point. In the original post, (16) was just an incidental remark, to highlight one of the many possible iterations of H_omega. Furthermore, if you look carefully at (10), (11), and (12), then evolution is seen to be a process that continues for as long as s(T), the terrestrial system, remains viable for evolution of the more evolved hierarchies. Awareness of something, at a quantum mechanical level, implies some kind of observation of the system.
This 'awareness', I think, is the first necessary step towards 'mastery' or 'control' of the circumstances of the specific system. A cell can be aware of the pH level of its surroundings, and the human brain, vastly more evolved than a single cell, can be aware of many more things, including the possibility of entities with the highest possible level of awareness. Such an entity would be considered a god or an angel or whatever, in a less evolved H_chi (or awareness)...
It's frankly hard, however, for me to believe that such an entity, upon sending to this s(T) a savior or 'Christ', who would in turn have to pay any 'price' whatsoever, for actions of the lesser creatures (who were only 'doing what comes natural to them') by way of some kind of 'salvation' or 'redemption'. Easier for me to believe are statements like, "What isn't possible for a man, is possible with God...", and "...greater things than this shall ye do, because I'm going to the Father..."
I tried to do the iteration
)
I tried to do the iteration for "God", or what I think "God" is for the people who believe in "God":
Actually, all the terms other than H_omega(God) should be placed under the arrow, and might possibly be summed together, and termed H_omega(glory of God).... Best I can do on that iteration :)