Mordred

Your opening post describes something every one is aware of to begin with. Everyone knows our senses do not define reality but only how we interpret stimuli. If your goal is to develop a good strong argument why this is the case then it's good advise to include the science behind it as well. The later parts of equating that to sound in the woods however needs improvement. One can simply state both sound and light are simply labels we apply to how we interpret stimuli. Obviously experimental apparatus allow us the ability not to rely strictly on our senses. This is a science forum however so making corrections in regards to science should be expected. That includes encouraging the inclusion of science. For example I could argue that particles do not exist and support that argument under QFT in doing so further argue that every method of describing reality is invariably an interpretation whether it's our senses, experimental apparatus etc. That however boils down to how does one define reality.

The only person that seemed to believe science described photons reaching the brain is yourself. No one else had that misconception. So you should congratulate yourself for finally recognizing that science never described photons reaching the brain to begin with. You haven't taught anyone of any misconception except yourself if you believed science ever described photons reaching to brain.

Whatever made you believe any science claimed photons reached the brain ? Sounds to me you don't know what science actually describes

Then why is everyone able to point out valid arguments against your conjecture which you promptly ignore? Dark for example is nothing more than the absence of light. How your brain interprets light involves the receptors in your eyes which gets converted into electrochemical signals as per the neuron link included by KJW. Plants undergo different processes as they do not visually see light. That does nothing to alter what light is. It merely alters the stimuli responses. It doesn't make one ounce of difference in the nature of light how something interacts with light does nothing to alter what light is itself.

Let me know when and if you wish to include any real science. You obviously choose to ignore any actual science based arguments.

What about MRI studies directly related to how your brain registers signals from your eyes ? Are you telling me that isn't an experiment directly involved ?

Ah so just because I studied the mathematics sufficient to recieve degrees in physics I get accused of parroting physics textbooks ? Is that how that works ? You have no idea how often that accusation occurs for the record. Have you ever considered that understanding physics requires one to look beyond the textbooks themselves? How is knowing those formulas somehow equate to not thinking for myself ? What makes you believe philosophical arguments is the only valid "thinking for oneself " method is erroneous

No the textbooks discuss actual physics which none of your posts actually do. Real physics requires the mathematics to make predictions of cause and effect. Interpretations involve how to interpret those formulas and research studies. However one can arbitrarily ignore Any interpretation and stick to the hard complicated physics. No interpretation I am aware of ever changes the results of any experiment.

So nothing more profound than how signals are interpreted as opposed to any real science got it. Why not incorporate both ? Why is nearly every metaphysics argument I ever come across so diligent in avoiding the actual physics beats me.

No one telling you photons is light. Light is composed of a large multiparticle collection of photons. Light nor energy of any form exists on its own. As per QED. If you believe light does not include photons your incorrect

Those are some rather lousy articles with regards to CPT which the time symmetry is well known. They are rather misleading. Typical pop media coverage but the articles aren't much better in my opinion. Really all that's happening is photons have two polarizations left and right polarizations.

Oh I have been following the thread just haven't anything to contribute at the moment lol.

Please keep in mind the experiment has also been performed by quantum dot detectors/emitter.

This particular article seems most appropriate to this thread The Double Slit Experiment and Quantum Mechanics https://www.hendrix.edu/uploadedFiles/Departments_and_Programs/Physics/Faculty/The Double Slit Experiment and Quantum Mechanics.pdf " Let me say this again to emphasize it. Your eyeball is covered with a large number of photon detectors. When you see something, each detector counts the number of photons it received and transmits that number to the brain. Some of the detectors (the cones) can detect the energy of the photons, and they transmit that value to the brain also (thus providing color vision). Your eyeball works much like the detector portion of a digital camera. You have never observed a light wave in your life, but you have added up the numbers of photons striking different places on your retina to create a diffraction pattern. To me, the most convincing evidence that all particles, including photons, are always detected as individual and whole particles was observing the output of a particle detector on an oscilloscope. The output is a series of pulses. Each pulse represents the passage of one particle (a photon, an electron, or whatever) through the detector. You get the same effect with an old fashioned geiger counter: each click represents the passage of a particle through the detector. If you have never had the opportunity to observe this, you should at least read Wikipedia’s article on particle detectors. "

So what ? any time a photon has a scattering event (interaction) the original photon is absorbed in inelastic scatterings such as a camera detecting the photon or the screen used in the detector. Elastic scatterings such as a mirror is a distinctively different process.

also doesn't help that I often have to edit latex etc so my posts tend to take a considerable time to complete and tend to get cross posted by numerous others as a result So I will readily take the blame or part of the blame in this case lmao This is some studies I've been working on in my spare time in my Nucleosynthesis thread in Speculations. For right hand neutrinos using Majaronna mass terms the related mass terms via CKMS and PMNS mass mixing matrices are as follows as nearly as I've been able to gather from research. I recognize that most won't understand below but its here to indicate that my earlier statement has validity. \[m\overline{\Psi}\Psi=(m\overline{\Psi_l}\Psi_r+\overline{\Psi_r}\Psi)\] \[\mathcal{L}=(D_\mu\Phi^\dagger)(D_\mu\Phi)-V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)\] 4 effective degrees of freedom doublet complex scalar field. with \[D_\mu\Phi=(\partial_\mu+igW_\mu-\frac{i}{2}\acute{g}B_\mu)\Phi\]\ \[V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)=-\mu^2\Phi^\dagger\Phi+\frac{1}{2}\lambda(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)^2,\mu^2>0\] in Unitary gauge \[\mathcal{L}=\frac{\lambda}{4}v^4\] \[+\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu H \partial^\mu H-\lambda v^2H^2+\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2}}vH^3+\frac{\lambda}{8}H^4\] \[+\frac{1}{4}(v+(\frac{1}{2}H)^2(W_mu^1W_\mu^2W_\mu^3B_\mu)\begin{pmatrix}g^2&0&0&0\\0&g^2&0&0\\0&0&g^2&g\acute{g}\\0&0&\acute{g}g&\acute{g}^2 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}W^{1\mu}\\W^{2\mu}\\W^{3\mu}\\B^\mu\end{pmatrix}\] Right hand neutrino singlet needs charge conjugate for Majorana mass term (singlet requirement) \[\Psi^c=C\overline{\Psi}^T\] charge conjugate spinor \[C=i\gamma^2\gamma^0\] Chirality \[P_L\Psi_R^C=\Psi_R\] mass term requires \[\overline\Psi^C\Psi\] grants gauge invariance for singlets only. \[\mathcal{L}_{v.mass}=hv_{ij}\overline{I}_{Li}V_{Rj}\Phi+\frac{1}{2}M_{ij}\overline{V_{ri}}V_{rj}+h.c\] Higgs expectation value turns the Higgs coupling matrix into the Dirac mass matrix. Majorana mass matrix eugenvalues can be much higher than the Dirac mass. diagonal of \[\Psi^L,\Psi_R\] leads to three light modes v_i with mass matrix \[m_v=-MD^{-1}M_D^T\] MajorN mass in typical GUT \[M\propto10^{15},,GeV\] further details on Majorana mass matrix https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.0988.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9702253.pdf The other detail is if the above has accuracy then the cross sections for anti neutrinos would be similar to below A possible antineutrino cross section calculation massless case \[\vec{v}_e+p\longrightarrow n+e^+\] Fermi constant=\(1.1663787(6)*10^{-4} GeV^{-2}\) \[\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=\frac{S|M|^2\acute{p}^2}{M_2|\vec{p_1}|2|\vec{p_1}|(E_1+m_2c^2)-|\vec{p_1}|\prime{E_1}cos\theta}\] Fermi theory \[|M|^2=E\acute{E}|M_0^2|=E\acute{E}(M_Pc^2)^2G^2_F\] \[\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=(\frac{h}{8\pi}^2)\frac{M_pc^4(\acute{E})^2G^3_F}{[(E+M_p^2)-Ecos\theta]}\] \[\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=(\frac{h}{8\pi}^2)\frac{M_pc^4(\acute{E})^2G^3_F}{M_pc^2}(1+\mathcal{O}(\frac{E}{M_oc^2})\] \[\sigma=(\frac{\hbar cG_F\acute{E}^2}{8\pi})^2\simeq 10^{-45} cm^2\] prior to electroweak symmetry breaking A possible antineutrino cross section calculation massless case \[\vec{v}_e+p\longrightarrow n+e^+\] Fermi constant=\(1.1663787(6)*10^{-4} GeV^{-2}\) \[\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=\frac{S|M|^2\acute{p}^2}{M_2|\vec{p_1}|2|\vec{p_1}|(E_1+m_2c^2)-|\vec{p_1}|\prime{E_1}cos\theta}\] Fermi theory \[|M|^2=E\acute{E}|M_0^2|=E\acute{E}(M_Pc^2)^2G^2_F\] \[\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=(\frac{h}{8\pi}^2)\frac{M_pc^4(\acute{E})^2G^3_F}{[(E+M_p^2)-Ecos\theta]}\] \[\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=(\frac{h}{8\pi}^2)\frac{M_pc^4(\acute{E})^2G^3_F}{M_pc^2}(1+\mathcal{O}(\frac{E}{M_oc^2})\] \[\sigma=(\frac{\hbar cG_F\acute{E}^2}{8\pi})^2\simeq 10^{-45} cm^2\] as stated this is simply to be informative that there is standard model methods to help make accurate predictions for something such as anti neutrinos prior to discovery and with this be able to look for signatures and evidence. This is an overview of the types of signatures were looking for this particular set of slides gives an example of the DM cross section under DM decay. https://www.hip.fi/cosmoseminars/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2020/10/Drewes-2020.pdf related papers DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 in direct answer to the excellent question by the sterile neutrinos must have a mean lifetime longer than the age of the universe to match the cross section provided by https://www.hip.fi/cosmoseminars/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2020/10/Drewes-2020.pdf further details on the reason for the mean lifetime provided by the article further articles Next decade of sterile neutrino studies by Alexey Boyarsky, Dmytro Iakubovskyi, Oleg Ruchayskiy https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4954.pdf Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters Esra Bulbul, Maxim Markevitch, Adam Foster, Randall K. Smith, Michael Loewenstein, Scott W. Randall https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations Revised October 2021 by M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia (YITP, Stony Brook; ICREA, Barcelona; ICC, U. of Barcelona) and M. Yokoyama (UTokyo; Kavli IPMU (WPI), UTokyo). https://pdg.lbl.gov/2022/reviews/rpp2022-rev-neutrino-mixing.pdf this portion will help relate Fermi's Golden rules in terms of those cross sections provided including mean lifetime from the Breit Wigner distrbution cross sections. Fermi's Golden Rule \[\Gamma=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|V_{fi}|^2\frac{dN}{DE_f}\] density of states \[\langle x|\psi\rangle\propto exp(ik\cdot x)\] with periodic boundary condition as "a"\[k_x=2\pi n/a\] number of momentum states \[dN=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^2}V\] decay rate \[\Gamma\] Hamilton coupling matrix element between initial and final state \[V_{fi}\] density of final state \[\frac{dN}{dE_f}\] number of particles remaining at time t (decay law) \[\frac{dN}{dt}=-\Gamma N\] average proper lifetime probability \[p(t)\delta t=-\frac{1}{N}\frac{dN}{dt}\delta t=\Gamma\exp-(\Gamma t)\delta t\] mean lifetime \[\tau=<t>=\frac{\int_0^\infty tp (t) dt}{\int_0^\infty p (t) dt}=\frac{1}{\Gamma}\] relativistic decay rate set \[L_o=\beta\gamma c\tau\] average number after some distance x \[N=N_0\exp(-x/l_0)\]

You raise some good points @Markus Hanke there so I'm going to detail the above interms of how N=Body codes such as Gadget use in Millenium and the Mare-Nordstrum simulation apply the above factors described by your sand dune analogy. There is several stages to consider Jeans instability which provide in-fall rates due to gravitational collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability the expansion rates must also be considered as well as the momentum terms of the particles involved. At first the density perturbations are linear however as they deviate from linear to non linear there is an intermediate stage where one doesn't require a full non linear treatment. This is the Zel'Dovich approximation \[\vec{r}(t)=a(t)\vec{x}+b(t)\vec{f}(\vec{x})\] the first term is the expansion rates and the second term is the peculiar velocities of the vector field \(\vec{f}(t)\) The formula shows a production of voids separated by walls of dark matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeldovich_pancake now the problem with this is that it will break down when the density perturbations start crossing each other so we then have to employ a full non-linear treatment \[\frac{d^2 \vec{r}_i(t)}{dt^2}=\sum_{k\neq i}\frac{GM_k m_i}{|\vec{r}_k-\vec{r}_i|^2}(\vec{r}_k-\vec{r}_i)\] the above is incredibly difficult to compute for large N body simulations so one has to employ Fourier transformations to solve the Poisson equations this leads to PM (particle_Mesh) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_mesh and the improvement P3M (particle-particle-particle-mesh) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3M for DM halos itself one can employ the spherical symmetric approximation Press-Schechter mass function for halos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press–Schechter_formalism all the above naturally involve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_theorem so as one can see the situation is extremely complex for large N-Body simulations which is the fundamental point you raised in your post @joigus answered this In the same manner as GR though with the new applicable mass terms MOND is compatible with GR yes the above is correct and how you described DM does allow for halo formation but also as the filament to void separations of LSS filament structure. See above for the related formulas edit forgot to add an important detail Zel'dovich pancake development actually leads to the NFW profile use for galaxy rotation curves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro–Frenk–White_profile

We aren't incapable but no single set of equations solve every problem. GR by itself isn't suitable to deal with infall rates v outfall rates as applicable to LSS and galaxy formation, nor formation of DM halos. Other hydrostatic formulas are required. I will be detailing those involved as I had planned on doing so in regards to Markus last post using his sand dune analogy. (though I will drop the analogy itself.)

Ever use light sensors you don't require a brain to detect light. Take an infrared camera for example you can see plants in the camera though it won't show as green lol not only does sunlight reach plants aka photosynthesis but they can also absorb and emit light. The main point however is that you can detect light by other means other than the human brain.

It's not that GR is inaccurate. The difficulty is that with a galaxy you have an axisymmetric spacetime with a disk that also has rotation. That only covers certain galaxy types. Each galaxy type would require its own set of EFE solutions. If you look at the links I included in response to Migl you will see a proposed set of solutions for spiral galaxies.

Zwicky did use the mass luminosity relations to make his velocity determination. Though Oort also did as well. Invariably the mass-luminosity relations is required though that often gets missed as most ppl typically focus on the redshift relations. Both are involved, in point of detail in this instance in order to determine redshift you need the mass luminosity relations to begin with however for some reason readers don't find the luminosity relations itself as relevant as the redshift... I will leave it in the hands of the historians as to who is considered the father of DM.

ditto this can easily get sidetracked.

Noted I didn't think you were arguing with me though. I however did want to add detail beyond the rough and tumble earlier post which I couldn't do at work. yes what you have is correct I suspect the notational differences is from the usage of spectral decomposition. I don't know how familiar you are with spectral decompositions but in essence \(\lambda\) is the eugenvalue with orthonormal vectors eugenvectors U. So your recasting a symmetric d x d matrix M \[u_i \cdot u_j=\epsilon _{ij}\] the lambda term are diagonal under matrix \(\Lambda\) values \(\lambda_1, \lambda_2....\lambda_d\) you also have matrix Q where U_d is on columns and matrix Q^T where the U_d are row vectors. \[M=\sum^d_{i=1}\lambda_iu_iu_i^T\] where any U is linearly independent. For any i \(Q\Lambda Q^Tu_i=Q\Lambda=Mu_i\) with U_I being orthonormal \(QTq=I\) thus Q is invertible so for any j \[(\sum_i\lambda u_iu_i^T)u_j=\lambda_ju_j=Mu_j\] so \[M=\sum_i\lambda_i u_iu_i^T\] https://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~xdgli/Xiaodong_Li_Teaching_files/135Note1.pdf the notation of this article is a bit different but essentially the same relations I have in this post. Hopefully though this will help however as we don't want to get too sidetracked from your last post I am in agreement that's its more a notational mayhem likely through the use of spectral index notations. course it also doesn't help that even with spectral decompositions no two articles use the same nomenclature.

yes There are treatments using the EFE here is one example https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.04933 another example using Gravitomagnetism https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.06115 one article I particularly like that isn't model specific other than GR. TOWARDS A FULL GENERAL RELATIVISTIC APPROACH TO GALAXIES https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.12818

not quite lol though still +1 \[e^{\lambda_j t}\] is the directional derivative taking the previous Hamilton statement under spectral decomposition. see here in regards to Hermitean directional derivatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_exponential look under Directional derivatives under \[G_{ij}\] though I will use my get out of jail card for forgetting to mention its a restricted directional example for simplification. Your likely more familiar with the form \[H|\psi(t)\rangle=i\hbar|\psi(t)\] \[\psi(t)=exp(-\frac{iH(t)}{\hbar})\] \[U=exp(-\frac{iH(t)}{\hbar})\]