Strange

That appears to be completely meaningless. And, like the rest of your post, unsupported nonsense. Anyone who has to make up wacky spellings or orthography is not to be trusted. It suggests your post is NonsEnse*. You do realise that this was a work of FICTION? Written by a drug-abusing nutcase. No, I'm not. Really.

No it isn't.

Not at the sensor (just like the eye). But modern digital cameras do a lot of post-processing (in their "brain") including automatic white balance, which means they can be nearly as good as humans at making the image look as if it was taken under "normal" lighting conditions. ("Nearly as good" might be an exaggeration...)

You need to think about how logs work. Addition in "log space" becomes multiplication of the numbers; i.e. [math]\log(a) + \log(b) = \log(a * b)[/math]. Multiplication of logs becomes powers of the numbers: [math]n\log(a) = \log(a^n)[/math]. Reversing that last one seems to describe what you are trying to do. Combining these we get [math]\log(a^n * b^n)= \log((a * b)^n) = n \log(a * b) = n (\log(a) + \log(b))[/math] They work fine. [ math]\log(e^(ip*a))[/math] => [math]\log(e^(ip*a))[/math] [ math]\log(e^{ip*a})[/math] => [math]\log(e^{ip*a})[/math] Note the use of {} to group things in Latex.

Hey, thanks for not being yet another of the "I may not know anything about it, but I know I'm right" crowd !

Have you tried Google? There are hundreds of sites showing the derivation of this formula. For example: http://blogformathematics.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/derivation-of-combinations-formula.html

There is an important theoretical result called Bell's Theorem (which has been experimentally tested) which demonstrates that there cannot be a model with such "water" that produces the same results as we observe. I'm afraid that rigorous mathematics and experimental confirmation trump vague "what ifs". What do you base that on? (Or, as they say on Wikipedia: Citation needed.) It is hard to see the difference. I don't think anyone doubts that. I have heard of many times when physicists have been disappointed when they get the expected results from their experiment because it rules out the exciting stuff: new physics beyond what we know. Finding the Higgs boson is one recent example.

Not quite. It is similar to the idea of limits in mathematics. However precise your knowledge is, there is a limit to how far ahead you can predict. You can gather more information to see further ahead (with diminishing returns) but it is still limited. (Unless you are going to invoke a universe where it is possible to have an infinite amount of information...)

Now if you could only explain that to Asimov ...

Equal numbers of photons at every frequency would mean greater energy at the blue end of the spectrum than red, so I assume this would not result in white light. What do you mean by "essentially stable"? If you can't explain what you are asking, I don't see how anyone can answer it. What do you mean by "perfect"? Why would they lose energy?

Why would they lose energy?

Yes: this was the first search result of many: https://www.rp-photonics.com/white_light_sources.html What do you mean by "essentially stable"? If you can't explain what you are asking, I don't see how anyone can answer it. What do you mean by "perfect"?

What do you mean by "essentially stable"? If you can't explain what you are asking, I don't see how anyone can answer it. "White" light is the subjective impression of a particular mix of frequencies/colours. (Although, as noted, our brains will adjust this so that we still see light as "white" even if it is definitely not white on an object measurement.) You can achieve white in several ways: an equal amount of all frequencies or from just three primary colours (red, green, blue).

It is worth noting that a false vacuum is a positive energy state. So what is suggested is that that energy was released. However, there is no evidence for that hypothesis. And certainly not the "no space, no time" bit - if there were no space, then there was no space to have a false vacuum state in.

Maybe you should get your physics from physics sites, rather than philosophy ones? There are a number of basic errors in that page, which you are repeating. Energy is measured in joules, or an equivalent unit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_energy. This has units of length 2 x mass / time2. Mass is measured in kilograms, or equivalent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Units_of_mass. This has units of mass (surprise!) If you don't think that difference is important, then you need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

If it is sufficiently energetic, this could initially be presented as a danger to them, until they realise that they can harness it.

What do you mean by "always perfect"? Not all light is white (or perfect). Not all white light remains white (if it passes through or bounces of a coloured material, for example).

You are wrong. Please stop repeating this. It isn't a matter of opinion. You are just wrong - as many people have pointed out.

But as the universe is, at some level, probabilistic, that level of information is not available, even in principle.

They are equivalent (in many ways) and one can be converted to the other. But they are not the same. That is why we use different units to measure each of them: joules and kilograms, usually. Even in units where C=1 (etc) you still use different units for mass and energy.

Why would photons lose energy? A photon of a given energy will always have that energy. (Apart from things like Doppler effect or gravitational red-shift, which could change the colour from white.) If you reflect white light off some surfaces then photons with particular energies might be absorbed and others reflected. The result is light that is not white.

That might make sense in a completely deterministic universe (and is a very old argument, for that reason). But the universe is, at some level, inherently random. So you can't treat it as a giant clockwork machine. Also, even in a deterministic universe, chaos theory limits how far ahead you can predict anything.

Do you have any evidence for this "coupling"? What effect does it have, that is not explained by current theory?

This is simply untrue. I agree there is no evidence for ID. But there is a lot of evidence for evolution by natural selection.

There is a difference: what we know about physics is based on evidence (and models tested against that evidence). Your vague idea and guesses about the directions of future technology have no supporting evidence.