The use of the word 'molecule' in that story is poetic. They could also 
have said 'bonds of holy matrimony'. As far as I can tell all measurements 
of photons are by inference within material mediums (Rubidium atoms in this 
case) and the measuring instrument, which is made of matter also. That the 
conditions being created in the atomic medium have an effect which we 
interpret as double measurements is exciting, but it does not necessarily 
relate to the creation of matter or the validation of photons as 
freestanding particles.


On Friday, September 27, 2013 8:05:50 AM UTC-4, Awori wrote:
>
> In view of the above findings and our earlier discussions...could light be 
> the original source of life forming molecules....?
> On Sep 27, 2013 2:54 PM, "awori achoka" <[email protected] <javascript:>> 
> wrote:
>
>> What do you make of this?
>>
>> http://m.phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
>> On Aug 4, 2013 2:59 AM, "sadovnik socratus" 
>> <[email protected]<javascript:>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>    Reference frames and  Existence.******
>>>
>>> ===…****
>>>
>>> There are many pretty solid theories.****
>>>
>>> How can be known which  theory  is wrong and  which  theory is true ?  *
>>> ***
>>>
>>> The answer depends on which reference frame  the theory is based. ****
>>>
>>> The conception of reference frame  is the key to know if the theory is 
>>> true one.****
>>>
>>> # ****
>>>
>>>  We know  many different   reference  frames****
>>>
>>> ( free, open, closed , 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 11D,  . . .  MD . . . .  )****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>>  Existence cannot begin from a complex system.****
>>>
>>> In the beginning  must be a simple model. ****
>>>
>>> Therefore, I will take a  two dimensions space as the simplest model.***
>>> *
>>>
>>> But there are  two kinds of two dimensions:  the Euclidean ( 2D)  space 
>>> ****
>>>
>>> and  Minkowski  negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D space.****
>>>
>>> What is possible to say about these systems ?****
>>>
>>> Which  reference frame can be taken as a basis of Existence ?****
>>>
>>> #****
>>>
>>> Euclidean ( 2D)  reference frame belongs to  a gravity space ****
>>>
>>> where space and time are two different substances.  ****
>>>
>>> Minkowski  negative Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D has no gravity ****
>>>
>>> and space and time are one and the same unite continuum.****
>>>
>>> #****
>>>
>>> Later Descartes changed  Euclidean  two dimensions  into three ****
>>>
>>>  dimensions  .  Living in this   Descartes  system of coordinate****
>>>
>>>  we try to understand : where did our existence come from ?****
>>>
>>> Then, in my opinion, it is logically to take Minkowski  negative ****
>>>
>>> Pseudo- Euclidian - 2D ( without  gravity ) as the simplest model****
>>>
>>>  to have the searching answer. ****
>>>
>>> ============….****
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Epistemology" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:>
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Epistemology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to