[Mr. Scientist]

By the way, i don't think i have ever answered the OP's question.

The answer to what is the driving force of a photon, is that fundamentally speaking, it has energy and momentum, but has a zero-invariant mass.

This is why.

[yor_on]

Stuart Hammeroff is interesting.

I remember reading about "microtubules, tiny tubes constructed out of a protein called tubulin that make up the skeletons of our cells, including neurons. Tubulin proteins can take at least two different shapes--extended and contracted--so, in theory, they might be able to take both states at once." some years ago? It was interesting but then it seemed to 'die out'.

Now I found an article telling of a guy that have tried to 'count' on the probability of it.

"In the February issue of Physical Review E, Tegmark presents calculations showing just what a terrible environment the brain is for quantum computation. Combining data about the brain's temperature, the sizes of various proposed quantum objects, and disturbances caused by such things as nearby ions, Tegmark calculated how long microtubules and other possible quantum computers within the brain might remain in superposition before they decohere. His answer: The superpositions disappear in 10**-13 to 10**-20 seconds. Because the fastest neurons tend to operate on a time scale of 10**-3 seconds or so, Tegmark concludes that whatever the brain's quantum nature is, it decoheres far too rapidly for the neurons to take advantage of it."

But then on the other hand do one really need a 'quantum computer' for explaining the brain?
A analog signal contains so much more 'information' than a digital, and the brain is definitely not digital.
Also it works both chemically and electro-magnetically.
Maybe one could see it as three information highways interacting?

Wouldn't that quantum computer always win when you flipped that coin?
We don't so I think the brains capacity have more to do with its analogue structure than anything else

[Mr. Scientist]

I may not agree with the Tubulin Theory, however, i do believe that quantum mechanics is adiquate, if not complicated to explain an equally complicated subject as human awareness.

[lightarrow]

As far as I know Newtonian mechanics do not explain photons.
Why do you say that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization#States.2C_probability_amplitudes.2C_unitary_and_Hermitian_operators.2C_and_eigenvectors

That's right. Newtonian Physics fail in the New Physics, because F=Ma has a variable which is not considered constant M. Plus, photons do not have a mass, so F=Ma fails generally.

Newtonian mechanics can't even explain classical light...there is no need to talk about photons.
Furthermore, the reason why photons are not explained by classical physics is certainly much more complex than this. Have you ever heard "Blackbody spectrum", "Photoelectric effect" "Compton effect" ecc. ? Did you notice that an entire new big theory, that is "Quantum Mechanics" had to be developed to explain those phenomena?

[Mr. Scientist]

As far as I know Newtonian mechanics do not explain photons.
Why do you say that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization#States.2C_probability_amplitudes.2C_unitary_and_Hermitian_operators.2C_and_eigenvectors

That's right. Newtonian Physics fail in the New Physics, because F=Ma has a variable which is not considered constant M. Plus, photons do not have a mass, so F=Ma fails generally.

Newtonian mechanics can't even explain classical light...there is no need to talk about photons.
Furthermore, the reason why photons are not explained by classical physics is certainly much more complex than this. Have you ever heard "Blackbody spectrum", "Photoelectric effect" "Compton effect" ecc. ? Did you notice that an entire new big theory, that is "Quantum Mechanics" had to be developed to explain those phenomena?

Of course i know all these. I was simply showing that F=Ma failed in relativistic math; we needed new math, which Newtonian math could not explain.

[lightarrow]

Of course i know all these. I was simply showing that F=Ma failed in relativistic math; we needed new math, which Newtonian math could not explain.

Ok. I just wanted to point that Newtonian Physics doesn't fail in the New Physics only because F=Ma has a variable which is not considered constant M.

[JukriS]

Idea of expanding atoms!

Onesimpleprinciple

New model of an atom

The atomcores expand three-dimentionally, opening up energywaves that have
the nature of electron and photon.

So, also photons expanding and emit expanding energy and thats why we have a old light who is redshifting!

[Vern]

In reviewing old threads, I came across this one. I'm surprised that among all the very good answers, none really pin pointed the direct cause of the speed of light being c. My view is that it is a fundamental property of space; actually two properties of space. Those properties are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. James Clerk Maxwell wrote down the equations that compute the speed of light using those properties.

Somebody said that it was a property of space-time. My own speculation is that it is properties of space alone. Time is a fixed independent parameter and not a variable as we are recently coming to realize. Albeit kicking and screaming in opposition as we are forced to do so.

[Ethos]

My view is that it is a fundamental property of space; actually two properties of space. Those properties are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. James Clerk Maxwell wrote down the equations that compute the speed of light using those properties.

I agree with this position Vern but that raises a few questions that need to be answered. For one; If c is determined by the character of space itself, then wouldn't an expanding universe cause c to be a variable unit changing with the passage of the expansion? And; If c appears to be constant throughout the observable universe, doesn't that suggest a static universe and not the expanding one we are lead to believe in?

[Vern]

Exactly, Ethos. That is why I like the idea of a static non-expanding classic flat space-time. Tie that together with the notion that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. and you are forced to imagine a universe such as I have imagined it.

That notion is so restrictive that it should be easily disposed of. However, it has never been disposed of and it has been around well over a hundred years. It is a fact that every physical reality that has ever been observed can be easily explained without deviating from the notion that, again, the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Now, given that and the application of Occum's razor, we would expect that different notions would prevail over the notions that have prevailed during these dark ages of Quantamania.[]

[Ethos]

Exactly, Ethos. That is why I like the idea of a static non-expanding classic flat space-time. Tie that together with the notion that: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. and you are forced to imagine a universe such as I have imagined it.

This idea is one that has been floating around in my imagination for a while now. I'm going to start a new thread where we can research this topic Vern, and I would appreciate your participation. The title will be: Is our universe static and infinite?

[Vern]

I'll look for it.