Not sure what "fuzziness" means. My point is that molecules are not Lego pieces that bolt together - as diagrams suggest (coz drawing their fuzziness would look a mess!) - but they all have extended fields around them and, when in a structure, will have field properties that have demonstrable effects.
Something as simple as an MRI machine can show this - the nuclear magnetic resonances are stimulated by radio frequencies - no "particles" involved. Then as the nuclei relax, they emit a characteristic frequency that we interpret as different tissue types.
The huge field of the interactions of matter with photons is vitally important as different effects happen depending on frequencies and the matter.
mmm... fuzzy does not mean "vague", it just means that boundaries are not well-defined - like the halo around a street lamp, where precisely does it end? ;-) We can measure it, of course, but most scientists don't actually know much about the philosophy of their own subjects - so words become...erm... fuzzy.
Here is an interesting example
https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/viewFile/835/859
I was sent this a couple of years ago by Todd, a researcher with Persinger.
The brain - and upper nose, where they love to dig a swab! - are filled with biomagnetites - nobody as yet knows what they do!
Anyway, the interesting insight here is that if you throw a bunch of magnets on the floor, they will form a large and complex magnetic field. Now, rotate just one magnet and the whole field changes - at least within some measurable neighbourhood. So that a finite number of magnets, able to be turned, can create a near-infinite number of different fields.
That isnt fuzzy or vague, but measurable, and yet the effects of a single magnet extend beyond itself. hence, in no way can this be called "material" unless stretching the definition to infinity - it is still empirical, phenomenological and... physical. mmm... physicalism is not the same as materialism.
Cool, thank you for the link! It's highly appreciated, in particular because I rarely find people who read scientific papers. I used to write in the STEM community on Steemit and posted my sources underneath the articles. Rarely they were opened or even read. It's not always easy to find those non mainstream sources, so I am happy that you provide me with one.
lol. I used to do similar on steem! I managed the mathematics trail for some months, then physics, but very few people - that was before steemstem started.
Papers can be hard to read when outside one's field, but it's just a matter of language, and looking up definitions - it then becomes a bit faster. Sometimes is enough to understand the abstract. Often the references are very interesting, especially when old "forgotten" (or ignored) papers. eg the dangers of EMF go all the way back to 1940s/50s with radar research - they didn't wish to kill their radar operators!
Stefan Lanka's original paper (1993) is hard to find, apart from the paywalled version! zero citations - imagine that! The science cabal really want to hide the guy.
Yes, it looks like it.
Personally, I am not experienced or educated in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology.
I have researched communication and social sciences and psychology and I would think that these are not really sciences, but rather an art. I worked practically as a family and social counsellor for over ten years and I can say that scientifically accepted methodologies, or less known and accepted methodologies, are only ever worth as much as I was able to artfully use them. Not so much a fixed strategy for each client, but rather a flexible approach to the other person, where the method is not a chore, but rather a freestyle.
Thank you, the translation of fuzzy from German to English is inadequate, but you gave a very good example with the glow of the streetlight. I was more referring to the fact that physicists have ultimately referred to the "smallest observed particles" as wavicles and that predicting exactly how these wavicles behave is incalculable.
In terms of electromagnetic frequency measurement, what do you hope to gain from that in terms of, say, medical knowledge?
For example, would such a field measurement be conceivable or possible in scenarios such as the research done on hypnotised patients undergoing surgery without anaesthesia?
Would, for example, chanting by people attending an operation be influential from your point of view, because a vibrational frequency would also be generated by the voices? Would it even be possible to influence the internal organs of the sick person?
Such scenarios are usually regarded as superstition, aren't they? I would certainly find it interesting if this were to be investigated in accepted experimental set-ups.
Somewhere, a long time ago, I read or saw, I don't remember, that lifting very heavy objects by means of vibration, for example, might be possible.
In any case, I think there is something to the vibration scenarios.
But that isn't true - we can do the calculations. That's prob what your physicist was ref to.
This is where words can entangle people - here, the word "exactly" is ambiguous - we can do exact calculations and exact measurements, which are the things that prove to us that at some level events are probabilistic - but not all - quantum mechanics started from the observation that the emission (and absorption) spectra of gases gave precise, discrete lines - and not a continuum such as we see in a rainbow. the spectral lines of elements are known, and known precisely.
Indeed, perceptual reality can now thought of in terms of quantum decoherence, the transition from the quantum states of a system to its manifest states that approach classical mechanics. In biology, this is really complex - far more so than simple physics experiments - but we have lasers that can penetrate brains and be either used to gain information, or, at higher powers, intervene.
Sound is not an EMF, altho there is a branch of physics of optoacoustics. IMO EMFs are more pressing, as they are everywhere and most people are just plain ignorant. another example, binaural beats work, but there was an interesting experiment done to show that it isn't the sound that superposes from our two ears, but the seemingly small magnetic field emanated by the earphones! Indeed, this is why I hate wireless speakers - they directly stimulate the brain stem, that is the path taken by waves along the auditory nerve. All "safety" tests done on headphones totally ignore this path. People's moods and states of mind can thus be affected by subliminal pulses via earphones - yet another zombie-tech.
But how can one obtain reliable results from people who are exposed to a certain frequency in a laboratory experiment, for example, and whose physical reactions can be made visible (brain waves, heart rhythm, etc.), but whose expressed sensitivities (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) must be disregarded because they are subjective?
But is the subjective, that which individually constitutes a conviction, to be neglected?
People cannot be placed on a surface like drops of water, exposed to a certain vibration and then deduce how they are doing (physically/spiritually). People do not arrange themselves in a room and form flower-like structures, do not form themselves into such visible, orderly patterns, because you cannot simply take them out of their everyday life like, for example, drops of water or crystals or bacteria, etc.
At what level would you place genetics? The "smallest building blocks of human life" (not my term), how small are they?
I read somewhere that the double helix, which is displayed so graphically accurate, appeared visually under an electron microscope for the first time and I am not at all sure where in the hierarchy of particle observation this double helix is to be placed.
I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine DNA strands (the arrangement of base pairs, if I understand correctly) in their environment. They are contained in the nuclei of cells, if I am not mistaken. Are they coiled up inside them? On the other hand, I don't think you can observe them as particles, I conceive of genetics as a mathematical, chemical science done with the help of computer technology.
Further up, in a comment to northern-tracy, I argued that a subject is not the same as an abstract subject. How would you respond to that?
The sciences of those phenomena that cannot be directly experienced by means of human sense organs are, to my mind, highly confusing.
I "understand" magnetism because it is easy to take two magnets and see what happens when you hold them against each other. It is more straightforward for me to draw further conclusions from that.
But such things as X-rays and other kinds of rays that are not directly visible, just like frequencies that are outside what my ear can hear, I find difficult to follow logically. Unless I see experiments as a film presentation, like when you expose drops of water to certain vibrations, that is, the direct result of an experimental set-up.
Sorry that I do not refer to what you else said. I may come back to it.