Leaderboard

I don’t think this is a good way to look at it at all, and it is also not what the formalism of QM actually says. If the particle did pass through both slits simultaneously (according to who’s notion of simultaneity?), then you should be able to show this by simply bringing the detection screen close enough to the slits. But no matter how close the screen is, you always get exactly one hit, never two. Crucially, you also don’t get an interference pattern from a single particle - you get a only a single hit on the screen, as one would expect. It is only when you have an ensemble of many individual hits, that you will observe them to be distributed as an interference pattern. So the crucial aspect here is not that it goes through both slits simultaneously (a highly dubious and ill-defined concept), but that there is no information available about which slit it went through; and since the respective probability distributions are wave-like, an ensemble of many successive hits will give an interference pattern. Conversely, if you amend the setup so that it can tell you which of the slits the particle goes through (and you will find it will always go through exactly one slit, and one slit only), then the interference pattern disappears, because there is now certainty about the state of the system, and thus no longer a basis for any interference. So the central concept here is superposition, and thus the availability of information. A superposition does not mean that somehow two states physically occur simultaneously; it’s rather more subtle than that. Even the very notion of the particle taking any trajectory at all between emitter and screen is no longer a trivial thing.

Nope that is not how it would work. For the most part organisms do not know what adaptations are going to work (and even with extensive research it can be difficult to tell). Rather what happens is that the conditions the organisms live in create so-called selective pressures. What it basically means is that certain genetic traits are more likely to reproduce than others. But different pressures can have different strengths. So let's say lack of sunlight is a strong pressure. Also assume that folks with more melanin (i.e. who are darker) produce less vitamin D are are prone to vitamin D deficiency. What fist needs to happen is that there are either already folks with lighter skin in the population or that at some point mutants arise with lighter skin. Let's further assume that this make folks less likely to reproduce so mutants with less melanin may be more successful in reproduction and over many generations the pool will be dominated by them. However, unless the selection is super strong, there is likely always going to be a mix. If a population is relatively homogeneous, more often than not another aspect is important, the so-called bottleneck effect. This is when there is a small starting population where drift can play a large effect, resulting in small population with low genetic diversity. This is one of the reasons why in Africa we have a large genetic variability compared to Europeans. On top of it there are other random effects which have nothing to do with geography. For example if a in a population no mutations for blue eyes occur (which is basically traced to a mutation in a single gene), there will never be blue-eyed folks.

Even if you don't progress much further than now, you've done very well for being self-taught and your ability to relate what you know is excellent.

If your intuition is based on "god did it" then that cannot lead you anywhere because your gad can do absolutely anything at all. You would have been able to predict the results of the double slit experiments, etc. simply by an intuition about "what would my god do". People were led to develop quantum theory by following the evidence, and using their intuition about how mathematics could explain that. If your intuition is based on a working theory, then you can extend, expand, develop new tests of that theory, etc.

I think everyone is always responsible for their actions. Whether or not they should be answerable for them is another matter - it essentially boils down to the question of how much choice someone actually had in a given situation. Someone’s social environment, upbringing, mental disposition etc may place strong constraints on their behavioural patterns, so they may not have been as free to choose their actions as we’d think. But then again, this is very difficult to measure objectively, because on the flip side you have plenty of people from extremely difficult backgrounds who are not prone to criminal behaviour at all. So I don’t know what the answer is, but it can’t be a simple one.

I wish I knew more about QFT, I never got past some ‘first introduction’ type texts, so I only know basic concepts and rough outlines. For some reason I am finding the subject difficult - not in terms of understanding the concepts, but in terms of the mathematical formalism, which I just can’t seem to really get my head around. Another peculiar thing about QFT is that for whatever reason it seems to set off alarm bells somewhere within me. I do not for a moment doubt its empirical success as a model, but something just seems off about it. A lot of things in it appear very ad-hoc, very messy, like an ensemble of disjoint Lego pieces that a child has put together. I just can’t, for myself, motivate the framework from fundamental considerations (as is possible to do in GR e.g.), so it seems invented and artificial. Of course I can’t offer a proper objective argument, but my intuition is telling me that we are missing something important here...something just doesn’t sit right, though I can’t put my finger on it why that is. Even the basic concept of an operator-valued field seems somehow dubious to me, and I don’t quite know why. Of course at the moment it is the best framework we have, and it works well, but...

Since you claim this is reality, will you state this in a manner that actually makes sense and we can evaluate the veracity if that assertion?

God is Jewish?

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2013/11/getting-einstein-to-say-i-was-wrong.html#:~:text=Hubble showed Einstein photographic plates,a phenomena phenomenon called redshift.&text=However%2C Nussbaumer argues%2C Einstein was,Hubble as common lore holds. However, Nussbaumer argues, Einstein was not as impressed with Hubble as common lore holds. Einstein, from his interactions with other physicists, already superficially knew most of what Hubble was saying about the redshift of distant galaxies, and his meeting with the astronomer added nothing really new. Plus, the idea of redshift was so new, no one was sure that's what they were seeing. On February 4, Einstein gave a seminar about astronomy where he mentioned the work of the astronomers at the Wilson Observatory. He commended their work, but was conservative about how their observations might affect his equations, speculating that likely the universe was still static, but he might have to refigure his equations slightly. Except Einstein wasn't so impressed. His diary from that time period hardly mentions Hubble at all. A week later when he was at another seminar, this one specifically on redshifted galaxies he offered a much more nuanced and qualified view. He said it could be an expanding universe, or from a universe that expanded and contracted, or perhaps even that distant light got "tired" and redder the farther it traveled. His beliefs were starting to change, but it was hardly the instant conversion often talked about. When asked how he could explain the redshifts, he said "I don't know the answer." History 101

! Moderator Note Argument-by-word-salad does not meet our standards for rigor

Debt is an extremely powerful tool, but like all tools it must be wielded intelligently and with a clear understanding of risks. The entrepreneur who scales her manufacturing to meet the demand when it hits, but does so through a loan. The parent who lives rurally, but acquires s better paying job in the city in order to send their children to a better school and achieve a better future for them, but who can only do so by taking out a loan on a car. The person who takes a mortgage on a house to live in an area with more benefits and better schools, and who with each payment on that mortgage contributes to their own future equity. Or the craftsman who borrows to buy materials to build a product they can sell at 4-10x the input costs, or the street food vendor who borrows for her ingredients or the plates to serve her customers upon... customers who help her earn several multiples of what she initially went into debt to acquire. Like any tool, debt used wisely is a powerful path to escape poverty and build a better tomorrow. Microlending programs across the planet demonstrate the validity of this point every single day and they have for decades. Also just like any tool, debt in the hands of those who use it ignorantly or with abandon is a risk that comes with real and fairly predictable long-term consequences. Unfortunately, idontcare, the only tool here seems to be you, with your sweeping generalizations and desire to preach instead of discuss. It’s okay that you’re not a fan of debt, but you’re failing miserably to recruit others to your perspective. I’m sympathetic to your core point about the risks of debt and how so many millions (even billions) on our planet are harmed by it... and how many are everyday harmed by cronies who wield the power of debt and credit like a weapon upon the masses... but unfortunately you squander that sympathy and evaporate my patience with your continued soap boxing and closed mindedness. It seems you’d rather scream into an abyss and rake muck than to partner with others to explore potential solutions or improvements... and AFAIC you may just as well toss yourself straight into that endless void and never come out if you choose to persist in displaying this lack of interest in being better or trying harder to be a rational and reasonable discussion participant.

Don't borrow and you'll never be a slave to debt. If, on the other hand, you're greedy, and you want a nice house, a nice car, the latest iPhone, the best schools for your kids, and two vacations a year, go ahead and borrow. Lenders are only too glad to have you pay interest. But don't be confused. You're not a slave to debt, but to your own greed.

Martoonsky pretty much addressed it. The weight of the Air at the Lip of the hole is ~14 psi. Even if there were no gravity all the way from the surface to the center, the Air filling that hole would have to be at a pressure of 14 psi just to support the weight of the air above the Hole. But since air at every part of the whole except for exactly at the center is going to add its weight to the mix which has to be supported by the air underneath it the air pressure has to go up as you near the center.

The real problem with burning the Amazon is that it's burning the AMAZON !! A world treasure that's taken millions of years to reach this level, and god knows how many species being driven to extinction, as well as the rightful human residents being driven out. The world should be imposing massive sanctions on the country, till it stops. After all, they've crippled Venezuela, just for telling the yanks to piss off.

Not very likely because they no longer have the habitat range or population, and we humans are making harder for them all the time.

There are no chains, only circles.

That is not a theory. It is misinformed speculation (supported by the Daily Mail!) There is no evidence for any such event. We know this is not true. When matter and anti-matter meet, they annihilate and release a large amount of energy (Einstein's famous E=mc2). I gave up reading at this point.

I'll answer your questions in parts, as I don't have enough time in the day to tend to them all at once. The issue that arises immediately with this discussion is one of symmetry. The early three unified theories of gravity, quantum mechanics, and matter argued for conserved symmetries in regards to the fundamental identity of nature. This formalization of parity conservation was accepted by most in the Physics community and was coined the term "P-Conservation" In short, it was believed that the Universe was mirror image symmetric, that the enantiomer of this current Universe would behave exactly the same. However, in the mid 20th century, it was discovered that we do not exist in such a strictly symmetric world. Examples of this asymmetry arose in a number of experiments. Such as the radioactive decays of certain atoms. In brief, the directionality of gamma-ray emission was not necessarily even in some atoms. Thus, the notion of a strictly symmetric Universe was abolished. Indeed, this slight asymmetry in the world is required to explain the phenomena of the emerging Universe that does not completely annihilate do to perfect symmetry. First, in order for any theory to explain the emergence of a Universe there needs to be CP symmetry violation. This was proposed theoretically shortly after the discovery of the slight antisymmetric nature of the Universe. This violation consists of two symmetry violations in quantum mechanics. The first, charge conjugation ( C ) operation of antiparticle transformation. The second, parity formation (P), the formation of the mirror opposite of a physical system. Indeed, once you have C violation, your system will naturally tend towards P violation. The details behind CP violation are best understand by way of Cabibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix theory, which I won't expand upon to maintain brevity. Second, there's a disequilibrium in the thermal state of the earliest chronology of the Universe. In short, the immense heat and density at the stage of the early Universe allows for an asymmetric Sphaleron transition. This results in asymmetric brayogensis, and thus a net result of either antibayrons of bayrons.

Models are for precise formulation. But being guided by models alone is like being blind and being guided by others. Our guide decides many things for us. We will be 'blind' and guided by our models. Intuitive understanding is like being able to see far. Models alone are powerless to lead to new insights. Models themselves are discovered through logical and intuitive thinking. Perhaps failure to understand a phenomenon intuitively may not mean there is no intuitive way to understand it. It only means we could not figure it out. Just the way I usually think about these.

So someone decided that one of the most important characters in Christianity should no longer be known as "Maryam" because that makes her a foreigner, so her name was changed to Mary or Maria to pacify any objections to her origins and Jesus.

Do all poor people steal? Answer NO Case closed If you can't do the time, do not do the crime

The intervention of God in classical phenomena is not as obvious as in quantum phenomena. This is because we use concepts such as 'field' to explain, for example, electrostatic force. It was after I understood quantum phenomena in terms of God's intervention that I realized that God is behind all laws of physics, including classical phenomena. Yes, God pushes two charges apart precisely according to Coloumb's law. What is the agent that executes Coulomb's laws ? The laws of physics are like human rules and laws that are written down on paper. Those human rules and laws need someone to execute them. Who executes the laws of physics ? How do the charges know the distance between them ? Are they intelligent enough to calculate the force according to Coulomb's law ? Has any one ever made sense of what 'fields' are ? Imagine dropping a stone on a pond. Who solves the differential equations that determine the wave? The watermolecules themselves? The space between them ? God solves the differential equations in real time and move the molecules. So don't throw a stone on a pond for no reason because you are occupying His computational power. But don't worry, He has infinite power.

It is delusional at the least to say that humanity must from the Earth understand the Universe. One thing that I can tell you for a fact, is that 85 percent of the Universe is NOT missing, 100 percent of the Universe is right where it belongs, the fact that minuscule and irrelevant humans do not Understand this fact attributes to legal sales of alcohol, cigarettes and dimwitts babbling that climate change began 150 years ago when 20000 years ago half the Earth was glaciated But but but scientist say Define scientist