Handy andy

 

 

Interesting question. I am guessing the answer is no, otherwise we would have seen headlines. But there might be some cautious ideas out there that haven't been exaggerated by the press.

 

An impressive combination of being arrogant, offensive and wrong.

 

 

While both very interesting, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

 

TBH I would find it pretty offensive in any context. Maybe that makes me abnormal. Or maybe it means I care about people's feelings. You decide.

 

I obviously have the advantage here then, since clearly I find the insults directed at me amusing hilariously so.

 

I was not however taking the micky out of you.

 

The thread has been hijacked and completely off track.

 

 

Best Wishes

Gravity is interesting because it is not properly understood by science, there are many theories around, so for anyone to claim they personally understand gravity demonstrates a lack of understanding of gravity or arrogance. I started the discussion but will step out, good luck with understanding gravity.

 

I would suggest getting a consistent understanding of the graviton might be your starting point for discussion. I did post a link from Wikipedia which was reasonably concise ref the graviton but seems to have been not suitable for your level of understanding. Various differing ideas ref the graviton have been posted, the link would have answered your questions.

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-team-dark.html#nRlv

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-ditch-dark-energy-relativity.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

 

TTFU is a joke, that normal folk find amusing ROFL.

 

 

The concept of a graviton is hypothetical. If it were theoretical, we would have solid evidence of its existence.

 

 

The graviton (if it exists) would be a quantum of changes to the field, not a field itself. And it would be a boson. And so its energy would be defined by the frequency of the radiation.

 

 

Same way that magnetism can get through an opaque material.

 

1. Forces are mediated by VIRTUAL particles (I think you have been told this before). Virtual particles are not particles, they are misleadingly named mathematical constructs.

 

2. Gravitons do not have to (and could not) get out of a black hole., The black hole's gravitation field is outside the event horizon. And that is where the virtual gravitons would do their job of mediating the force.

 

If a graviton does not have to exist out side a black hole, why does it need to exist at all?. A virtual particle or disturbance in a field could easily be caused by fermions whizzing past each other inside a nucleus, with no need for actual gravitons. A virtual graviton is just a wave or fluctuation in a field caused by the movement of particles. Waves expand outwards from the source of a disturbance, and there energy level reduces the further the wave travels and expands.

Yes and no. Some properties are the same. Some are not. (e.g. a lot of EM radiation is dipole, gravitational is quadrupole)

 

 

Do you understand the difference between classical physics and quantum physics? That's what my commentary was about.

 

Would you care to elucidate how my response was "stupid"? Are EM waves not classical? Is GR not classical?

 

 

I didn't say I didn't want you to post. What I want is for your posts to comply with the rules of the forum.

 

I understand exactly what your waking commentary was about, my maths is still at a reasonable level compared to your average peasant

Ref physics. I have forgotten more than I care to relearn but happily still have an idea of the differences between quantum and classical physics .

I am not going to get drawn into a personal debate with you ref what my opinion of some of your posts is. Don't ever take things personally on the internet, TTFU darling as one of my friends used to say to her over sensitive child.

 

TTFU for those with kids is short for "Toughen The Fuck Up" and it can be used in public whilst smiling at your screaming brats.

 

 

Radio waves are a classical representation of EM radiation. We already have a classical representation of gravity. It's General Relativity. A quantum theory is needed on scales where the classical theory fails.

 

"Waves stressing space" is nonsense that you need to drop from the conversation. Unless you have a model to defend, you don't get to bring it up.

 

Open Forum any one can respond.

 

EM waves travel through space and disperse in the same way gravitational waves do. They are therefore a good analogy to a gravitational wave. You assigned Boson Energy to hf above. Migl raised some questions ref the graviton. Me suggesting that it is a wave was not as stupid an idea as was your response which caused me to have ROFL and still does.

 

The concept of the graviton as a particle is theoretical, and contrary to your belief I do not think it fits with observed reality.

 

The concept of the graviton existing as a field which expands through space fits with the observed gravitational effects but not with your Bosonic idea giving it an energy of E=hf

 

If it cant get out of a black hole how does gravity in a black hole work? etc

 

If you don't want me to post stop answering my posts

 

 

Radio waves are a classical representation of EM radiation. We already have a classical representation of gravity. It's General Relativity. A quantum theory is needed on scales where the classical theory fails.

 

"Waves stressing space" is nonsense that you need to drop from the conversation. Unless you have a model to defend, you don't get to bring it up.

 

ROFL

 

The question was not directed at you.

A graviton will interact with other gravitons, unlike other bosons.

Can it gain/lose energy in that way ?

 

( It interacts with its own virtual particles: that interaction gives rise to the non-renormalizable infinities that don't allow for quantization )

 

Stupid question again but what the hell. The answer isn't on google or Wikipedia this time.

 

Would it not be better to consider the graviton as a wave stressing space rather than individual bosons.

 

If it was viewed similar to a radio wave rather than similar to a photon, it could quite happily propagate outwards slowly diminishing its effect as it goes.

 

In support of viewing gravitons as waves. Bosons cant get out of black holes. Waves travel through space as a result of black holes spinning around each other, it seems waves do get out of black holes, and diminish as they propagate through space. A wave transfers energy through a solid liquid or gas which would stop a particle.

 

WTF The above wave idea assumes that space is a substance like a liquid, which ?????

 

A graviton wave starting at a particle due to the movement of particles, expands outwards into space rather than staying focused like a photon of light.

 

Some people have stated the graviton is real and a spin 2 boson, others have stated it is virtual and a wave. Which is it, can it be a spin 2 boson that expands.

Ah so. It is better to get weighed on a spring high tide, with the sun and the moon in alignment.

A large part of the human race is already vegetarian, and worship cows rather than eat them. Is this the sort of spirituality being talked about here, or is it just to do with not hurting or mistreating living things unnecessarily, before they are harvested.

 

Perhaps the executions, beheadings or chopping body parts off prisoners under the guise of religion is not spiritual, but having a priest alongside or some religious fanatic makes more spiritually beneficial. Under many of the old testament based religions halal food is required, which is killed slowly, or animals are sacrificed, in front of each other, are these examples of killing animals and spirituality.

 

If something is going to be killed, is it best to do it quickly? and in the case of an animal without it knowing what is about to happen. In the case of humans executing or maiming each other, are they just being human (animals) rather than humane.

 

In the case of assisted suicide when an animal or human may want to die is this spiritual.? Is it spiritual to let something die slowly or to put it out of its misery quickly.?

Would it then be considered spiritual to eat the meat of the animal you meet and turn into meat?.

All living things ultimately wind up being food for something else. All the molecules are recycled and therefore reborn as new forms of life, is that spiritual, I am not sure.

 

If your average person on the street had to kill his own dinner, they would quickly become vegetarian or become desensitized to killing. The way humans kill animals is usually quick and relatively painless, if you ever watch a lion kill something, it aint quick and it aint pretty.

 

For most of the food chain, animals(humans included) it is just a question of eating something without considering it was ever a living creature, with feelings and a family and hopes for the future.

 

To meet or not to meat that is that the question

Check mate!

 

 

You really need to stop preaching this nonsense.

 

I believe in nothing and preach nothing.

 

To save you attempting to answer the questions. I found the answers I was looking for on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Your assertion that gravity can all be accounted for with quantum foam instead of gravitons is a big speculation. You might have noticed that people have been able to say what the properties of a graviton would be if it is found to exist. That's based on models. So any discussion of gravitons fulfills the requirement of making testable predictions (and not just in principle — as Mordred pointed out, the detection of gravitational waves is entirely consistent with gravitons being spin-2). Your speculation, however, is hand-waving, with no models backing it up, contrary to what the rules demand.

 

I had hoped someone else might be dumb enough to ask these questions ref the graviton. At the risk of being annoying.

 

How does the graviton cause attraction?

How does it cause repulsion in an expanding universe?

What special properties does it have that enables it to get out of a black hole?

How does a spin 2 boson move or what does it look like?

 

Is the graviton a virtual particle or boson or is it real particle or boson.

How does it accumulate energy? Does it have a frequency, a pressure. or is it a stream of gravitons hitting a particle or photon that causes attraction.

 

A photon of light as all particles do stretch space around them causing a gravitational gradient. Is this represented with a waves of gravitons hitting something, does a graviton wave spread out like a normal wave.?

There are a lot saferplaces than the middle of an ocean to sink a boat for insurance purposes.

 

Undersea volcanoes are plentiful and can cause tsunamis, not all of them are far below the surface. There is one South of El Hiero in the canaries, another in the azores. Kicking Jenny in the Carribean. The local marine forecasts in the Carribean include the undersea volcanic activity and advise people not to sail over it when it is active. Insurance companies don't legislate against acts of nature that can not be forecast. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, is why we have insurance.

 

Seismic activity on the sea bed could account for turbulence or bubbles on the surface of sea, especially if those bubbles come from 4000m below the surface, which is equivalent to about 400 atmospheres. Small bubbles on the ocean floor would be 400 times larger by the time they reached the surface, and could make a vessel less bouyant.

 

The burmuda triangle, and the atlantic plate and sea floor spreading might account for gas release from the sea bed, that could in theory cause a boat to fall down a bubble or to become less buoyant.

 

What gas or change in the sea water properties could cause a compass to deviate?. Could a difference in salinity of the water cause a current to flow and cause compass deviations, I think it could? As I understand fresh water meeting sea water is a potential energy source being investigated. Water from the sea bed driven up by a undersea volcano could cause a change in salinity near the surface and cause a current to flow and hence a due to turbulence in the water cause a fluctuating magnetic field.

There's enough conventional science to keep you going for many years on the subject. I am of the thinking that one should fully understand that before looking for alternative explanations.

 

Thanks all for the input, it is actually really appreciated even though I may not understand it all yet. You have all given me some interesting things to think about, and things to chase up.

 

If I was looking to start out on a career in physics and had a lifetime in front of me to study every established theory, there still would still not be enough time to learn everything, I am interested in.

@ all

 

I have not speculated anything of note on this thread, I have restricted myself to asking questions ref other peoples theories. Entropic Gravity is an existing theory, it is not mine. I had hoped a discussion on various gravitational theories based around virtual particles would be of interest to more than just myself.

 

@ Migl your description of entropic gravity bears no resemblance to what is written in the link I posted above, I think you are talking about something else.

 

@ Swan

The graviton is a theoretical particle, it is not a fact of science. There is no evidence that it exists, how can you argue that some one should put forward an argument that it doesn't exist. This is not speculation, it is speculation to claim it does exist and has magical properties that get it out of a black hole and can be its own antiparticle existing in the same space.

 

The idea of keeping threads simple and to the point didn't really sink in did it?

 

Virtual particle - strange rules apply to virtuals. Actual gravitons are what you get in gravitational radiation and that can be considered as created by the specific change in spacetime curvatue outside any event horizon

 

Theoretically it should be, and experimentally it is (as close as we can measure). The mass of the graviton has been pegged as very very small ( we expect zero but you can never measure that).

 

Quantum foam is a completely unproven hypothesis - I am not sure how to relate it to a thermodynamic model nor qft. I would suggest getting a firmer grouding in non-cutting edge science before attempting this level.

 

No mass is very important - you can have any sort of particle with a set energy or momentum some of these would be massless and some massive; to determine speed of particle you need to know mass (ie c or less than c). And what the hell does accelerated inertia mean - a particle has momentum without needing accleration

 

Please lose the word salad. an "idealized idea" ?

 

 

Please keep to one topic. And again - try to get the basics steady in your head before heading off into such strange territory

 

The thread is "Could gravity be caused by virtual particles or virtual waves stretching space." I did not think I was off thread.

 

I prefer to look at cutting edge and think for myself, and not look at stuff that is old hat or be told what to think. Thanks for the advice, I am sure you think you are correct in your approach?

 

The quantum foam concept is just as valid as the other cutting edge theories until proven wrong. As far as I understand, the graviton has not been proven to exist. Quantum foam ideas are inline with some of my ideas, so it has drawn my interest, and I think it is worth discussing.

 

Virtual particles in a quantum foam can be any shape or form depending on the proximity of other particles or waves interacting with each other, all of which will stretch and distort space around them. What part of this is salad? Can you can dispel the quantum foam concept in some simple way that can be understood.

Not a question. Do you have a model for this? (If no, then don't bring it up)

 

cross posted

 

see previous link on quantum foam not my idea, but interesting.

 

I will stop asking questions. The moderators are after me again.

If a graviton exists and is a boson, what special property does it have that enables it to escape a black hole.

Why is gravity considered to be transmitted at light speed? When considering the quantum foam concept and entropy are both virtual particles and waves not included in the gravity field.

 

Does the term MASS add to the confusion when thinking of waves and particles of any shape or form in space? Is it better to just think in terms of energy and momentum (accelerated inertia), in a volume of space.

 

I am still studying all the links which could as stated take a life time to understand, and disturbingly once understood may in fact be shown to be wrong when compared to other gravitational theories. By wrong I mean in terms of newtons theories compared to einsteins theories, both being very good approximations one better than the other for certain applications.

 

@ Mordred did you intend to post two different links above.

 

I need to pull some of my old sum books out of storage, to understand exactly what has been posted but I may be getting the gist of it. The gozzintas are slowly coming back to me .

 

Each time I read the links posted and follow up ideas more ideas and questions spin two me, which make me doubt the existence of the graviton.

 

Virtual particles in a quantum foam can be any shape or form depending on the proximity of other particles or waves interacting with each other, all of which will stretch and distort space around them. I think the graviton is an idealized idea and tries to make a mathematical nicety of random virtual particles or quantum foam, which must have random spin effects also.?

 

The gravitational entropy link I posted above does away with the need for dark matter. There are many hits when you google this subject, does any one think this idea is rubbish or has merit in the same way the other ideas have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

my wife sailed to bermuda in 1983 single handed, and for about 1 hour the sea appeared to boil around her, and many bubbles came to the surface, the yacht compass stopped working in that it wobbled erratically. Interesting huh.

 

I was under the impression that earth quake activity could cause this phenomina, by releasing gas from the sea floor.

 

Super waves were known to mariners long before scientists discovered them. I was also under the impression the earth quake idea was the most likely explanasion of vessels disapearing around the bermuda triangle, and scientists were aware of it.

Well you definetely have a string of related questions lol.

 

As to the first, all excitations that are definable as a particle must be under confinement. The confinement would be a quanta or greater in amplitude wirhin a coulomb wavelength as your boundary confinement. VP as far as I know hasn't got any meaningful confinement as we cannot measure a VP. Regardless of having a perfect detector or not, this will always be the case as it requires a quanta of action to influence a detector.

 

Spin foam is rather tricky to describe accurately. However think of the term degrees of freedom. Ie every interaction is an additional degree of freedom. Now model each degree of freedom under a seperate geometry. Usually only require 2d ie Hilbert space. Then interconnect each geometry under a 4d geometry (embedded).

 

So quantum foam can represent either just spacetime or the graviton as the effective degrees of freedom should match. However spin foam as it models interactions within spacetime under SU(2) which covers. SO(1.3) Lorentz/Poincare group. In a sense it is a GUT modelling approach via symmetries.

Well here is a simplified example lecture. (not the greatest of articles but does describe the above)

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.icra.it/MG/mg12/talks_plenary/Freidel.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjJkv2m4s_UAhWL6YMKHQKzB0YQFghDMAc&usg=AFQjCNE_2UFsPHqvSlnCcQW8ROVi4sYO9w

 

 

 

I would have to review gravitational entropy to be of any use there. I hadn't studied that field in ages.

I should add to better understand quantum field theory. Propogators are in essence your permutations of the field described as virtual particles.

 

Operators are when the particles are real ie field excitations.

 

Here is an article on Graviton propogators. Ie vector gauge boson (VP).

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.icra.it/MG/mg12/talks_plenary/Freidel.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjJkv2m4s_UAhWL6YMKHQKzB0YQFghDMAc&usg=AFQjCNE_2UFsPHqvSlnCcQW8ROVi4sYO9w

 

The rules for the above takes cobsiderable time to understand. The distinctions between propogators vs operators are part of the S-matrix. Which defines your Feynman diagrams. Operstors are external lines with propogators being the internal squiggly lines. The Graviton as a vector gauge boson would be internal.

 

Thanks for the answers (the links you posted are identical is there something else you meant to post). I can see how it takes a considerable time to understand, I will be reading the link several times following down every term, which I am not familiar with, of which there are many.

 

You stated above " So quantum foam can represent either just spacetime or the graviton" are you saying that the graviton and quantum foam are one and the same thing or just very similar concepts, modelled with different bounderies.? Can both quantum foam and gravitons being virtual particles not having meaningful dimensions or detectable mass, exist at the plank length but equally be described as having a infinite range. Can both could be viewed as excitations of a single field or multiple excitations of minute interlinked fields extending to infinity giving the appearance of one field.?

 

I understand that GR represents space time as a smooth substance which once you zoom in it is not. I understand there is a lot of work going on with various theories, some of which are more valid than others, all of which seem to be lumped parameter. Which route do you think most represents the real world and what is actually happening to give the appearance of stretched space.?

 

Does the concept of Gravitational entropy explain the movement of miniscule virtual particles, quantum foam or gravitons? .

An internal wavy sinusiodal line denoting it is its own antiparticle. Length will vary on the spacetime aspects. On representation essentially identical to photon.

 

Is the graviton just a mathematical construct, A photon is a single packet of energy or field is it not?. I tend to view it as a pipe spinning through space, is this wrong?

 

Excellent summary of quantum field theory in general. You also accurately described the problem with detection. It is predicted to be the "heaviest boson ".

 

Under SU(2) spin foam in this case this corresponds to your Pauli matrixes.

 

All standard model particles fall under the Gell-Mann matrixes which has 8 generator matrixes.(Google eightfold Wayen) As opposed to the 3 generator matrixes (Pauli). Just an aside on those articles.

 

On the detection side - gravitons have a very low cross section of interaction with matter; they make neutrinos look interactive; they are also stable so there is no possibility of detecting specific and characteristic decay cascades. Really difficult to spot them. About 30 orders of magnitude harder to spot than photons at the energy of the LHC - this is bearing in mind that LHC detects real particles - not virtuals.

 

and they are massless

 

I am easily confused how can a graviton be the "heaviest boson", and massless.?

 

Thanks all for the answers,

I do not think it would be overwhelmingly hard to take a few Buddhist teachings align them with scientific theories such as the various quantum theories, modern social practices and thinking techniques and you would have a new age (way of life) based on what is known or understood to be true today. Add a bit of paranormal to keep the peasants happen and you have a religion.

 

I saw 100's of temples in Asia and I never saw anything like a comfortable place to rest, for anything like a long period of time.

 

If anyone wants to go to Thailand get on an aeroplane, maybe pay for a first night in a hotel, then wing it with the locals, using hostels motorcycles and buses, you can get around for virtually nothing, it is an excellent country to tour, and culturally very interesting.

Khampeng phet amongst others is interesting old temple to look at.

 

If you get lost in Thailand the sign posts are no use they are written in pictures Thai text. Plenty folk speak English till you learn a bit of Thai.

Would those quantizations of the excitations of the field have different energy levels and directions of movement. ?

Do Gravitons flow towards and away from masses, as has been mentioned in popular physics books.?

Would this type of flow be regarded as a type of entropy in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.?

 

"Once you have a quantum of excitation/energy you are no longer dealing with a VP but a real particle."

 

How far can a virtual particle field extend due to a real particle or boson?

 

 

Edit

 

Is Quantum foam a more likely means of the cause of gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam instead of graviton. ?

Would quantum foam have a higher energy level nearer to a mass and again would this tend to flow as described above?

 

Edit

 

I was looking for anything on gravitational entropy theories and this popped up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity amongst other items I found related to the search. Does entropic gravity have any mileage as a theory based on virtual particles ?

Correct, even if the graviton were discovered nothing would change in GR. Unless the graviton has unpredicted characteristics which is more unlikely now that we detected GW waves. (matched spin 2 statistics)

 

Is the graviton considered to be a virtual particle/field?

How big can a virtual particle be?

Can multiple atom sized virtual fields be lumped together and represented as one planet sized gravitational field as in GR perhaps? .

Does a graviton moving away from a mass have increased energy (take up more space), compared with gravitons moving towards a mass?

 

 

 

 

You first. How is this testable? What evidence exists that supports this idea? Do you have a mathematical model? Anything that adheres to the guidelines?

 

I am trying to restrict myself to asking questions as suggested by Imatfaal, I think I am with in the guidelines in so doing, and restricting my line of questioning as suggested. I may have mistakenly posted in the speculations forum, instead of the physics forum, but since I generally wind up here, I thought this the best place to start.

 

Regards a mathematical model I suspect the graviton may already cover this idea, but am seeking some clarification.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ All

 

What a graviton looks and moves like, and how it transmits the gravitational force is interesting to me. Does any one have any thoughts to add on the ideas above.

Could gravity be caused by virtual particles or virtual waves stretching space.

 

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

 

The above thought provoking link was kindly posted by Strange, would any one like to discuss the concept of gravity being caused by a virtual field or virtual particle, as opposed to a theoretical graviton that might not exist.

 

When visualizing the graviton or how such a concept could work, to give the appearance of stretched space. I came up with the amusing idea off all space being full of gravitons which vibrate(spin) around atoms and are boiled off to be replaced with lower energy gravitons, effectively like vibrating sand, or like aerated water they are less buoyant, things will sink into it due to gravity.

 

As was pointed out by Imatfaal I have no clue what a boson with spin 2 would look like, so the above visualisation may not apply to a graviton.

 

I do however have a clear picture of a liquid full of waves off all shapes induced by vibrations and movements of real particles, (stable waves) and I can see how this would give the appearance of stretched space and gravity.

 

Would any one care to discuss or add to this idea.

 

 

No, not psychic abilities.

 

I think people here would agree that there is no permanent self, no soul, no ghost in the machine, but still experience life as though they are a homunculus sitting behind the eyes. It is one thing to have an intellectual understanding that this is an illusion, quite another to feel it. Buddhism provides a means to feel this.

 

 

 

Like i said before, Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation.

 

Enlightenment, or Nirvana, is a state of mind.

 

 

 

I agree. It has been implied (perhaps on similar threads) that atheists are intellectually superior to religious people. Forgive me if i have falsely accused you of this.

 

 

 

I agree: religious people are often so because of inertia, while atheists have usually had to rebel against a majority view. This will change as atheism spreads: people will not believe simply because of the influence of people around them.

 

 

 

Humans seek meaning. We know the world through our brains which, amongst other things, is an organ of meaning. It is as natural for the brain to think as the heart to beat.

 

 

 

I don't need to study past mathematics: i could just start from scratch and maybe i'll figure out Pythagoras's Theorem by the time i die. Or i could study known maths and perhaps contribute something new.

 

Similarly, i could seek meaning from scratch. Or i could take the various insights gleaned through the centuries, some of which are bound in religious narratives. Buddhism provides me with a nice framework from which to explore my existence: i could do without it, but since it's there and i've found it useful i may as well use it.

 

 

 

 

We could do, i think it's only me arguing otherwise. See, religious people can rebel too.

 

I rarely trust someone who doesn't drink without checking out what they say.

 

 

Buddhism in its original form was not a religion, however different forms of Buddhism have evolved.

Are Bodhisattvas not a Buddhist belief in reincarnation.? " In Buddhism, one karmic choice results in rebirth after rebirth and presents a special case in the study of reincarnation. A bodhisattva is an enlightened being who takes a vow to delay existence in Nirvana until all beings are enlightened. This is the highest expression of Buddhist compassion and an exception to the general process of death and rebirth. The great Tibetan tulkus are bodhisattvas, reincarnate lamas who return to continue teaching others the Buddhist truths. Guan Yin is a revered bodhisattva in many Buddhist cultures, worshiped as the goddess of compassion. Buddhists who are still working toward enlightenment may take bodhisattva vows to ensure that once they reach a permanent state of bliss, they don't remain there but are reborn endlessly to help everyone become a buddha, or realized being." Is following a contradiction to the above? " Buddhists do not believe there is a "thing," self or personality who goes through life, death and rebirth into another body. Buddhist reincarnation can be understood as consciousness, the creative principle, manifesting endlessly in new forms. A life is considered to be like a wave in the ocean. It appears to have form and then it is gone, vanished back into the sea. Meanwhile, the vast ocean exists, containing all waves, all water, with new waves continually arising and subsiding.

"

 

The above paragraph describes karma, action and effect, good or bad actions ripple through time like waves, like you mentioned previously.

To me this sounds like the quantum world.

 

The following implies that Buddhism has a belief in something after death even if it is not a unique self. I understand this to mean a oneness with the universe, or what was you carries on rippling into the future.

 

"

Consciousness is energy, and all energy is one connected field, like drops of water in the ocean.

 

Nirvana is simply the state of consciousness in which attachment and craving have been released and the bliss of perfect freedom is experienced.

 

A blameless life earns rebirth into a more highly-evolved consciousness, a step closer to Nirvana or enlightenment.

"

 

What do you understand Nervana to be under Buddhism?

 

Sorry about the font changes something went wrong with the cut and paste, which came from this link http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/describe-hindu-buddhist-belief-reincarnation-5574.html if any one is interested.

 

 

Which form of Buddhism do you follow Theravada, Mahatayama Tibetan Zen etc or do you like many people have your own ideas.

That none drinking thing is a worry.

 

I guess if you choose not to piss your money up against a wall, it is bonus and maybe it is something with increasing taxation that every one will stop doing. Like smoking. What pleasure activity will the government tax next.