QuantumT

This thread is mainly about physical appearance, so let me ask the question from a different angle: Were Newton (England, became adult in 1660) and Einstein (Austria, adult in 1897) two different races? The average life expectancy and height of people in those two periods were significantly different, and those differences were much more radical than melanin in the skin.

Oops! I'm used to not being allowed to make "spin off threads" other places, so I though this would be better. Sorry!

I have a totally different theory about this exact subject. But before I explain it, I need the opinions of you guys about a key element in it: What would happen if a photon hit a fluctuated particle in the vacuum of deep space?

Or to put it more simple: Proof is indisputable. Evidence is a matter of interpretation.

Sacha Baron Cohen, what are you doing here?! And isn't this a bit too "Borat"...?

Yes. When the DSE is performed with single particles at a time, they also form a wave pattern after a while. But the problem with "the wave" is that it's unmeasurable, because any attempt to measure it, makes it collapse to a particle (or particles). This - IMO - makes "the wave!" a philosophical matter, more than a physical one.

That's pure BS. Science is not physics, it's knowledge (science literally means knowledge!). Knowledge about the psyche is just as valid as knowledge about atoms, molecules and stars. As long as it's consistent and has patterns and predictability, it's value is as high as the others.

As with the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution is the most proven theory we got. The evidence is staggering. So what you do when someone denies it, is to take your palms up to your ears, press hard, and repeat the word: La By performing the above action, you are returning the claims you are presented with, with an equally sensible reply.

Nonsense. Most of us believe there's life out there somewhere. Maybe not intelligent, but still life. Even a germ in a distant galaxy is per definition an extraterrestrial. That being said, I can actually support most of your hypothesis, that extraterrestrials created us, and watch us. But they are not from this universe. Our universe, and earth in particular, is their "fish tank". We are their science project. They even taunt us, like we would do with a cat and a laser pointer. Note: This is not my conviction, just my favorite ontology.

I wasn't talking about life and survival of the fittest, but about the physical constants.

Why is everything "just right"? Is it because we live in a multiverse, where our universe is "just right"?

The almighty sysadmin didn't want to waste time.

That's like asking cavemen about quantum computing. We are no where near that technology. Except the imagination. But that has never stopped us.

Thank you! So they are considered to be A or B, up or down, heads or tail, right or left, when they separate?

I appreciate that, but is it wrong to change the analogy to two coins, who both have two sides, and when your brother opens his box, and sees a tail, you open yours and see a head? Sorry, I don't want to bug you, but I need to know the basic principle.

So we can just ascertain that it happens, but not why?

Thank you for clearing that up. How would you ask the questions then?

I have two very simple questions: When two particles get entangled, do they settle on a spin direction instantly, or are they still in a superposition when they are separated? And if they are in a superposition after separation, how can they mirror each other when measured later?

Our brain needs a paradigm. A common narrative that makes sense and is shared by it's peers. The brain does not care if the paradigm is good or bad when we are young, because good and bad are still obscure concepts. When we get older and learn more, we either choose to reinforce the narrative by confirmation bias, or we break it, and find our own paradigm. I had a brief period when I was very young, where I got involved with evangelists. They even taught me confirmation bias by observing them. But it didn't last. My brain eventually refused to accept the paradigm.

Thank you all, studiot, swantson and Mordred, for taking time to elaborate this for me. I appreciate it!

I'll have to read that many times before I fully comprehend it. Learning stuff is much easier in your native language. If what you have written is covering the following questions, I apologize in advance. You have shown me a model of the wave pattern (the image above) - I assume. What I want to know is your opinion if those "waves" are particles or energy before they hit the detector? I assume you will say that the wave is particles, but can we know for sure that the wave consists of particles? Or is it a logic presumption?

I got it from this episode of Through the Wormhole (if my memory serves me right): There's also this publication: https://wyss.harvard.edu/aging-and-death-may-give-an-evolutionary-advantage/ (Contains link to the study itself)

It makes sense. Thank you. I still have questions, but I need to leave now. I'll be back tomorrow or next week.

I chose to simplify it, assuming everybody would know what I meant. I was wrong.

A function is a mathematical concept to the best of my knowledge. Do those images show particles with and without a Higgs field? My fear now is that I sound completely ignorant, so please be gentle.