QuantumT

I'm just trying to understand the wave function. Can it be more basic? The collapse is another thing that I'm also curious about, but in this thread, it's the wave.

The collapse of the wave function happens in the DSE when a detector is added to see actions at the slits. I thought that was an axiom, since it has been proven countless times.

The double slit experiment? Bare in mind, I'm here to learn, contribute, and to be corrected, if I'm wrong. But don't correct me based on assumptions, no matter how much consensus they have.

Well, now that you ask, I really want to know why the wave (function) vanishes, when you add a detector closer to the source?

I know and I agree! But this thread is not about the collapse. Maybe it was silly. The measurement always shows particles. We can't measure the wave as a wave. If you add a detector closer to the source, the wave vanishes. From my perspective it seems like you are presuming more than knowing. But I'd like to hear other opinions (if there are any?).

Is that your interpretation, or do you have sources to back it up? We both know that when Einstein visited Bohr in Copenhagen, and they talked about it, Einstein mentioned the moon as an example, and Bohr replied: Can you prove that it's there, when you don't look? Clearly he's talking about things "being", and not about chances. At least that's my opinion of it.

Both research and experiments clearly show that death benefits any species in the long run, by discontinuing old patterns, to allow new and better ones to gain momentum. That only proves the benefits of evolution.

When Heisenberg stated the following, I assume he was talking about the quantum wave function as massless: The same goes for Bohr with this statement: So my question is: Are there still physicists who support that concept of a massless wave function? Or has it been abandoned totally?

I am not trying to say that we are. They are just hints IMO. Just ask me to elaborate. I disagree. I think non-locality is a key element in the simulation ontology. The holographic principle is not included on my list. What I am referring to in my 2nd point is "matter = energy". That particles are unreal (like Bohr/Heisenberg said).

Oh no! Not another simulation thread! There, it's been said. No reason to repeat it Most of you here possess advanced scientific knowledge, so I won't even bother to elaborate the following 10 points in this OP. You should know what I mean. But I would like to discuss and elaborate any of them in this thread, if you want me to. 10 Reasons Why We Are More Likely To Live In A Computer Simulation Than In A Genuine Physical Universe. 1) Quantum Fluctuation 2) The Holographic Nature Of Matter 3) Duality 4) Non-locality 5) Bostrom's Argument 6) C 7) Sommerfeld's Constant 8) Universal Mathematical Structures 9) Computer Codes In String Theory Equations 10) DNA/RNA And The First Living Cell Let's argue! Note: I have limited time, so please be patient when you ask me questions. I will try to answer within two days!

I think I found a solution to the BH conundrum. Unfortunately it's not traditional physics. Thus it will probably not get recognized. My solution is that Black Holes are data deletion points. A way for the universal processor to relieve itself. A simulation shortcut. Not a shortcut that I invented, or even thought of. I first heard of the idea from theoretical physicist Zohreh Davoudi in the Asimov Memorial Debate 2016. Edit: By this I suggest that both Hawking and Susskind was right.

I have no ontology that includes any type of divinity. It's a no go for me.

Why would a god need a computer? Why marry her, when you can just shag her?

I chose "it depends", because there are many perspectives to answer from. - From an earthly perspective some human lives matter a lot, while many seem insignificant in the total sum of events. Imagine where we'd be right now without Newton and Einstein. - From a cosmic perspective we don't matter at all, like Sagan implied in his pale blue dot speech. - I'm an atheist, so I won't even bother taking the religious perspective, but it has one element that doesn't need divinity: Intelligent design (by proxy). And by 'by proxy' I mean a computer. In that scenario we are probably the only thing that matters in this universe. So, the answer actually depends on your preferred ontology. My personal ontology is not fixed, I am indecisive between Sagan and simulation.

I second that

Higher dimensions are theoretical internal particle properties. Not properties of atoms or our macro reality. The only dimensions that are proven are the three we know + time.

Very informative, thank you! Could the EH be a fermion field?

Temperature is a matter of atomic movement, if I'm not mistaken. And the denser the singularity gets, the less movement it allows - thus colder. Or?

Interesting! So a photon can't heat and reflect, but either heats or reflects?

You might find this article useful: https://phys.org/news/2016-09-cold-black-holes.html It basically says that the event horizon is super hot, and the inside is colder the bigger it gets.

Seen from an evolutionary/biological perspective, war is fully justifiable. The larger territory the predator flock has, the more prey available, meaning higher chance of survival. For humans however, this has changed after the first agricultural revolution. Since then the territory has been used to grow crops to feed an expanding population. But the main idea of "more territory = more food" has not. But since the second agricultural (the green) revolution, the one initiated by Norman Borlaug, the need for more territory has gone. So war is no longer evolutionary justifiable. The sole purpose for modern war is political strategy.

You guys are absolutely right. I am sorry to have appeared stupid. It was a misconception on my side. I saw the matter inside the BH as one thing and the EH as another thing. And I've been very focused on the matter itself in my research. I was trying to make a point. The point being, that you can understand something almost perfectly (seeing/hearing), but have trouble communicating it (speaking/finding words/symbols).

My bad. I was too focused on the concept to pay attention the location.

You are absolutely right. I should have called them "information" instead. IMO that is the closest we can get to a soul. Namely a digital version of our personality that can be "saved". You are absolutely right, except for one little detail: Answers! If we assume that we are simulated, it answers many questions.

You quoted the answer yourself: I made associations to it immediately after. Why bother replying to a post that you don't bother reading?