eon_rider

1) I strongly agree. I think some of the strange things in Q.M are due to observation (but that opinion is honestly subject to change as I learn more about Q.M.) ("this is the cause of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." Which interpretation are you referring to?) 2) I disagree at present. 3) I disagree. the universe is not expressible as a “universal turing machine”. The universe can’t be defined by some kind of mathematical algorithm Also why would a turing machine be the best way to express the TOE of the universe? If that's what you are asking. 4) I disagree (as soon as one proposes a concept of some strange “higher level deterministic machinery" working in the "background" I can’t agree) (er...but sure I could be wrong) best Eon. PS. Just my 2 cents. That was fun.

best, EDIT: after a bit of a rethink even though the idea is cool and fun to ponder, I think it's just not possible to ever go near the speed of light. Even if we had 4 billion years to work on the technology it just seems that the laws of physics as we know them will never allow this to happen. Oh well. At least we've got FTL in the movies! best to all, Eon.

Dude, I mean Reverend (of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.) I was just kidding. Sub-space is fiction. Your idea of an Ion engine using matter and anti-matter is interesting. I just don’t get how it would work. EDIT: Really your idea sounds cool. Do you mean an Ion engine like a very distant future version of these? http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34201&fbodylongid=1537 or http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/technovel_smart-1_041119.html

Clearly, None of you have watched a single episode of Star Trek. I suggest you do and learn more about how we travel at FTL speeds through sub-space. Sheesh but it's all good.

[math] E = mc^2 [/math] Ah...nice...thanks [math] E/c=\sqrt{(m_0c)^2+p^2} [/math] Wow...even cooler... thanks A.E. & (edit) Dave.

As far as standard working definitions of time you can't beat these. or also "the duration between events or of an event." Both are awsome standard working definitions of time and space, but I wonder, Mr. Severian, could one also say for time that it's "a continuum of events?" rather than "a collection of events" or does it not matter really? Just curious PS. to Jazzoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time has some cool stuff on time.

sorry, but had to add. That's a great quote...very cool!

With out the concept of time and space life would go on. Why? Because they are concepts that are not needed to sustain basic life. However, in an advanced civilisation, we need the concepts of time and space, and especially in science to sustain a modern life. To communicate, to serve humanity, to build the internet, to solve engineering problems, to do just about everything. Everyday concepts of time and space are very important. Get rid of the concept of time and space and go try booking a table at your favourite restaurant. It would be tough to communicate your request. LOL. Even with the concept of time, it's tough to get that reservation! LOL. Interesting insight! best, Eon. PS. I'm no expert on time. This is just my layperson, science enjoyer, opinion.

I'll second that. Im not one of the smart people either, but what your saying does appear to make sense.

You can listen in real-player to a discussion about the HIGGS BOSON on BBC 4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20041118.shtml The scientists discuss particles and the HIGGS BOSON. It's quite interesting. Enjoy. Eon. PS.. Don't click the listen live on the right side: You have to click the listen again hyperlink directly above the picture of the presenter on the LEFT. If anyone's interested that is. I think the below scientists are being interviewed Jim Al-Khalili, Senior Lecturer in Physics at the University of Surrey David Wark, Professor of Experimental Physics at Imperial College London and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Professor Roger Cashmore, former Research Director at CERN and now Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford best again.

Sounds good but I hope you mean 360 GB harddrive not a 36GB. Did I miss something? But the 8MB cache on the hard drive is a very good thing. FAST! EDIT...ah...I just checked and the "WD360GD" is a 36 GB hard drive. That's fine but games like HL2 will VERY QUICKLY use up all your HD space. A second hard drive will solve the issue. get 160 GB minimum when ever you can. They are getting very cheap. Also back up your stuff. best Eon.

You don't need a router if you use a cross over cable. You can buy a cross over cable for 1 dollar or less from your local tech store, or have a tech friend make one for you. A cross over cable takes the router out of the equation. You just plug one side into your laptop and the other into your desktop. And network away. But sure you can use a router also. What ever's simplest for you. Hope that helps. Otherwise if you have an IPOD with a 10/20 or 40 gb hard drive use that. OR BURN A CD with all your stuff on it. XP pro and XP home can network without any issue 90 percent of the time. Good luck. Eon. PS... I hope you've been backing up your data on a regular basis as it's a best practice. Especially if you run into trouble during the data transfer. best of luck again. I'm sure it will go fine. Also you can find shareware programs that will allow you to transfer data under DOS using a laplink cable (serial or USB) (cheap to buy) if windows networking gives you problems. You shouldn't try any USB cable. You need a specialized one to avoid shorting the power supply. If that sounds too un-safe, then DON'T DO IT. Do the network thing.

OH...thanks guys! It was all clear as day until you had to gedanken a brand new senario...LOL. I'm just going to stick to Blike's original gendunkin's as I understand swansont's explanation of those. No worries, Eon.

It seems one should continually stay close to a well tested self-consistent framework like SR or GR in order to stay out of theoritical trouble where strange, impossible, or unhelpful results occur on the white board. So, I guess, one has to venture towards new ideas within physics very carefully and slowly if at all, after really understanding the foundations of S/GR or any area of physics.

Sounds good. fire away.

I missed your post.... Ah....you asked some great questions.... Just give me a minute to read your post more closely and have a think. EDITED TO ADD ==> And get that cup of tea...LOL

EDIT: I've edited a doubt I had that was unimportant. So... I'm looking at the quote above and.... That's cool. I hear ya. Time for me to get a cup of tea. peace and enjoy your day/night, Eon. that's cool. people need breaks.

Or you could do it like this. I strongly strongly strongly disagree! Just joshin.

If it were a philosophical question relating to religion then it could go into religion. If it were a philosophical question relating to politics, or economics, or language, or a non-religious topic then it would go into the philosophy section. It was just a suggestion. If there is no consensus, and/or no one thinks they are different then there is no forum. No problem. This is called the comments and suggestions section right? So I made a suggestion. Apparently, Religion and philosophy are the same or very similar to most. The posters so far, totally disagree with any need to have a separate section, so it's a non-issue. No need for a separate forum. Suggestion rejected. Fair enough. Best to all, Eon. PS. This is fair enough, (because this IS a science forum) but then why do you have a philosophy and religion section at all? (IMO . It's a good section and it's the 4th largest section on scienceforums.net by number of posts. 12,000 plus posts and "many a MOD" and many board members and scientists post there with something to say. So it's important.) Still the matter is settled. The majority of posters so far imply that there is little or no difference between the two and to create a separate section would pervert the forum. OK. I can accept that opinion. Honestly, it's majority consensus. (with mods as the last word) It has to serve everyone. It has to be deemed necessary by popular demand. Like the debate forum. So I really am cool about it. This is a fantastic science forum. It's all good.

This is a great answer. Clear as day. So I guess the question can be answered using SR. cool.

So, it seems, you are asking about your experience of the light bulb being turned on, at different times, compared the the act of the light bulb being switched on at the same time, as experienced, by someone else...(the experimenter perhaps.) My answer is sure your personal experience can be subjective! And also have it's own physical POV. A different point of view from the experience of the experimenter. Does that mean multiple realities? I'm not sure. It's sematics. Sounds to me more like multiple experiences. Who would argue that different people in different locations and circumstances all have individual (different) experiences? I'm not sure if that's the same as multiple realities. I don't think so. S/GR can't answer this question. But to me, this is not multiple realities, but multiple experiences or points of view depending on where you are located, or other factors. Few would dispute multiple points of view. In the brain many things are not happening in the order one thinks they are. The brain does alot of gymnastics with data. See reith lectures 2003 or study neuroscience. (that may be beside the point) Do you feel like you are travelling thousands of miles per hour around the sun while spinning?! No. It's happening. But you don't notice it. You're not being fooled. It's just your point of view (experience) does not need to question "Am I really standing still, or am I moving at the speed of earth, while spinning, through space?" Your personal experience will be connected to where you are now. What you are doing now. (and in most cases, your experience is informed by who you are also) In another example the person on the other side of the earth will say you are very far away from them, but you'll say they are very far away from you. Is this multiple realities, or just multiple POV's with regards to one's location? (as soon as you decide who is object A and who is object B and pick your reference frame for measuring, then the issue is resolved.) I think. That’s not multiple realities, rather multiple experiences. (or simply multiple locations on earth existing simultaneously) Just my 2 cents. I hope i didn't confuse anyone too much. LOL. It's all fine. best, Eon. PS. I'm not sure, but could a good mathematician or expert in SR be able to mathematically show that? You and the scientist, even if standing back to back, are actually in two different inertial reference frames? That's my question? The maths of it is well beyond me. But again, this may not be a question for SR or GR to answer. Rather another line of empirical inquiry

Great picture of the two slit experiment! I remember doing it in college (uni) but it never looked that colorful. Also...where is the original question posted? (scratches head) "Waves are waves. What is a probablity wave?" As yours is the first post in this thread. No biggie, just curious. Cheers for the graphics and the info. Eon.

Two olives on a table. One olive falls off. the olive on the table says to his friend who fell. "are you ok down there?" The olive that fell on the floor replies "O-live"

Do you have an opinion? I think you're well educated. I think you can form one for yourself. I've given you a start. Extrapolate, and good luck. Then let me know what you think? What do you think about how they are the same or different? Best to you, Eon. PS. I've had my turn.