Deepak Kapur

@ ajb ( I am replying from mobile....somehow cannot quote) IMO here the words proper, standard or other such variants are misnomers at best...... BTW, when the observer focuses on the space ship, doesn't he become one-to-one with the reference frame of the space ship???? @ everybody What is the mechanism through which speed and length interact with each other, so as to influence each other......no maths please...a dumber is at the receiving end.

@ strange Does it mean the space in the space ship also contracts? Does it mean there is no real length? Does it mean from the view point of particles in the LHC, we are just point entities? ..........................all this seems philosophy, not science:/

A spaceship in the sky whizzes past an observer at a tremendous speed. The observer sees and measures its lenght to be 10 metres. The people on the spaceship measure it to be 12 metres. The same spaceship again whizzes past the observer at the same speed. This time, the observer uses his ultra powerful telescope to view the space ship so that he can have a very close view. What would be the length of the spaceship as seen and measured by the observer? 10m or 12m?

Does expansion of space mean that space between nucleons in a nucleus is also increasing?

@ ken it's very common sensical to find out that the OP is talking about the loss of external sense organs. moreover, the point here is not about the parts of the brain that link to external sense organs but about the thinking process. in fact, if a theoretical physicist is in such a position, he would be able to formulate complete theories from the knowledge that he had accumulated prior to this state.

@ Tar you are right.....but.....it seems a matter of personal preference..... (as is the case with most of things, when studied to their depths): 1. as regards basic intuitions, it can be said that we have basic intuitions regarding space, time, heat, pain, light, touch, darkness etc....etc...... 2. as regards finding other levels of reality....it can be said that....had science been content with what we perceive with our senses, we would not have the kind of insights we have regarding nature... again, all this is relative.....can vary to a great extent....

aware of what? aware of his thoughts.....

I think such a person would be fully aware and his thinking capacity would be fully intact, even if he is not able to contact with the outside world with his senses. If he is fed intravenously, he would even lead a long life....

How do we know that the thing that enters our eyes is a wave and not something else....... How do we know that there are only two levels,the inner and the outer----- everything may only be in our mind or there may be more than one level of outer reality.

What is 'quantum'? What is 'fluctuation'? What is 'space'? Is there a single definition for each of these three words?

How do you know that it is actually 'light' that is being picked up by your eyes? The thing that your eyes pick could be 'something else' that your brain then interprets as 'light'.

Can quantum fluctuations of space itself be called 'pure energy'.

In order to know that an electron is 'essentially free', I would have to interact with it. So, an electron's 'existence' is actually an 'interaction, imo

IMO, this is not the best option... We can always ask...'What is the mechanism that causes this infinite regress?' In this way we can qualify the infinite regress also. ......and so on..........

What is the difference between an entity, an interaction and a property in quantum mechanics?

If a particle interacts with something and nobody observes this interaction, would the wave function of the particle collapse?

Can we actually define anything without divergent views or controversies?

We have often heard about people who cannot see, hear and taste. Where would a person who cannot see, hear, taste, smell and touch ( an imaginary one, of course) find himself to exist?

When does collapse of a wave function associated with an elementary particle happen? a) When someone tries to measure the particle. b) When someone actually measures it. c) When someone just thinks about measuring the particle.

Phi for All, on 13 Jun 2014 - 07:28 AM, said: I'm not sure why this doesn't concern you more, but I'm starting to think you'd rather protect your beliefs than explore them. I'm not interested in attack/defend, but I can't explore with you if you're going to change the meaning of the words we're using to communicate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If such had been the case, I would never had said the following.........in a previous post because I strongly believe in existing as a blissful idea. "3. Seem = a sense of humbleness that arises when we realize/come to know that we can't be sure of 'what we are sure of' ( this includes surety about the feeling of supreme bliss also)." Below, I am going to present two viewpoints. I just seek honest comments, however bitter they may be. The Scientific View Science only believes in observing, making theories and testing the hypotheses with experiments. This is the only ‘true way’ in science. We (scientists) don’t believe in intuitions, beliefs, and other such stuff. We don’t want to tell the absolute truth, we just want to provide the best explanation for what we have. We believe, ‘To don’t know is extremely good.’ It means there is yet to know something that will give us joy of satisfaction and wonder. Even if there is a God, we despise such a God that says that humans can’t eat the fruit of knowledge, a God that says humans should not find knowledge without my help. We despise such a tyrant. We will continue to strive even if there are millions and millions of layers of reality, like some cosmic onion. We will not rest from travel, never to yield but ever strong in will and knowledge. The Other View (The View of Existing as Supreme Bliss) I have tried to explain it so please bear with me............... Agreed that the scientific method of observation, testing, falsification is good. Agreed that knowledge (questions) can never end, whether there is a God or not. Agreed that a good God will not behave as a tyrant/an indifferent entity (much of the evidence points in this direction only). So the possibility of there being a good God seems remote. But…………Just a little thought. What is the aim of this endless knowledge? Joy of wonder and satisfaction… or….. better no aim at all. Or something else…….. Now visualize a distant future for a moment……. Science has become so powerful that it can make changes in every type of organism (including humans) so that they are able to get energy directly from the sun and store it. They are also able to adjust their reproductive cycles so that no danger of overcrowding is there. Now, there is no need for living organisms to undergo the ‘blind process’ of killing each other via the food chain. Wouldn’t the scientists prefer such a system? Wouldn’t the joy they get from this new system surpass the joy they get from wonder and satisfaction? ( you can always say NO and stop reading further) Now visualize a still distant future……. Science has triumphed over death. Nobody would now die for all the time to come. Even more, scientists have dispensed away with the notion of a physical body. Now living beings can exist as ideas full of happiness and joy. This joy is the pure joy of blissful existence. No kind of strife that results from duality will be present. Wouldn’t the scientists prefer such a state of being? Now, come to the present…… If you get a chance to experience this state of eternal bliss and non-duality (where every kind of living being exists as a single pure blissful idea without strife of any kind), would you prefer it? It does not mean that you will get all the answers and there will be no more questions. Actually, after the attainment of such a mode of living, no further knowledge is required at all. Even if any kind of knowledge is required, its goal is the sustenance of such a state of being. And………… Belief in such an ideal, belief in such a mode of existence (call it God or simply bliss), does arise in you something that propels you towards this ideal. This feeling creates in you love for each and all. It takes away your fear of death. It is not something short lived or without stages. It’s a long process where you delve into this state of blissful existence, step by step. To be honest, some people may not reach such a state even after hard efforts. This does not mean that this state does not exist. It only means that we have to ask questions from this very ideal itself by delving deep into ourselves.

Why to talk of relic neutrinos, why not talk of a single neutrino ( if a single electron can be talked about....)

When you use imo, you want to say that in my opinion this thing/statement is true, otherwise there are chances that it may be false also. It means you are not sure ( and it is a good thing, imo). Moreover, IMHO most of the important things have been discussed, only semantics is now going on. (Really?).

I mentioned Sun because it is heaviest of all the planets. How to define 'evenly distributed'. I think mass is not evenly distributed in our solar system and it is also not distributed evenly in our galaxy. This is not what I asked. I take another example. There is a galaxy (A). There is another galaxy (B) 8 million light years away from A. Suppose a change takes place in A (say a tilt). As per current understanding, its effect will reach B after 8 million years. 1. If such is the scheme of things how do things work out at the cosmic scale? or Is the speed of gravity instantaneous? 2. Even if the speed of gravity is instantaneous, we know that the effect of gravity decreases with distance. Seen from this view point, the effect of galaxy A would be extremely weak after travelling a distance of 8 million light years. Just as Mercury, Earth, Venus, Mars, all the asteroids etc. have negligible effect on the space probe that is at the boundaries of solar system.

It seems to me that you have got the wrong meaning of the word 'seem' that I have used... I have used it to mean different things as follows.... 1. Seem = to think 2. Seem = to observe ( when I observe something red, it only 'seems' red to me because when the same red thing is seen by a snake or a bee, there is nothing red there). Reality is observer based, not absolute. 3. Seem = a sense of humbleness that arises when we realize/come to know that we can't be sure of 'what we are sure of' ( this includes surety about the feeling of supreme bliss also). Everything that humans have (words, language, senses, math, science etc.) are a description of the physical mechanisms/reality . They are not the mechanism/reality itself.

I don't think there's as much debate about those types of physics problems as you think. Please give examples of where you think there is controversy with any of the concepts you've mentioned. I am a nobody to tell/give examples. I 'just say' what 'seems' right to me. It seems to me that, you already know much-much more than me regarding the controversies. I would stop short of telling him how to run his business. It's not about telling....it's about asking.