questionposter

I don't know how you know equality doesn't exist anywhere in nature though. What if having different abilities would ultimately balance out anyway?

So, how can we guess how localized something is then? If a radio-wave is emitted and we know it's a radio-wave, don't we "know" its delocalized? But couldn't the energy that a source emits be relative? How does a specific frame of reference determine the "real" localization of an unobserved photon? It can't be infinitely delocalized because if it was, we would instantaneously measure it.

In many aspects of quantum mechanics, "wave" is/can be part of the definition of a quantum particle, or at the very least "something that has both point like and wave-like properties". I don't know why you are incapable of seeing this. The use of the word "particle" is used over "wave" means nothing because of this. It's like arguing "No, electro-magnetisms isn't the attraction and repulsion between two bodies, it's a force. See, right there in the definition, it says force, not something that causes things to attract and repel based on their charge", even though if you just researched or kept on reading, you would see it say that it is a force that causes attraction and repulsion based on charge. Your arguments are next to meaningless at this point. You have failed to acknowledge that wave mechanics can be included in the definition of a quantum particle and have a lot of math to support it, including mathematics you have mentioned.

This topic asks an interesting ethical question http://www.sciencefo...765#entry674765 Assuming we can wipe out mosquitoes and have no consequences, should we do it?

Personally I don't really care if I lose a few drops of blood in an entire year especial considering most of the time I don't even notice, but how much it would effect the environment would depend on how much animals and plants are dependent on mosquitoes as food. Though any actual just extinction of a species will have some effect on the environment, at least eventually, or there will be something that did/didn't happen because of it. Maybe mosquitoes can help pollinate flowers or certain plants or their existence in the water helps fish in some way or feeds them. Also, how would you get rid of mosquitoes anyway? If you used pesticides you'd kill too many other insects in the process, if you poisoned the water you kill many fish and just make hte water unhealthy in general, if you used a virus it would eventually mutate and spread to other species, any attempt to actually eradicate an entire species would end up causing more harm than good anyway.

Science isn't really a religion, in fact science in religion are separate, that's why it's a mistake to think they interfere with each other. CERN has been making progress, they recently confirmed the existence of another particle and are close to confirming a Higg's boson.

S photon isn't delocalized when you detect it because when you detect it it's just a point, but prior to that it is delocalized by some amount. When I mean "see it first", I literally mean see it first, because to one frame of reference shouldn't a photon comming from a source have a low relative energy? And shouldn't that energy determine how localized it is? And if it didn't work this way before, how do you actually know how localized the photon is prior to measurement? Wouldn't it sort of break relativity if a photon had the same probability to all frames of reference?

I think that's sort of a poor argument for religious people not being broken to say that "oh, well, I can PRETEND all that stuff is real and use it as an excuse to go kill hundreds of people (crusades).". Care to clean it up? Your imagination isn't really reality, and neither is your perception, your perception is just what your brain maps out the photons to be, and by the time the photons are transmitted into information readable by your brain, the atoms themselves are already in different locations or in different states anyway.

Personally, I don't see what the point of death is if you just continue living, but I suppose there isn't really enough evidence to really support whether or not you can be conscious after your body dies seeing as how consciousness is not a part of the definition of life.

Shoot, I already filed that cyber lawsuit. Just ignore the lawyer if they knock on your door or send you an email. Evolution is not a mystical force that governs anything, it's a pattern of the life cycles of living things on Earth that we have deduced based on our observations, as far as anything being impossible, the only limitations are those physics, which evolution or even life isn't much a part of. As much of a lack of reason for there to do something, there is the same lack of reason to not do something, so if people really think that equality is something that will be good, they should be able to go for it. Also with regards to evolution your forgetting that the environment can change and that random mutations would happen regardless of any evolutionary pressure, and in that scenario the only things that wouldn't survive would be the things that are unlucky enough to have very self-destructive mutations.

But with what I'm seeing with combining relativity and localization is if I move away from a photon really fast, it has low energy and should therefore be delocalized, but if another source is moving towards that photon, to them it should have higher energy and therefore be more localized, so localization depends on the frame of reference and the person moving away could expect to see the photon first before the person moving towards it because the photon is so delocalized at such low energies?

When I watch these pop-science shows with people like Michio Kaku, I keep seeing them say say that the universe originally expanded faster than the speed of light because it's actually bigger than 13.7 billion light years, which they try to explain with various theories such as dark energy, but with a pretty universal property in quantum mechanics, couldn't that infinitely small thing that it was at the moment before it big banged be very or perhaps infinitely delocalized and thus make the universe bigger than what light would expand to be? I suppose you would need to be able to describe the entire universe as a single equation though... High mass in conventional QM would seem to make particles and light more localized, but then you look at black holes and high mass makes black holes even more delocalized.

Well of course different combinations of quarks would exist, I'm surprised they didn't announce this sooner.

Actually, I could have swore that had been brought up already, but it may have been some other thread, but even with that, having religious scientists itself should show that religion doesn't impair your capacity for logic, religion is often involved in a logical process anyway: Noah fit every animal on a boat -> but that there's not enough room or resources -> but god can do anything, therefore he can make room and resources -> so the in the event god existed (which a monotheist would assume is true) the animals could have fit on the boat by god making room in ways unknown to us because god can do anything, and since all the animals survived, we can assume for now that he wanted there to be room.

Having a religion doesn't make your logic inconsistent because science has nothing to do with religion, so scientists having a religion would not have to be logically inconnsistent and there is nothing confining belief to only that of an inconsistent Christian god. I don't see much of another way to interpret the word "broken" or the notion that having a religion impairs your mental ability. It's a lot more complicated than someone merely being broken, it is more likely a cycle of growing up in a certain environment and having a connection with religion to an important event in one's past.

Let me put it this way: Do you have statistical evidence to support that religious people have inherently "worse" or more damaged brain cells than non-religious people?

Let's say for a brief moment one frame of reference moves really fast towards the photon source and another really fast away from the electron source. This would increase/decrease the relative frequency, but therefore the relative localization?

Bolding or coloring the word "particle" doesn't make an electron a little sphere. Furthermore, the definition of a quantum particle can be something that follows quantum wave mechanics. As I already said multiple times now, I'm fine with an electron or proton or w/e not only being only a wave, but you need more than "oh, well, they happened to not use it for every single sentence to describe every single property of a particle" to conclusively say an electron is not in any way shape or form related to a wave. Quantum field theory does not define what a particle "is", therefore you cannot say an electron does not follow any wave mechanics because of the absence of wave mechanics in QTF. QTF is more to describe how forces interact. In fact, http://dictionary.re...se/particle?s=t All it says is that a particle is a constituent of matter, nothing more.

Ok, let's say its the same photon that two possible frames of reference could observe. One would observe the photon having a high energy, and the other would observing the other having a low energy. Wouldn't the one observing it having a low energy measure it first because relative to them the photon would be more delocalized and occupy a much greater probable area? A radio-wave extends over many meters, but a gamma ray is only around a few nanometers, so...one could expect to see high energy gamma rays from a source but then not observe them because another frame of reference observes them as being delocalized and then measures them first due to the greater are occupied?

That's completely beside the point, the fact that there are very intelligent and successful people who completely acknowledge science but are also religious should dispel that rumor.

The only evidence you've had that electrons are in no way shape or form related to a wave is modern operators which use or are built from quantum wave mechanics and have planar wave solutions, quantum field theory which does not address what a particle is, but more of how forces act, a book that you yourself said had some things wrong in it, and then this table which is merely information we can confirm with certainty and contains no equations to describe the particles whatsoever, spin is used in quantum wave mechanics, and so is mass, and all of the families of particles. As for CERN, I'm sure they can easily use Gaussian wave packets to describe free particles.

I'm not sure exactly what your saying, but you seem to be saying something like "so animals evolved using communication, but what about plants?". I'm no expert on plants, but experiments and observations have shown they can in fact in some way sense things they come into contact with even without those venus flytrap hairs (just look at vines), and there's also a phenomena where if the roots of trees becomes interconnected and you chop down one of the trees in the system, the other trees in contact with the killed tree's roots will release sap. Both plants an animals contain cells and DNA, so it wouldn't be surprising if there was some basic chemical or biological interaction between plants and animals, but there is little evidence to suggest plants and animals can actually "communicate" with each other or that plants can communicate with plants in the sense that we know of.

Why would multiple scientists get such an obviously simple understanding wrong? Makes no sense, unless...it's not completely wrong. Also, the Dirac equations or matrices used in modern field operators can be shown to have equivalent results as the former Dirac wave mechanics. There's also the issue of what physically exists, because if a quantum particle is to comprise physical objects, it has to itself be physical. For as many questions that your "modern" operators answer, they ask deeper questions, and in modern computation the "field" version of Dirac's equations can be interpreted as relativistic versions of Schrodinger equations. When you say Dirac's equations have been revised to fit into field theory, I assume your talking about a fermion field, which can be described as plane-wave solutions. Furthermore, quantum field theory does not address what a particle "is", so you cannot say a particle as not a wave in any way just because wave mechanics is not used in quantum field theory, it is meant to show how forces interact and are mediated, and this is probably why you don't see wave mechanics mentioned a lot in QTF.

I can understand that based off of our concrete knowledge of energy that all we can say for certain is that it is a quantity that is always conserved, but it's hard to think it isn't physical in anyway, especially considering its equivalent to mass, and if we find a higg's boson, it's pretty much physical energy because higg's bosons would be actual particle's that are responsible for mass that are therefore equal to energy. And what about a photon too? What is a photon besides energy? What exactly is "waving" when you say it's an EM wave?

There are places in the solar system that can theoretically support some type of life, such as Europa or Titan, but they cannot support human beings without being terraformed.