questionposter

No, there's an actual moral to this story. It is kind of a joke though.

I agree they aren't broken, but I don't necessarily agree with the restrictions you applied, such as that you can't fool someone more intelligent that you or that there will always be someone more intelligent, seeing as how there are multiple ways to be intelligent. If "there's always a bigger fish" was actually a true statement, there should be a fish the size of the universe. I think mathematically, the intelligence capabilities of a person or the physical capacities of a person's brain to make neurological connections asymtotes at some number, such as that people can keep coming a little more and then a smaller bit more intelligent but eventually it gets to a point where to make any more neurological connections your brain would have to break the speed of light.

So for this story, God created man. But, all the body parts were arguing over who gets to be the boss. The brain says "I get to be the boss because I do almost all of the thinking". The arm says "No I should be the boss because without me you can't do anything". The stomach says "No I'm the boss because without me you'd starve". The body parts keep arguing and finally the butt or a§§ says "No, I'm the boss". The other body parts laugh at him, so the butt goes on strike and closes up. Finally after a few days the other body parts can't take it and let him be boss. What is the moral of this story?

I mean one type of frequency output per input, like with electrons. Also, with the Compton scattering with protons, how do protons not radiate their energy away if the photon they scatter has a higher frequency than what it had before it interacted with a proton? Or is that just the uncertainty principal?

There are multiple ways to be intelligent as there are multiple parts of the brain and multiple ways those parts can interact, and having a religion does not mentally impair a person in any way, shape or form.

Wow, so they have to all be in different states yet we don't observe 3 different types photons being scattered per 1 energy level of a photon that a proton absorbs. Though, doesn't the Pauli-exclusion principal state that two fermions can in fact occupy the same quantum state if they have opposite spin?

You can have as many pictures on a 2 dimensional surface as you want, it's not going to ever going to account for the dimension itself, because all of those pictures are made in spacial dimensions, which time is not one of. It can't be described holistically in terms of an axis because it doesn't actually move left and right from a frame of reference, it technically doesn't move at all, it's something different. If there was some actual equation you had to accurately describe it, it might make more sense. You can try and draw someone walking over different frames, but time is still analogous, you'd have to draw infinitesimal frames. I guess technically though, it is a 4-dimensional object because it exists on the fabric of space and it has a frame of reference for which time flows for it. The pictures your drawing are just our own views of how 4-dimensional space looks when it's truncated through 3 dimensional space because we can only physically perceive 3 dimensions. It's not much different than saying a circle is a sphere because a circle is a shape you get from when a sphere is truncated by a 2 dimensional plane, yet they have different equations to describe their properties.

No, the point of that is that neutrinos themselves don't actually "change flavors", but that all 3 generations of neutrinos traveling through space together can be described with one equation even with the exclusion principal. Neutrinos don't actually change, they just have different oscillation patterns that make one type more probable over time when you combine their equations. http://en.wikipedia....ino_oscillation Would you really think that the actual mass of an individual neutrino is spontaneously increasing and decreasing in the vacuum of space? You can only have two points with this system because there are only two equations that can collapse down to a single point. One for the excluded one which I don't think we're looking at the right way, and another for the equation used to described the single quantum state of both the other quarks. Also, as far as I have seen, when you ionize a photon with a specific amount of energy, you only get a single photon back, like a gamma ray, not 3 photons, not 3 different types of photons over time, just one type per ionization. http://en.wikipedia....pton_scattering If there is only 1 possible photon emitted per photon shot at a proton, all of the quarks can be described by one equation and therefore the entire proton collapses down to a single point, so you'd only observe one point. Isn't it the physics of quarks themselves that would make it impossible to observe an individual one to confirm what your saying? http://molaire1.pers...fr/e_quark.html "Quarks have a unique property: they are incapable of existing alone, unaccompanied! " I never said "I don't know of therefore it doesn't exist", that was your assumption of me, not mine, and it turns out there isn't a machine capable of doing that anyway. Besides, your even forgetting that there is strong evidence for quarks by the fact that photons can scatter backwards when you shoot them at a proton, but still not a direct observation of an individual quark, they all act as the same particle or can be described by the same equation, so there is only one collapse. The probability of a proton doesn't collapse to 3 points upon measurement, just one.

Not everything can be described by the same set of mathematics though. Maybe if you can find a single equation to describe all of the universe, which even Einstein couldn't do, then I'll believe you.

It doesn't defy any laws at all, it's just probably not going to happen any time soon.

I guess a Hamiltonian operator can still account for a bit of it, but what about the exact matches of nodal surfaces both in atomic orbitals and in the double slit experiment that can be accurately described by wave mechanics? How does a Hamiltonian operator account for those without wave mechanics? Also, can't these operators be set equal to a wave function? I problem that I see with your operators is that they are nothing more than shortcuts, they could only have been created with previous knowledge, and that previous knowledge was wave mechanics. People found out from experiments that there can only be specific results that work, so instead of constantly trying to re-create those results from scratch, they simply created operators specifically designed for creating those results since the results an operator generates are the only possible results (if the correct information in put in), where-as with a sine wave there's millions of possible ways to combine them, but you can still create an accurate model of an atom using them if you do a ton of work.

Neutrinos are fermions and are subject to the Pauli exclusion principal, but still have a combined wave function to describe their probability through space to Earth, thus you only measure one of the 3 types at a time from the equation to describe their probability since a single equation collapses down to one single point when measured. I don't see why this would not be true for quarks. Because there's only two things you can distinguish at a time. To my knowledge you can't distinguish between two particles in the same quantum state, but one quark would also have to follow the exclusion principal, so with that logic, I should observe two points. One for the quark excluded by the principal, and another one because the combined wave function of the two in the same exact state could only collapse down to a single point upon measurement. All actual observations occur because of photons. You can't see magnetic fields with your eyes, you can't see saltiness with your eyes, you can't see gravity with your eyes, just photons, so in order to actually observe them, you'd need photons to be emitted from them. Furthermore, I don't know of a machine that is designed to directly detect the color charge of quarks. And I'm still curious to know what photons they emit, seeing as how we can individually see them. Protons are much much smaller than the electron clouds around them, I don't even know if we have the technology to distinguish between two different objects at that small of a scale.

There will always be some people who are better than others at something. Personally I don't think money can holistically account for someone actually being "better" or worth more than another person, seeing has how money is just pieces of cotton-paper that are incapable of consciousness, but many successful or people who work hard would complain about the people that don't. Things need to be more balanced, which can be done a few ways. There's communism, which is successful but it's only adequate, no one has much of an incentive to work other than fear of getting sent to prison, which isn't very hospitable, and then there's even a dictator usually to break the balance and hog resources. But then, there's a couple ways to combine socialism and capitalism evenly, such as that people may not be the most successful right away, but will have a safety net to try again, or theoretically an economic system in which every person owns a business and is economically dependent on but competing with everyone else which seems to equalize things a bit, kind of like pushing two same charged magnets together though, but with capitalism involved, just like with communism, corruption is possible. I also think everyone does deserves a decent standard of living, but not everyone else does, which is why it's not happening right now.

I don't really see any evidence to support the quantification of logic in humans, any statement you make based on those statistics has at least a 1/2 chance of being utterly wrong. The things that make people religious effect most if not all people, atheists just happen to not make as much of a connection to religion. Often times a religious belief is also forged out of environment, or growing up with many religious aspects in your life, and I don't think atheists can grow up outside of any environment unless they grow up outside of this universe, which is impossible by the definition of the word "universe".

Someone pointed out a meaningless grammar mistake that turned out to not actually be a mistake itself.

What about artificial light converted from nuclear reactions?

Nope, that's not it, they observe patterns that would seem to only occur if there were 3 particles in a certain region with certain masses. I'm not sure if the extreme localization of quarks compared to electrons is because they combine to form one massive particle or because they actually carry a lot of that weight. Actually, most of an atom's mass is energy, so if scientists release a bunch of energy in an atom but still infer a piece of matter left over that's not an electron, it's probably quarks. I just don't think we've directly observed them.

To my knowledge you can't transmit "real" information, or information comprised of real values of matter and energy, faster than light, and quantum mechanics is no exception. Quantum mechanics with entanglement does not transmit information between two objects because entangled particles are the same object, and delocalization is the mathematical probability of observing information, not the path that information itself takes. If you measure a point appearing at a second place faster than light could get there, the point didn't actually take a path to get there. Individual photons would be measured in separate points or would be observed by individual mechanisms which can't tell each other they saw a photon faster than light , but nothing is actually traveling faster than light, so what's the point? Your not actually observing something going faster than light. So I guess perhaps the same photon isn't actually taking a physical path to get to those various points, but I still don't see how an observer on the moon themselves would actually measure a photon covering more distance than it could traveling at 186,000 miles per second.

Time doesn't slow with less gravity, it speeds up. If you have a clock in space, it will count faster than a clock on Earth simply because there is higher gravity on the surface of Earth. A larger distortion in the fabric of space slows down local time more to an outside observer.

Well for one, there's not as strict gun laws. In England, it's pretty much illegal to have a gun, many of the police don't even use guns (although that might just be England). And in Germany, if your caught drunk driving ONE TIME, your driver's license get's taken away PERMANENTLY. So in the US, it's probably because some laws aren't taken so seriously and it's easier to commit crimes, and it's also pretty easy to buy illegal drugs. The US boarders are just so large there's just going to be some gaps where people can sneak them in.

The problem with you description of approaches is neither fully describe a person. No one is completely logical or illogical.

Dude, I said all of that was bull.

So your saying at least one quark would have to occupy a different state, which is understandable, but if you look at neutrino oscillation, you have 3 different types of neutrinos all occupying the same probable area and thus you only measure one of the 3 at a time, which is why scientists had to construct probability models of measuring a specific type of neutrino at one single finite time, even if they do have different energies. Also, wouldn't you only be able to distinguish "two" point like bodies anyway? And still, what photons do individual quarks actually emit? Because to my knowledge by the physics of quarks themselves they can't be isolated.

I think that makes more sense, because "at c", time stops and there wouldn't be this issue, and I was thrown off the the word "experience", but it makes more sense to say for the person traveling near C that they only experience 20 years of "local time" or time on Earth when traveling "near c". Biosphere's are actually probably probable, because even if you have limited nutrients in the soil, if you have the energy to remake the compounds, then it's fine, I just don't know how we will get both the energy to create and propel such a large object and to sustain it for that long.

I'm ok with a "quantum particle", but saying particles have nothing to do with waves makes no sense at this point seeing as how many aspects of them can be accurately described with wave mechanics, and these operators don't seem to explain why particles act how they act, it just seems to generate numbers according to what a mathematician or a programmer tells them, and nothing more. It doesn't explain why those numbers exist in the first place. It's like saying gravity isn't related to mass. Also, I did not see that book at the library. I don't think I ever said particles were "only" waves, but I just don't see how they aren't related to them.