shawnhcorey

The event is when you put the electron in a superposition of spin up and spin down. The superposition of state is a sphere that expands at the speed of light. When a quantum event happens, you don't know what it is until it is measured. It is only when it's measured does the superposition collapses and you know what occurred. All superpositions expand at the speed of light, so a measure of the distance between the event and the measure defines time.

Its meaning is implied by its usage, the same as any other word. From Wikipedia's Quantum Superposition page: Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It holds that a physical system (say, an electron) exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics). It is the distance between the event and where it is measured. Since the superposition travels at the speed of light, it is also the time.

People think it's real. Their belief is persistent.

Time is a mathematical illusion. Like all mathematical illusions, it is both consistent and persistent. What is is it the distance travelled by the superposition of a quantum event until it collapses.

No. When a quantum encounters the two slits, it becomes two superposition, entangled quanta which interfere with each others probability of travel. It's this interference pattern that gives you the classical wave interfere pattern. When one of them hits a detector, the superposition collapses causing the other to disappear. Nothing goes back in time. This is from the quantum superposition page of Wikipedia: Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It holds that a physical system (say, an electron) exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics). This creates a quantum arrow of time since the superposition cannot be recreate and then made to shrink back to a point.

Part of the problem is that physicists have only studied high-energy particle physics and have left the wave properties of quanta at the high-school level. Nobody is studying high-energy wave physics. They set up their experiments to use quanta as particles, measure quanta as particles and think of quanta as only particles that sometimes have weird wave-like side-effects if you're not careful to filter them out of your experiment. When you start thinking of quanta as having particle and wave properties at the same time, the weirdness goes away.

Somewhat related is how a light cone changes as it nears an event horizon (see image). Of course, if it changes with greater gravity, it should also change with lesser gravity (see image). The difference between the two is that the first has the light cone collapsing and the second has it rotating. In either case, when you look at the light cone very far away, the nearest light ray as rotated to the point where it is point straight up, meaning it can no longer reach us, ever. And it's this rotation that causes the red-shift of light.

I thought those were called water wheels.

That's what I said, the less hairy would stick with it. That means, of course, that they were less hairy to start with; something else cause they to evolve the reduction of hair.

I think this is unlikely. That our hairy ancestors played around with something as hazardous as fire until their descendants could evolved a means to reduce the hazards seems unlikely. It's more likely they would stop the first time they were burnt and their descendants would never need to get less hairy. In other words, our ancestors were pretty much hairless when they started using fire.

Or it was cause by sexual selection rather than natural selection. That is, our ancestors thought lack of fur indicated a better mate. The question becomes why would that be?

Evolution does not have a will of its own and it's not intelligent. Evolution is a process and that which survives does so because of its abilities and is not the will of something else.

The problem is that no-one knows what those challenges were. The other problem is that things people read in high-school textbooks are taken as absolute truths. For example: we lost our fur so that we can sweat better. There is no evidence that this is true; it's all conjecture. Questions like "Why did we have to sweat so much?" "Where did this occur?" "When in the evolution of our ancestors did this happen?" None of them have answers.

Three simple steps: practice, practice, practice. (It works with most other endeavours too. )

Does anyone have any references to this? I'm asking because it seems to me that when our ancestors' hair started to thin out, they had to start carrying their babies. Their hair was too thin for the babies to grip onto. I'm curious because of an article I read on big babies shaping society where they state that no-one seems to know when our babies started to get big. It seems to me that they could get big if they were relying on their own strength to hold on to their mothers. So when our ancestors hair started to thin out, they had to carry their babies and the barrier to big babies was gone. So I was wondering how far back in time this might be.