chandragupta

If one conceives, as I have conceived that god is dimensionless point of consciousness & cosmic space is mind of god & universe is day dream of god then it is inevitable that we exist but our existence is of the nature of day dream but day dream of god.

I am a theist & tried to conceive god in various ways. The one way which has satisfied me most is that god is dimensionless point of consciousness & cosmic space is his mind & that universe is a day dream of god.

Sorry. Don't know!

Very thought provoking! Needs great consideration.

Thanks. Now I have found a kindred soul to explore this beautiful but extremely strange world of quanta in a common sensical way. Thanks once again!

Thanks. I do take your point but if you care to note the thread in question to whom my subsequent 'joinder' thread was connected to, then it will not be found out of place. However, as I said earlier I am very conscious of not putting speculative threads here. Due regards!

Taking the issue of this theoretical (or should I call it imaginary?) particle called TACHYON further, I would draw the attention towards every day experience of each & every human observer that human imagination's speed is faster than photons. Can this 'IMAGION' be the missing theoretical particle who is being called TACHYON at present & if this theoretical 'IMAGION' could be given a 'mathematical garb' followed by predictions (based upon the mathematical outcome) then scientific experiments could be set up to prove or disprove the predictions re. this theoretical 'IMAGION' ?

Do superpositions represent all the theoretically possible positions or states or conditions of a quantum but only one of them truly actualizes or materializes when observer finally observes or measures the quantum I.e. or opens the Box containing the SCHRODINGER'S CAT in order to check whether the cat is dead or alive?

Thanks. From your answer am I to imply that proton inside metal- atom does not play any role whatsoever in the onward propagation of electric current & in this enterprise I.e. onward propagation of electric current through the metal-atom, all the labour & the credit belongs & goes to electrons in the metal- atom? Your further thoughts?

The idea that singularity can be conceived as a dimensionless point of existence will at least obviate the need for any kind of space for it to exist & thus it can at least theoretically be visualized as existing without requiring any kind of space for its existence in the manner all the things of of our own universe require space as a prerequisite for their own individual existence on account of their possession of some or the other kind of dimensions. So the present idea of standard model that singularity is an Infinitely hot, infinitely dense & infinitesimally small cosmic egg which contains inside herself space time & the physical universe as a potential, can continue for the time being (notwithstanding presence of infinities in it as well as it being so big & unwieldy ) till some other superior model replaces it in the future. Your thoughts?

Space is the 'SINE QUA NON' or 'AN ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THING' for the existence of any entity, be that entity as it may the singularity or any thing else. In other words, anything which has dimension cannot exist without the existence of space first. My question is:- Since the SINGULARITY before the beginning of universe as well as at the end of universe is conceived as containing the cosmic space time (as a potential) inside herself, then how does this thing called SINGULARITY herself exist outside any kind of space unless we conceive this thing called SINGULARITY as a DIMENSIONLESS POINT OF EXISTENCE, thus requiring no space for its existence. Your thoughts?

The atoms in a metal like all atoms have electrons with negative charge (I.e. having negative quantity of electricity ) & protons with positive charge (I.e having positive quantity of electricity ). However,atoms in a metal have a unique relationship with their neighboring atoms I.e. they can interchange their outer-most electrons with each other. This means that outer most electrons can jump from one atom to the next atom. If these negatively charged electrons jump in the same direction from one atom to the next at the same time, the result is the continuous flow of electric current. In this flow of electric current via the metal-atoms, the positively charged protons in the nucleus act as a link to pass on the charge from inner electron to the outer electron thus completing the circuit.Your thoughts?

Your above answer I am trying to visualize in a classical way. Could it be some like this :- some thing is not working. Owner of this thing has not made up his mind when & whom he is going to call to get this thing repaired. But here comes the son or daughter of the owner & starts to pester him by asking when he is going get the thing repaired ? So in order to stop the pestering ,he says 'o.k.,o.k. , I am calling now such & such person to get that thing repaired. In this classical analogy owner is the quantum & son or daughter is the observer & 'when & whom ' is the 'position & speed ' of the quantum. Have I got your thought right ?

How this 'pulling-apart' into two, of an uncharged particle such as photon takes place, either naturally or in the lab in the context of this real phenomenon called ENTANGLEMENT? Your thoughts?

I agree with you. At present it is impossible to do maths with the idea of god. Maths is a invention of man's mind. There is no reason not to be hopeful that sometimes in future man will invent a new kind of maths which will enable him to do maths with the idea of god. Till then the idea of god will merely be a hypothesis with no maths & no predictions. If god is an entity with existence he will be found in future empirically with the help of THIS NEW YET TO BE INVENTED MATHS (re. this god) , YET TO BE MADE PREDICTIONS (re. this god) & YET TO BE PERFORMED SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS (re. this god) to the satisfaction of all & then he will be available to all just like sun or moon or computer or television. Till then he will merely be an speculation for many of us. Your thoughts?

Since no one is comming forward to take this thread forward, let me break the ice. I would attempt to move it a little further in the hope some will join me to make it a 'POLY-DIALOGUE' & not leave it as a monologue. The question I have posed is a serious one because the present difficulty with STANDARD MODEL I.e. it having infinities & being so big & ugly, not withstanding it's virtue that it is the best we have at present. So come on why not have ago?

Be kind. We shall get there in the end somehow. Thanks. I shall do that.

migL, Would you like to make any further comment re. this issue of 'wave-particle' characterization of the electrons?

Neutrinos are affected only by weak nuclear force & do not carry charge & so remain unaffected by electromagnetic force.My question is :- Are there any other sub- atomic particle or particles which has or have similar profile?

Thanks. It is really getting very interesting. We need some light- hearted discourse now , a little away from tough seriousness of quantum mechanics. You see ,unless there is a human observer to say ' Hey, look ,a bomb has exploded at such a time directed by an atomic clock' this fact will remain unknown for ever. Your thoughts? Will some one come forward to take this thread forward ?

Thank you. You have really cleared the 'fog' regarding the electrons I.e. whether they are particles or waves or both.

Universe is an amazing construct of nature or whosoever. On the basis of present performance science has been the most successful enterprise of humanity to explain to humanity 'who, why & how' of this universe as compared to all the other enterprises of humanity to do the same.So we should not be dismissive & wait till some other future enterprise of humanity comes forward to give 'ABSOLUTE ANSWER.

You stated that electrons can behave as classical particles or as classical waves depending upon the method of observation(i.e. depending upon the observer:- this last bit in bracket is mine add-on & not your's, just to make myself understand) but their inherent nature (my world & not your's :- just to make myself understand this difficult subject) is not that of either classical waves or that of classical particles. Would you be kind enough to elaborate on this (apparent ?) contradiction ? Thanks.

Thanks.