SamBridge

I'm sorry to put it bluntly, but "nope", completely wrong. With our current scientific model, gravity could not have worked in the way you went later on to describe. Gravity as humans had observed still made bodies attract, we just weren't aware of it, and the universe did not care that we lived in that ignorance, yet Earth did not being to fall apart. That point does not work the way you want it to, probably because what I'm saying is true, You're trying to use what I'm saying about mathematics about real objects, but my point works on math and not real objects because math isn't a real thing. The universe exists independent of our understanding of it, but numbers can't exist without a living thing to invent them. We can give gravity any name we want, but unlike math, it will exist outside of that name. But math is just axioms of how symbols work. If I keep asking about why a number works, I eventually after all that number theory and we say "if we mark '1' as a and 2 as a' then via the transitive property..." I can still ask "but why does it work just because we mark 1 as "a"? and eventually I arrive to the point where I can only say "because that's just how we decided to make it work". I can assure you that any mathematical theorem has to be based off of some kind of axiom.

You were doing fine by my knowledge until you said "the distortion between them create matter". That doesn't mae sense. Asymmetrical systems are only treated as one system because the components are indistinguishable not because they don't exist as separate components, they still have to have their own spin, it's just that the net spin will have to be 0. The difference between them does give an accurate probability density model, but that's as much as we can really say. Not only is energy not a physical entity that cannot in of itself "travel" distance, but it never goes faster that light the correlation of its probability field merely exists in an indefinite volume of space.

Primates such as strong apes may not need it, but weaker ones do, because they need to have complex social structures to work together, which requires heightened cognitive ability. Yeah but you can't definitely assert anything you'r saying either, that's the only reason why I can't definitely assert what I'm saying is because the axioms you put in place were not definite to begin with. If you say "it's possible they could have", the only possible thing that could be done with that statement is estimating how likely it was and that's it, there is no possible more definite thing you can do with it.

It is some evidence to start with that math isn't what it was originally thought. But I did prove it. The assumption before recent sociological changes was that math and logic were the same thing, however the statement I made proves they cannot be, and saying "not all mathematics systems are the same" is exactly the point that proves it. Since all logic = logic, if math also = logic, then I should be able to use math to describe all logic, which as you said yourself is not possible, you can't describe everything as just arithmetic or algebra, or sequences, Cartesian coordinates, or polar coordinates, or ect. Well did you read it? There was some challenge that Kurt Godel made to and Russel's conclusion that all logic was reducible to algebra, which is what I'm referring to. You seem to be unnecessarily hostile, I did prove it in my own manner and it's been proven for years and years, not only that but as a philosophical standpoint, not everyone believed that was true in the first place. Math is not logic, if it is, prove it, and prove that all logicalal statements can be put into terms of math. (hint: it's a trick, you can't do it, there are statements which have cannot be reduced to math) Math is its own set of axioms and mathematics itself did not exist before life began, this on it's own is something you will have to accept. But isn't it an observer that decides to distinguish between those values of objects? The universe on it's own doesn't really care, and what is a number reducible to other than an axiom? What is the number "1"? And how can you explain it without using any synonym of one or mathematics? because if it truly and has any hope to really exist, since mathematics was invented by humans and the existence of the universe is not dependent on humans, it's existence should be able to be established by properties of the universe and not labels that humans give for a start. But so far it seems once you keep asking "but what is that? or "how did you come to that conclusion?" Regardless of whatever number you're using, you eventually just come to the point where you have to say "it just is" or "that's just what we decided to say" to explain what a number is or why that conclusion works, they are axioms. Why does 1 + 1 = 2? You can do all that number theory proof, but I can just ask "but why does that number theory proof work?" and you have to eventualyl say "well it only works because we assume certain things". Also if math really was "real" or in some way it "is" reality, how come mathematical models show negative Kelvin temperatures, boxes with negative area, indefinitely accelerating past the speed of light, and all sorts of other phenomena that could never happen in reality?

Nope, the observations you make are resulted by complete randomness, however there still exists different probabilities, but the measurements are not causally connected. Chaos theory on it's own does not make something unpredictable it merely states certain predictions are impossible, however that is why it's used with other mathematics, such as fractal mathematics to show the infinitesimally small correlations that exist, an infinitely small pattern can't be predictable simply by nature, since those patterns occur, we can say there are infinitely small patterns which create large impacts which arise from measurements which are not causally connect or events which by nature cannot be definite. With out current physics, it is not possible for all physics and outcomes to be projected in one system or model.

And that's fine, I agree certain physics is just common knowledge, and I didn't say experts generally don't cite sources, but just trying to push for the 100% rather than the 80. Well if you are not efficient enough answer complex mathematics in less than an hour or even half an hour I could see that, but you could still say "here's the formula, now solve for the variable", but I still think some problems could get worked out, and then why not have experts who can solve them fast or now how to? Well depending on your degree you can make a pretty good living and definitely do more field work, but anyway if you truly care about science you will follow it through even when it get's boring.

I'm not saying they had 0 capacity for it, but given their environmental and adaptations it would not be particularly useful to their survival, it wouldn't have been an environmental pressure it seems. It's more just that as a whole, the dinosaur species did not have a need for being that highly developed throughout much of their history.

As I said before, experts should site some sources at least. Well coming to this site is work somewhat, it doesn't matter if it works, if you have the audacity to call yourself a credible expert it should be expected that you are capable of more than just an average person which means doing research and analysis if necessary. I definitely spend time researching things to answer questions, I even watched a 30 minute video in another topic about a different type of reactor, and I'm not even an expert. Science isn't done because it's interesting it's done to get answers. I don't think site site pays at all does it? Yet there are experts who have hundreds of posts. I'm not saying you have to do more work, in fact I'm saying you have to do less work because I'd be suggesting to save time typing by leaving out opinion and personal conversation in any way. Which could be solved by bringing in experts who you are are credible in various fields. No one says they have to work all the time, but the combined efforts should allow for most complex questions to get answered. You don't have to shut the site down because someone else is going to make that site since it's apparent this site won't change. Right, but if you're coming here because you like it, don't try and make it sound like it's in any way a burden on your life, as you stated you come here because you like it, not because you are obligated. If you create a pretty looking site with a good ascetic that would probably be enough for people to say, and there are plenty of people who like teaching, you just have to find them.

But would they exist if life did not exist?

Well the mathematical curls you mentioned seem to be a better description, though spin isn't exactly related to the unit circle, it still seems to be some sort of by product of the mathematics of trigonometric functions.

If they want to explain how that scientific consensus was reached why would there be a problem with that? All they're doing is repeating words. People could question experts if they wanted, but experts shouldn't spend all their time question everyone else, they should just be there to confirm things or answer questions, at least on that website. I never said being wrong as against any rule, but I do think as an expert they shouldn't waste their time being corrected all the time either, they should know what they're talking about of course. This "quality control" as you call it, can be very limited when it comes to complex topics, and often is, especially when there is not an expert for that given field. You try to argue that nobody has time, but every once in a while I do see people answering complex mathematical scenarios, so there clearly are people who can efficient answer complex questions especially in the math section, but just not for every field. What I expect isn't all that much, it's just not getting personally involved in any scientific discussion whatsoever and leaving any opinion of yours completely out of it unless it is personally asked for, the only thing I think experts should do as 75%-80% of the time I see already is simpler refer to past experiments, repeating how scientists had come up with the consensus, and referring to some sources, but I think you should push for 100% or 98% at least. Not only that, but no one is forcing you to stay on this site either, you are choosing to come here. If there were enough "volunteer" experts of a greater diversity it would help for sure. Have you actually tried asking 1 other scientist to be an expert on the site or just visit it?

Excellent question, what happens is it interferes with itself because it has diffraction like a wave. The simplest illustration of like a ripple in a pond. If you ran a wave of water through the two slits you'd see the same pattern, as well as the fact that you can model different orbital structures using polar coordinates, it's only natural that it would be assumed that certain properties of a particle act like a wave just as light does.

Ok that's easier to see now Just slow down and actually read what I said, because I never said you couldn't. And now of course he's asking for a non mathematical explanation. Classical physics as you know is different than quantum physics. If he knows much classical physics it isn't going to help much. Just because you don't understand how it pertains to what you're saying doesn't make it word salad. What makes it word salad if it's literally just randomly seeming illogical statements strung together.

We know particles are identical through scientific testing, it's not an assumption. But it is true that the meaning of a number can change depending on the context you apply it to, as you have pointed out.

if this weren't the philosophy or speculation section...man..

Perhaps you should simply what you mean then. You said you could "sandwich" it. I guess its possible you did not mean that as a mathematical term in any fashion but I was thinking you were referring to the sandwich formula relating limits. you can, but not vice versa. You can't always find the Cartesian solution, but you can certainly find the polar solution and then also have the Cartesian solution if you want. I guess I'm just not really seeing what the point of your post is or what you are trying to say with it. The probability distribution of it models simple 1 dimensional Cartesian distribution, but in reality it is much more complex than that, and what you're saying won't be of much help to the layman, you need to work you're way up to big concepts gradually, you can't just throw Schrodinger's equation at someone and expect them to understand it. I would also be more careful about the term "word-salad". If it means what I think it means, the post definitive wasn't "word salad", it's just that it apparently was not in he same context as the point of your post.

I'm sure dinosaurs were intelligent and given enough time they probably could have achieved stone age human technology and definitely made a stone spear (eventually), but eventually social abilities would have to take an effect on that. The science we achieved was only possible because there was not only specialization of workers but also a hierarchy that allowed people to not have to spend their life worrying about being attacked as well as complex and concise language that allowed ideas to be recorded and organized through thought, and I do not see dinosaurs having those advanced communication abilities even though I do see birds having the ability to eventually do it as well as Dolphins and Otters as they all have advanced communication skills and brains that are more apt to being social and exploring. But, I still don't think dinosaurs had spears at the time they went extinct even if they were "intelligent" enough to make them supposedly. Intelligence isn't the only factor, there also has to be an open mind in exploring things and imagining things as well, there are definitely smart animals like monitor lizards and tigers, but their intelligence is more for hunting things, not really exploring things, the intelligence they have isn't exactly equated to imagining a scenario, but rather that you do not have to consciously think what 2+3 is, you just automatically know almost as soon as you see it that 2+3=5, that's what many predators have only its with 3 dimensional locations and tracking of animals for hunting them down. So they are intelligent, but are they consciously investigating things like technology? I don't think so. Their brains are just smart and good for calculating how far away animals are and how to react to them and kill them and ect. This isn't to say they don't have consciousness, but without language they have no way to organize their conscious thoughts, for them it is just a collection of feelings and memories, and I suppose sometimes they can see logical connections without having to put them into words.

It seems like the "spin" is derived from taking the Heisenberg route, no wonder it doesn't have a direct physical meaning, it's just a implied implication of using trigonometric equations to describe trajectories I guess the answer really is "that's just how it works". Although it does in a way seem like if I really investigated it I could in some way relate it to a unit circle or at least visual trigonometric properties, which in a way it has, but not directly for the unit circle. Do you think it is just a coincidence that I can almost perfectly model the truncating by a plane of the polar equation theta=nh(sin2x) it looks nearly perfectly like the highest probability distribution locations in a p orbital? But of course it isn't exactly a coincidence, there are some properties of particles like waves. I guess what I really want is to see spin pointed out in the Schrodinger version of things while it's happening in some animation, I realize that it will not be in exactly the same form, but there would seem to be some way to calculate it outside of the Heisenberg mathematics as atoms still had the same properties in the experiments done. If I boil it down enough no matter what I will eventually arrive at "that's just how the math works", but I want to see it one step just before that.

I'm familiar with the sandwich method but I don't see how it is shown. The sandwich method involves the output of a function being equal to the limit of two other functions which are greater than and less than this 3rd function which are continuous, though particles can have nodal surfaces they are still continuous at the limits that are needed. However, I see only one limit equation. You can model a 1 dimensional probability density when solving it on Cartesian coordinates to an extent, however those coordinates cannot always be translated into 3 dimensions by spinning around an axis, the real Schrodinger equation is much more complex than that so that it can do that, especially when you have much more complex orbitals and higher energy levels like f orbitals around nuclei, and for things like uranium is complex as it goes beyond f orbitals into g orbitals, but these orbitals are not exact as there still remains repulsion between electrons and the nuclear charge is very strong in larger nuclei towards the right end of the periodic table which is another variable to consider because it will also effect the shape of the orbitals, however those equations lack the consideration or the shape change caused y nuclear charge. The original complex Schrodinger equation does not contain this, however advanced computer models can show these factors. Not only that but using Cartesian probability distribution is a problem, you can't always find solutions to Cartesian equations to create models, and it's much more efficient to use polar coordinates.

Hmm, what exactly is the spin derived from? How was it discovered? Scientists couldn't have distinguished it without some specific meaning.

Well if you find further evidence then by all means post it.

Ok yeah, I can see even without models of atoms that it becomes hard to visually relate complex trigonometric functions with the unit circle. But still, can't spin in some way be derived from the direction of oscillation of a field? Otherwise our only option is "that's just the way it is".

Yes, and possessing all possible states is called superposition,as I had mentioned before. We can model how particles act, because so far out science has shown that particles tend to act like oscillating fields of probability. While we cannot directly measure this phenomena ourselves, we can clearly see this in various scientific experiments. Also, you don't need a complex organism to be an observer, a machine can be an observer, I recommend using a simple machine in place of a person. What you're saying in regards to feeling plain, it isn't split between two worlds exactly so much as it is that we don't know why exactly we perceive it in the first place, We know that the signal travels through nerves and into neurons, but we don't know why someone actually consciously perceives that, but that has little to do with quantum mechanics itself because you do not need a human or any sort of living organism to measure signals or any quantum state, the measuring of quantum states is really a pretty simple phenomena and happens all the time, it's not anything that should be the basis for justification of our lack of neurological knowledge.

But this is the problem when this topic, there is no evidence to say for sure either way, even though it's a possibility we don't have enough evidence for it,. You'll just say "oh well this could have been the case" and I'll say "but that could have been the case" and then you'll say "but wait this could have been the case" and I'll say "but no wait, THIS could have really been the case" and it will just never end. The only thing we can agree on is that it's possible. It doesn't seem particularly likely, but I guess it doesn't seem particularly unlikely either.

I know the term spin isn't actually physical, I thought I said that, or at least emphasized that, but anyway, you can still model spin using mathematical curls can't you? And wave functions are derived from trigonometric functions aren't they? It doesn't have to be related in the specific fashion that I'm saying, but if the equations use any form of sine or cosine, you should be able to relate certain properties of them to the unit circle, There are of course ways to model such quantum phenomena without trigonometric functions, but both Schrodinger's wave descriptions and Heisenberg's matrices were shown to achieve equivalent results. But like myself, many people tend to prefer Schrodinger's methods because unlike Heisenberg's they have a clearer visual representation.