Iwonderaboutthings

My OP has nothing to do with what you are fond of, the OP is, do scientist believe in love???? DO THEY??? AND IF SO, CAN THEY PROVIDE PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE?? Why is it so difficulty to get a yes or no answer from so many whom claim to be educated in such a rigorous and disciplined field....Jeeeeeeeeeeeez!

Why does " humanity? need this tool? What can humanity benefit from this tool?? Expensive internet connections? Expensive RAM chips Expensive and fancy cell phones? Expensive Radiology and Test Tumors Exams? Expensive drug therapy? Expensive " trips" and vacations? Expensive plastic surgery? Expensive Telescopes? Expensive computer programs? Examples calculators?? I think you get the point, what scientist invent is outrageously expensive not to mention the harm it does to the environment... These have been my observations only, and from what I am seeing this world is more a mess now then ever before. On the contrary, regular people day to day, never realize the harm cell phone use causes ie " EMF" not to mention texting while driving. We have more on our plate now than ever before because of "science inventions." What I would like to know "dis-regarding responsible choices" are scientist to blame for the harm on the environment, due to these and other inventions.... Its rather a simple question, yes or no " people in general" smokers for example, knew about the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke and second hand smoke, that we " now" see on the boxes? you must really hate religion??? HA HA! this has nothing to do with my OP, and if you don't get warned about this, I "wont" be surprised... thanks ajb, I should have used " application of science " that sounds better. I learn a lot from you Thanks for your " patience."

Reversing the problem? Fix mistakes that we make? whos "we" ??? scientist>>? That is my point here, " are " scientist to blame for all these "mistakes"????? whos " we"?????? I keep seeing " we " Scientist? People??? And what responsibility do you have???? Where did this duty come from???

It is only obvious: That no one in the entire world can proof love's physical existence... This being the case and fact here I present 2 examples of Hypocrisy. Religion: I love god cause god loves me. Science: I love my family cause they love me.. Religion: Scientist believe in evolution and not god, they are wrong! Science: Religion cannot prove the existence of god! But both science and religion believe in love?????? I think the matter is perfectly clear here.... YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND GIVE ME ALL THE NEGATIVE RATINGS YOU WANT.. THIS DOES NOT CHANGE " FACTS" MOTHER NATURE DON'T WORK LIKE THAT [PERIOD]

I read much on how "humanity" is to blame for air pollution. But don't scientist create harmful chemical substances used in today's products? From hairsprays, to gas and fuels, from air-conditioners, to the very preservatives in food. I am aware of the more earth friendly alternatives of these products, however they can be quite expensive and un-affordable to " most of us, causing human awareness on these Atmospheric Concerns to be less of a concern when financial limitations are presented. There is also the issues of scientific testing in where in the past have gone wrong causing not only depletion in the Ozone Layer but also costing animals and wildlife plus humans their " Lives." It seems apparent that science is to blame for these issues, however, I am always willing to accept that these images are " Photoshoped"? graphic image not related to pollution removed by mods From what I know, " most products" have warning labels on them from the harsh chemical implication on humans and the environment. OPPS! NOW by law we know this especially on cigarettes. The hidden dangers of deodorant sprays http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2402692/The-hidden-dangers-deodorant-sprays-Headaches-Eczema-Asthma-Even-fatal-heart-problems.html Protecting Whales from Dangerous Sonar http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp Space debris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris Like I said earlier, I am always willing to accept that I have been wrong with what I see on the news, what I read, what my teachers tell me, and what religion states on the matter that science is to blame for the many hazards we see in the earth's atmospheric changes and global warming issues... I believe that humans do have free will when it comes to their decision making on earth friendly products, however their is a distinction between " the many brand names" and the "118 elements found periodical table periodic table.

One thing is apparent. Time seems to evolve us into loving relations, and when time is negative love becomes hate... For example, someone whom finds out they have been cheated on, " later in time finds out" then has a broken heart, maybe the relation brakes up whom knows.. You ask love as a function of your brain? may be so, this example worked like a derivative traveling backwards in time linked to a memory in your brain, while the heart beats with "time." Maybe that is a dumb way of putting it for something that does not " exist" this being the case my example is wrong..

You have not proved that love exist. Can you???? Since you represent the whole of the science community " then" scientist are just as ridiculous as religious fanatics in their belief in a " loving god." 5 Truths about Love: God Loves Unconditionally http://www.cru.org/training-and-growth/classics/transferable-concepts/love-by-faith/02-5-truths-about-love-unconditional.htm Why don't scientists believe in God? http://www.compellingtruth.org/scientists-believe-God.html The point I am trying to make here is that their is an ongoing battle with science and religion all the time about this very subject, and yet both share common interest to their emotional attractions that defines their emotional happiness.. Personally I think " many scientist" abuse their political power on the denotation of god, but then religion does the same... That being the case, both sides are wrong.. Isn't that related to Electrostatic Equilibrium, hence a balance? https://www.boundless.com/physics/heat-and-heat-transfer/global-warming/greenhouse-gases-and-global-warming/ I believe that is based on the notion of " time" a balance dependent variable. Unfortunately it is the same throughout the entire universe. Time cannot be proven to exist, like love, so their is no breach here. Infact we are talking about something that does not exist, so then what type of discussion is this??? I really don't mean to barge in on what you just mentioned, but I cannot resist to ask. How does mankind assist in the depletion of the Ozone Layer?? I heard hairsprays, then I hear air-conditioners, then I hear gasoline for cars... But with all due respects, aren't these products created by scientist??? Yes, I do know about alternative and natural ways of energy, however these are quite costly, forcing some to continue to use these harsh and non friendly earth products... I don't believe I am getting off topic here and If I am please excuse, but aren't these a by product of love? IE, hairspray: I love my hair to look a certain way , it gets me all the attention I desire. Good one for commercials air-conditioners: I love to feel comfortable on hot summer " nights." gas: I love to sport my new camaro Seems like they all involve " love." So then perhaps love is the issue for air pollution too?? YIKES! of coarse they are

I think neuroscience would be better off for a topic on hyper dimensional reality and QM, were talking about love not pop science..

I think its only more than obvious non of us "here" can prove love's emotional existence, either being philosophical, intuitive or what have you. Of which should make professional scientist look bad in a public forum.. How so??? Because they live accordingly to humanity's emotional addictions... IE: they have families they care for, they are passionate about discoveries, they get married, etc etc. No one wins really, its just that human emotions cannot be proven by scientist. So then the big question???? What then are emotions???? Could they exists in another dimension such as time?? I am no joking when I ask these question by the way.

I will take your advice only because I think you are incredible! WOW! best answer.....

What does " professionally" have to do with physical facts?? Does this mean I need to make their comment any less??? Thats politics, I think you confuse " human survival " IE: a job, a man made monetary system, with physical observable orders of nature.. Rather someone gets paid to prove a fact or not, the fact is still a fact, or am I confused on this??? You mention that this person is still a student and does not know the whole of physics?? I have yet to see " paid" scientist find physical evidence of the emotional premise of " love" not to mention " time." Love: What does it look like? Does it have a color? Can you touch this " physically? Does it have mass??? I'm sorry are these the protocols of science or am I confused on this??? Why do so many describe this emotion with " intangible explanations??? Truly their should be an equation "prediction" to find it then... I don't mean to barge in here, but why am I thinking about " plastic surgery" and the effects it has on the human mind... Hymmm, anyway... Doesn't serotonin react to sunlight??? "Physiological" reactions of negative and positive thinking perhaps? Not sure if this is applicable to love though but they are physical consequences of neural reactions to human emotional interactions--> that still need to be proved for their existence by scientist. That is, to prove this physical chemical reactions linked to something in-dependent from the source, in this case love, emotions and the human "brain." Chocolate on the Brain http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web1/kcoveleskie.html Hormones that make you happy http://www.2knowmyself.com/Hormones_that_make_you_happy Male Puberty Hormones and What They Do http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/male-puberty4.htm Thats a start... 2

Well it is about time I hear this from a scientist, I agree 100% with you..

who cares if its out of the OT, I would like to hear your point of view. So then, what would evolution have to do with love?? I " although philosophically speaking" believe that our concepts of " attraction" and or emotional bonding has much to do with our first experiences with our parents and or parent.. Our mind's adjust to this " connection of human to human dependency such as a monetary systems per say, in where a whole species becomes " compliant to an order and or structure for survival, when in fact humans are animals with frontal lobe brain usages " a trained species per say" along with their emotions. By the way, when I say emotions I mean: Human desires, love and affection, the need to have nice clothes, cars, diamonds, awards and etc... These all share " emotional addictions" either man made or from other areas of the mind we do not know of... So to continue : humans are animals with frontal lobe brain usages, I guess natural selection??? Interesting, hymmm how about maybe these frontal lobe capabilities is what keeps humanity from evolving " bonding" becoming one with nature per say... Now that is evolution and boding at least in a workable progressive " evolutionary sense." Its all psychological and passed down from generation to generation. However, since emotions are intangible, how can anyone define them and or prove they exists??? This also includes passion for discoveries, the quest for discipline, the need to explore. They all involve an intangible desire " undefined." I look at it this way as well, a scientific device that is created to give results and thus the results inherit the man made deficiencies...Man made devices are all subjected to " defects and or other mechanical issues of imperfection.. They are such as time in where time " only evolves if and only if there is a distance as a derivative and a observable.. Otherwise there is no exist " period." ??? Was that right of me to state?? I assume this to be the case but I may be wrong, which is always welcomed..

Well the issue arises when " love" as an intangible form " cannot be physically proven to exist " by scientist. I have been told by scientist that since this is the case, that " love " and all that it has connection to including god and the human spirit ie " life force" energy or what ever you want to call it, does not exist... IE God teaches people to love each other through religious beliefs, rather this is true or false, it appears that scientist fallow this same similarity??? They can love then??? if so, is this a unique type of love? Or is Love something universal? In other words, is the love scientist feel " not the same as the love god and religion teaches people to have for each other??? SERIOUSLY??? Maybe I am just a bit too mindful in a sense as what is what, and how to define what with whatever can be used to define something that we cannot see only feel.. Personally, I think humans created love because just as with all things they have, it can never be " constant" to the true forces of nature. Example: Gays and Lesbian are not allowed to equally share this love and bonding I am reading on this thread, and yet we all share the " same constant" oxygen in the air. Humans however alter this love privilege among themselves... As for love still remaining intangible. I see the same principles with time. On regards of humans being naturally selected, is there or can there ever be a scientific way to prove this? As far as I see it to be, scientist like so many seem to accept this intangible emotions " fact" when in reality it is no different than the speed of light that defines time, of which time cannot be physically proven to exist. What really bothers me about all this in general is that humans have their own " dogmas" rules laws styles and etc, and yet they all can share love????? HOW SO??? Given what I have been told over and over again about " scientific fact" either Love is something that is perceived as being a good thing, or scientist are wrong about other systems of metaphysical nature.. I 100% agree with you!

Shape of the wave of a single photon Is the title of the OP However, I think I have read enough already, "the shape is not understood, and is not known" "" period--->."

I don't mean to jump in ask this, but I cannot help to.. Does this mean that the electron has both mass and " no mass"? In otherwords here.. Does the electron, " transform into a photon?? Also if you don't mind please, I am reading that the " shape" of the electron is " not fully understood by scientist?? Meaning that scientist don't "really" know the shape of the electron? What about electron microscopes?

Hymm sounds interesting I will give it a try as soon as I figure out a "slight mystery" going on with another painting.. It seems that the geometry is off by 9 cm. At first I thought it was Barrel Distortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics) In where digital images get slightly distorted, but this is not the case here, or can it be? I have measured over and over again till I am dizzy! And some how feel even dumb asking about this. But in a way I am excited cause I may have mistakenly created an " optical illusion on canvas?? When I look at this painting outside of the images the right lamp is still off by 9 cm, its not supposed to be like this. I cropped the left lamp to compare the sizes. However the very center is exactly one foot across. Measuring within the boundaries from the photo above the length is 1 in 4 cm However on the left the discrepancy should be 1 inch 9 cm, but in this photo I see it to be 1 in 6cm or 7 cm averaging, THIS IS NOT CORRECT, its off by 9 cm exactly outside of this photo. On the OUTER REGIONS of the canvas, the length on both sides is a perfect 1in 7 cm I have highlighted in green where the main problem of a 9 cm " right lamp area" difference is apparent.. The image on the bottom is the front view of the painting as perfect as I can get it with no distortion, and no flash taken outside. Perhaps my measurements are off, my eyes are tired, may be barrel distortion, or I created and optical illusion on canvas? I am going to feel more than stupid if I did not notice something from that 9 cm difference outside of these photos, but I swear I measured over and over and over again... Thanks for the previous suggestion.. I normally find this to be the case when I have placed a light source " parallel" with the camera. The foil test technique sounds interesting, gonna do this tomorrow, Hymn, cant wait to see the results. About red eye. I have heard this to be a phenomena. Could this be an issue cause the human eye also has photoreceptures as with the photorecepture of the digital camera? Kinda makes logical sense I think. I hope so, I know my sister has one that uses this matrix thing and calculates skin tones, detects exposures even, it even has this ISO, image movement sensitivity mode, I think thats what they call it. Do you think that since " oil " tends to blur on canvas that this may be the issue with photos? I hope not if I need another camera, I will need at least 12 mega pixels.. Or better yet! Is this a "digital" camera issue? Are cameras that are non digital better?? I know that digital photoreceptures can be tricky to work with at times.

its a Sony DSC-S75 Here are some examples " rather issues" I am having. This is my painting of the Mona Lisa. OUTSIDE IN THE SUN. INSIDE BUT THE BACK IS FACING THE WINDOW WHERE THE LIGHT BEAMS COME INTO THE HOUSE. THE FRONT AREA IS FACING ME, BUT THE LIGHT IS COMING FROM BEHIND THE ART WORK. SINCE WE ARE HERE: In this one, why is Mona Lisa's Shadow on the back of this card board?? What I do when I paint is lay the wet art piece in a box, and let it dry in the sun outside.. I assume the light photons from the sun outside left the shadow on the card board from behind " the canvas" while it was drying?????

I see now, I heard once that doctors don't perform operations on their own family members cause " emotions" get in the way.. I can see now why emotions can be an issue when dealing with the extreme disciplines of math and science combined.. Its better to have them out of the way, or trained to not get in the way, Why I included god and the soul is because I had no other methods to describe this OP.. They seem to be still a mystery, especially the forces of two people that fall in love.. Now if I could only understand desires... IE, the desire of a Nobel Piece Prize!

wow! thanks for all the replies, I never thought that light bulbs produced light photons much less lasers cause they radiate in a straight line, I thought they were synthetic per say, and the knowing of the eye's mechanism to adjust light brightness helps much, I think I will try all suggestions... I am thinking of low quality flash as being "cheap" maybe a better " brand " might help, but this is a sony, hymm... Thanks...

Lately i get the notion that scientist " somehow" do not believe in love. The reason for this is because: They don't believe in God. They don't believe in the human soul. They appear to have no connection linked with anything that deals with " emotional connections." And yet I hear and even see marine biologist desperately searching for methods to restore coral reef, sea life and etc. The cure for breast cancer is another perfect example, in where doctors " passionately" use science as a means for cures. Another example are doctors I know that have stated the reason why they became a neural surgeon was because someone in their family passed away due to cerbral trauma and or other forms of brain damage.. Yet I hear and read all over that scientist do not believe in the human soul, god, spirit and etc.. Aren't these what create human to human compassion? I am confused really I am.. Aretha Franklin, Nat King Cole, The Movie Beaches, Finding Nemo and etc, have all had incredible success in the entertainment world due to their " emotional connections" with people.. Although perhaps in structured financial gains, it has had positive implications on people's lives... I feel however, that scientist don't love their children, do not love as in marriage? I am totally confused and need some guidance as to what science is really all about these days regarding their "claims" of helping the world become a better place..

Reason: I have this digital camera " sony" high quality good mega pixels that does not give great " clarity photos" when the photos are taken in doors, " regardless of the settings" IE, outside mode, indoor mode etc.. However: When photos are taken outside or at the beach for example, the photos are crystal clear! Again: " regardless of the settings" I wonder if it is the flash that is low quality, but then again: Isn't anything that creates ie " light flashes, light bulbs not including lasers, all " forms or light photons"?

EUREKA! This now makes better sense! tHANKS! So that the exponent works much like translation? HOW ON EARTH DOES SCIENCE MEASURE SOMETHING SOOOOOOO SMALL????

You should have warned me about the -> " this comic occasionally contains "strong language" Yes I agree with you I need to work the clarity of my questions a bit better, but at times science coupled with all the " unknown" realities of this craft at times can be quite difficult.. Another example about devices is how Max Planck found his constant in a kiln, ie black body radiation and " Standing Waves." I am trying to express the devices used coupled with their discoveries.. I am wondering if it had not been for this kiln could the h constant still have been discovered, using another method ? Don't know if this could be be any help, but I am mostly talking about multiples and their sound units, like the milligram example earlier.