sr.vinay

To heat a system, energy would have to be transferred from another system. I think there should be a limit to how much energy that system can transfer to the system being heated, considering the amount of mass it contains is finite. We cannot consider an open system to heat another system because of the heterogeneity.

Aren't point particles a geometric representation of particles whose dimensions aren't important at the instant when other properties are under study? If I didn't know, of course, I couldn't say anything about the particles. I wouldn't know because I wouldn't have the appropriate equipment. What if I did? Has physics really defined a smallest point particle?

Which is why I asked the question. Even the smallest particle, should have dimensions. The dimensions should imply that the particle is made up of something else. This might continue until we find it negligible.

Why not?

They talk of god's plan and that it was already known to the entity before it happened. I feel it's more of : it happens and it's included in the so-called plan. For example, a leaf falls down, it's the plan. If it had fallen later, that would've been the plan. The so called order is just a conglomeration of nice observations that would've been present even if everything had been different. I'd like to see people point out to order when anarchy and chaos break out.

This might be moved to speculation: Like we still don't know the extent of the universe, can there be something like a smallest particle? Everything has to be made of something smaller, right? Is it that the smallest particle defined will be the maximum one can magnify things in that period of time? Is it sort of a continuum that everything has to be made of smaller particles?

Well, ellastic collisions, and about interference: Imagine that you hold two pen torches switched on and cross the light rays. At the point of intersection, we see a brighter region. Interference, perhaps can be explained on a similar basis in the microscopic level. Take photons to have a definite boundary, when they come across other photons and interact, their properties change.

Going by the physics I've learnt, matter-waves are particles in motion. Considering that, aren't all waves the same? And, are waves just a simplification of phenomenon so that it's easier to understand? Can't phenomenon like interference be explained with the particle theory (considering calling photons as particles to be still valid)?

Well, from what I've read on wikipedia, black holes have something weird happening near their event horizon. Wiki says that there are pairs of particle and anti-particle generated near the event horizon, thus giving the illusion of radiation and absorption! Maybe this is what is referred by you as the anti-matter effect.

I don't think most people perceive time as something that pushes us along. It's a relative measure of longevity of an event. That's the end of it.

Annihilation of matter by anti-matter happens very quick. The time black holes take to 'die out' is far greater than what one would expect from that by annihilation.

I don't think the anti-matter explanation is possible. Because enormous amounts of energy needs to be expelled when matter and anti-matter cancel each other out. We don't see this phenomenon.

Exactly. People live in their own small bubbles they don't want to come out of. They don't get the whole point of education!

God is more of a psychological feeling than a fact. Starts with the placebo effect. When people can call everything god, why not accept that those things are just things. Why call them god?

I don't like some aspects of the society. For example, the way education is handled. Education is basically learning something we want to, out of choice. After a certain degree of compulsory education, which I understand is sort of necessary, shouldn't one be allowed to freely choose what he wants to study? And, is it a waste of time to fret and try to do something against some aspects of the society we live in? For example, trying to change the general outlook on something as basic as scientific temperament?