Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. If this is true, that's such a gigantic news!!! Absolutely staggering!!! Unreal! https://phys.org/news/2020-09-quantum-entanglement-distant-large.html Scientists were able to link 2 disparate quantum objects together in quantum entanglement. They say it is simple as taking information from one object and applying knowledge to other. It could be used to get rid of zero point fluctuations on mirrors in (LIGO), to get rid of a noise. They say this could erase uncertainty. By allowing them to create a sensor, which would allow measure both momentum and position of a quantum particle!!! Which was impossible until now! I can't even wrap my head around it. This is such a gigantic step in science, so interesting!!! Supposing what they say is true and they will be able to construct such a device. I will turn off a bit, if you excuse me and allow this. Reasons of this topic: 1. inform about this overwhelming news 2. ask about some important questions 3. it is related to subject i was interested greatly free will, i would like to know what this means Skip next 4 paragraphs to get to the point I was like Albert Camus would say striked all of the sudden: "At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face". I don't remember how it started, but i started having these deliberations about free will, that it is illusion. So i read during 1 year, 16 hours/day (almost every day), over 1M articles about it. Everything is either predetermined, or random in natural sciences. There is no other option! Also even it is currently, in an area of philosophy. That's only, because scientists don't study something: they can't test by an experiment. It is likely, it will be refuted when we get powerful Ai and more powerful computers... Still science already can say a lot. And also don't think our experience equals free will, or even resembles it remotely. Because i think way too much about everything, i spammed like 300k articles about psychology. There is like trillion e150 scenarios, which contradicts the free will. I could list like million things if i wanted and i would like to see someone to reconcile free will with them. I am just mentioning main aspects and i hope for discussion about this. Or we can be very likely in simulation, if argument 1. is true and 2. 3. is not, in simulation theory. Again likelyhood is just a ratio - "1:x". E.g. 1:1M, it doesn't say anything about whether, or not event will happen. If that was predetermined, even if there is chance 1:10e23. If event, which is represented by 1 here, will be predetermined. There was in reality chance 100%, this will happen and nothing else! I am just layman, i don't know anything, yet i know something... I don't care much about some formal education, i am great in logical and critical thinking. I have aphantasia - meaning no imagination. But i am great at solving problems and analytical thinking. So my knowledge is very selective and all over the place. I just care about facts. I won't wait like 50 years for whole planet to study this to give me an answer... Or study this whole life, there would be no point to this... I am just watching subject from time to time - today times. This could finally confirm determinism. Not that indeterminism would provide much hope for the free will. And help the free will, of which idea is just absurd in my opinion... I can't even imagine how that would be possible!!! Also dualism is probably not true: https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/body-switching Yet there is panpsychism and some of its advocates say: that there is misunderstanding in science of 21 century. Which will often mention reductionism. Again just because it isn't currently solvable doesn't mean anything about: whether or not it is truth and we have emergence so... I think humanity would be better off with realizing free will is illusion. It wouldn't mean disintergration of laws and praxis in my opinion, depends how it would be handled. Because they are still important for survival... For example: nations are such an infantile disease of humanity, i never like it, like when i was 11. Or democracy is just ridiculous, elon musk wants direct democracy on mark? Huh i was thinking the same! People care about status, or hoarding money. Yet they did nothing and aren't any better than anyone else... I read about everything that exists and i laugh about 1M of things, they are just dumb and absurd. I think realizing free will is illusion could be very good thing. It is not like you can't do whatever you want, you just can't chose what you desire. And it is more about control. I am simply not interested in any other views, than materialistic in this thread. Because i have millions of reasons, why i think free will is nonsense! But it would require 1 year to explain. Lets say scientists will be able to measure momentum and position of an particle at the same time. Will they be able to predict any phenomena? I am not a physicist, i just was interested in free will. Because our computers still sucks. Supercomputer's predictions of drop of a water deviate, after a moment. Even quantum computers are like 2 to power of 64 more powerful. But not suitable for classic workloads. I have no idea what computers could be used for calculating this. Probably both together. Still it will take extraordinary computational power to predict even simple phenomena. It will probably take a long time, before human behavior can be predicted on 100% accuracy. And ofc. it will be difficult to entangle different particles, as they said. Also besides computational power problem, it can't be simple as predict some elementary particles how they behave and than deduce from it behavior of complex systems, like emergence. It will take probably a lot of research to figure how to calculate this. And it won't be probably priority. I could imagine, this will be first used on capturing gravitational waves and to reconcile QM with gravity. So this will be probably tested on simplest things from start, which have uncertainty currently. I think this is probably impossible to answer currently, even so i would like to ask some questions: - Does this prove, that everything is predetermined by initial state of the universe? - Will there be still some things, which have still uncertainty? - What does this mean for energy? - How long we can expect scientists will be able to predict: A. simple phenomena, B. more complex phenomena? PS: if something doesn't make sense, or written poorly sorry, i am not good at writing. And i am tired. Thanks for answers!
  3. Fig.1.Isolated System and Internal Fictitious Force \[\Delta \omega \neq 0 \Rightarrow \sum{F}_\mathrm{int} = {F}_\mathrm{Fictitious} \neq const. (varying) \] \[\sum{F}_\mathrm{int} = \frac{m_\mathrm{T} \cdot ({u}^{\prime}_{\mathrm{cm}}- {u}_\mathrm{{cm}})}{\Delta t} \neq 0 \] \[\frac{\Delta {p}}{\Delta t} = \frac{m \cdot ({u}^{\prime} - {u})}{\Delta t} = \frac{m_\mathrm{T} \cdot ({u}^{\prime}_{\mathrm{cm}}- {u}_\mathrm{{cm}})}{\Delta t} \] \[{u}^{\prime} \neq {u} \Rightarrow {u}^{\prime}_{\mathrm{cm}} \neq {u}_{\mathrm{cm}} \Rightarrow {a} \neq 0.\] Fig.2.Isolated System and Internal Collinear forces (Action-Reaction pair) \[\sum{F}_\mathrm{int} = \left( {F}_\mathrm{A} + {F}_\mathrm{R} \right) = 0 \text{ (collinear)}\] \[\frac{\Delta {p}}{\Delta t} = \sum{F}_\mathrm{int} = \frac{m \cdot ({u}^{\prime} - {u})}{\Delta t} = 0 \] \[\frac{m \cdot ({u}^{\prime} - {u})}{\Delta t} = \frac{m_\mathrm{T} \cdot ({u}^{\prime}_{\mathrm{cm}}- {u}_\mathrm{{cm}})}{\Delta t}\] \[{u}^{\prime} = {u} \Rightarrow {u}^{\prime}_{\mathrm{cm}} = {u}_{\mathrm{cm}} \Rightarrow {a} = 0.\] Could someone help me on these questions: a) In Fig.1. is what is shown a Fictitious force? b) IF (a) is true, is there any force opposing it?
  4. It’s probably better to view them as opportunistic. Host availability and predictability matter more than just about anything else. They’re also generalists when it comes to global populations, but specialists when it comes to local or regional populations. They’ll bite just about anything, but are better at biting certain things based on their local environment. It seems they’re pretty sensitive to temperature and humidity, and likely respond to chemical signals and similar hormone related outputs bodies generate. I cannot comment on its validity or modernity, but this overview seems comprehensive: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790072/
  5. My “syndrome” was misreading the circumstance of the example (the “length” was, indeed moving) The physics was not wrong The distance to planet X is not contracted. There is no motion between earth and X; they exist independent of a rocket and its motion. The earth sees 1 LY. There is no motion between earth and X, thus there is no length contraction of this distance.
  6. Today
  7. I recognize no truth, but degrees of certainty.
  8. Nothing will be filled, because copper and zinc individually elements. Copper has stabil configuration 3d10 4s1 and zinc has 3d10 4s2
  9. ya yes. but sometimes people or more correctly folks may be bigoted (i.e. incorrect). this presumably in somewhere may be extended to wide range of people,which is really significant count of people. For instance, here in turkey,I am sure that many people believe or act as you have to have a relevant and expected title (e.g. associate professor ), education and most seriously and very interestingly : regular salary and work. (in other words "an approved academic job at any university" the last one to me is very interesting and I think that this can be accepted as a type of bigotion. because that is incorrect. First, under that that one complies the official rules (i.e. regulations), and deals with any contexts and spends sufficient effort and has expected knowledge,then this should be enough. But in many times this does not happen. I agree to charonY if she/he implies/shows the regulations, but surely, pofession is a bit different. I know several languages, but , there are many professors who do not know even one foreign language or who are not qualified on this issue, which is directly affecting the quality of any academic research.
  10. Yes, i know chenbeier. Electrons are not actually distinguishable; but it was the question i had to answer; Do you think it is basically wrong?
  11. Electrons are not different, so it doesn't matter if the d Orbitale will filled or the s Orbital.
  12. Thank you both for your replies. But I'm still a little confused; Both of you mentioned that a '4s electron' moves to 3d subshell. So, it isn't a S electron any longer, or is it?! I don't have a problem with the movement of that electron, I can't realize what exactly happens after that; let's say the 29th electron goes to 3d, so we have 3d⁹ but it isn't stable so one 4s electron moves to the 3d subshell and makes it 3d¹⁰4s¹. But how about the 30th electron?! I can only imagine 2 possible ways: 1) Because the 3d is already filled (3d¹⁰4s¹), the 30th electron goes to 4s to fill it. 2) that 4s electron which had moved to 3d to fill it, will return to the 4s and the 30th electron goes to 3d. I think the 1st one is more logical, but the second one is the only way to convince Zn belongs to d block (according to my book). Which one is correct? Or if none of them, where exactly does the 30th electron go?!
  13. It is also a matter of context. E.g. saying that one should listen to scientists when it comes to pandemic responses of course means that one should listen to folks with actual expertise in those areas. Not scientists with expertise in other areas or hobbyists.
  14. I think the difference in people's minds is one of profession. I'm a writer and a barista and a scientist and chef and a builder, but I don't get paid to do those things.
  15. If that's true, do we know why they'd prefer one species over another? And what would make them prefer one host over another within the same species?
  16. It’s a person who’s doing science. It’s not like there’s a committee somewhere approving people to use the label or disallowing others from doing so.
  17. ! Moderator Note John2020, I would suggest you go back through the thread and pay close attention. You've had three pages of objections and problems with your device that haven't been addressed adequately for the Speculations section. You need to support your ideas with evidence, and address the reasonable objections you're getting. The people involved are only trying to help, but you seem more interested in teaching something wrong than in learning something right. I hid your last post with the links to past experiments, since it was completely off-topic. If you're going to swim against the mainstream, you need to be more rigorous. Thread closed.
  18. More broadly, since repellents like Deet and similar products actually work, it seems rather obvious that ticks can sense and smell things in their environment that serve to alter their response or path... including differences between Person1 and Person2 Ticks also often focus on specific hosts... and will differentially bite deer over dogs or humans, for example.
  19. No, but you can call yourself a scientist if you like. The definition is rather vague on what a scientist is exactly.
  20. in 2016 Trump beat Realclearpolitic's aggregated polling by 7% in WI. Fivethirtyeight gave Clinton a 83.5% chance of winning WI which was better than Clinton's overall chance of winning the White House. In MI Trump beat aggregated polling by 4% and 538 gave Clinton 79% of winning which was also greater than her overall. You are probably correct about AZ and IA. Nothing strange there. The numbers actually surprised me when I looked them up. Both finished within decimals of a percent of their polling in 2016. Which isn't to say I think every state will mirror polling. WI and MI had issues (see below). So I think MI & WI are right there with FL & GA as virtually unwinnable by anything less than robust margins.
  21. I have not wanted to enroll any master or/doctorate program but I deal with and would continue dealing with scientific contexts and research. simply,I would like to do the research on whatever I want and it seems I am a bit pragmatist (because I do not want to deal with anything that would not provide any efficacy anymore). Thus can we accept me as a scientist?
  22. I should have said : When length contraction is applied, Earth see the length traveled by the clock <in 45 minutes> as contracted by a factor of 0.6.
  23. If anyone else tries this ,would they put it on Youtube?😆 Not taking the piss,just hard not to laugh.
  24. No. It was an impromptu hike into the woods behind my house -- a nature walk. We didn't have any kind of bug repellent. However, I don't know if he was wearing deodorant or cologne. The reason we did the experiment was because I've had so many anecdotal experiences like this with ticks, I wanted a real measurement. Especially with this particular friend. We'd walk the same path through tall grass or in the woods and I'd come out with ticks on me while he'd have none. On that day, I took the opportunity to have a somewhat controlled experiment, since I had the living tick. I should point out, if anyone tries to repeat this, I'd really like to know the results.
  25. What's the point of working through the details of relativity, like length contraction, but not accepting the predictions of SR, and instead replacing them with your own opinions? Does the length contraction as you're describing it, actually make sense to you? Or are you hoping to show that if you replace a few details with nonsense, then all of SR can be clearly seen as nonsense? Have you convinced yourself of that? Do you expect to convince others? Do you actually believe what you're saying, do you really believe that if length contraction as predicted by SR is applied, then Earth sees the traveler having gone only 0,6 LY in the example above? Or is the above example meant to show that length contraction must be nonsense? If it's the latter... Can I convince you that addition is nonsense, by adding 3 plus 2 together and getting 9? Are you convinced? Do you think I should spend 20 years telling people that addition is nonsense because I think addition, in my opinion, gives a ridiculous answer of 9?
  26. A part of the issue is that folks thinking that they are in the right tend to make intellectual shortcuts. In the early 2000s I was somewhat interested in various atheist movements, in part because I was worried about rising anti-intellectualism and creationism. But apparently once enough folks gather things go quickly to a self-congratulating group of folks who cannot stop emphasizing how rational and therefore superior they are (without actually putting in the work). There were plenty of folks, including academics who did a great job in outreach and educating. But some of their followers were sketchy and did not put in the intellectual work before succumbing to insufferable smugness (the result being attitudes that are way closer to religious organizations than folks would admit) .
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.