Moderators

86

19641

2. iNow

Senior Members

42

18987

3. Ten oz

Senior Members

39

4648

4. mistermack

Senior Members

37

1100

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/20/18 in all areas

1. 8 points

So are quantum entangled or teleported particles instantly there

So if I change the charge of one plate, somebody can measure an instantaneous change at the other plate. Wouldn't that be a violation of special relativity? @Menan You show that you do not understand entanglement. Let's go one step at a time. First a classical example. I have a bag of balls, they are all red or green. Without looking I pick two balls, and I put them in separate boxes. I keep one, and send the other far away. Then I open my box, and see it is a green ball. What can I conclude about the colour of the ball in the remote box? Right, nothing. And why? Because there was nothing special with my picks. It could have been two reds, two greens, or one red and green. Now I pick, looking of course, one red and one green, and put them in two separate boxes. So what I did here is 'entangle' the balls. Now I shuffle the two boxes, so that I do not know which one is which. If I open one, and see that it is red, I immediately know that the ball in the other box is green. And of course, this is independent on the distance. If I send the second box lightyears away, and only then open my box, I still know immediately what some alien sees when he opens his box. I know it because the observations are correlated. And the correlation already happened at the moment of my picks. That is the moment of entanglement. It is not when the boxes are opened. Now in quantum physics, there are processes where two particles pop out, which have e.g in one aspect always opposite values. Say the direction of spin. So if I measure the spin e.g. in a vertical direction, say it is 'up', then I immediately know that the other one will measure spin 'down', when also measured in the vertical direction. But as with the balls, the 'moment of entanglement' is when these particles popped into existence. But in quantum physics a few things are different: first, it is impossible to say which particle has which spin without measuring (it is as if I created the green and red balls, including their boxes, without knowing which ball is in which box). But as the two particles are entangled, if I measure both, the measurements will always be correlated. And there is nothing special with correlation: if I send one particle far away, and then measure my particle in the vertical direction, and the alien measures his particle in the same direction, I will always know what he measures: the opposite of my measurement. The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30o, 45o, 55.3977o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. But it still is correlation, not causation. As with the red and green balls, there is no direct causal relationship between my and the alien's observation. The causal relationship goes back to the moment of 'entanglement'. Everything afterwards is just correlation, and therefore cannot be used to transfer information. And because there is no causal relationship between my measurement of the spin of my particle, and the alien's measurement, I cannot use entanglement for sending information. And all this is very well understood by all quantum physicists, and is no secret at all.
2. 6 points

I am pleased to now add CharonY and Strange to the list of gullible fools wonderful people willing to sacrifice their time for the greater good here at SFN. Congratulations!
3. 5 points

What if Einsteins Definition of Simultaneity is incorrect?

Right, he is saying that the speed of light in both directions is the same with respect to any inertial frame as measured from that frame. So in the following example we have two observers. One standing along the tracks and the other traveling along the tracks in a railway car. Two flashes are emitted from two points along the tracks that are equal distance from the track observer. the light from these flashes arrive at the midpoint observer at the same moment as the railway observer is passing him. Thus both observers detect the light from the flashes at the same time. Like this: For the midpoint observer ( or anyone at rest with respect to the tracks) these flashes were emitted simultaneously, as shown by the expanding circles: However, for the railway car observer, events have to occur differently. He still detects the light from both flashes simultaneously, and they arrive when he is adjacent to the track observer. But unlike the track observer he has not remained halfway between the emission points the entire time. He is not an equal distance from the emission points when either of the flashes was emitted. But he must also measure the speed of light for each of the flashes as being the same relative to himself. But since the distances each of these flashes travel relative to him are not the same, in order for the light of the flashes to reach him simultaneously, they must have left at different times. And the sequence of the events for him occur like this: For the track observer, the flashes are emitted simultaneously, but for the railway observer they are not. This is the relativity of simultaneity: Events that are simultaneous in one inertial frame are not so according to another which in relative motion with respect to the first frame.
4. 4 points

GoFundMe To Help Daedalus

! Moderator Note Daedelus approached us to coordinate this with the Admins and Mods. We've helped out a member in need before, so please feel free to participate (or not). We wish Daedelus the best of luck in funding his treatments. Thanks to everyone for spending your time here, in reasoned dialogue and intellectual honesty. SFN members are fantastic!
5. 4 points

If you believe Hubble, then you believe that Einstein was completely wrong

! Moderator Note Menan was banned for breaking the rules, but for this sentence he should be banned from ever touching a computer again. This ignorance is willful.
6. 4 points

How Did Instinct Become Embedded From Evolution?

Yes, there ought to be a rule that you can leave those discussions, and just take part in the ones that interest you.
7. 4 points

Virtual particles (split from Can we test for a singularity of a black hole using Hawking Radiation?)

I may be re-evaluating my 'fit' on this forum ( politics in particular ), but I still read occasionally, and can't stand lack of comprehension ( on both sides ). The confusion arises because Conjurer hasn't bothered to look up the difference between virtual particles and 'random particle pairs'. Virtual particles exist on 'borrowed' energy, in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle. As such, they are not like real particle pairs and when their time is up, they annihilate without resultant photons. Real particle/anti-particle pairs require the emission of photons in accordance with momentum and energy conservation laws on annihilation. When an event horizon removes one of the virtual particles from consideration, the other ( of the pair ) must by necessity, become real. The 'borrowed' energy that created the virtual particles, must still be repaid back to the vacuum, by the mechanism which 'stole' the virtual particle, the Black Hole itself. If you do the energy 'accounting', the BH ends up losing exactly one virtual particle equivalent of mass-energy, and the universe outside the event horizon gains one real particle. That is Hawking Radiation. Notice that there is no link to the Holographic Principle, other than the fact that the entropy of the BH is encoded on the surface of the event horizon, and this entropy is linked to temperature of the BH, and the resultant Hawking Radiation.
8. 4 points

Why should people missing 85 percent of an equation (dark matter)

I apologize on behalf of Science that Dark Matter is not yet fully understood. By all means, feel free to not treat us seriously until we rectify this egregious situation. You would think that by now we would have everything figured out. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
9. 4 points

Turn my right arm into a whip

Why DNA manipulation? Why not just cut the fore-arm and stick a whip in there. Army of darkness style. Also: what are you talking about? That's the most random question I ever heard. Did you imagine that there is a whip gene? And you get it into your bloodstream and become whip-man?
10. 4 points

I am not a fan of general statements which imply parity between Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately here in the U.S. we only have 2 major parties and despite various attempts by many to pretend they are both puppets cut from the same cloth there are measurable differences on nearly all matters between the two. When it comes to electing women for example there are 23 women in the Senate and 17 of them are Democrat. There are 84 women in the House and 63 of them are Democrat. So of the 107 women elected to congress in the U.S. 75% of them are Democrats. There are 3 women on the Supreme Court and all 3 were nominated by Democrats. Democrats were the first to run a Women, Geraldine Ferraro, on a Presidental ticket as VP in 1984 and the first to make a women their nominee for President in 2016. Republicans may nominate a Female for President in my lifetime. I am not saying it is impossible but I think it's not currently in the cards. Meanwhile on the Democratic side I will be surprised if either Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, or even Oprah aren't on the ticket as the nominee or VP. 75% of elected women in Congress being Democrat is not a coincidental number.
11. 3 points

Science not for me??

So, some of the things you mentioned that folks describe you (e.g. unmentorable, or getting accused of falsifying data) are quite significant red flags. But without knowing context, it is difficult to tell whether you got in some unfavourable situations or whether you contributed to them. The other part are unrealistic goals. As a PhD candidate it is not typical in biomedical research to expect publications within the first year, unless you finish up someone else's work. And even then the PI typically rewrites the whole thing, anyway. From the perspective of a mentor your description of the events mostly show that things happened and that you are upset with it. But it does not tell anything about your suitability for a science career (or any other career for that matter). From my perspective you have to deal with two things. The first is the emotional aspects, which Koti covered. The second is figuring out the tangibles that got you these evaluations. How was your relationship to your supervisor, what were the issues, how did you address them, were you dismissive... and so on.
12. 3 points

13. 3 points

28. 2 points

29. 2 points

How is evolution possible without Creator?

I'm with Carrock as to the "final answer". You may well keep going back until you find a gap in science. It's well acknowledged by all that we don't have all of the answers, and it's probable that some things ARE going to turn out unknowable. But to imagine that "there must be a creator" is an answer is just wishful thinking. It's no answer at all. You've just moved the mystery along a bit, to an imaginary being. If a gigantic god appeared in the sky tomorrow, and said in an almighty voice " I did it all !! " you still wouldn't be any the wiser, unless you found out what caused HIM, and what caused THAT. etc etc. Religious "philosophers" claim that there must be an "uncaused" cause to start it all off. But that's a nonsense. If you can have an uncaused cause, then you can have an uncaused Universe. It's no answer at all. Just the good old God-of-the-gaps, shoved in to put something in place of a mystery. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. Just shove it in there. People have been doing it for thousands or even millions of years.
30. 2 points

First Interstellar Asteroid Observed

There is no measurement or observation that indicates that it is that thin. While that would be a requirement for the solar sail hypothesis to valid, this does not mean that it actually is that that thin. There nothing about the measurements we have made of it that indicates that it is made from so thin a material. You got the argument backwards. It is "IF the probe were a light sail then it would need to be very thin", not "It is very thin, so it could be a light sail".
31. 2 points

What is gravitational slowing of time in center of mass?

Incorrect. g ( gravitational force) is zero at the center, but the Specific(per unit mass) Gravitational potential is -3GM/2R where M is the mass of the planet, and R is its radius. At the surface of the planet (or any point above it) the Specific Gravitational potential is -GM/r where r is the distance from the center of the planet ( on the surface r=R) Specific Gravitational Potential Energy tells us how much energy it would take to move a unit mass from one point in the field to another. It takes energy to lift a mass from the center of the Earth to the surface, just like it takes energy to lift the same unit mass from the surface of the Earth to a point above it. It is the difference in potential gravitational energy is responsible for gravitational time dilation, not the difference in g. An easy way to demonstrate this is to calculate the gravitational time dilation factor for the surface of the Earth vs the surface of a planet with twice the radius and 4 times the mass of the Earth. You will get two different answers even though the value of g will be the same at the surface of both planets. A clock at the center of the Earth is at a lower potential than one on the surface and thus will run slower than one on the surface, even though it feels 0g compared to the surface clock at 1g.
32. 2 points

Democrats Get CRUSHED in 2018 Midterms!

I do not understand what in the link you are referencing. The link is literally about the fact that it was not different. From the opening of the article: More over the result by group was basically indentical to 2016 yet neither Clinton or Trump were on the ballot and all the political issues have changed appreciably. If you are claiming the "moderate middle" is the key what numbers do you have to support it? By group everyone voted the same as last time. The Edison survey (previously linked) goes into to great detail breaking voters down by age, gender, race, education, religion, martial status, income, and etc. There were no substantial changes or surprises on Tuesday. That is statistically demonstratable. You seem married to an idea and aren't soberly looking at the cold dry numbers. I understand why one would feel differently. All over the media pundits are weighing in with their take on why voters did X, Y, Z. It creates a palpable sense that these matters are considerably more fluid than they actually are. The media is in the ratings business and not the accurate information business. Pundits say what they say for the sake of their audience. They play up on peoples bias's, desires, fears, hopes, and misconceptions.
33. 2 points

The Solution to Minkowski Spacetime

I have some more (hopefully helpful) thoughts about this post but meanwhile can you say what is in conflict with this presentation of a light clock? No bastard triangles are needed. I did ask if you are applying your analysis to the wrong thing and I ask again as you did not answer. The point is that we should be comparing the second (unit of time) as measured by each observer, as each will observe a different number of units, but it is the relative length of those units that is being transformed (dilated). So to A, B's units will appear dilated (longer) so the square root factor being less than 1 is on the bottom of the fraction in the transformation from his units to B's. This is the usual formula. However when A considers the transformation from B's units to his the square root factor will appear on the top (Einsteins formula) as he need to shorten B's apparently longer units to match his own.
34. 2 points

Democrats Get CRUSHED in 2018 Midterms!

You still don't get it. In 2008 Democratic Congressional candidates won 13 million more votes than Republicans. 65 million votes for Democrats to just 52 million for Republicans yet Republicans only lost 21 seats. Here Two years later in 2010 Republicans got 6 million more votes (45 million to 39 million) and Democrats lost 63 seats. Here Think about that. It took a 13 million vote advantage to earn Dems just 21 seats but then only 6 million for Republicans to earn 63. For every million more votes Dems earned they picked up less than half a seat while Republicans earned over 10 seats. It isn't merely about who is in control of the Congress it is about peoples votes mattering and people believing they are fairly represented. If Republicans are getting more representation per vote the system is broken. Even when Democrats win by huge margins they don't receive the representation they deserve. That is the current state of Gerrymandering. Democrats must win by tens of millions just to earn meager increases in representation.
35. 2 points

Great news, climate change has existed for longer then the Earths climate

The "Climate has always been changing" argument actually has it backwards; like the vehicle with bad steering that is more likely to run off the road and crash, it is a climate system that is susceptible to change that is most at risk of change from things humans do. The planet is warming - multiple different measures and indicators all show it. And - " There are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. " (The US National Academy of Sciences). The nasty bit of personal slander has no place in these discussions; if you have evidence of serious criminal behaviour, you should inform the police. If not, it is your behaviour that looks criminal. Fake accusations from behind the safety of internet anonymity - I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted by moderators. I recommend the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences for non-partisan expert assessment; making sense of complex science for policy makers and public is their job. Their exemplary reputations are earned. The people they draw upon are not incompetent or biased. Or part of a conspiracy or driven by any political agenda apart from that of pursuing excellence in science for the benefit of humanity. I see the science getting it mostly right. I see real world consequences of climate change in the landscape around me - weeds that had previously been kept in check by heavy frosts becoming rampant because there are fewer frosts, bushfire hazard reduction made more difficult by warmer winters and the fire hazard 'season' coming earlier and finishing later - that's with about half a degree C of average warming (of personally experienced change in this location). 3 to 6 degrees is terrifying to contemplate. Sure, if your region is mostly cold, rarely hot, that might not seem so terrifying, but most of the world's (too large) population lives in places that get very hot, where a few degrees can make the barely bearable conditions unbearable. People ordinarily have a right to believe what they like, but if they hold positions of trust and responsibility ignoring or rejecting expert advice can be negligence. Should lives and fortunes be harmed, that can become criminal neglegence.
36. 2 points

So are quantum entangled or teleported particles instantly there

As Strange already noticed, there is no faster than light 'communication' involved. What is the case is that those experimenters showed you can derive which colour balls are at the remote side, by measuring the colour of the balls on their own side. Of course it is more complicated than that in this experiment, but it is the basic principle. But here is a thought for you: if those experimenters do not understand entanglement, why then were they able to do this? And also, there are already more technologies based on entanglement. How could these technologies be developed when nobody understands entanglement? No: the mathematics of entanglement is clear and unambiguous. The only problem for us is to picture how the correlation in QM can be stronger than classically possible. No. What you have in your pocketsess is a fact that I cannot derive from theory: it needs an observation. Obviously you do not understand the difference between simple observations and established (in the case of entanglement) scientific theories. And I don't know everything about the beginning of time. But I do know a little which cosmological theories are more or less established, and which ones are still (very) hypothetical. There is no problem that the time between the measurements can be infinitesimal small. Compare with the red/green balls: how short can the time be between me opening my box, and the alien opening his box, and we still see that the measurements are correlated? Again you suppose that there is causation between my measurement and that of the alien, but there isn't. There is only correlation. And this does not violate physics at all: that entanglement should exist was first derived theoretically (Bell's theorem). But in those days technology was not developed enough to really test this. Only one or two decades later, the experiments were done, and they succeeded: these experiments proved, that the understanding of the theoretical physicists was correct. And now you say that nobody understands entanglement? Entanglement is a very clear case where first there was the theoretical prediction, i.e. the understanding, and then the confirmation by experiment.
37. 2 points

False Equivilence and Logical Fallacies.

When the left gets extreme, people get healthcare. When the right gets extreme, people get shot. Claims of equivalence are absurd, as are those making them.
38. 2 points

Trump's Book of Hitler Quotes

I don't watch CNN; I just read BBC, Reuters and Japan Times daily. I'm getting increasing disenchanted with the BBC though because it has some pretty obvious agendas, which it seeks to promote with quite unseemly enthusiasm. I like neutrality.
39. 2 points

Are there any practical uses for Darwin's tree in applied biology

The modern rendition of the tree of common descent would be the phylogenetic tree. There are extensive practical uses of phylogenetic trees and theory. Some examples include epidemiology and outbreak tracking, conservation biology, forensic investigation and drug discovery to name a few. The foundation for modern phylogenetic inference is coalescent theory. Using coalescent theory, we can generate predictions as to how traits or DNA/RNA sequences should have changed if the assumption that they arose from a common ancestor is true. Contemporary genetic sequences and physical characteristics can be evaluated to determine if they meet the predictions of common descent under the coalescent. Huge quantities of genetic, phenotypic, biogeographic, etc data have been tested under a wide range of models, and to date, the vast majority supports common ancestry of most of the tree of life, with the caveat of some uncertainty of branching and wtf viruses came from.
40. 2 points

False Equivilence and Logical Fallacies.

We're going further off-topic. It was addressed here. We're not talking about individual votes. We're talking about votes in aggregate. That's important. Given this... If folks were truly independent in the way(s) being suggested by you and others, then that aggregation would noticeably change from one election to the next. The outcome and vote tallies would show far more dynamism since the candidate running would consistently act as the key deciding factor, not the party they've identified with. If folks were truly independent in the way(s) being suggested, we'd logically see far less friction in the numbers and far more voters readily dancing back and forth from one side to the other. It just doesn't, happen though. I'll readily stipulate it's not conclusive, but neither is evidence that smoking causes cancer or humans climate change. Certainty simply can't be your metric on this. The evidence in favor is overwhelming and it easily supports the position Ten Oz and I are putting forth. You're clearly welcome to disagree, but I'd hope you find contradictory data to support that disagreement (as opposed to just going with your gut and dismissing us out of hand).
41. 2 points

Do objects move faster when you move towards them?

People are fantastically imaginative. And there are good reasons for thinking the moon is spherical (the phases, for example). So examples of early moon landings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landings_in_fiction The trouble is that the Einstein Field Equations are complex and non-linear. So the known solutions involve very simplified cases. A Schwarzschild black hole (perhaps one of the most commonly used solutions) assumes an eternal, unchanging spherical mass in an empty universe. Given how far apart things are in the real universe, this is still a good approximation. More complex situations, such as a pair of orbiting black holes, require massive simulations to find out what happens. Actually, he patented a refrigerator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator Janus is describing the effects of special relativity. If it weren't for special relativity, and therefore quantum field theory, you wouldn't have the computer you are positing this on.
42. 2 points

Why should people missing 85 percent of an equation (dark matter)

*gloves falls at an acceleration imperceptibly different than g, even after accounting for air resistance*
43. 2 points

is homosexuality unnatural and can be cured?

Unfortunately most people are the same. Humans are very like sheep. They like to be led and told what to think. I think you're on the wrong forum.
44. 2 points

Ancient Alien Tv program

THis show is just BS. IF and it is a BIG IF there was some spek of truth in what the show portrays it would be lost in the pile of conjecture that the idiots, yes idiots spout. In several episodes they state that the people depicted what they saw litterally and sometimes depicted the bloody aliens as an interpretation. The episode that really takes the top prize is the one featuring alien flying mansions with gardens related to India. I believe that life is abundant in the universe. I don't believe that an alien race can bypass the laws of physics. I dont believe that the laws of physics can be overcome. And I don't believe that an alien race would build monuments to themselves and then just bugger off. I am a rerptile and I claim my seventy-odd virgins on a planet in the beta centauri system. I've got as much proof as the spiky-haired geek.
45. 2 points

Observer effect and Uncertainty principle are the same?

No. The observer effect is about how our measurements affect what we are trying to measure. It can apply to almost anything (for example, putting a voltmeter across a circuit changes the behaviour of the circuit). It can also apply to a single measurement, while the uncertainty principle relates two measurements. The uncertainty principle is about the limits to how accurately we can know something, even with perfect measurements: "The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[18] The uncertainty principle in its standard form describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.[19] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) I'm not sure that is a useful example. After all, particles have momentum (and waves have position). But it does, perhaps, relate to the fact that the uncertainty principle is based on Fourier transforms between the two things being measured. And not sure why this is in Philosophy as it is purely a matter of physics.
46. 2 points

Who needs to know how to make a bomb?

It's the same knowledge- but looked at from the other side. If I know " don't mix a with b because it blows up" then I know that, if I want to blow something up, I mix a with b. (And if you happen to live in a country where you can buy explosives at the supermarket...)
47. 2 points

does it make even sense talking about whether we live in computer simulation or not, how could we ever know ?

With all due respect, Strange, that may not be a given. Any entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again", obviously would not be restrained by the physical rules or laws of our/this Universe. That being the case, we honestly could not conceive of or even imagine what the total all encompassing extent of those abilities might allow that entity to effect upon our/this Universe. I am fairly certain that it was Arthur C. Clarke that stated : "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." So, no Strange, that need not necessarily be a given. An entity with the ability to "restart our universe and run it again" might just also have the ability to make it run exactly the same. Maybe even over and over, repeatedly...
48. 2 points

Science...Truth...Reality...?

But ... you said you weren't talking about scientific truth ... now you are saying it is scientific truth ... But now you are saying it isn't scientific truth ... ? I think you need to clarify what you are saying. (And using different colours, sizes and block caps doesn't help clarify it.)
49. 2 points

Taxation without representation

Voting is more than just an individual right. It is not intended exclusively for self interest (part of the reason we have constitutional democracy, not just majority rule). When you disenfranchise someone by taking away their voting right it is a very small part of their overall punishment, but the accumulation of this disenfranchisement is, or most certainly can be, punishing a group that extends to be much greater than the incarcerated themselves.
50. 2 points

Near death experiences ,proof of afterlife ?

we are nothing but chemistry. i have spent a fair amount of time reading about nde's over the years. ive watched many of sam parnias videos, and some guy in england though have forgotten his name. these 2 are fairly regarded as doing the 2 largest studies into nde's. as they are both trauma doctors, "cardio resuscitation", they can get first hand experience of people that are near death. im sure they have probably had experience with people that are actually dead as well. i.e., they go from the trauma ward to the morgue. however, while im sure they have great knowledge in their own field, there is more going on then just what their field teaches them. sam, in one of his videos expressed that once the heart has stopped they are for all intents and purposes dead. however the brain can function for 6 minutes (mayby more) after the heart stops beating. he considers this irrelevant. he chooses to ignore the concept that the brain is still doing 'something' for those 6 minutes. the brain can do many wonderfull and crazy stuff while we're asleep, who knows what other stuff it can come up with when its sent into 'emergency stress mode'. as far as nde's being able to see or know things they couldnt possibly see/know, well people that are asleep can do that too. its called , the brain putting together pieces that we are not consciously aware of. nothing spooky, just the brain working behind the scenes. people "seeing" something in those 6 minutes while the heart has stopped but the brain is still functioning doesnt prove anything apart from HES NOT DEAD YET.