Leaderboard

Good to know. Thanks. I admittedly wasn't really sure what that was.

Bananas execute purple. See? I can post meaningless word salad, too. Evolution as a process requires progress through time, otherwise lifeforms would remain static (no time = no change), but this is an otherwise completely useless statement that provides no insight or explanatory power.

Similarly, just because brain waves continue during wake doesn't mean our consciousness continues, and for all we know we die and are replaced by a copy continuously. The conjecture seems silly either way.

There is NO evolution if length does not exit. Therefore length drives evolution. And while we are at it, width drives radioactive decay, and depth drives fermentation.

Here is an interesting article on the effect of anaesthetics on brain function and consciousness. I'm not sure it answers the question, but does suggest that all the brain activity that corresponds to "conscious" activity (even when asleep) can be stopped and replace with something else, but we still wake up and are (or think we are!) the same person.

Remember this: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence,.. he pulled it out of his ass.

It really depends on how one defines consciousness, and what thresholds are set between sleep and wakefulness. He also seems to be conflating the idea that we are "conscious" beings with the idea that we're "conscious" while awake. They're different usages of one single word.

"How I hate those little slices of death we call sleep" - Edgar Allen Poe. Possibly inspired by that.

Science actually doesn't try to prove things true (because you can't). You can prove something is false, but not true. So instead we amass evidence in support of an idea. I certainly think brainwaves and dreams are supportive evidence that consciousness doesn't "die" (I assume you mean something like losing Random Access Memory when you shut off your computer). It's my understanding also that there's nothing in the brainwave patterns of a sleeping person to suggest anything shuts down. Neurons communicate more locally during sleep, and there's less connected activity. Another piece of evidence is the sense of time. When you've slept for a period of time, upon waking you retain a sense of having spent that time in sleep. However, if you're given a general anesthetic (say, before a medical operation), you wake up afterward having felt like you just went to sleep, even though hours may have elapsed. Again, the neurons don't stop communicating, but they form more localized signals, isolating brain activity. I also would like to see a reference to the piece you read. I'm very curious why the author believes our consciousness dies when we sleep, and where we get this backup copy from when it does. It's sounds contrived, and unnecessarily complex. If consciousness doesn't die when you sleep, you don't have to figure out where you're storing/getting a complete copy of your consciousness (whatever THAT entails). I'm betting the author is a computer specialist rather than a neurologist.

Operative word is 'configured' - in the sense of an ensemble. I don't think there's routine replacement of cells that reside in areas that store memories... kinda defeats the point.

Brainwaves, maybe. Because they are continuous, unlike dreams. But it is quite possible that our sense of continual consciousness is just an illusion we create from our memories. But your cells are constantly being replaced (see also Trigger’s Broom or Theseus’s Ship).

You, as a person, are your cells, which are configured uniquely as you, so I don't see how you can be replaced by a copy in your sleep. I am disregarding external intervention. Could you give a reference to this idea?

Yes I understood that, which is why I asked for more detail. Whenever you have relative motion you must, of necessity, have (at least) two frames. One for each of the objects in relative motion. The rest frame of one of these is chosen as the 'rest frame' and the rest frame of the other, the moving frame. Furthermore the observer's frame also needs some charge to be able to interact with (and thus observe) any fields generated by the moving charge. You have introduced 'relativity'. Have you considered whether the observers in the observer frame will measure the same charge as observers in the frame of the moving charge? This is indeed the case - charge is invariant under the Lorenz transformation so both will agree the value of the charge. However it is variation of charge density that produces the fields. Charge density is not Lorenz invariant so each will measure a different charge density. This is often handled by using Maxwell's equations to introduce what are known as vector potentials. Now Maxwell's equations are (simultaneous) partial differential equations and when we solve them for the fields or potentials we do not obtain unique solutions. Solutions differ by arbitrary (vector) functions. The required solutions are picked out by applying further conditions (boundary conditions) and inparticular what is known as The Lorenz Condition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_gauge_condition Note this is not the Lorenz transformation. Classically this leads to what are known as 'retarded potentials'. When we introduce relativity, it is often easier to use four-vectors than work directly. Here is a simple non four-vector explanation due to Grant and Phillips that may help. Notice their footnote as to how positive and negative charge do not necessarily transform the same under Lorenz.

Yes, they should. They have to come up with the same answer.

Affirmative, I seem to have reached a reference citation impasse regarding the tensor field functions integration of [math]\Lambda^{\mu}_{\alpha}[/math] and [math]\Lambda^{\nu}_{\beta}[/math]. All of the references that have been cited do not demonstrate a functions integration past this initial point for a tensor field. Is this approach at least mathematically and symbolically correct to this point? Any citations or recommendations? Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread?

That is a truly terrible take on this research. I don't know if it came from the original press release, or some journalist/editor made it up later. So it is about (hypothetical) mirror matter and the possibility that neutrons might be able to flip between normal matter and mirror matter. The idea is that detecting neutrons that appear to have passed through a barrier could indicate that they oscillated into mirror matter and back (and so avoided the barrier). This is a non-trivial experiment. Some good background on it here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/16/you-must-not-trust-experiments-that-claim-the-existence-of-parallel-universes

I've heard a bit about the Mirror universe hypothesis, and like any "other universes" hypotheticals, are speculated to attempt explanations of supposed universal anomalies. One I recall was to explain why gravitation was so weak in our universe....this Mirror universe, had something to do with the arrow of time and why it always points in the same direction. I found this....https://www.sciencealert.com/new-theory-suggests-that-two-parallel-universes-were-produced-by-the-big-bang and.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/ I don't put too much hope or faith in this for what it is worth. Speculation and hypotheticals are part and parcel of science and the scientific methodology. As apparently far fetched as some may seem, it should be remembered that 110 years ago, it was also far fetched to believe that time and space are variable concepts. And of course as any scientist will tell you, that is all they are, and will remain so until supported by evidence, and no unmovable faith like belief is entailed with them unlike some other mythical concepts.

You are still looking for "Dark" energy and "Dark" matter which means you really have no idea of what is going on. You explain nothing. You worship at the alter of an incomplete GR that creates Big Crunches, Singularities and Big Bangs. Even Einstein knew it was incomplete. He was looking for the balancing constant. He abandoned it due to Hubble's shift and spent the rest of his career futilely looking for the unified field, which he would have had if he had just properly interpreted Hubble's observations, instead of accepting the acceleration explanation, which I have done. EVERYONE knows it is incomplete! You are just looking for impossible answers for totally illogical concepts in an obviously logical universe, like the singularity, Big Bang and eternally accelerating expansion of the universe. These are illogical, idiotic concepts. Again, I challenge everyone here to specifically, demonstrably, show how my theory violates any law or principle.