elfstone

Thanx for your answers!

Not really. What I don't see is why does the universe HAVE to store the information of the entangled state. What I understand is that mathematically we will be able to describe that state, I don't see how that will give us any insight to the nature of physical law. Does Davies mean that an entangled state of more than a certain number of particles is physically impossible for some reason?

This is a quote by Paul Davies. Can anyone explain what he's talking about? Is the number 400 something that was calculated or just an example? Btw, I copied it from here.

If the expansion stretches light to a longer wavelength, which is at a very small scale, I don't see why it has no effect within galaxies or even within molecules. If I understand this correctly, gravity and atomic forces "work faster" than the expansion of the universe and negates any effect it may have? Maybe I'm getting something wrong here...

Just wanted to mention that the author of "Freakonomics" argues that legalizing abortion had a direct effect on crime ratings dropping. The people who propose adoption as the solution should realize that an unwanted pregnancy can be dealt with, but an unwanted child will most likely suffer for being born. Morality should dictate us to reduce suffering, not increase it. As Mokele said, persons are entitled moral rights, not a ball of cells.

With this kind of mass, isn't its gravity affecting even galaxies? What an awesome and scary find

I think that natural selection is a very complex process, and it becomes even more so in human civilization where memes play a role as important, if not more, as the genes. We simply do not have enough information to practice eugenics on a large scale. For example, many people with manic depression have proved to be very creative writers. Are their "bad" genes more important than the "good" memes they are more than able to offer? Of course, in the case of a serious or hurtful disease, it can be morally justified to end a pregnancy that can only lead to suffering of mother and child.

I read in an amazon book review that the entanglement experiments have shown that reality is "non-local". I know that entangled particles seem to interact with each other no matter their distance but can anyone explain how can this have the above implication? What would it actually mean for physics if reality was indeed "non-local"?

Why exactly should we consider our intelligence a biologically separate attribute? Yes, apart from our intelligence, we are biologically inferior to many species. But it is we who dominate the planet and that's the most important fact to count for species superiority. It is nonsense to consider civilization a drawback despite it being far removed from perfection. Even in the case of a technology destruction event, there is no conspiracy from other species to destroy us. We would suffer a major setback and our chances of survival wouldn't necessarily be lower than other species.

I don't think there is such a thing because the nature of matter depends on the situation, I mean there isn't a single situation in which we can see a change between the two facets of this duality. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

You want to get the matrix in this form : 1 0 0 | x 0 1 0 | y 0 0 1 | z The new R2 you did qualifies for the R3 of above if you divide it with 4. Turns out that z = 2. So we got R3 =[ 0 0 1 | 2]. The new R1 you did (slight mistake, u forgot to multiply smth there[-3 should be -6], anyway, it is 0 4 4 | 4 if multiplied with -1. This is good for our R2. R2 = R2 - 4*R3 = 0 4 0 | -4 and looks like that y = -1. R2 =[ 0 1 0 | -1]. Now, your original R1 [2 1 3 | 3] can be turned R1 = R1 - R2 - 3*R3 = [2 0 0 | -2 ] -> R1 = [1 0 0 | -1] and x is also -1. I hope that wasn't too confusing, it's been a while I did this

Is this new meaning good or bad? The way evolution and natural selection work, they seem to "seek" improvement. If humans are the best improvement of evolution so far, then our survival should be somehow important for nature. The rest of life on the planet should be of less consequence. Species have extinct in the past, mass extinctions have wiped most of life several times, but all has led to homo sapiens who are nature's way to change its rules. I don't think we have stopped human evolution; I think we will accelerate it even, if we don't self-destruct before we can do it.

You should multiply each part with 1+3i. Then it would be : x = (4-i)(1+3i)/1^2-(3i)^2 --> x = (7-11i)/10 which is the answer you seek. The bottom part is because of a^2 - b^2 = (a+b)*(a-b)

They don't have rest mass, but their energy is equivalent to some mass according to e=mc^2, right? I think the wave/particle duality is related to the mass/energy duality somehow.

I thought this was true once but since I learned about relativity I don't think it's valid anymore. If time was an illusion it would have to be absolute. Since relativity shows that time is a physical quantity that is depended on others that aren't illusions (space, motion), then it has to be real as well.

Totally overlooked that. Maybe cause it's such a sci-fi scenario in my head, "the unfeeling AI decides to destroy humanity because it's not useful anymore" The question was more a wondering, didn't direct it to you specifically. I hope it's still on topic. So, what do you think, is intelligence alone enough for an AI that won't reply "This is a wrong statement. I do not even possess anything similar to the anatomy of a rectum" to "You're an asshole!"

I don't think an advanced AI would be dangerous without feelings. If it can't feel joy, sadness, jealousy etc, I don't see how it can be dangerous. Besides, can intelligence alone account for self-awareness?

I think the biggest hope for proving string theory is finding supersymmetry particles at a new accelator. It'd be a shame for a lot of people should it get disproved, there's been lots of work for years on it.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense. Power would have passed to the males when their superior physical abilities became important.

So, what kind of scientific authority do you have as a congressman? None. Respect is earned and you have to try a lot harder than arrogantly declaring you are right in a science forum. I am not surprised but it's terrifying to be reminded that men like you make the laws. This is why the world is in such a mess.

I'm not sure if this goes here, anyway. My question is what we know about the first societies formed by homo sapiens. I read somewhere that those first societies were matriarchical and I wanted to verify it. Also, what role exactly would matriarchy/patriarchy play in such a primitive society (maybe as small as a family)? If there was a change in type, how and why did it happen?