QuantumT

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

You're wrong here, as well. There is NOTHING in nature that can't be explained without an intelligent designer.

I didn't imply that they required ID. I just said it's a better place to make the argument.

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

wrong

He's right, but making a poor job explaining it.

Before there could be stars, there had to be atoms, and before that a big bang.

Everything can be traced back to a more primitive state with potential for the next step.

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

For something to become actual it must first exist as potential.

It was a potential with mammals millions of years ago. The Homo lineage came from that, and resulted in us.

If you're looking for ID in nature, there are better places to look. Like the fine tuned elementary particles, and the cell's ability to reproduce itself. Those two things are great mysteries, how they came to be.

Icelandic ice cave (I use this image as background of my lock screen)

,

Dripstone cave in Germany

14 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

A little bit wrong. Space-time repels both matter and itself. Matter attracts both matter and space-time, or holds space-time around it. In other words, the mass of matter is positive, and space-time mass is negative.

That sounds even more stupid than my idea. Sorry pal. Please let the pro's give their opinion.

I just had an idea. What if gravity is two forces instead of one?

The primary force: An incompatibility between spacetime and matter. Spacetime repelling matter.

The secondary force: Matter attracting matter. Being the same it wants to unite. (Surrounded by repelling spacetime.)

It's a bit like water and oil.

Stupid?

9 minutes ago, Occcams5 said:

Basically what year would ecactly be in the middle of 3400 years ?

There's 4,400 years between 3,000 BC and 1,400 AD. The middle would be approximately the year 800 BC

Unless that force wants to be undetectable.

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sure, you're an optimist.

I'll also point out that you are probably wrong.

Far greater men, than what I could ever be, have also been deemed wrong, and have achieved what was considered impossible, to previous generations.

I'm not saying we will be able to manipulate high energy and exotic particles in a lab, but what can't be done controlled, might have a work-around outside.

Limiting ourselves never helped anything.

Just now, zapatos said:

That might be a bit of an overstatement. There are limits to human intelligence and ingenuity, not to mention things we are physically incapable of achieving. 

Call me an optimist.

On 10/21/2020 at 11:33 PM, Curious layman said:

What will it enable us to do? 

Would the effects on humanity be dramatic?

If we some day get to know everything about how the universe works, and how matter can be manipulated, which is the logical consequence of a TOE, we will be able to evolve our technologies to the maximum. That means that everything that is possible can be done. That will have an enormous impact on human life.
But since we are not there yet, we don't know yet, what is possible with maximum technology, but I imagine it is a lot.

Just my two cents.

Our skeptic hero, James Randi, has died, age 92.

RIP

https://web.randi.org/home/james-randi-has-died

 Hello gentlemen!

I recently discovered Sir Roger Penrose's conjecture about Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, and I find it very interesting. His claim that there are visible traces of the past aeon (former universe) in the CMB is a very intriguing, but I just can't wrap my head around how a cold, massless, radiation filled universe can turn into a hot dense singularity. Maybe someone here can explain it in layman's terms?

What do you think about the CCC theory?

Here's a 39 minute video where he explains it. But the step from old to new universe just doesn't click with me.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

The HUP is inherent to QM and does not depend on making a measurement 

Here is a better article, IMO. It distinguishes between the HUP and back action.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/negative-mass-swing-beats-the-uncertainty-principle/?comments=1&post=33737037

Thanks for the link. I will read it one of these days. I have a sleeping disorder, and right now my head is buzzing.

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

The article confuses the two. Did you read it? Do you see the part about random kicks? That’s not the HUP.

The random kicks has nothing to do with the observer effect. The OE isn't even mentioned.
They are the back action that makes the HUP. Or at least that is what the article tries to explain.

Are you claiming that back action and the observer effect is the same thing?

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

The article confuses the observer effect and the HUP

I doubt that very much. It's work done and published by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen. Bohr's own grandson works there.

They have eliminated Quantum Back Action. Here's an article about the setup, and how they did it:

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news17/clever-atomic-cloud-solves-heisenbergs-observational-problem/

As far as I understand, they have bypassed the uncertainty principle, or what?

Your reference link is pointing back to this page.

Reference link: https://phys.org/news/2020-09-quantum-entanglement-distant-large.html

The orange menace had a strategy: Interrupt, interrupt, interrupt. Attack, attack, attack. He was not there to talk politics, but to disrupt Biden.

Biden tried very hard to stay on the topics, but was too well mannered to keep talking despite of the interruptions. I guess he figured no one could hear what he said anyway.

Trump lost the argument at his first interruption, but unfortunately his supporters see that as a victory. Their hero is a bully.

If you turn the whole galaxy into a double slit experiment, by using photons from stars, it still gives the same result.

How is that for large scale? 😉

The Mpemba effect seems to have been debunked in 2016: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep37665

Where is the graviton expected to be located in the nucleus? I know that up and down quarks have a spin of ½, and the graviton's should be 2. Could it be inside the quarks? Or could it be an undetectable sphere around the nucleus as a whole?

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

IOW, you will still have wave behavior even in a single quantum state 

So, you're saying that (collapsed) particles display wave behavior? Where do we observe that?

If our brain can be described as an instrument (it certainly bares the trademarks of one), then the wave/particles of our bodies are in a constant collapsed state, because the brain, as a detector, is always turned on.

Just my two cents.

56 minutes ago, MigL said:

Go ahead; Make my day lasagna.

Clint Eastwood  Garfield

Odie was here