Jump to content

jajrussel

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    657
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Good

About jajrussel

  • Rank
    Quark
  • Birthday 07/20/1954

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Don’t know they keep changing. The brain the heart specifically whatever problem I seem to be having at the moment angina tumors etcetera.
  • Favorite Area of Science
    The why's
  • Biography
    Old man retired, it's probably for the best. I’ve tried to make sense if it all. I failed, now I make it up as I go. I’m usually wrong, but that’s okay because I now sleep better at night, and a lot more often especially during the day.
  • Occupation
    Survival and skepticism

Recent Profile Visitors

8843 profile views
  1. Thanks. I’ll start checking this all out now. My mind needs the break.
  2. I had to delete the Apple notes app from my phone because it suddenly decided that I should be notified about one of the notes. I did everything I could think of to make sure I didn’t receive any notifications from that app. It didn’t work. Since the notification was appearing on my lock screen I went so far as to block all notifications from my lock screen. It didn’t work. A few days later there it was again. In frustration I tapped on it so I could examine the note to see if there was something specific to the note that I had done that was causing it to appear. Expecting, to be greeted with a request for my passcode or my finger print since I was after all in my lock screen, I was somewhat surprised when Apple notes opened allowing me to examine the note then after finding no explanation specific to the note, then allowed me continued access to my phone. I tried to let them know. I couldn’t figure out how. Has anyone else run into anything like this? I tried to Google it. I failed. I have no clue why, but Google’s failure, feels like my own. Apparently, it is years of applied conditioning initiated by the very first electronic device salesperson. If anyone has a clue as to why Google search on occasion seems to have very large gaping holes in its ability to access data that I’m sure it has within grasp. I’m willing to listen? In the meantime I have deleted the App, and certainly hope that, that notification doesn’t show up again in another few days.
  3. Love the illustration, and somewhat agree with parts of this statement. I’m assuming that the, either or reference, applies to the illustration, and that, either or, need not always apply. Quantum physics certainly is not classical physics, but how is duality specific to the classical world? If by quantum object you mean objects described by the standard model, I don’t understand why duality would not apply to any part of the standard model that presents as a particle? . It could be that I have simply misunderstood the statement? Thank you for the illustration. 🙂
  4. 🤔🧐 I would assume using the stated outcome that my particle gun was actually a ray gun and that in reality I was firing a ray of energy that presents as a wave until you interfere with the wave by observing it as a particle. Then I would have to assume that the ray only carried enough energy to create the one particle expected to present thus when detected the wave form formally collapses. I could make one more assumption that it would have to be a complete collapse of the wave, otherwise residual energy would either interfere with oncoming waves fired from the ray gun or be absorbed by them creating a sense of structure. I’m only making assumptions. Some thoughts get confusing for me, when they speak of accelerating particles like they are accelerating ping pong balls in a lottery tube, when my understanding is that it shouldn’t exactly work like that. Apparently, I’m playing catch up again. 🙁 The first sentence is positively obvious. The rest I don’t remember ever reading about. Thanks... I’ll google it, but I’ll be googling blind since I can’t even imagine what the process might be called. Maybe something like “single quantum particle detection processes” will do the trick. Maybe? Google has a way of giving my research skills a workout... 🤔🙂
  5. I read things then forget most of what I read. The same goes for videos. Then occasionally, something becomes trendy so an article is written where emphasis on the amazing is placed. These amazing emphasis stressed articles and videos are created, and presented. But in the background of what is my mind all those things I assumed forgotten start to poke and point out that I need to question, apparently everything. So, I try to make it make sense. What is amazing to me, is that some of the, said, trendy is old news. A rehash of what the thinking of the subject used to be. The things nagging started piecing things together and I had my eureka moment. Still I didn’t trust that I had it right and since it is not exactly a question I posted it in speculation, assuming someone will help to clarify. Again 🙏 ! Then I started the reinforcement process which for some subjects is an immediate rapid subject cram fest. So yesterday morning I posted this then by yesterday afternoon I found a YouTube video presented by Arvin Ash that basically said to me; “Alright Joseph, once again you are a day late and a dollar short.” I apparently have read about this in the past. Upon putting the pieces together, I still managed to get some of it wrong, but there is this, pre-surgery I would have been annoyed by the trendy rehash of old views, but would have been clueless as to why. 😊
  6. Okay, this makes sense. It eliminates the apparent same particle going through both slits simultaneously, and to a degree explains the reason for the magic recombination statement that I remember reading somewhere, and simultaneity isn’t necessary for a wave/s to pass through both slits since everything tends to move at odds to everything else, even if only slightly. The wave diagrams, generally provided present what is apparent simultaneity. Thank you...
  7. My first serious girlfriend would on occasion point out my unintentional tendency toward male chauvinism. With those memories in mind I am almost afraid to 😊 in what is likely be a mixed environment... Oh... what the hell! 😂😂😂
  8. Particle wave duality. I can’t remember where, book or video, probably video maybe both, but it was presented amazingly that a particle could pass through two slits at the same time. To me that would be amazing. So, I question it. It’s difficult for me to accept, as I understand the concept. Of course it could be my understanding. I read that for what seems the most part particles only exist for a short time. Also, amazingly presented as popping in and out of existence. Then there is my understanding of Heisenberg‘s uncertainty principle. Note, I am not questioning it. I am accepting it as true to a point, and that point is that you can’t measure both at the same time. To me that seems awkward if not amazing. So, I question it. Then there was the concept of ether. That was shown to be not true. I am not saying that it is, but the fact that it was shown to be not true seems amazing. No I’m not going to question it, except to ask that if the universe is full of continuous particles why was it so easily shown that the ether does not exist. Then there is solid to somewhat solid matter. Why do I exist? No, I am not asking a philosophical question. Why am I cohesive? Do all particles pop in and out of existence? I am aware that it doesn’t quite happen that way though I do not exactly understand how it does happen. In a sense I’m parroting another amazing rhetoric. I am however wondering given my somewhat limited understanding of quantum physics, if I am solid, or is anything else for that matter? My mind can be changed, even taught, but I am not going to simply accept what seems incomprehensible. So, I think about some apparently amazing presentations and think there must be some other explanation. With Heisenberg, the presentation, pick a book or video it really doesn’t matter, comes across as you can not measure both as related to an it. You can measure it’s momentum, you can measure it’s position, but when it comes down to (it) you can’t do both. Realistically, I accept particle wave duality, but have trouble accepting that a particle can travel through two slits at the same time, but I can accept that a wave can. I also understand from different diagrams that some don’t agree as to how a wave propagates. Which can really muddy up a thought. It seems to get more difficult, at least for me to mentally picture such thing, spherically. So, I prefer the presentation where you are looking down on presumably a wave capable medium that upon disruption attempts to propagate in the allowed directions. The produced wave/s go through both slits. I have trouble with analogies, but opposing waves can peak in various places. Like particles popping in and out of existence. The wave is an analogy of energy propagation through a/various fields of energy/energies. The medium, well for lack of a best definition, is simply vast. Back to Heisenberg and the inability to measure both of (it’s) momentum, or it’s position. I’m suggesting that is because it is not an it but rather two peaks created by the act of measuring. The wave peaks when it interacts with the measuring devices. In essence the wave peaks every time you take a measure. I don’t think the particle is amazingly going through both slits. What is seen is/are peaks of a propagating wave/s where it interacts with opposition. For a moment of time a particle is created and observed. Among other things the photon is not displaying a gravitational attraction or reaction to an intense gravitational field. The energy waves created by the distant star are going around. The observed photon does not exist until the wave/s interacts with the observer. I can’t think of any reason why these thoughts might be seen as an attempt to dismantle physics. To me they just seem to be a rational way for someone who is not an expert to grasp the reality of a few things often presented as amazing, but true! (Among other things the photon is not displaying a gravitational attraction or reaction to an intense gravitational field). This part I am still thinking about? I have another thought that requires gravity, that possibly comes from particles that pop in and out of existence due to opposing energy fields, but that is another thought.
  9. 😊 It appears you do want a philosophical conversation. Why would you consider anything that is, or is not corporeal, to be permanent, nothing stays the same. Why should it be any different for time? I suppose it could depend on the observers preference. It appears to me that original philosopher/scientist dealt with both. I don’t see myself as an expert of either... I recently casually watched a video where the opinion seemed to be that Minkowski threw a wrench into physics, that Einstein picked the wrench up, and time hasn’t been the same since. I suppose that anyone can have as many different definitions of time as Einstein’s views of relativity seem to allow for. In a sense time went from a somewhat rigid unit system dimensionally to one that exist for each individual on a sliding curve. As an individual time for me doesn’t change except that as an observer I can see that for you it does. We can now agree to disagree about observed differences. As an individual I kinda like the sliding curve applied to time though some might not approve of my application. It is now time for me to take my meds... technically, a little over an hour ago. 🙁
  10. Yep I think. I still have to almost constantly reinforce. words that sound alike Are almost a sure error if I’m not careful. Thank you sometimes it is the keyboard choosing what it thinks I mean, but thus run I remember writing Logarithms
  11. I think google has taken a page out of the politicians handbook For guidance. To some degree they will let JQ Public have their way by allowIng one to delete somewhat at will. But then the algorithms kick in. I suspect they sell them cause the Trending crap that hits the news feed can be horrendous if you don’t quickly rebuild an add base. I quickly open my list of favorites and start clicking in attempt to hold them off. Am not sure how well that works, but the fact that I notice if I forget to some degree speaks for itself. Did I ever mention that I tend toward paranoia. 🤫 I’m sure they are watching now and will respond in a way they deem appropriate. Now I have to think of some other counter measure.
  12. I tried Facebook for a while. Yes you can friend and follow and unfollow but as of late their ads have become intrusive. Not so much in the we have something sell way. It’s their label of what constitutes an add I have relatives that are somewhat outspoken to the right and to the left. There are people I went to school with. Hmm, well it’s freedom of speech. Everything was well until about a month ago these videos start popping up that I would describe as educational propaganda they are long they are boring they are hard left or hard right You can’t unfollow them all you can do is tell Facebook why you don’t like their add except the reasons are multiple choice. After three days of trying to figure out what happed to my feed I quit Facebook. That’s not freedom of speech. It’s gone the way of the country. You can’t turn them off. Yes they have the right to freedom of speech but, so do I. They found a way to intrude on my freedom using the very platform that gave it. In the form of an add. My feed was no longer made up of friends and family. It was strangers with an agenda. There are rules and enforcers at SFN, but I’m not being told what threads to read. Nor are my choices limited to what I know or don’t know. I’m allowed to be stupid even foolish. I can be worse but I made that mistake once and don’t ever want to do it again. The moderators didn’t even have to step in. There is a sense of civility at SFN that I can’t find on my TV, in my own country, or just about any country in the world any more. I expect any day that my Internet provider will tell me that it’s either their way or the highway. Can we ever truly have freedom of speech? We’ve had it. We forgot what it looks like. If we wake up tomorrow and it’s competently gone. It’s our fault. Your question ought to be can we get it back? By asking the question the way you did, the appearance is that you have been letting others tell you what freedom of speech is. Assuming, that they are right, what do you as an individual want to give up, so that we can truly have freedom of speech?
  13. I have always liked this question. The challenge seems to be in being as succinct as possible, and leaving no doubt that as defined it is not a Philosophy, so for the umpteenth and hopefully final time, I’ll try again. 🤔 Time is a physical dimension where all aspects defined by an observer reveal a rate of change.
  14. Good. I was afraid that it might be a trick question, and was afraid that I might fall for it. I have to admit that the quick read had kinda confused me though.
  15. When I finally get this thread sorted out am I going to find that not only does the Apple fall towards the ground, but that somehow amazingly the ground falls towards the Apple?
×
×
  • 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.