Jump to content

MigL

Senior Members
  • Posts

    8453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    109

MigL last won the day on September 24

MigL had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Location
    St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    History
    Modern Military aviation
    Computer hardware
    and of course Science
  • College Major/Degree
    B.Sc. Physics
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    Single, never married
  • Occupation
    Solvay Canada - Phosphine and organophosphorus derivatives production

Recent Profile Visitors

40601 profile views

MigL's Achievements

Genius

Genius (11/13)

2k

Reputation

  1. That is what I previously posted. I concede he is wrong in his reasoning, but believing people who, don't believe in God(s), think a certain way ( I'm one of them ) is not bigoted. That is my opinion; am I bigoted for thinking that group thinks that way ?
  2. No problem whatsoever with Zap's thoughts and opinions; I have always valued them. Everyone's opinions should be ( ie. no thought police ), so we may discuss, and even attempt to change each other's minds about certain subjects. Labelling people with offensive terms, like 'bigot', makes them feel unsafe about sharing their ideas/opinions. Is that not the whole idea behind 'safe' spaces ? If you'd rather eliminate all views which don't agree with your own, you're not going to have much of a discussion. ( and I did give Zap a +1 for being respectful )
  3. Because the probability distribution for the separated states was encoded in the common wave function shared by entangled particles. How many times does this probabilistic view have to be repeated, before you stop thinking classically ? In the mentioned experiment in Geneva, given a large enough separation, the question could arise as to which of the two particles' entangled states decoheres first ( SR considerations ). If the wave function does not encode states as probabilities, how do we know which particle is communicating/signalling/Qbitting ( or whatever you choose to call the interaction today ) with the other to ensure the observed anti-correlation ? Or are you fine with violating causality for macroscopic events ( observer experiments ) also ...
  4. How are these 'fields' compactified, or localized to this 'central part' ? The QED fields, which manifest quantum particles, are not.
  5. It is so hypocritical of Russia to blame western nations of supplying weapons to the Ukrainian resistance. The Russians themselves have apparently provided much more in terms of hastly abandoned tanks, artillery, etc. Let this be a lesson to all limp Dicktators. ( did you learn anything, Xi ? )
  6. Response should be here, so we can discuss. Use PDFs as supporting evidence, please.
  7. How is that relevant ? What if he had been carrying a paper, like NYT ? Or a doll ? Or walking a dog ? The only connection is in his ( deranged ) mind. You guys are trying to find sensical, causal structures in the thinking of a madman
  8. Nice analysis by Markus on the previous page. On this off topic discussion ( I recommend splitting if possible ), energy, even rest energy, can be described as due to the configuration of the system, but not internal configuration ( as there is no internal aspect of elementary particles; if they had internal structure, they could be divided, and would not be fundamental ), rather the external configuration with respect to other fields, such as the Higgs, EM, color, and even space-time ( which gives rise to variable energies and masses in differing frames ). But back to the OP. I would appreciate a brief summary of your conjecture, Computer, so I don't have to slog through your lengthy post. Qed is best described as a perturbative theory of the quantized electrodynamic vacuum fields. And it does an excellent job of describing all phenomena involving charged particles. What does your theory add, or modify, to QED that is currently lacking, or in need of modification ? What new predictions does it make, and are any experimentally verified ( as is the case with current theory ) ?
  9. You are straying dangerously close to 'conspiracy theories', INow. Sometimes we give China too much credit as to their capabilities and intentions. They seem to have their own problems. I don't know. Ask the people of Hong Kong.
  10. To be fair, Doctor Derp said/implied that eople who think a certain way ... ( meaning atheist beliefs ) make zero effort ... Then proceeded to try and back up his assertions with faulty thinking. That makes him wrong, not a bigot against atheists. We are not the thought police here; make counter arguments, not 'labels' to stop discussion you don't agree with.
  11. An interstellar spacecraft powered by ... chemical rockets ??? I guess that's what we know, so we make that association. now, if the description was a shiny metallic object falling out of a hole in the sky, I might think 'wormhole'. Which might be more plausible.
  12. No wonder we have no more women on this forum. Everyone is less puerile when women are present. ( always wanted to use the word 'puerile' )
  13. Thank goodness ! I thought I was gaining weight.
  14. Do you have any reasoning to back up this imaginative conjecture ? Or is it just a WAG ?
×
×
  • 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.