questionposter

All the references state that an electron is a particle not a wave. A particle can oscillate and it continues being a particle, not a wave. A particle has angular momentum and energy and continues being a particle not a wave. Dirac also agree on that the electron is a particle.

I don't really think you have the capability to disprove that a particle can be a wave, but at least your making progress by admitting what most of quantum mechanics works with which is that they do have oscillation patterns. Besides I don't mind if they aren't actually a wave, I had originally adjusted my description to say that an electron is an oscillation in a matter field, which isn't that difficult of a concept.

In previous posts you alluded to some chemist. Maybe it is worth to mention that chemists also know that the electron is a particle. Indeed the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists gives the following official definition of the electron:

 

 

 

It must be interesting to add that the Particle Data Group has an entry devoted to the electron. That entry gives the last measured data about the electron

 

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2...s_listings.html

 

The citation is 2011 Review of Particle Physics.

Please use this CITATION: K. Nakamura et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 37, 075021 (2010)

and 2011 partial update for the 2012 edition.

 

This is an article by Weinberg stating that the electron is a particle and critizing the old idea of particles as excitation of fields.

 

Some more resources stating that the electron is a particle

 

http://www.web-books...MParticles.html

 

 

And more giving only the links:

 

http://en.wikipedia....st_of_particles

 

http://www.particlep...dard-model.html

 

http://www.particlep...-particles.html

 

http://ctp.berkeley..../neutrino3.html

 

http://www.arpansa.g...glossary.cfm#e7

 

http://www.nap.edu/o...d=6045&page=161

 

http://education.yah...ntry/elementr-p

Most if not all of your definitions for "particle" that you found on the internet do not exclude an electron from being a wave or being able to oscillate. Magnetic orientation and angular momentum and energy and etc. are used in quantum wave mechanics and quantum harmonic oscillators.

Pure gainsay isn't very conducive to a reasonable discussion. Pure or objective logic has little to do with ethics, as ethics is based upon a moral stance and morals has more to do with emotion and subjectivity than it has to do with logic.

 

 

Then that means logically there is no real reason for malaria or mosquitoes to actually wiped out because the only reason it is suggested is because of emotions which do not have a direct logical correlation to actions or reality.

because it's never going to be 'objective', is it?

How is it logical then?

How do you know the universe was created?

Never said I knew, but based on current evidence it's a likely scenario.

Is "thought matter" well defined? If so is there any reason to suppose that any significant number of atheists who believe in it?

Well who's to say every single religious person is an orthodox Christian? Most Christians aren't complete church-goers, they usually have some of their own interpretations of god.

"but it's still not "illogical" to believe in a god, since you can't prove it doesn't exist, "

And it's not illogical to believe in a six foot invisible rabbit because you also can't prove that the rabbit doesn't exist.

But, as has been pointed out before, most people would agree that anyone who did believe in it was, in some way, broken.

Specifically, I think they would be classed as psychotic.

I think someone who believes someone is broken for believing in something would be broken in the same way. It's not illogical to think there could be an invisible rabbit, but if your in a small area, you can just feel around. God has an entire universe and possibly infinite dimensions to possibly occupy.

I'm still waiting for someone to satisfactorily explain why it's thought mad to believe in one invisible thing, but not another.

Why does religion get special exemptions from the normal rules of human behaviour?

Because god is an axiom in mono-theistic religion.

Requiring strict objectivity throws ethics out the window because asking for an ethical answer found only by objective logic invalidates the ethical stance held by the being doing the reasoning.

How so?

And the answer to that is no. The photon is still there. The overall probability is still 1.

Ok, so regardless of whatever circumstance, a photon has finite 3-dimensional coordinates it will occupy be most probable to be found it. Does that mean I can measure a photon as a radio wave even though it's highest probability only expanded over a few nanometers (which means it was emitted as a gamma-ray from the source).

 

 

From your post #19

 

 

 

Which still isn't wrong according to multiple variations of quantum mechanics

IQ is extremely difficult to measure at the extremes.

There's still logical reasons for it happening though. I can tell when my IQ is increased because I can consciously and sub-consciously process, perceive and keep track of much more information than in a previous state, but I can tell right now I cannot do that so well. It's actually pretty weird to remember being in a conscious state where I was able to think much more efficiently but not actually being able to do it when I remember it, because its almost like I'm tricking myself into thinking faster. It's usually after I've been doing a variety of out-of-the-box thinking and maybe specific actions followed by good sleep and some optimism. Alternatively, being tired lowers this, and so does getting angry.

There isn't really as much of a "man-made" distinction in the industry as there is an "organic" distinction. Even though all carrots are organic because they all contain Carbon, some carrots are considered non-organic because they are grown specifically with altered genes and sprayed with pesticides.

Sorry for the vague descriptions, it's all I really have.

Essentially my friend watched a documentary that he didn't remember the name of, and someone who is considered a psuedo-scientist who claims to have done reverse engineering an alien spaceship parts said that aliens traveled faster than light with an element not far from ours in the periodic table which could distort the fabric of space time in a special way as to allow the passage between points faster than light. Mathematically however, this has been confirmed to be theoretically possible, but this was before the "warp drive" or when Star Trek become popular or before it was even invented really.

There's also recordings in the past of the Ark causing what appears to be symptoms of rapid radiation poisoning, which normal uranium couldn't do. Instead, it is suspected it could have been a nuclear reactor.

To me the actual chances of alien interference in the past are slim, but there seems to be some rational evidence to support it but also to support it isn't true.

Your initial premise may be flawed.

 

You're assuming that there is some logical process that drives ethics, when the two conclusions may not even be related. If a man enters my home and points a gun at me, I can logically conclude that he means to do me harm. Now there may be other considerations to take into account, but we'll use the simplistic example for now. Ethically, it may be wrong to kill this man, but logically, if I intend to preserve my health and well being, I may have to, ethics or not.

 

If mosquitoes killed humans every time they bit one of us, then the logical course of action is to kill off the mosquitoes before we all die - it's an "us or them" kind of proposition. But it doesn't necessarily follow that what is logical is also ethical. Ethics has nothing (or at least very little) to do with survival.

But there's not really an "us" or "them" situation ever, that is the situation living things assume for themselves, it's not really logical, they only act on it because they assume it's the only logic possibility or do nothing to create another possibility. If ethics isn't logical, then why consider it? And why not just do research to create immunity to malaria anyway?

Besides, the human race has wiped out plenty of species that weren't actually a threat to it in really any way, so logically I don't see how one would deserve to live without the other deserving to live or one deserving to die without the other deserving to die. Objectively I don't see why something should logically deserve treatment positively or negatively just because the human race happens to be the one effected.

I agree with you that theists reasoning abilities are fine in most aspects of life. Many are quite reasonable, in fact. However, not with god(s). Isn't that a sign of a fracture... an inconsistency... a double standard?

There's many psychological elements, such as the environment religious people tend to grow up in, but it's still not "illogical" to believe in a god, since you can't prove it doesn't exist, and I'm sure there's plenty of things atheists believe in that seem illogical in the same sense as god, like thought matter. Really, no one can be completely logical, so it's just a matter of what you use your logical capabilities up on first.

The probability over all space would still be 1. The radial probability is unchanged, and I expect the angular probability looks just like the Terrell rotation from relativity.

Well the probability over all space is one only because of infinite summation properties, like I could say 1/x=0 when x=infinity, but otherwise your saying there are infact properties of localization that aren't "relative" or that stay constant?

Basically, I'm asking in there's different frames of reference, if a photon would 3-dimension-ally be more or less probable to be detected by various frames of reference. Like would the 3 dimensional coordinates for it's most probable location differ depending on the frame of reference? I don't know if it would since it isn't measured yet, and relativity is all about how you measure things.

After saying that an electron is a wave (a plain wrong statement), are you trying to say now that water is also a wave?

I think you need to read my posts more carefully. Besides, my very original post was that electrons wave, not that they are waves. Actually I didn't even state it waves, I just stated it has probability fields, then I stated it waves, and then to explain why it waves I said i has wave-particle duality which isn't exactly disproved.

The moral of the story is that if you try to be the boss, you'll have to take $h1t from people the rest of your life. I think.

 

 

I suppose there could be multiple interpretations, but looking at the story itself, the part of the body that was the a**hole got to be boss.

The reason I think its wrong is the unknown consequences outweigh the potential good.

 

When weighing an ethical question one has to consider the consequences both positive and negative and balance the good verses the bad. This is fundamentally true of any ethical question. The lack of either negates the question, as there is nothing to balance.

 

 

 

Ethics is a human construct; ethical questions are raised by humans and evaluated by humans. If the human race had a threat, such as you describe in post #29. The question then becomes instinctive and one of self preservation, anyone in that situation trying to advocate we not defend ourselves in the manner you suggest, would be shot or dragged away by the men in white coats. In a kill or be killed situation and you're the innocent party there is no ethical question to answer.

 

 

I already considered all of that before I even posted this topic, I'm looking for concise logic in ethical responses to lead to probable answers, not just personal opinions, and dictionary.com has this to say about it

http://dictionary.re...owse/ethics?s=t

It doesn't say you "have" to balance out anything.

opinion, because of the suffering they cause to humans. However, your argument is not about eradicating the disease, it's about eradicating one carrier the mosquito.

My argument is about the ethics of it, or logically how something could or couldn't deserve to be killed off. And so far I see no logical correlation between "your body happens to release some chemical that causes fear" or "signals are sent to your brain that tell you your body is being damaged" and "species x deserves to be eradicated".

Too ambiguous. You've asked what localized means, but never defined what you actually mean by it.

 

 

The wavelength in each frame depends on the Doppler shift.

By localization I mean how it's probability density spreads out according to it's wavelength, but since nothing is measuring it before it's measured, is it's wavelength before it's measured constant? If we "could" in a way measure it without it counting as a real measurement, would all frames of reference see the same 3 dimensional probability coordinates that are generated by wavelength and the uncertainty principal?

Let's say an electron jumps up 2 orbitals then back down, logically it would emit only a specific frequency of a photon, but you don't know that frequency until you actually measure it, yet that measurement somehow has information as to how localized the photon is before measurement, like wavelength. See the confusion?

A pool of water can have ripples. Does that mean water is a wave but not water? Water can be waving and have wave-like properties, just like a particle can.

Are there any official reports on how much CO2 wind farms release and how much energy they consume?

newt wanted 2 end the libtard bias of obama who can honestly b called a socialist

Maybe he is socialist, so what? At a time like this the US may need more socialism to balance out the capitalism.

Technically "nothing" existed before the universe was created, but otherwise no, because the vacuum of space contains both the fabric of space-time, light, cosmic background radiation and virtual pair particles as well as normal virtual force carrier particles.

I'm not surprised this sentence "It cannot happen therefore if we did it, it would be ethically wrong" makes no sense to you (me either) for a start it's an oxymoron. No, I'm not saying that and I'm really not sure how you can come to this conclusion from my post #26. I alluded to our inability to completely eradicate mosquitoes in post #7 but even then I didn't, actually, state it couldn't be done. I tried to take the ambiguity out of the OP and answer it and your post #25 as directly as I could, as previously stated a rephrasing of the original question is in order.

You keep stating "that" it is ethically wrong, but I don't actually see many reasons why?

There is no ethical question to be answered if the choice is based on the survival of the human race.

Why not? The human race as killed off plenty of other species.

No. You seem determined to interpret a statement in terms of QM when I mention relativity, and relativity when I mention QM. Under that condition, I can't answer your question.

Ok, is how localized a photon is relative?