gib65

So I guess a 1/2 spin is only problematic in the quantum paradigm, not the classical. Would it still increment/decrement by full integers (i.e. add an extra quantum of energy to give it 3/2 spin)? Anyway, at some point here, I wanted to derail the course of this thread so that I could ask a question that's becoming more and more evident the more I think about it. It's not much of a derailment since it's still well within the scope of the general topic at hand. I want to know if I'm understanding this whole "collapse of the wave function" thing properly. Given the HUP, it only seems logical that there isn't just one wave function - there's a distinct wave function for each variable we can measure. So far, I understand that when we measure some property (like position), this causes the "collapse of the wave function" as they say. But if the HUP is correct, it also "resurrects" the wave function for a conjugate variable (like momentum). Therefore, there can't just be one all encompassing wave function. Am I on the right track?

I think what membrain is asking here is whether the precise number of electrons is a function of probability. I don't think so. If it's a silver atom, and it's not ionized, then there are exactly 47 electrons (AFAIK). Fredrik's point that we can't know with absolute certainty whether they are in the vicinity of the atom is still true, but it is certain that 47 of them exist. It is an odd concept, isn't it - that an electron can have no definite position yet still definitely exist. I don't even know what "spin" means, let alone half or whole integer spins. Can you enlighten me?

I always knew there was an inevitable uncertainty between position and momentum, but I didn't know there were many such pairings called "conjugate variables". Interesting. What other conjugate variable pairs are there? Membrain was asking about mass as a property of a particle that one can measure, and swansont answered that there is no uncertainty about mass measurements (or charge). Does this mean we can rule out mass and charge as conjugate variable with anything else?

Yes, what is probable is where the electron will be when the wave function collapses - and it collapses because of the measurement.

So it doesn't require any "mind control" techniques? It's something that anyone can do if they tried?

I'm no expert in QM, but everything I've been taught about it says that you're on the right track.

Good point

I suppose this question goes in this section. If not, please move it. On more than one occasion, I've seen preformers poking pins in themselves without appearant pain or bleeding. In fact, they poke pins through themselves. That is, they stick needles into their forearms and it comes out the other side. Then, they stick needles into their cheeks and pierce it all the way through the other cheek. They'll do this to their tongues, ears, and any other flab of skin that isn't obstructed by bone. They do this show absolutely no signs of pain or hesitation. They don't even bleed! One performer, when asked how he does it, said that he "controls his perceptions" - I assume he means he controls the pain. Appearantly, he's going beyond that and controlling the flow of blood. My question: is there a scientific explanation for how this is done - for the appearant lack of pain, and for the lack of bleeding?

Thanks again Bluenoise, Is it possible to OD on vitamins?

Thanks Bluenoise, I'm also wondering what kind of vitamins I could take that would have an effect on my mood. I wonder because ever since I went on my high protein/low carb diet, I've been eating way less fruits. In that time, I've also become a little more irritable and prone to moodiness. I'm think maybe I should buy some vitamin pills. I read that B6 is good for raising seritonin levels. What do you (or anybody) recommend?

I've never heard it put that way before. Sounds like you've got a unique view of QM.

I don't know if this is the right forum, but what are some good sources of vitamin B6?

I chose "sort of" and it asked me to explain, so... A lot of psychoanalysis can be done on the Bible.

You make me drunk just reading that!

What would the experience be like?

This is a just-for-fun thread. What would happen if all neurons in your brain started firing all at once and at their maximum capacity? This, of course, probably can't be answered scientifically, so feel free to speculate (and be creative). Example: You'd suddenly achieve enlightenment and have an omniscient understanding of the universe... and you'd have telekinesis.

Hey, that just made me think of how evolution works. Even though snakes aren't built to climb trees, they could do it if they had to (like if the world was suddenly populated by vicious warrior bunnies ). Then, eventually, snakes would evolve who are excellent tree climbers. Something similar happened with humans, didn't it? When we left the jungles of Africa for the grass lands, we hand to stand on our hind legs even though we weren't built for it.... Anyway, it just made me think of this.

That's hilarious!

Hey Membrain, I've got an account on http://www.ilovephilosophy.com as well. What's your username there? I'm very interested in quantum mechanics also. I'd answer your questions except for the fact that Klaynos seems to be doing a fine job already, and that all my knowledge comes from asking question about it on SFN just like you, not from any expertise or formal education. I'm going to stick around and read the answers as I am very interested in this topic as well.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that the currently accepted theory about CO2 acting like a greenhouse, trapping heat from the sun, and therefore causing temperature to rise, is too speculative to treat as fact?!?! Not really. It may take billions of dollars to decrease emmisions, but we will make money by creating new jobs. Alternate energy sources is a growing industry and the more need there is for it, the more economically viable it will become. Also, it would open up several international markets because, currently, there are countries like China to whom the US cannot sell their vehicles to because they don't meet the environmental standards. This won't burden the economy, it will only cause a shift in it.

What do you mean by "natural"? I'd say it's not natural in the sense that it's irregular. Not natural in the anthropogenic sense? Well, I guess that's the question. Gore seems to think it's definitely anthropogenic, and if he's presenting the truth accurately and fully, then I'm satisfied that this is proof. I guess not everybody agrees though. But even if we're contributing only a marginal percentage to the greenhouse gases, the fact is CO2 levels are going up and it is causing global warming. So my question is, why in the world would we keep contributing to the problem? Even if we're not the major cause, we shouldn't be a cause at all. We should be trying to fix the problem.

ecoli, Okay, maybe we need more research to be certain. I don't want to jump to conclusions and create widespread panic any more than the next guy. And, yes, I'm basing what I say in this thread purely on An Inconvenient Truth. But if I may do this, then what the data shows is that the current rise in temperature is anything but natural. We have never had a rise as sharp or as high as this in the past 650,000 - not even close. You say that the world has been warmer than it already is, but that's not what Gore said. The world goes through periodic warm and cold cycles, and he clearly pointed out that it never goes above a certain temperature. In the late twentieth century, we went past that ceiling by two times!

But I think the proof is in. In the movie, Al Gore shows a graph of the overall temperature of the world over the past 650,000 years, and it goes through fairly regular fluctuations of ice ages and warm ages, until we get to the twentieth century where the average temperature becomes double what it's ever been. Likewise, he shows a graph of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 levels go up and down almost perfectly with the temperatures of the Earth, and they go shooting up at the same point, and by the same amount, as when the temperatures goes shooting up. Now, you can say this is just a corelation, but then there are three possibilities: either global warming is causing CO2 levels to go (which is possible), CO2 levels are causing global warming (which is more likely), or a third factor is causing both (can't imagine how this would be). The is something we know for fact, however, and it's that we are emitting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere everyday, and we can measure exactly how much. When we take these measurements, the amount to precisely the deviation we see in the overall CO2 levels. So we know we're causing this increase in CO2. There isn't any uncertainty about it.

HAHA! If they try talking to you, have a message pop up saying "This person is not responding".

I just watched An Inconvenient Truth. That's a scary movie. I had believed in Al Gore's "misconception #1" - that we're not sure if global warming is a real thing, and if it is, how much we're contributing to it. From the data he shows us, we are clear causing global warming every since middle of the 20th century. The sharp increase in CO2 imissions since the 60s/70s is so strongly correlating with the sharp increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. And it's increased to about 3 times the temperature it's ever been in hundreds of thousands of years. That ain't no natural occurence. He keeps refering to the "scientists". "The scientists say..." he says. Well, this is a community of scientists. What do the scientist really say?