Proton Head

Space is not my strong point so any answers are appreciated. There's a question that I have been pondering about. I really have no idea if this has been talked over about somewhere but at least the recent threads didn't seem to exactly concentrate on this so here it goes: If we suppose that empty space is infinite (our universe is just the part of space where matter has "expanded" since Big Bang). Couldn't this mean that after the point where "Big Bang matter" ends is reached and went past of, through the empty space, there comes another universe originating from another Big Bang. Let us further assume that these new universes where the like of ours. Couldn't this mean that even though the matter of 2 universe's wasn't yet mixed, field forces from the other universe could still affect the matter of the other universe? So in other words gravity originating from the mass of the other universe could affect mass in our universe? Couldn't this be used to explain the mass which seems to be missing from our universe accordieng to many observations? Thanks.

Space is not my strong point so any answers are appreciated. There's a question that I have been pondering about. I really have no idea if this has been talked over about somewhere but at least the recent threads didn't seem to exactly concentrate on this so here it goes: If we suppose that empty space is infinite (our universe is just the part of space where matter has "expanded" since Big Bang). Couldn't this mean that after the point where "Big Bang matter" ends is reached and went past of, through the empty space, there comes another universe originating from another Big Bang. Let us further assume that these new universes where the like of ours. Couldn't this mean that even though the matter of 2 universe's wasn't yet mixed, field forces from the other universe could still affect the matter of the other universe? So in other words gravity originating from the mass of the other universe could affect mass in our universe? Couldn't this be used to explain the mass which seems to be missing from our universe accordieng to many observations? Thanks.

Just a question, what do you think happens if the brain structure of a human reforms to an exactly same state as it was at the instant of death? Would the human live again, and feel "himself"? I think that he would. If we consider this for example: Suppose there's a man. The man has a heart attack. He effectively dies, his brain stops fuctioning. The man is brought to a hospital where his heart is made to pump again, so his brains get blood and start fuctioning again. So in a way he is "resurrected" from the dead. He feels being the same human he was before he "died" for a short instant. In my view a perfectly homological example is if a man gets blown to pieces by a bomb. Then if he (his brain) later reforms the way it was before his death, then he would effectively be resurrected as the heart patient was. Of course reforming of a human brain is not a really probable event, but still it's possible (In practise it could perhaps happen if someone was trying to construct human brains. It could be that they "accidentally" constructed a brain like the dead mans, even though the possibility for this is stil insanely small, it's still a probability I think could happen). The probability might be 1/10^45677789898747, but it still exists.

Just a question, what do you think happens if the brain structure of a human reforms to an exactly same state as it was at the instant of death? Would the human live again, and feel "himself"? I think that he would. If we consider this for example: Suppose there's a man. The man has a heart attack. He effectively dies, his brain stops fuctioning. The man is brought to a hospital where his heart is made to pump again, so his brains get blood and start fuctioning again. So in a way he is "resurrected" from the dead. He feels being the same human he was before he "died" for a short instant. In my view a perfectly homological example is if a man gets blown to pieces by a bomb. Then if he (his brain) later reforms the way it was before his death, then he would effectively be resurrected as the heart patient was. Of course reforming of a human brain is not a really probable event, but still it's possible (In practise it could perhaps happen if someone was trying to construct human brains. It could be that they "accidentally" constructed a brain like the dead mans, even though the possibility for this is stil insanely small, it's still a probability I think could happen). The probability might be 1/10^45677789898747, but it still exists.

Don't you agree that it would be lots of fun to live after 500 years for example, and laugh to these predictions we made now about the future, as everything's gone in a whole different direction.

Don't you agree that it would be lots of fun to live after 500 years for example, and laugh to these predictions we made now about the future, as everything's gone in a whole different direction.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think that our world, as it now stands, is all in all a pretty boring place. I think that this world could be made a lot more interesting with the advancement of science. For example once we can live longer and stimulate our brains (educate ourselves) through electrical components and have robots do lot of the "trashwork", we can finally break free of this ridiculous path: study, talk with friends about how boring studying is, sleep, study, work, talk with friends about how boring work is, drink beer, sleep, work, die. In the future people can concentrate on developing character, acting cool and doing all kinds of mad stuff. That's going to make social interactions so much more interesting. Also I wouldn't mind to live and see the appearance of virtual worlds, direct sense stimulation, that would surely bee a mind blowing experience - something which noone can even imagine now. I also want to see how the world will develop with the emergence of sentient machines, genetically modified non-human sentient organisms. And what I'd really like to see was the contact with alien species, assuming of course that they weren't as boring as most humans or hostile. What's really interesting in this world is seeing how things change. If you just get born on some era you'll take all the things for granted. But if you've lived in the past too it's so much funnier. That's why I'm not going to let go as long as there's even a small spark of life in me. I'm not satisfied with the world as it now stands, if someone else is well then I'm happy for them I think. I'd do anything it takes to keep myself alive.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think that our world, as it now stands, is all in all a pretty boring place. I think that this world could be made a lot more interesting with the advancement of science. For example once we can live longer and stimulate our brains (educate ourselves) through electrical components and have robots do lot of the "trashwork", we can finally break free of this ridiculous path: study, talk with friends about how boring studying is, sleep, study, work, talk with friends about how boring work is, drink beer, sleep, work, die. In the future people can concentrate on developing character, acting cool and doing all kinds of mad stuff. That's going to make social interactions so much more interesting. Also I wouldn't mind to live and see the appearance of virtual worlds, direct sense stimulation, that would surely bee a mind blowing experience - something which noone can even imagine now. I also want to see how the world will develop with the emergence of sentient machines, genetically modified non-human sentient organisms. And what I'd really like to see was the contact with alien species, assuming of course that they weren't as boring as most humans or hostile. What's really interesting in this world is seeing how things change. If you just get born on some era you'll take all the things for granted. But if you've lived in the past too it's so much funnier. That's why I'm not going to let go as long as there's even a small spark of life in me. I'm not satisfied with the world as it now stands, if someone else is well then I'm happy for them I think. I'd do anything it takes to keep myself alive.

I don't believe it would work like that. I think that "nonimportant" memories (like what I had for breakfast 5.12.4006790) would get wiped out of your brain automatically and be replaced with newer ones' date=' but the ones that matter - the ones defining your personality (ie your response to outside stimuli) would be kept there. And if it was a problem you could always copy extra memories to electronic hardware/secondary brains. My opinion: that's techno hype. Of course it would be great if that would happen so fast, but I've realized that in this world where 90% of people have trouble with simple algebra, nothing happens fast. I mean look at our science, it's lagging! By now we should already have gene technology and cybernetics in wide use. We should have fusion energy sources, cures for diseases and space travel should be reality. But scientists are too small a minority. People are just not interested in science, so it receives too little funding and attention. Science in our society is a issue of secondary importance, most people appreciate it, but they aren't willing to do anything to advance it. And that's a pity. I can say for "quite certain" that it will take more than 50 years to simulate a human brain. And even when it happens that's what it will ever going to be, a simulation! A computer is a computer, a brain is a brain. They are 2 different structures. If you wanted a brain you would have to build it from neurons. You could program a computer to respond to stimuli like a brain but that wouldn't be a brain. In any case I believe that you (and some other people) really underestimate the capacity of the human brain. I mean it's a work of art. It's packaging capacity is insane! because it operates in a circular manner vs. linear for computers. The brain is a memory unit continuously programmed by 5 different programmers (the senses: vision, auditory, smell, taste, sense). Billions of units (neurons) are interconnected (thousands of connections can be operating in one unit) in an insanely intricate network. This interconnectivity is something which I don't know how could be achieved by a transistor based linear machine, so I'm not sure if a computer will become sentient, because it is my opinion that the sentience of humans arises because of amount of cross connections in the brain. But perhaps it can, but I doubt it's as simple a matter as some people believe. Besides in any case sentience doesn't occur without constant stimuli, so the computer would have to have sense units attached (or something should have to stimulate it from outside). Just to make sure you don't misunderstand me, I'm not a religionist or anything in that direction. In fact I'm a great believer in science and would like to see it progress in all possible directions (well almost all), but its just that I think that some people like to overexxaggarate how easy it would be to achieve a conscious machine, and how far our technology is or how fast it will progress.

I don't believe it would work like that. I think that "nonimportant" memories (like what I had for breakfast 5.12.4006790) would get wiped out of your brain automatically and be replaced with newer ones' date=' but the ones that matter - the ones defining your personality (ie your response to outside stimuli) would be kept there. And if it was a problem you could always copy extra memories to electronic hardware/secondary brains. My opinion: that's techno hype. Of course it would be great if that would happen so fast, but I've realized that in this world where 90% of people have trouble with simple algebra, nothing happens fast. I mean look at our science, it's lagging! By now we should already have gene technology and cybernetics in wide use. We should have fusion energy sources, cures for diseases and space travel should be reality. But scientists are too small a minority. People are just not interested in science, so it receives too little funding and attention. Science in our society is a issue of secondary importance, most people appreciate it, but they aren't willing to do anything to advance it. And that's a pity. I can say for "quite certain" that it will take more than 50 years to simulate a human brain. And even when it happens that's what it will ever going to be, a simulation! A computer is a computer, a brain is a brain. They are 2 different structures. If you wanted a brain you would have to build it from neurons. You could program a computer to respond to stimuli like a brain but that wouldn't be a brain. In any case I believe that you (and some other people) really underestimate the capacity of the human brain. I mean it's a work of art. It's packaging capacity is insane! because it operates in a circular manner vs. linear for computers. The brain is a memory unit continuously programmed by 5 different programmers (the senses: vision, auditory, smell, taste, sense). Billions of units (neurons) are interconnected (thousands of connections can be operating in one unit) in an insanely intricate network. This interconnectivity is something which I don't know how could be achieved by a transistor based linear machine, so I'm not sure if a computer will become sentient, because it is my opinion that the sentience of humans arises because of amount of cross connections in the brain. But perhaps it can, but I doubt it's as simple a matter as some people believe. Besides in any case sentience doesn't occur without constant stimuli, so the computer would have to have sense units attached (or something should have to stimulate it from outside). Just to make sure you don't misunderstand me, I'm not a religionist or anything in that direction. In fact I'm a great believer in science and would like to see it progress in all possible directions (well almost all), but its just that I think that some people like to overexxaggarate how easy it would be to achieve a conscious machine, and how far our technology is or how fast it will progress.

Hmm...but electromagnetic radiation has a wavelength too, but the quantity used in interference is field strength. And a wave on a string has a wavelength, but the quantity used in interference is its position (displacement from an axis). So shouldn't there be something like that for the "particle" as well? Hmm, if for waves: wavelenght = speed/frequency, then p/h = frequency/speed m*v/h = frequency/speed mv^2 = frequency*h For light: mc^2 = frequency*h E = frequency*h For particles: mc^2-x = frequency*h E = frequency*h+x Hmm, so for light its internal energy is defined by its frequency, but for a particle its internal energy is only partly defined by its frequency. This term x defines the wave character of matter. When a particle is at rest E=x, the particle has no wave nature and its internal energy is only defined by x. Or maybe not.

Hmm...but electromagnetic radiation has a wavelength too, but the quantity used in interference is field strength. And a wave on a string has a wavelength, but the quantity used in interference is its position (displacement from an axis). So shouldn't there be something like that for the "particle" as well? Hmm, if for waves: wavelenght = speed/frequency, then p/h = frequency/speed m*v/h = frequency/speed mv^2 = frequency*h For light: mc^2 = frequency*h E = frequency*h For particles: mc^2-x = frequency*h E = frequency*h+x Hmm, so for light its internal energy is defined by its frequency, but for a particle its internal energy is only partly defined by its frequency. This term x defines the wave character of matter. When a particle is at rest E=x, the particle has no wave nature and its internal energy is only defined by x. Or maybe not.

Thanks, but I'd still like to know the quantity which the physisist use when calculating particle interference. Perhaps it would help to open my mind a bit, since well, my mind is really limited. (Yes I know that they're not really particles, but I only mean that in some calculations people operate them that way, and then there should be some quantity they use to calculate the interference. Or maybe I'm all messed up, but even though they would use the equations of quantum mechanics to describe the state of these wave/particles, even then there should be some kind of quantity they use to calculate the interference.) For example is the interfering quantity position? Volume? Mass? Energy? Field Strenght? Or what?

Thanks, but I'd still like to know the quantity which the physisist use when calculating particle interference. Perhaps it would help to open my mind a bit, since well, my mind is really limited. (Yes I know that they're not really particles, but I only mean that in some calculations people operate them that way, and then there should be some quantity they use to calculate the interference. Or maybe I'm all messed up, but even though they would use the equations of quantum mechanics to describe the state of these wave/particles, even then there should be some kind of quantity they use to calculate the interference.) For example is the interfering quantity position? Volume? Mass? Energy? Field Strenght? Or what?

Not trying to insult anybody or anything, but I think that some of you have a hard time buying this, since you have read an article or two about new physics, and like to show off and stuff with how "vast" your knowledge is etc., but please try to understand that this is not an "attack" on the very usefull theory (that's something my capabilities fall veeeeeeery short off), instead this is an attack on the view on what information can be aquired through what we call physics.

Not trying to insult anybody or anything, but I think that some of you have a hard time buying this, since you have read an article or two about new physics, and like to show off and stuff with how "vast" your knowledge is etc., but please try to understand that this is not an "attack" on the very usefull theory (that's something my capabilities fall veeeeeeery short off), instead this is an attack on the view on what information can be aquired through what we call physics.

Even though I don't like to admit it, it's of course very possible that the world is nondeterministic. What I don't buy is that you can use quantum mechanics (or anything at that) to really prove it (or even give evidence), since this is a knowledge that can't be aquired by a 3rd party view.

Even though I don't like to admit it, it's of course very possible that the world is nondeterministic. What I don't buy is that you can use quantum mechanics (or anything at that) to really prove it (or even give evidence), since this is a knowledge that can't be aquired by a 3rd party view.

And what's even dumber is that many of the scientist who make such statements only do it because they (along with the vast mass of people), think that there's something cool about it, to show that we humans are something special - we have a free will etc. blah blah.

And what's even dumber is that many of the scientist who make such statements only do it because they (along with the vast mass of people), think that there's something cool about it, to show that we humans are something special - we have a free will etc. blah blah.

I can't show whether or not the world is deterministic, but that's my point, nobody can show it. What I'm complaining about is that many people nowadays make claims that the world is nondeterministic based on what is derived out of the quantum theory. Let's take the uncertainty principle for example. In reality there is no uncertainty. There is the interaction of the universe. The uncertainty only arises once a third party (humans) tries to make claims about the change in the universe. Do you realize what physics is about? It's about giving arbitralily divided parts of the universe, measurable by our devices, mathematical quantities whose change follows the rules of mathematics (numbers). Probability calculation on the other hand is only a trick which is used with large masses of events, to predict the outcome of a situation even when the prerequisites are unknown. All this quantum quantum is just the outcome of the fact that we have arbitrarily divided the world, something which really cannot be done as is coming clearly evident now that we are trying to define smaller and smaller objects. Why can't we define the exact place and state of the electron? The answer is quite simple. Because there's no electron. It's a particle we came up with after some observations and now it's in use as it is found helpfull. The universe is continuous. Even though such methods help advance our capability of building even greater machines, its plain dumb about trying to draw the type of conclusions about it that some people are doing. Any methods to try and accurately define the universe from the inside will fail, as it's intervening. Inside objects (humans) are forced to use division methods. In order to make accurate claims, one would have to have as his scientific measurement device another universe, an excact copy of ours, only a small deal ahead of our time. The scientist's equation would have to be the whole universe, not some part of it and a line following rules of number groups.

I can't show whether or not the world is deterministic, but that's my point, nobody can show it. What I'm complaining about is that many people nowadays make claims that the world is nondeterministic based on what is derived out of the quantum theory. Let's take the uncertainty principle for example. In reality there is no uncertainty. There is the interaction of the universe. The uncertainty only arises once a third party (humans) tries to make claims about the change in the universe. Do you realize what physics is about? It's about giving arbitralily divided parts of the universe, measurable by our devices, mathematical quantities whose change follows the rules of mathematics (numbers). Probability calculation on the other hand is only a trick which is used with large masses of events, to predict the outcome of a situation even when the prerequisites are unknown. All this quantum quantum is just the outcome of the fact that we have arbitrarily divided the world, something which really cannot be done as is coming clearly evident now that we are trying to define smaller and smaller objects. Why can't we define the exact place and state of the electron? The answer is quite simple. Because there's no electron. It's a particle we came up with after some observations and now it's in use as it is found helpfull. The universe is continuous. Even though such methods help advance our capability of building even greater machines, its plain dumb about trying to draw the type of conclusions about it that some people are doing. Any methods to try and accurately define the universe from the inside will fail, as it's intervening. Inside objects (humans) are forced to use division methods. In order to make accurate claims, one would have to have as his scientific measurement device another universe, an excact copy of ours, only a small deal ahead of our time. The scientist's equation would have to be the whole universe, not some part of it and a line following rules of number groups.

Thanks. Just to make sure that I got things right, So does this mean that by gaining velocity a particle only gains energy, not mass? Is the mass increase just some mathematical trick to handling calculations or what? This one I don't get. If we consider interference for example. Doesn't this happen in the case of electromagnetic radiation because different waves are at different point of electric vs. magnetic field oscillation? So they can amplify/cancel each other. But what does the interference of particles mean? How can they amplify/cancel each other? What's the physical quantity that's being "interfered"? (as in the case of EM-radiation it's the field strenght at a given point). Haha, I never thought it like that... But since we have a model, why are we still talking about a dual nature of things? Why is it being pointed out that light for example can in different situations behave as waves or particles? Why don't we simply say that our universe is composed of warticles?

Thanks. Just to make sure that I got things right, So does this mean that by gaining velocity a particle only gains energy, not mass? Is the mass increase just some mathematical trick to handling calculations or what? This one I don't get. If we consider interference for example. Doesn't this happen in the case of electromagnetic radiation because different waves are at different point of electric vs. magnetic field oscillation? So they can amplify/cancel each other. But what does the interference of particles mean? How can they amplify/cancel each other? What's the physical quantity that's being "interfered"? (as in the case of EM-radiation it's the field strenght at a given point). Haha, I never thought it like that... But since we have a model, why are we still talking about a dual nature of things? Why is it being pointed out that light for example can in different situations behave as waves or particles? Why don't we simply say that our universe is composed of warticles?

Hello, since I really know nothing of physics I would be greatfull if I could get answers for questions bugging my mind. 1. If from a viewpoint of an observer at rest, the mass of a moving particle approaches infinity as the speed of the particle approaches the speed of light, then why according to the observer at rest doesn't the "pull" of gravity originating from the moving object approach infinity? 2. What does a (matter) wave in quantum physics mean? What's so wavy about the matter? I know they call a wave on a string a wave since a point of the string oscillates between 2 fixed points. Also electromagnetic radiation is said to be a wave since its the result of an oscillating electric and magnetic field between 2 fixed values. However what is oscillating in the matter? Or is anything? 3. If you cannot describe the state of matter/energy with a particle model nor a wave model, alone in all situations, then why don't they construct a new model which allows a description of matter/energy in all situations? 4. Suppose you travelled back in time by turning the flow of time in a negative direction. Wouldn't this mean that events would happen backwards? So in others words if you travelled into a time before you were born, woudn't you be just a collection of atoms roaming the universe? And if you travelled into a time when you were born but younger, would you even realize that you had time travelled, since memories of such events weren't on your brains at the time to where you travelld? 5. If it was possible to bring your present memories into the past, wouldn't it violate the uncertainty principle, since after you had seen the results of events you could in the past make accurate statements about the present state. Thanks!