Arjun Deepak Shriram

Not God, but as it is called, in Spirituality, the Higher Power, created everything, including The big bang. Meta Physics books lying scattered around in my room bluntly prove through empirical results the existence of the Higher Power and of EVERYTHING I can possibly think about. I will soon be receiving yet another particular book from a particular author from a friend of mine here in India who has a secret agent in the US. When I last stumbled upon this book several years ago, it had so much power, and did the strangest of things, that I got so scared, that I had to burn it. Now, I have ordered it again, and since I am not a scared child any more, I am confident That I will be able to handle it. It should take only about a week or two to get to me. After that, the real fun begins.

I am indeed offended, but never mind that. I don't wanna get into name calling each other or Higher Powers, and that too in a public forum.

Hey, hey. You watch it, fella. Calling Gautam Budhha, as a Buddha Titty, is akin to calling God, a complete a*****e.

The spelling does not matter to me any more. It's not the end of the world for me if there is a slight error in spelling between two different continents.

So if I just simply rephrase the words, is that it?

What are you saying "Yes" to? That they DID have a formal degree?

When he speaks of reality the layman usually means something obvious and well-known, whereas it seems to me that precisely the most important and extremely difficult task of our time is to work on elaborating a new idea of reality. This is also what I mean when I always emphasize that science and religion must be related in some way. Wolfgang Pauli, letter to M. Fierz, August 12, 1948 It is interesting from a psychological-epistemological point of view that, although consciousness is the only phenomenon for which we have direct evidence, many people deny its reality. The question: If all that exists are some complicated chemical processes in your brain, why do you care what those processes are? is countered with evasion. One is led to believe thatthe word reality does not have the same meaning for all of us. Nobel physicist Eugene Wigner, 1967 Is copying and pasting from e-books, a violation of a copyright law? I can only suspect that it is, because if it were in fact illegal, then I seriously wonder, why would iBooks or Kindle for that matter, have a Select and a Copy button?

Please look up the topic I have started called Quantum Physics. I hope you can understand it. Best of luck, mate.

When my psychiatrist who cost me only a thousand dollars a session, for two hours only, five times a week, for only 12 years, began to throw his hands up in the air whenever I opened my mouth about Quantum Physics, what English was left for me to understand or learn when I had finished reading the entire 2500 page Merck Manual and the 1500 page Diagnostic And Statistical Manual over four years ago? Why should I bother making any experiments? Let the Harvards and Stanfords do that. I only do psychiatric and psychological experimentation. Because only that helps us change our lives for the better. Not kaleidoscopes and telescopes and deep space and dark matter and electrons and photons. That has nothing to do with the human being and his life. That is all called "Materialistic Reductionism." That was exactly the Calendar I was referring to, except that I forgot to mention it.

I can't make experiments, I am not a trained scientist, or a trained engineer. I can only quote what authors with Ph.D.'s say in their books. How have I become "OP"? Original Poster or Operation Manager? Sorry, I believe you may be wrong here. Can someone come forward and clear up this disagreement?

I totally agree with you on that America is far ahead of India both in terms of quantity and in quality of Science because our nation is very "c*****t".

Jesus Christ did not exist? He was a "living" human being, just like the rest of us, and so was Gautam Buddha. They WERE living beings. The day that Jesus Christ died, the Calendar changed from AD to BC. And, the Buddhist Calendar, is built into every iPad and iPhone, that is sold these days. Either, Apple is very dumb, or, worse still, I am very dumb.

Please, explain how and why you say, that Science isn't a Democracy. Because, from your perspective, if if I have understood it correctly, Science is Science and Democracy is the Government. Right or wrong? Then, please explain to me, or is it that the Democracy can keep its mouth shut ,while Science is better left to the Aliens? Experiments are so neccessary, to prove and to validate things, that they even have a word for that, which you may certainly be familiar with. Empiricism? And I am not arguing, I am merely discussing. This is not The World War, but this is just a simple discussion forum. As the Forum Moderator is correctly saying, please keep it that way. Am I right, Mr Moderator? Btw, what is an OP? Why are you telling me to look up Wikipedia? Don't you know the answer yourself? Can't you stop cheating by sending me off to Wikipedia? Don't you know the answer yourself? Or, are you not skilled enough to get it out of your own head and post it into the forum? And, can you even spell "infinitessimal" correctly, as you say Wikipedia puts it? Or, is it spelt as "Infinitesanimal" (LOL)?! Mr Moderator, before I die laughing, or crying, or worse still, leave this forum, can you please tell everyone, that this is a very big game, on a very big website, and that people better mind the tone of their language, because if they don't, I will have to assert my rights, as a member of this forum. Do I have that right to assert myself, if someone is flaming me in a public forum? What does OP mean?

No, because I never went to Science school. I don't have any formal education in Science, nor do I wish to. Simply because (LOL): Did Gautam Buddha know what a dimension is? Did Jesus Christ? Did Allah? Did Krishna and Vishnu and Brahma and Arjun and Shiva and Yamraj? Did Satan? Any God or Goddess or Villain or Villianess been to "elementary school"?

Please don't apologize. As human beings, each of us is completely and totally entitled to make mistakes and errors and to have flaws. Because that is how we learn from our mistakes. That is the very essence and the very imperfect nature of Homo Sapiens. As you would obviously know, Perfectionism will alwaws remain a dream, obviously because new things ate being discovered every second as time flys by us. And I am ETERNALLY grateful and will remain forever indebted in the deepest of gratitude and humility to my masters and teachers and prefects and moderators for showing me the correct way forward. I wish to come out last while it seems I am already coming first on this forum. I don't know what buttons I am hitting on my keyboard on how many holes I am poking in people's tea cups. "Life is a school. The primary meaning and purpose of life is that it is a classroom for growth in consciousness." Chaper 20 Personal Meaning The Anxiety & Phobia Workbook Fifth Edition Edmund J. Bourne, Ph.D.

Introduction to quantum mechanics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject. For the main encyclopedia article, see Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics Introduction Glossary · History Background[show] Fundamental concepts[show] Experiments[show] Formulations[show] Equations[show] Interpretations[show] Advanced topics[show] Scientists[show] v t e From above and from left to right: Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Max Born, Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrödinger, Richard Feynman. Quantum mechanics is an area of physics dealing with phenomena where the action is of the order of the Planck constant. The Planck constant is a very tiny amount and so this domain of physics is typically on the distance and momentum scale of atoms and elementary particles in general. Action is a general physical concept related to dynamics and is most easily recognized in the form of angular momentum. The most tangible way of expressing the essence of quantum mechanics is that we live in a universe of quantized angular momentum and the Planck constant is the quantum. A tangible result of the quantization of angular momentum is the existence of discrete electron orbitals, each with a principal quantum number and each orbital with an associated angular momentum that is an integer multiple of the Planck constant. Quantum mechanics has many implications on the microscopic scale, some of which are obscure and even counterintuitive. Classical physics explains matter and energy at the macroscopic level of the scale familiar to human experience, including the behavior of astronomical bodies. It remains the key to measurement for much of modern science and technology. On the other hand, at the end of the 19th century scientists discovered phenomena in both the large (macro) and the small (micro) worlds that classical physics could not explain. Coming to terms with these limitations led to the development of quantum mechanics, a major revolution in physics. This article describes how physicists discovered the limitations of classical physics and developed the main concepts of the quantum theory that replaced them in the early decades of the 20th century.[note 1] These concepts are described in roughly the order they were first discovered; for a more complete history of the subject, see History of quantum mechanics.[1] Some aspects of quantum mechanics can seem counter-intuitive or even paradoxical, because they describe behavior quite different than that seen at larger length scales, where classical physics is an excellent approximation. In the words of Richard Feynman, quantum mechanics deals with "nature as She is absurd."[2] Many types of energy, such as photons (discrete units of light), behave in some respects like particles and in other respects like waves. Radiators of photons (such as neon lights) have emission spectra that are discontinuous, in that only certain frequencies of light are present. Quantum mechanics predicts the energies, the colours, and the spectral intensities of all forms of electromagnetic radiation. Quantum mechanics ordains that the more closely one pins down one measurement (such as the position of a particle), the less precise another measurement pertaining to the same particle (such as its momentum) must become. This is called the uncertainty principle, also known as the Heisenberg principle after the person who first proposed it. Put another way, measuring position first and then measuring momentum does not have the same outcome as measuring momentum first and then measuring position; the act of measuring the first property necessarily introduces additional energy into the micro-system being studied, thereby perturbing that system. Even more disconcerting, pairs of particles can be created as "entangled twins." As is described in more detail in the article on Quantum entanglement, entangled particles seem to exhibit what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance," matches between states that classical physics would insist must be random even when distance and the speed of light ensure that no physical causation could account for these correlations.[3]

Trouble with physics: Seven experiments to change it all With theory stalled, the next breakthrough in physics is likely to come from an experiment. We introduce seven potential game-changers With theory at an impasse, the next breakthrough in physics is likely to come from an experiment. We introduce seven potential game-changers, starting with the behemoth that's soon to get bigger The Higgs boson is (probably) in the bag, but the Large Hadron Collider has plenty more to give. Starting late in 2014, the plan is to double the energy of the proton collisions at CERN's particle smasher. That should be enough to produce particles predicted by next-generation theories such as supersymmetry. But it is a multibillion-dollar gamble. If it does not pay off, it is back to scrabbling around in cosmic rays or measuring tiny atomic effects to find answers. Richard Webb The Planck probe Radiation left over from the big bang contains vital clues about the early universe. The most detailed maps of it are coming from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, launched in 2009. It can capture the radiation precisely enough to measure cosmological quantities without making many theoretical assumptions, detect the rippling of gravitational waves and test various models of the inflation thought to have occurred during the big bang. It will even let us explore ideas outside of our standard cosmology, such as parallel worlds. Valerie Jamieson Advanced LIGO General relativity predicts that ripples in space-time should constantly be passing through Earth. From 2014 Advanced LIGO, an upgrade of an existing gravitational-wave detector in the US (pictured), will use laser rulers several kilometres long to spy spatial disturbances equivalent to Earth moving one-tenth of an atomic diameter closer to the sun. If it sees something, it will be the crowning triumph of Einstein's relativity. If it doesn't, it is back to the drawing board with our theories of gravity. Richard Webb LISA Pathfinder The European Space Agency's LISA Pathfinder mission will primarily test gravitational-wave detectors, but from next year it could also confirm whether gravity is all general relativity says it is. By flying through the saddle point where the Earth and the sun's gravity cancel out, the craft might probe whether Einstein's theory still holds when gravitational accelerations are incredibly small. If it does, these gravitational lacunae will be the last resting place of other occasionally fashionable theories, such as Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). Stuart Clark Dark matter searches Theory points to dark matter being made of so-far-unseen weakly interacting massive particles, known as WIMPs. Over a dozen exquisitely sensitive experiments have been built specifically to catch these slippery customers. Three DAMA/LIBRA (pictured), CoGeNT and CRESST have seen things that look suspiciously like them. Others have ruled out the same particles entirely. The trouble is we know too little about what we are looking for. We need more data and additional experiments to understand the experiments. Valerie Jamieson Neutrino factories Neutrino experiments are a hit-and-miss affair. The properties of the ghostly particles are ill-defined, and they interact so rarely that vast floods of them are needed for us to spot anything. The solution could be nuSTORM, a proposed factory that will churn out precisely controlled beams of neutrinos or their antimatter counterparts, antineutrinos. That could at last pin down their nature and the number of varieties they come in and so settle whether any additional types of non-interacting sterile neutrinos exist. Valerie Jamieson Quantum theory in space Experiments beaming photons over sometimes hundreds of kilometres have so far only confirmed quantum theory's outrageous predictions of weird correlations and entanglements between the particles. Soon the ante will be upped with plans to beam quantum transmissions via satellite between continents. It's a first step to testing quantum theory in space over distances at which relativity's warping becomes significant and so seeing what happens when those two great and incompatible theories collide. Richard Webb

Trouble with physics: The roots of reality What makes us so sure that mathematics can reveal nature's deepest workings, asks cosmologist Brian Greene In the late 1800s, when James Clerk Maxwell realised that light was an electromagnetic wave, his equations showed that light's speed should be about 300,000 kilometres per second. This was close to the value experimenters had measured, but Maxwell's equations left a nagging loose end: 300,000 kilometres per second relative to what? At first, scientists pursued the makeshift resolution that an invisible substance permeating space, the aether, provided this unseen standard of rest. It was Einstein who in the early 20th century argued that scientists needed to take Maxwell's equations more seriously. If Maxwell's equations did not refer to a standard of rest, then there was no need for a standard of rest. Light's speed, Einstein forcefully declared, is 300,000 kilometres per second relative to anything. The details are of historical interest, but I'm describing this episode for a larger point: everyone had access to Maxwell's mathematics, but it took the genius of Einstein to embrace it fully. His assumption of light's absolute speed allowed him to break through first to the special theory of relativity overturning centuries of thought regarding space, time, matter and energy and eventually to the general theory of relativity, the theory of gravity that is still the basis for our working model of the cosmos. The story is a prime example of what the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg meant when he wrote: Our mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. Weinberg was referring to another great breakthrough in cosmology, the prediction by Ralph Alpher, Robert Herman and George Gamow of the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the afterglow of the big bang. This prediction is a direct consequence of general relativity combined with basic thermodynamics. But it rose to prominence only after being discovered theoretically twice, a dozen years apart, and then being observed through a benevolent act of serendipity. To be sure, Weinberg's remark has to be applied with care. Although his desk has played host to an inordinate amount of mathematics that has proved relevant to the real world, far from every equation with which we theorists tinker rises to that level. In the absence of compelling experimental results, deciding what mathematics should be taken seriously is as much art as it is science. Deciding which mathematics to take seriously is as much art as it is science Einstein was a master of that art. In the decade after his formulation of special relativity in 1905, he became familiar with vast areas of mathematics that most physicists knew little or nothing about. As he groped towards general relativity's final equations, Einstein displayed a rare skill in moulding these mathematical constructs with the firm hand of physical intuition. When he received the news that observations of the 1919 solar eclipse confirmed general relativity's prediction that star light should travel along curved paths, he noted that had the results been different, he would have been sorry for the dear Lord, since the theory is correct. I'm sure that convincing data contravening general relativity would have changed Einstein's tune, but the remark captures well how a set of mathematical equations, through their sleek internal logic, their intrinsic beauty and their potential for wide-ranging applicability, can seemingly radiate reality. Centuries of discovery have made abundantly evident the capacity of mathematics to reveal secreted truths about the workings of the world; monumental upheavals in physics have emerged time and again from vigorously following the lead of mathematics. Nevertheless, there was a limit to how far Einstein was willing to follow his own mathematics. He did not take the general theory of relativity seriously enough to believe its prediction of black holes, or of an expanding universe. Others embraced Einstein's equations more fully than he, and their achievements have set the course of cosmological understanding for nearly a century. Einstein instead in the last 20 years or so of his life threw himself into mathematical investigations, passionately striving for the prized achievement of a unified theory of physics. Looking back, one cannot help but conclude that during these years he was too heavily guided some might say blinded by the thicket of equations with which he was constantly surrounded. Even Einstein sometimes made the wrong decision regarding which equations to take seriously and which to not. Quantum mechanics provides another case study of this dilemma. For decades after Erwin Schrödinger wrote down his equation for how quantum waves evolve in 1926, it was viewed as relevant only to the domain of small things: molecules, atoms and particles. But in 1957, Hugh Everett echoed Einstein's charge of a half century earlier: take the mathematics seriously. Everett argued that Schrödinger's equation should apply to everything because all things material, regardless of size, are made from molecules, atoms and subatomic particles that evolve according to probabilistic rules. Applying this logic revealed that it is not just experiments that evolve in this way, but experimenters, too. This led Everett to his idea of a quantum multiverse in which all possible outcomes are realised in a vast array of parallel worlds. More than 50 years later, we still do not know if his approach is right. But by taking the mathematics of quantum theory seriously fully seriously he may have had one of the most profound revelations of scientific exploration. The multiverse in various forms has since become a pervasive feature of much mathematics that purports to offer us a deeper understanding of reality. In its furthermost incarnation, the ultimate multiverse, every possible universe allowed by mathematics corresponds to a real universe. Taken to this extreme, mathematics is reality. If some or all of the mathematics that has compelled us to think about parallel worlds proves relevant to reality, Einstein's famous query whether the universe has the properties it does simply because no other universe is possible would have a definitive answer: no. Our universe is not the only one possible. Its properties could have been different, and indeed the properties of other member universes may well be different. If so, seeking a fundamental explanation for why certain things are the way they are would be pointless. Statistical likelihood or plain happenstance would be firmly inserted in our understanding of a cosmos that would be profoundly vast. I don't know if this is how things will turn out. No one does. But it is only through fearless engagement that we can learn our limits. Only through rational pursuit of theories, even those that whisk us into strange and unfamiliar domains by taking the mathematics seriously do we stand a chance of revealing the hidden expanses of reality. This article appeared in print under the headline Roots of reality Brian Greene is a theoretical physicist at Columbia University in New York. This article is adapted from his book The Hidden Reality (Allen Lane, 2011)

The word that scientists and psychologists use for the origin of language is called Epistemology. I am an extremely skilled Mathematician and can rattle off an infinitesemal number of things extempore because I have had severe Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I am not implying ethereal planes, I am implying Meta Physics, and I am a master of that as well.

Please do change the spelling back. I would be ETERNALLY grateful.

Populations create more knowledge, because people share their knowledge with each other, whether in reality or on their machines in their houses, so I hope you get it by now.

Well, then have it your way. Or, maybe not. If you are trying to convey to me, that Wikipedia is more accurate than either Google or Yahoo, which they unfortunately rank as the among the top websites ever visited, which are open sourced, then those search engines should close down right now, because I have been personally using them for the last 20 years, and now I am being told that I don't know how to use Wikipedia, when my experience in Compuers and Internet goes back 20 years! just a thought tho., brother.

With the second largest population in the world, they have what is called the Indira Gandhi National Open University where I am currently trying to decide whether to do a course or not, because you don't learn in school what you learn out in the real world, be it in America or be it in India.

I do not agree. And neither does Google. And nor does Yahoo. Only Wikipedia does agree with you. But that is only because it is extremely well known for making grave errors and mistakes. And there is ample proof of that if you look up any of those two search engines that I mentioned.

Space is not a dimension? Time is not a dimension? What is with the American educational system?