Jump to content

Markus Hanke

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    1159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Markus Hanke last won the day on March 16

Markus Hanke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

519 Glorious Leader

2 Followers

About Markus Hanke

  • Rank
    Organism

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ireland
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

7200 profile views
  1. Markus Hanke

    Hiatus

    Dear All, I am going to take a hiatus from the forum from today. As some of you might know, the natural sciences are not my only area of interest; in particular, I am committed to a form of spiritual practice as well, and have been living in a Buddhist monastery as a lay person for the past few years. I have made the decision to deepen this practice further by ordaining as a monk in the Theravadin Thai Forest tradition, and for various logistical and monastic-political reasons this should ideally happen at a traditional training monastery in Thailand. So tomorrow I will be departing for T
  2. Yes, and we moved forward from there. We know a lot more now than we used to, so we won’t be going back to 1963. Yes. And we can do much more than that - we can even probe the internal structure of the protons and neutrons themselves, and thus directly test the quark model. In particle physics we do not speak of “certainties”, but instead deal with a quantity called statistical significance. This essentially tells us the degree by which, given a sufficiently large statistical data set, an event is likely to be “real” (as opposed to being a statistical fluke of some kind). As
  3. Only the first five particles in that table are actually elementary - the entire rest of the list are composite particles. There are also very many particles missing. Why do you go back to a book that is nearly 60 years old, and thus outdated? Why not refer to a more modern publication that reflects our current level of knowledge on this subject? It isn’t. Neutrinos (of which there exist more than one kind) are fermions, and they have a small rest mass; photons are bosons, and massless. They are completely different. Because this old information turned out to be both incomple
  4. No, but that doesn’t mean that within the fish blood cannot circulate. Likewise, the composite system “astronaut + photon” cannot move away from the central singularity (only towards it) - but that doesn’t necessarily mean there can’t be ordinary (i.e. respecting the laws of SR) relative motion between the photon and the astronaut’s eyes on a small enough local scale.
  5. Well, even for a classical system there will be limitations due to the limited sensitivity of the measurement apparatus - e.g. you couldn’t weigh a grain of sand using a kitchen scale, since it’s not nearly sensitive enough. But that’s due to the apparatus, not due to anything inherent in the grain of sand. So that’s a different phenomenon than HUP.
  6. Correct, it is indeed, but that isn’t how such a surface is defined (that would be difficult, since all light cones have a light-like interior). The simplest formal definition I know of for any kind of boundary surface like this is by way of what kind of normal vector with respect to the local metric they admit. In the case of an event horizon, wrt to the local Lorentzian metric, the unit normal vector at all points is a null vector, so this is a null (hyper-)surface. In fact, in can be shown that all event horizons are always null surfaces. If I remember correctly, Wald (General Relativi
  7. Like has been pointed out by other posters here, this is called the measurement effect, which is not the same as the HUP. The fact that certain pairs of observables cannot be determined simultaneously with arbitrary precision is something that is intrinsic to the quantum nature of the system - it is not something that arises as an artefact of the measurement process. As swansont has stated, this is because these observables aren’t independent quantities, they are Fourier transforms of one another. In more technical terms, these pairs of observables do not commute, and any pair of non-c
  8. I am on the autism spectrum myself, and I do not exhibit any of these “symptoms” (never have). My hearing is also perfectly standard, and always has been.
  9. Einstein never said this. The quote is from Ernest Rutherford. I presume you mean “Big Bang”. Where do recession velocities come into this? It has no rest mass, since there isn’t any frame where it could ever be at rest, but is does have energy and momentum. There is no such thing as “anti-photons”; photons are their own antiparticles. You cannot construct the set of know particles, their interactions and properties from just these. Also, the proton is not a fundamental particle. No. Atomic nuclei are held together by the residual strong force. If there
  10. Consider an arbitrary event located directly on the surface in question, and attach a light cone to that event. Now look at the tangent space to the surface at that event. If the surface is like-like, the tangent space will fall to the interior of the light cone; if the surface is null, the tangent space will coincide with the surface of the light cone. So this isn’t the same - you can (at least in principle) escape from a light-like surface to infinity, but you can’t escape from a null surface. For some time, yes. This is true. I’d just like to point out that the non-existence
  11. It’s a null surface, actually. The geometry of spacetime below the horizon is such that no stationary frames exist - in other words, no matter how much radial thrust the engines of the unfortunate ship put out, it will continue to experience radial decay as it ages into the future. So the two ships couldn’t remain at relative rest. What did you mean by “paradox” in the thread title?
  12. In what way am I “not right”, exactly? As I have pointed out to you, the statistical significance figure currently stands at roughly 4σ , that’s not enough to establish LU violations as being physically real just yet. That’s just how it is. You find the raw data in the link I gave, so you can verify the figure yourself. If these violations are verified to be physically real by doing future measurements, then this will be a very exciting find - discovering new physics is the pinnacle of every physicist’s life, and thinking this is somehow perceived as a “threat to dogma” is simply ridic
  13. I think (but maybe that’s just me) that the notion of “tick rate” is not particularly helpful, since no ideal clock can ever tick at anything other than “1 second per second” in its own frame, irrespective of where it is and how it moves. It is only when you compare the total accumulated time between two shared events that differences become apparent. “Tick rate” is one of those notions that, even though everyone routinely uses it, all too easily lends itself to misinterpretation. Now, the total accumulated time a clock records as it travels from event A to event B is identical to the geo
  14. Not unless you artificially make it so. If one of the clocks experiences acceleration and the other one does not, then there will be time dilation between the two.
  15. What I am saying is that, to the best of my limited knowledge in this area, this has already been intensively investigated (with methods that aren’t so crude, such as fMRI etc), and no local “seat” of consciousness has been found. It appears to be a global property, not something that can be uniquely reduced to a single area.
×
×
  • 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.