Download Trial Buy now
Log in or Sign up for the chat.

Search  | Login  | Register

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Offline
User avatar
What I grasped today is that the collapsing of the wave function represents sort of an interface between the quantic and classical world. "Observation" is required in order for the wave function to collapse, which means indeed that everything defines everything else (and itself retrospectively).

Not helping, really :lol:

I always found the notion according to which 'something that is not observed does not exist' absurd and intellectually dangerous even. That's how things seem to be, however. Indeed, this is a reference to things that effectively do not exist, so all in all that is none of our concern :)

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Indigo 100
https://youtu.be/fnUBaBdl0Aw

_________________
http://nunovasco.prtg.eu


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Thanks for sharing, pixie, fascinating. I'm wondering to which extent this model can be extrapolated, but the twin droplets vortex is outstanding.

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
An interactive map of the Theories of Everything, click the start button it's nicely done !

Theories of Everything, Mapped.

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Indigo 100
CTZn wrote:
Thanks for sharing, pixie, fascinating. I'm wondering to which extent this model can be extrapolated, but the twin droplets vortex is outstanding.

I've wandered if somehow the space itself got the wave distortion and assumed that somehow someone would've already had a theory built around this very own idea! I was not disappointed! :D

_________________
http://nunovasco.prtg.eu


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
You could say that the space-time construct has the wave within, since space is defined between relative objects, and time by the cumulative gravitational effect of everything, if you allow me the decomposition. Gravity is of infinite yield in models, so each point is effectively defined by the sum of all gravitational fields (including yours).

PS: I really am not a fan of multiverses, it's a statistical mind-candy as far as I'm concerned.

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
It is very difficult to assess the Universe also because it is a complex system. It is defined by (self-)emerging features, therefore the language tends to be circular to define it without a very fine analysis. Had I the maths skills I would do a bit of research around (astro)physics :/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Indigo 100
CTZn wrote:
It is very difficult to assess the Universe also because it is a complex system. It is defined by (self-)emerging features, therefore the language tends to be circular to define it without a very fine analysis. Had I the maths skills I would do a bit of research around (astro)physics :/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence


if only 3 objects give such problems computing, and we're not even on the quantum realm, or are we! xD

_________________
http://nunovasco.prtg.eu


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
By chance some guy can be positive that we are pixie, at the dawn of the thing. I can't (well tbh I think I am already :lol:) :)

Another well written article on quantum physics, only am I surprised that it didn't mention Böse-Einstein condensates (hence neutron star cores) explicitely. I thought a neutron star core would be big enough for them :/

http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/how-b ... ittens-get

It's not just about the zombie cat thingy really, there are interesting insights here.

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Microsoft lab predicts a working quantum computer within 10 years:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/15/9539 ... -microsoft

nice quick video

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
Scalable space thrusters arrays I say.
http://cmns.umd.edu/news-events/features/3305
I'm wondering wether this could be adapted to non-disruptive levels, allowing for photo-atmospherical hoovering :mrgreen:
No tbh it's a plasma cannon.

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
I think this one is pretty much a breakthrough: nanoparticles absorb heat, pulse ultraviolets:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 144840.htm
This can mean light production as long as the environment is hotter that the particle bath, also can be thought as a drastic mechanical way to reduce body temperature* provided that discharge happens at lower frequencies (visible light, the red-er the better), as opposed to DNA disruptive agents, it's just a new tool baby.

* cryogenics, dudes

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
This guy says it all :shock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR1SLQwHDog


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
aleksandera wrote:

So far I saw half of it, all valid points from him, this seems to result from a thorough mind work.

I support this mind set, however there is one important point he may address later on in his speech: the value of consensus. Modern science results itself from the interferences of a number of socio-cultural fields, from public health institutions to for-profit business, to name one interaction.

Hence starting with that freedom of mind he proposes his a good starting point, a good scientist will then try himself to bridge the gap toward its colleagues. Clashing is hardly constructive apart from proving everybody else to be idiots for the centuries to come; scientifically of little interest.

The risk indeed is to take the starting freedom as granted and lose oneself into the shapeless realm of the forgotten self ;)

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Offline
User avatar
I can explain that last sentence:

In the video linked above, Rupert Sheldrake (I didn't know the man, thanks by the way aleksandera !) is questioning the legitimacy of cristalised views on the decription of the world.

Those at least have the merit to form the spine of a consensus, which we can think of as an object, as opposed to a clouds of beliefs. That's what makes Science really, as in "the one".

In the other hand, our mind (but perhaps the nature of this realm) impedes us to think something in reference to something else; this is what I like to call 'relativistic thinking'. Behold, for with no reference one is free to apply any shape to any truth and be a fool !

There would be a lot to say, also on the man's works which I haven't aknowledged yet, but if that's about forms he may be illustrating a valid point that he could not yet insert elegantly into the body of Science.

Cheers.

edit: my point was that ultimately, freedom of the mind in describing the world can lead to a loss of the consciousness of one's human nature, which serves me as a reference for my thinking. Define: human.

_________________
obsolete asset


 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group