Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not at all. Quantum mechanics absolutely, positively does not say that anything about the nature of reality depends upon belief. In fact, what we believe has no impact whatsoever on the nature of reality (except to the extent that our beliefs affect our own actions and our actions affect reality).So, if you combine quantum physics with religion, would you come up with
"God exists if you believe that He does and if you don't believe He exists, then He does not."?
Or would it be that "you can never really touch God, because once you locate Him, He moves"?
This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Ask a physicist anything. (6)"
A few points:Are neutrinos really breaking the speed of light? Wouldn't the bodies effective mass increase when it approaches the speed of light resulting in a decrease the speed. Or are they testing a massless particle?
Blessings
Singularities are artifacts in the math. Basically, it's kind of like dividing by zero (in a sense, that's exactly what it is). Which, if you know anything about math, is a big no-no.When people talk about singularities, are they just engaging in wild speculation or is there solid physics behind singularities?
What, if anything, is 'solid' about theories involving singularities?
Unless you include nullity and the transreal numberline. Annoyingly, saying "you can't take the root of a minus one. But if you could, it'd be i" is perfectly valid, and "you can't divide by zero. But if you could, it's be Ф" doesn't seem to be any different...Singularities are artifacts in the math. Basically, it's kind of like dividing by zero (in a sense, that's exactly what it is). Which, if you know anything about math, is a big no-no.
Does that math actually work? Consistent with the maths we learn at school?Unless you include nullity and the transreal numberline. Annoyingly, saying "you can't take the root of a minus one. But if you could, it'd be i" is perfectly valid, and "you can't divide by zero. But if you could, it's be Ф" doesn't seem to be any different...
Nope. The idea is, like i, it adds a whole new numberline to play with. It's not taken very seriously by mathematicians, though, so I suspect there's something fundamentally unnatural about it that means we can't use it, unlike i.Does that math actually work? Consistent with the maths we learn at school?
the fact that our current best theory of gravity (General Relativity) predicts singularities is a strong indication that it isn't entirely correct, that some other, more accurate theory of gravity must take over for extremely dense matter.
I don't think anybody in physics expects singularities to be actually real.
Unless you include nullity and the transreal numberline. Annoyingly, saying "you can't take the root of a minus one. But if you could, it'd be i" is perfectly valid, and "you can't divide by zero. But if you could, it's be Ф" doesn't seem to be any different...
Wouldn't that be a 50-50 chance rather than near-certainty? Or are we talking "direction" as in "14 degrees from north"?
That's true, but Chalnoth's sentence was a hypothetical assuming that they were off by the same amount. I interpet that as there being a true speed of neutrinos, and the two independent measurements being <speed> +/- <bias> +/- <error>, where <bias> is the same for both, except it could be either negative or positive.If someone repeats the experiment and finds that the neutrons are faster than light by 80 ns +/- 10 ns instead of 60 ns +/- 10 ns at the same distance, it would be a contradictory result, not confirmation. It would show that one or both the experiments were wrong, if only in that their claimed accuracy was wrong.
You would only expect the bias component to be the same for both if the two teams used the same experimental setup.That's true, but Chalnoth's sentence was a hypothetical assuming that they were off by the same amount. I interpet that as there being a true speed of neutrinos, and the two independent measurements being <speed> +/- <bias> +/- <error>, where <bias> is the same for both, except it could be either negative or positive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?