You definitely have a point there, though I am unsure as to whether or not Tegmark was referring to this kind of ambiguity. I thought he was considering causal events. This could bring questions concerning what kind of outcome a continued existence would favor even if we could isolate life and...
From the wiki article:
I'm not sure I understand Everett's reasoning, but he seemed to believe that death was a null state which could not exist. The general idea is one of transfer of consciousness to a viable world. I think it may hinge upon the idea that consciousness, being made of...
Wow... thanks to all, but mostly twofish-quant and JonDE for pointing that out. I had no idea this actually had a name. I had half a notion that someone must have thought of this before, but I was mostly afraid of venturing into the depths of crackpottery... which I still very well might be...
This might be interpreted by some to border on the fringes on pseudo-science, but I feel logic dictates that conclusion must be one of many possibilities according to the theories.
Has anyone ever considered that the many worlds interpretation combined with the anthropic principle has some...
That idea of a standing wave seems to suggest a medium. Would this be Euclidean spacetime, or perhaps the luminiferous ether? Is your wave perturbating or actually standing completely still? Or perhaps it is perturbating only when a quantized particle disturbs the medium?
These seem to...
Let me see if I understand this.
Decoherence is just a fancy way of saying that interaction occurs... and that's it. Some irreversible event (or many) takes place and the wave aspect disappears. This still does not seem to imply that the wavefunction did not 'collapse,' only that an observer...
So... the detector itself really does provide the interaction? If that is the case, this is simply understood. The interaction with the detector simply alters the probability densities in the system. Easy. We can all go home. :confused:
Why all the hype about observers, mysterious...
The bands will become wider or more narrow with distance because distance changes the possible paths (or probability densities) of the particle/wave.
A simpler explanation is refraction. By way of simple refraction principles, moving the source in relation to the slits creates different...
Okay, let me begin by saying that I do NOT have a good foundation in quantum mechanics, but I have been completely captivated by the wavefunction collapse.
I have looked over many explanations of the double-slit experiment over the course of a few months, and I cannot find that one single...
"The speed of light is characterized by the speed, with which every next wave due to the velocity at the moment of the emission approaches the observer. "
Not so. Whether or not we use blue light or red light, the speed of light is the speed at which light propagates through space. The speed...
I am confused as to why a photon's view is such a meaningless concept when we can obviously measure the speed of the photon from our own reference frame. We see the photon moving through spacetime, so why can't we theorize on how the photon sees us?
Is there is flaw in relativity? It seems...
I understand that it is irrelevant to us. I am thinking philosophically. I mean, we are bound to this inertial reference frame for the most part and perfectly happy measuring everything in earth time, earth speed, and light speed derived from the earth meter and second, etc. The point I was...
Thanks, Ich! The implications of this are astounding. Who is to say that according to some observer, we are not already moving at 0.999999999c and just playing around in a very small margin of spacetime. I suppose this means that light "speed" is more of a relationship between reference...
It would seem as if the laser has sped up to keep up with you because you will always measure the speed to be exactly the same. No matter how fast you run, according to you, you will make no progress running from the laser. If the speed of light were slow enough for you to see it (ignoring the...
This question may be nonsensical, but I have to ask. I'm a noob to relativity so please bear with me.
All observers measure the same speed of light, correct? We also know that there is no favored frame of reference.
So... what is to stop an object from accelerating to 0.95c, taking a...
Kev,
You nailed the point I was getting at. Thanks! I think we are almost there.
The final elapsed time is my major concern here. I am trying to figure out if it is frame-dependent.
I do not know how to use LaTeX, nor have I analyzed the maths, so I will try to do the best I can...
I did not give the best example, but let us imagine whatever it would take to remove general relativity, orbital trajectory, and everything that would detract from the point. I wish I could isolate only frames, time, length, speed, etc. but I'm not that creative.
Let us assume there was a way...
There is a nuance of special relativity that I cannot seem to grasp. This may be very similar to the twin paradox, so I am trying to find out what the critical points are.
If I hop into my spaceship and orbit Earth at 0.995C for, say, 100 years, I will see Earth's clock progress at an...
I've been digging around on the internet for information about magnets. I've found some interesting thing like the inverse square law of intensity, but I've noticed the Lorentz equations tend to deal mostly with charged particles.
I'm really looking for information about the net field's...
How has a discussion about physics taken a religious turn? Not to mention, how can you state on one hand that you only believe what you see, yet at the same time, blindly follow second-hand observations (possibly biased) performed by everyone other than yourself? Not to mention...
It was explained to me like this once. I don't know if it is correct, but certainly food for thought. This is mostly in relation to the "ether".
All mass displaces spacetime. If all things exist within spacetime, think of spacetime as a giant bucket of "anti-water".
If we drop a sponge...
That was quite an oversight I made about the square and ratio. Thanks for explaining.
If this applies to magnets, does that mean that the theoretical or mathematical source is actually below the surface?
Basically I'm trying to figure this out:
A magnet weighing 5g levitates above...
Ok this may be a silly question, but I have trouble grasping the function of the inverse square law and how it relates to the intensity of a magnetic field.
It seems to me that if we take the same calculations of I2 = (I1 * D1^2) / D2^2 we come up with different real world answers based on...