The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Hi everybody, I have a question.

For two clocks in relative movement, is the frequency adjustment between them instantaneous? For instance, if one of them changes its speed, will its frequency change immediately with regard to the other? And if so, how will it know that the other has not changed its speed also?

Well, the clock can quess that quite many clocks in the universe did change their speed, and also quite many clocks in the universe did not change their speed.

One more thing that the clock does not know, is its own speed, and that's quite a problem, if you are supposed to slow down your ticking when gaining speed.

That is, if one dimension adds two possible directions to move in, would a half a dimension add only one direction to move in? That is - one way in time.
But the experiments of German physicist Helmut Schmidt and other physicists indicate that the consciousness of the observer may not only collapse the wave function to a single outcome but may also help specify what outcome occurs by shifting the odds in a desired direction." End quote

I question how many physicists besides Schmidt believe this. Is he this Helmut Schmidt?

If this were true, why wouldn't every scientist conducting the measurement get a completely different distribution?
Just Chat ! / Re: Where would one find science stuff in a store?
« Last post by alancalverd on 17/12/2014 23:26:32 »
I recently bought laser pointers in a tool store (associated with a spirit level) and a computer store (including a wi-fi interface to Powerpoint). No problem.
Sorry, Don, but repetitively quoting something I had carefully pointed out was obviously wrong, doesn't make it right.

We now have the capability to detect a single photon or particle with versions of the double-slit experiment. When we do so, it is in one place only. If we repeat the experiment, the next particle may turn out to be somewhere else. And when we do it lots of times, we get a distribution that looks exactly like the diffraction pattern of the wave function of a single particle. No problem: that is how nature works. I can't see why you get so excited by it.
Cheryl :

You wanted 10 points .I will give you 20 .I am very generous ,so people say lol at least .

I will summarize my  20 points for you, regarding consciousness in its mutual interactions with its environment , including with the physical brain and with the rest of the physical reality , as follows :

As I anticipated, most of your points for your view of consciousness were variations of "materialism is false."

You reject mounds of evidence regarding neuroscience as mere correlation (or the "image" of the process), but are not bothered in the least by the dismal lack of direct evidence (or even well replicated correlations!) for psi, souls, life after death, psycho-kinesis, consciousness outside the brain, etc.

You haven't convinced me that your amalgamation of quantum mechanics contributes anything to the understanding of consciousness itself, and it utterly fails to address any of the deficits you attributed to material explanation when you first began this thread.

Your particular brand of quantum woo is less of a means to describe any aspect of consciousness than it is an attempt to justify an irrational argument lacking evidence. If there is no determinism on any level, OR if consciousness is exempt from even probabilistic predictions, then one theory of consciousness is as valid as the next, equally likely, irrefutable, and simply a preference.

It would be essentially the same argument if you proposed that because of indeterminacy in the universe, astrology, voo-doo, crystal healing, homeopathy, magic spells -anything at all - must all be considered equally valid phenomena, since there is no basis for any criteria for facts or beliefs.

Basically your strategy is, if you can't construct a rational argument, attack rationality itself, and assert that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, fool, etc.
What i meant was/is :
You have (mis)interpreted them materialistically , i guess ,while they were so clear about what they were saying about classical realism ,classical determinism, and classical locality that have been challenged by QM and and by Bell's theorem and its related experiments ....Later , more 
More unevidenced assertion. By all means explain how I'm mistaken, or produce a reasoned argument. I won't hold my breath.
Really ? See my 20+ points to our Cheryl   here above then .I am not quite sure about some of them at least .
Those that made any kind of sense were either variations on the assertion 'materialism is wrong so you're wrong', or non-sequiturs. Hitchens's razor applies.

P.S.: Forget about what happened earlier on .These kindda topics cannot but involve heated passions sometimes....nothing personal thus .My apologies .Thanks .Good night .Take care .Cheers .
You've done that often enough that I'm well aware of your instability.
Just Chat ! / Re: Where would one find science stuff in a store?
« Last post by RD on 17/12/2014 22:14:26 »
... I went to a tool store that I thought had them in the past, but they don't sell them now.
The more powerful laser pointers are banned as they can be used offensively ...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines