The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of Kartazion
  3. Show Posts
  4. Thanked Posts
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - Kartazion

Pages: [1]
1
New Theories / Re: Can conscious thought act on matter?
« on: 12/03/2022 14:30:11 »
@talanum1 apparently they all pretend not to understand this Quantum mind theory which does exist. The question now is to wonder why they pretend not to understand.

Quantum consciousness or Quantum mind  is a hypothesis that suggests that quantum phenomena, such as the entanglement and superposition of states, are involved in the functioning of the brain and in particular, in the emergence of consciousness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind by David Bohm ; Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff ; Umezawa, Vitiello, Freeman ; Karl Pribram ; Henry Stapp ; David Pearce
The following users thanked this post: Alex Dullius Siqueira

2
Just Chat! / Re: Is there a maximum frequency for a gamma ray?
« on: 22/02/2022 02:14:32 »
Black holes are completely characterised by only three parameters: mass, rotation (angular momentum) and charge. But does proper mass mean solar masses? Can mass equivalence be done with energy? Or an electromagnetic mass relation?

Quote from: Eternal Student on 22/02/2022 00:42:07
... If it eats any kind of mass, energy or mass parameter thing,   then the mass parameter of the black hole will increase.
As much as the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass by evaporation. Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes.

The following users thanked this post: Eternal Student

3
Just Chat! / Re: Is there a maximum frequency for a gamma ray?
« on: 21/02/2022 06:10:45 »
Isaac Asimov says that the photon energy of a gamma ray cannot exceed to the total mass-energy of the universe.
The following users thanked this post: Eternal Student

4
New Theories / Re: Unification of Quantum Mechanics and Gravitational Oscillator
« on: 21/07/2021 12:44:24 »
The tunnel effect


Quote from: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 12:24:47

Kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, and avoidance of the singularity:




At x = 0 when the particle is going faster (don't rely on GIF for speed), its kinetic energy allows it not to fall into the singularity. Indeed his avoidance is done by his horizon. The force of gravity corresponds to the matter attracted towards this singularity, while the energy pushes it out.

Perhaps we could see in it some metric associated with Einstein-Cartan's theory in relation to the avoidance of this singularity.

It is said that the tunnel effect is a purely quantum effect which cannot be explained by classical mechanics. False.

When the particle passes through matter, then its kinetics are reduced. This means that the particle due to its loss of kinetics falls into the lower energy level of the potential well.





The kinetic disturbance from the ZPE of the particle makes it possible to remain in the false vacuum, until a potential barrier slows it down and then falls through the virtual slit.





The following users thanked this post: Zer0

5
New Theories / Re: Unification of Quantum Mechanics and Gravitational Oscillator
« on: 21/07/2021 02:01:48 »
Quote from: Halc on 19/07/2021 13:53:51
Force and energy are different things. Gravity is neither. All three have different units.

At least I learned that gravity is not a force as learned in school. Thanks.

Quote from: Halc on 19/07/2021 13:53:51
Gravity isn't a force field, else a small rock would weigh the same as a big one.

Ironically for a fall a small rock would have the same speed as a big one.
The following users thanked this post: Zer0

6
New Theories / Re: Unification of Quantum Mechanics and Gravitational Oscillator
« on: 19/07/2021 13:36:13 »
Quote from: Origin on 19/07/2021 12:53:37
Quote from: Kartazion on 19/07/2021 12:24:47
Gravity is energy
What do you mean by that?

I really mean that the force of gravity is energy. Indeed gravity is able to keep matter in the direction of its force field.

To move or maintain matter you need energy. I'm talking about gravity there, because you also need energy to be able to do exactly the same effect. Indeed and according to Einstein gravity is comparable to a vertical upward acceleration, which allows us to stay on the ground.

To check...
The following users thanked this post: Zer0

Pages: [1]
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 38 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.