“Also known as Last-Tuesdayism. It seem to have nothing to do with reincarnation.”when I said “the idea” I was referring to my hypothesis not reincarnation
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.
If a new identity or consciousness is born with all the memories, you don’t actually realize you, as a conscious mind, were just born maybe a few minutes or days ago.But that’s what my hypothesis says, it’s not a reactivation of the prior identity. The fact that the body and the brain are physically almost identical doesn’t mean it’s the same.Quote>>Even if it was, it doesn't seem to be a reactivation of some prior identity, which is why I don't think the 5-minute thing is relevant to the question initially asked.
By multiplying by 10 you move the decimal point to the right, but in this case you get a number that is written the same way, 9.999...You assume 9.999... is 10x0.999... But you need to demonstrate it first.I don't think I need to show that you can multiply a number by 10 by moving the decimal point one place to the right.
And I understand your point, but perhaps you might go back and answer my earlier questions; especially this one
What is the difference between the number of nines after the decimal point in both cases?
0.999999...Yes, it may be but your explanation is flawed because of circular reference.
is the same as 1
it's just 2 ways of writing the same number
To me.0.(9) seems ...To whom, and why?
Here is my opinion on this:.
1) be considered a super fluid, by most theories,
2) exist without quantum fluctuations.
3) be multidimensional if non local effects can not be explained in any other way.
4) allow both real and virtual particles to exist in it.
5) expand due to dark energy( possibly caused by virtual particles/quantum fluctuations)
6) contract due mass and gravity( possibly due to the absorption of quantum fluctuations/gravitons)
Thanks. About the link, yes it explains that there are no contradictions, but some physicist think there are, so it must be some confusion somewhere, I don't know enough of the details so I can't comment on it.Why relative motion is not necessary?I think you are forgetting gravitational effects. I know you know, because we’ve discussed before.Here is a different point of view, with more details:As it says in the link “None of this is really a contradiction between general relativity and quantum mechanics. ”
However, we know that a particle has higher energy when the associated wavelength is smaller. ......, therefore higher wavelength apear only if there is relative motion between the observer and the particle.Relative motion is not necessary.We are dealing now with effects on quantum fields, which GR cannot handle,I don’t understand what you are saying here. GR can handle quantum fields, but the 2 work at different scales. You wouldn’t use a micrometer to measure a football field.
If you have set the experiment up so that both beams are definitely known to be vertically-polarized, I'm not sure why you think putting one of the beams through a filter would change that fact for either beam. It seems more likely that the filter would simply break the entanglement. You can't force entangled particles to be in one state or another.Yes, you are right. I thought that if you start with a polarized beam, let it go through the BBO crystal the entangled particles will have the initial polarization. But entangled particles always have opposite spin upon measurement. I don't see how this can work.
As I understand it, quantum entanglement does not involve instantaneous information transfer.This example is classical an of course it makes sense. However, this implies a single hidden variable...quantum mechanics doesn't. That's the difference.
It is very hard to give examples that are both accurate to QM and relatable to our experiences, but the common comparison is this:
Two twin brothers want to share their birthday cake, but they are both on vacation in different places. Their mother cuts the cake with a single slice and sends each piece to one of her sons. Until opening the package, neither son knows whether the cut was made evenly, or if the other twin got a larger or smaller piece. It doesn't matter how far away the twins are, when one opens his package to see 60% of a cake, he instantly knows that his brother will be disappointed.
This example is representative of most QM entanglement sort of experiments in that an operation (cutting of the cake) is done that produces two complimentary things (slices of cake), which are then sent mailed) different ways such that information about them is unknown until the thing is actively inspected (package opened). The example falls short of QM reality because the outcome (who got how much cake) is determined by the mother (and she knows)--and even if some randomization is introduced, it still doesn't quite capture the nature of superposition... but it works well enough.
There is nothing magic about the instantaneity here. Each twin already has the knowledge that the cake slices will together add to one cake, and then presented with one slice, has all the information required to know the size of the other slice. This breaks down if their assumption is invalid (maybe mom ate a piece too). It is also important to remember that it still took time to send the cake to each of the twins, so the information sent from mom to son is constrained by the speed of light. That each son gains insight into both packages at the same time is only a matter of logic, not physics.