Silly question about physics and quantum madness

[TobiasTheViking]

Here's the deal. I(me personally) do need a potential rational explanation because I definitely do something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the usual standpoint. I don't need to convince you, more than likely even if I floated overhead playing the theme song from close encounters through my bodily orifices you wouldn't be convinced.

I'm glad you agree that you need rational explanation. But you said it wasn't supernatural, untill there is a natural explanation, untill there is a rational explanation, it isn't natural, but supernatural.

As soon as you can find a natural explanation, it will become science, and will no longer be supernautral

I come from a background of hard science, my uncle invented polymerization for Thiokol and is very well known. My father was a mechanical engineer. Practically everybody else are lawyers and between the two, there wasn't a whole lot of room for woowoo anything.
Unfortunately, as I said, we in the maternal line of descent carry a mutation that results in some type of family syndrome. It is undescribed in the literature and according to the geneticists that studied and "care" for my nephew, it seems to be non-dysfunctional resulting in an assortment of orthopedic abnormalities with associated neurological anomalies. Oddly enough one of the corellaries (sic) or associated factors is consistently high tests on the various IQ scales. We range from 150's up to the high 180's and yes, that is substantially over wjat is normally considered genius level.
This is consistent in all descendants and in each generation available for verification so far (4) We just got the first meber of gen 5 but he's only 6 weeks and while Mama, Gramma, Great-gramma and Auntie all think he's brilliant, I expect it's a little soon to tell for sure.
Now I am the only one tested to the limits so to speak - participating in a massive study sponsored by the gov't and administered through Mensa back in the 60's. The aim of this study was to determine whether values of intelligence as measured by IQ tests differ as a measure of speed (CPU speed, if you will) or if at some point genius is qualitatively different from normal. If you find the study you will find that the published results state that up to a certain level, a rather vanishingly small percentage on the order of 1/2 of 1% of the 1/2 of 1% of the highest IQ's, below this it appears to be a simple matter of speed. Smart people think faster than dumber people. When you reach those tinynumbers at the top, a small percentage of that 1/2 of 1% of 1/2 of 1%, about 5-7%, as I recall, something else is happening. Those few do not appear to use the same logic as others, it is some kind of synthetic logic that does not operate in the same kind of linear fashion as normal. In those cases it is felt that regardless of the tested IQ, the results are meaningless. The logic is too different, therefore the map of intelligence to IQ is nullified.
Guess who has paperwork proving she's a freak. Might be a genius, might be retarded, nobody knows.
I could stay in Mensa if I wanted and paid the dues, but never felt like it after that.
Now I could break into some elaborate song and dance involving Native ancestry, punctuated equilibrium and the potential for stress induced speciation pr just postulate some interesting step in human evolution. On the other hand, we could just be defective and will quietly die out.
Don't know.

non sequitur

We're a mildly weird bunch. My sisterinlaw thinks were all Asbergers, but I think she's just tired of us.

aspergers

Oddly enough, most all of us seem to be able to do some very minor woowoo ****.

Most people have something they can't understand occur to them, like knowing where something is, or wanting to call someone and then they call you.

It's erratic, unreliable and not very damn useful, but speaking from a personal position as what I would term a secular humanist, it's too f*&^&%$g much to do it once let alone 2 or 3 times a year.
The other day my best friend called and said where were her flipflops.
I immediately said down low, dark and near metal/wire with a sort of like a shoe rack shape - scallopy. BIg Help here. They were under the sofa which has the springs exposed at the bottom. Neither one of thought of that for a long while. She gave up looking for where and just looked. Under the sofa is reasonable for a pair of flat shoes, just because it matches up to what I said didn't do any good. Useless. But bothersome.
How can I possibly know where a stupid pair of rubber flipflops might be. And no, I wasn't there the last time she wore them. The last time she had them was last summer and I've slept way too many times to possibly remember her telling me she put her flips under the sofa. I can't remember what I named the children some days.
Besides, she wouldn't telll me she put her shoes under the sofa. Why would she. So it isn't a memory that floated up.

And there are many non supernatural explanations for this. Just because you haven't made the link yet, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now anecdotal evidence doesn't convince you. Okay. You want simple, repeatable experiments. Okay.

Indeed i do

You get to figure out how to make a simple, repeatable experiment for something I can not control, cannot perform on command, and really have no clue about except it happens to me. Therefore it IS.

You are the one with the claim, you are the one that should prove it. Not me.

Whether I like it or not. I had to figure out a rational possiblle explanation because I dislike woowoo **** probably more than you do.

Doubt it.

The other option is that I'm seriously delusional. It strikes me as a pretty pecular delusion to periodically hallucinate I am \esping the location\ of odd lost objects

No, there are other answers besides being delusional or insane. The human brain likes to make connections, and find cause and effect. Even where there are none.

That leads to people thinking certain things that aren't true, it isn't delusions, it is simply the brain making a connection it thinks is logical, but it really isn't

Sincerely
Tobias

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I've been living with this silly **** all my life. It's irritating because it is so useless. I can't find anything that belongs to me or directly affects me. We won't discuss what happened when my husband's 18v cordless drill got disappeared into a tub of my fabric for about a year. Not one little blip on my woowoo radar. Didn;t put it in there. Don't know how it got there. Got a blasted earful when it disappeared and when IT CAME BACK because it was in my stuff. Useless.

Not surprising, And i don't for one second believe that your other experiences are anything other than subconcious hints and the brain finding logical connections where there are none.

If it worked on a repeatable basis maybe I could figure a way to make MONEY off it. Even if I set up in business as a key psychic. Call me and I'll tell you where your keys are. $3.99 a minute.
JUst every so often, no warning, ask me and I'll know. Nothing useful

I have a friend, he will start asking me a question, and as soon as his first word (or rather my name) has left his lips, i interrupt him and say "YES" or "NO", without having heard his question.
I've done this for years, many years, does that mean i know what he is going to ask? Is it proof that i can look into the future?

No it isn't. Some people would think they had some special ability, which i of course haven't.

I can also do it with less of a success rate with other people.

, don't try and trick me for lottery numbers. Trust me, we've tried every variation of that we can possibly think of and we've come up with more than a few. But I know when IT happens because it's an actual sort of false color, ultrasound, radio wave black and white tinted snapshot. I see something - just for a minute and not very much of the area. About like you focused in on the keys with a polaroid and took a bad snapshot with infrared film or such. Unmistakeable. No concurrent ideas, don't know where "there" is just that stupid image popping upl like the floaties you get when you're falling asleep but at least then your eyes are closed and we know what that **** is.
It isn't normal. It isn't simple and repeatable. I don't particularly appreciate it and would happily have it go away.
Ahem

Have you tried keeping a record of all the times that has happened? are you sure your hit rate is 100%. as i have stated a few times by now, the human brain has a tendency to fool itself, like people KNOWING that the plain they were on would crash, even before it crashed.

Of course they forget that the KNEW it would crash the dusin other times they flew as well, where it didn't crash.

The human brain fooling itself(and i will admit that that may very well be the case with my story of my friend, though i don't think it is, but i wouldn't, would i?)

It's there, I had to figure out what it most likely was or else accept that I was delusional in a very limited and rather peculiar fashion. I prefer to think of myself as sane. Most of us do, I suspect.
I will begin reading about decoherence, but as I say my personal opinion, for what it's worth and from the standpoint of a dilettante, since I cannot manage the math and logic necessary to work in the field and still remember to eat and bathe, is that the thrust of quantum physics has gone too far into navel contemplation with string theory and quantum foam.

You have yet to make the link between your experiences and any physics. Your prior attempts haven't been consistent with the science.

Remember the part about modified common sense realism.
I think the answer is goiong to lie in the actual nature of em radiation. We need to go back and think about that. Most of the thought is expended on particles. We keep going deeper and deeper into elemental particles - muons, gluons with characteristics like charm and whimsy (who says physicists are dull)( 3 physicists and a particle accelerator and you have a party baby).

Your explanation still doesn't agree with the science you are quoting.

We now have extra tiny dimensions for the particles to play in and are trying to explain gravity by bouncing them through their little dimensions causing little tiny warps in the quantum foam.

Ehm, no we don't, there still has been no prediction or expiremnt of String Theory. String Theory is NOT science, not yet, i hope it will be, but it isn't yet.

Meantime we have things like light wandering around, waving itself all over the place, when it isn't waving anything (no medium) and yet it can do work. It can spin the golden leaves of a tiny pinwheel in a vacuum tube.
It can only travel at c (in a vacuum) You can slow it down in water or glass.

Actually, the photon(or wave) is still moving at C, it is just doing a slalom course that makes it appear slower.

But if you stop it (rest) it no longer exists.

Besides for smashing the photon into some other particle, i know of no way to stop it. So i'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If you stop the photon it's energy will be turned into something else.

Now things that are not waves, things that exist when stopped (il.e. rest mass greater than zero) can boogie right along up to .999999c but if they hit c all sorts of metaphorical hell breaks loose.

Sorry? what? Everything is waves... everything.
And nothing with a mass can move at c. I don't know what kind of hell would break loose, but i don't really think that it matters sine it is impossible for anything with a mass to reach c.

I would assume, just an idea, that nothing would really happen, except that when it colides with something it is gonna produce a lot of energery. And also that the atom would never change(no time is passing at c).

(This is where that pesky business about movement on the tau axis comes in) As the object approaches c, it experiences shortening in the 3D dimensions along the vector of travel and apparent dilation or slowing of passage on the tau axis (graphs are a nice way of showing and explaining an event) Time appears to slow down. If you follow the maths derived from e=mc^2 if something with a rest mass greater than zero actually achieves c, it's mass would theoretically become infinite and subsume the entire universe

Been over this, what you are saying isn't consistent with the science.

Now go back and look at the micro scale. At the atomic level, electrons exist in their probability waves in specific shells. An excited electron jumps from s to p or d without ever crossing the distance. It stops being here and starts being there. It's called the electron tunnel effect and is very well documented.

Indeed, what are you trying to say?

The nature of reality, as you approach the micro scale seems to become something very different from what we see and know and call common sense.
I think that the correct or proper theory of physics will be more "common sense" than string theory. It just requires me to believe 3 impossible things before breakfast. But I could be very wrong.

non sequitor

I could also be very wrong about what I do. It may not be explained in the manner I have guessed. It seems to be a fairly reasonable, sort of sensible explanation of something that is pretty peculiar.
But I know it is because it happens to me.
Now in order for you to know it is, you get to come up with a simple, repeatable experiment that won't cost me any money because we're going into bankruptcy and selling the house.

No, you get to come up with a simple repeatable experiment if you claim this is science and/or a real effect and not something your mind is making you believe.

Sincerely
Tobias

 

[Beth]

Tobias - who are you quoting here and where is it from?

 

[thaiboxerken]

He's quoting me, of course. Ok, he's quoting a person that I'm quoting.

Lling from http://freedomofreligion.myfreeforum.org/sutra575.php#575

I am writing or posting one last time.
You, bangoskank, are beyond obnoxious.
What's worse is that you are apparently being deliberately obtuse, or else you're too dumb to live.
I told that story to indicate that esp doesn't work on anything connected directly to myself. You chose to interpret it as evidence of esp (which you INSIST on defining as a superpower). You go out and bring in outsiders to comment on my posts and guess what, they show respect and aare "reluctantly" impressed. You just constantly keep repeating the same mantra of BS. You don't believe, you won't believe. You sound like a 3 year old.
I have been very patient. Other than maintaining the right to refuse to be called a liar, I have answered every point as well as I can and to great extent.
You resort to mockery.
We're finished. I will no longer respond to any post by bangoskank.

I'm bangoskank, by the way. She doesn't like me for some reason.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

He's quoting me, of course. Ok, he's quoting a person that I'm quoting.

Lling from http://freedomofreligion.myfreeforum.org/sutra575.php#575



I'm bangoskank, by the way. She doesn't like me for some reason.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted

 

[thaiboxerken]

It does seem to always end the same way. The bleever accusing skeptics of being closed minded, etc.

 

[thaiboxerken]

More from Llinn the psychic:

having major computer problems, dumped fluid into the keyboard and caused problems with the actual machine. Electricity transmission can be a right bitch. May have to buy a new machine and that ain;'t going to happen until the house is sold. If I'm gone most of the time it's not totally sulking.
Try and remember my basic objection to bangoskank is not just the attitude, but the interesting tendency to ignore what I actually said.
I don't claim anything super, I believe it is a natural sense, physiologically related to the smaller cerebellum found in me and my relatives, and explainable by simple, logical reference to the laws of physics. Just because someone keeps going no, no, no doesn't make what they are saying true.
Demanding that they themselves be convinced does not negate the premise and since I KNOW what happens-as I'm the one it happens to, the only thing I have to do is come up with a reasonable explanation. I know evolution is a fact also. There's a million (or so) fundamentalists who believe in a literal Bible who deny the fact of evolution absolutely and with as much conviction as our lovely poster. Just because bangoskank keeps repeating that what they believe in is SCIENCE doesn't demand that all bow to thisr's
{new suggestion for unknown gender pronoun thisr for his/her, thes for he/she}
interpretation of science. A rational, scientific mindset can include premises or theories that are not yet absolutely proven and some theories can only be proven by an absence of evidence of a conflicting theory.
Now reducing what I have stated to a misleading claim that I stumble on lost objects and use that as proof of superhuman powers is insulting. That attitude is what I primarily object too, and whether this board wishes to be all embracing of various viewpoints or not, I would hope that everyone would at least consider a genuine respect for personal honesty.
I SAID that sometimes I SEE a picture of the lost object and the immediate vicinity where it resides. When the object is found, my description of the location is accurate 70-80% of the time--not 100%. Because there is no perspective and because there is no sense of location in space/time we still have to look for the thing. My brain is not forcing me (although that line of reasoning requires a really interesting duality between consciousness and the brain that opens another whole can of worms) to see links or patterns where there is none. Several times a year something anomalous happens, there is a definite visual effect, it generally turns out to be an accurate representation of a real place and it is neither controllable or easily repeatable.
Now, since my testimony is not sufficient for some, then they-if they wish-are welcome to attempt to contrive an experimental method to verify. I've already done most of the Rhine type stuff with cards, that's not my ability and most of the time I test absolutely normal. I tried years back to have people hide things. I tried shell games with peas and cups where you would be able to expect a certain number of hits by chance -there, oddly enough, I tested totally negative--never right. This can be theorized by some to indicate more potential than slight positive results would. However, the specific visual phenomena with the knowing or feeling that says the bump is working never happens.
For heavens sakes, I was a philosophy and physics major. Woowoo and magyck is not on my personal list. I do however, know a lot of people who believe absolutely in some stuff I find very difficult to swallow (this includes people who believe in a literal Bible and an immanent God) The logical extensions of physics I have delineated briefly explains a lot of otherwise inexplicable phenomena, some of which are extremely well documented.
By the way, time dilation has been demonstrated conclusively by the simple act of using a matched pair of atomic clocks, leaving one on the ground and putting the second in an airplane flying as fast as humans could manage at the time for as long as they could. Turns out the clock that was travelling "faster" than the clock that was standing"still" lost what amounted to 1/2 second in 1000 years (app. it's been a long time since I knew for sure). Not very much, but still there and proof that special relativity is an accurate representation at macro scale.
I really, really do resent the fact that bangoskank is allowed to mislead and flat out lie about what I said. I don't care for thisr nasty attitude, but I will not tolerate being misrepresented.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

having major computer problems, dumped fluid into the keyboard and caused problems with the actual machine. Electricity transmission can be a right bitch. May have to buy a new machine and that ain;'t going to happen until the house is sold. If I'm gone most of the time it's not totally sulking.

Non Sequitur

Try and remember my basic objection to bangoskank is not just the attitude, but the interesting tendency to ignore what I actually said.

You have ignored much of what i have said. So i don't think you can put yourself on a higher pedistal than bangoskan when it comes to that.

I don't claim anything super, I believe it is a natural sense, physiologically related to the smaller cerebellum found in me and my relatives, and explainable by simple, logical reference to the laws of physics. Just because someone keeps going no, no, no doesn't make what they are saying true.

Yes you do, your claim is not consistent with science, which i have stated many times.

Demanding that they themselves be convinced does not negate the premise and since I KNOW what happens-as I'm the one it happens to, the only thing I have to do is come up with a reasonable explanation. I know evolution is a fact also. There's a million (or so) fundamentalists who believe in a literal Bible who deny the fact of evolution absolutely and with as much conviction as our lovely poster. Just because bangoskank keeps repeating that what they believe in is SCIENCE doesn't demand that all bow to thisr's
{new suggestion for unknown gender pronoun thisr for his/her, thes for he/she}
interpretation of science. A rational, scientific mindset can include premises or theories that are not yet absolutely proven and some theories can only be proven by an absence of evidence of a conflicting theory.

A ratienal, scientific mindset shouldn't belive a theory that has NO EVIDENCE what so ever. String Theory is so far a no no. People don't use it yet, because we don't know if it is accurate.

Now reducing what I have stated to a misleading claim that I stumble on lost objects and use that as proof of superhuman powers is insulting. That attitude is what I primarily object too, and whether this board wishes to be all embracing of various viewpoints or not, I would hope that everyone would at least consider a genuine respect for personal honesty.

I never claimed that, i said the MIND may fool YOU. I never said you were in any way aware of such a thing happening, nor did i insinuate anything like that. I went to great length to say that the human mind often fools itself. I did not insult you.

I SAID that sometimes I SEE a picture of the lost object and the immediate vicinity where it resides. When the object is found, my description of the location is accurate 70-80% of the time--not 100%. Because there is no perspective and because there is no sense of location in space/time we still have to look for the thing. My brain is not forcing me (although that line of reasoning requires a really interesting duality between consciousness and the brain that opens another whole can of worms) to see links or patterns where there is none. Several times a year something anomalous happens, there is a definite visual effect, it generally turns out to be an accurate representation of a real place and it is neither controllable or easily repeatable.

There are many ways one can get 70-80% that doesn't conflict with science, and has solely to do with the way the human mind works.

Now, since my testimony is not sufficient for some, then they-if they wish-are welcome to attempt to contrive an experimental method to verify. I've already done most of the Rhine type stuff with cards, that's not my ability and most of the time I test absolutely normal. I tried years back to have people hide things. I tried shell games with peas and cups where you would be able to expect a certain number of hits by chance -there, oddly enough, I tested totally negative--never right. This can be theorized by some to indicate more potential than slight positive results would. However, the specific visual phenomena with the knowing or feeling that says the bump is working never happens.

Personally, i don't really care whether or not your claim is proven or not. All i want is to show that your claim is supernatural, and not consistent with science. That is my only goal.

For heavens sakes, I was a philosophy and physics major. Woowoo and magyck is not on my personal list. I do however, know a lot of people who believe absolutely in some stuff I find very difficult to swallow (this includes people who believe in a literal Bible and an immanent God) The logical extensions of physics I have delineated briefly explains a lot of otherwise inexplicable phenomena, some of which are extremely well documented.

Non Sequitur

By the way, time dilation has been demonstrated conclusively by the simple act of using a matched pair of atomic clocks, leaving one on the ground and putting the second in an airplane flying as fast as humans could manage at the time for as long as they could. Turns out the clock that was travelling "faster" than the clock that was standing"still" lost what amounted to 1/2 second in 1000 years (app. it's been a long time since I knew for sure). Not very much, but still there and proof that special relativity is an accurate representation at macro scale.

Yes. I know, i already agreed that time ilation is true.
Now you are being misleading, which you just claimed i was. I have NEVER stated that special relativity doesn't work on the macro scale.
It does work on the macro scale, i never stated otherwise.

I'll try to state this once more, even though you have, so far, ignored it when i have said it, and now misrepresnted what i said. Something you have claimed i have done.

Quantum Mechanics doesn't work on the macro scale in the way you try to make it work.
The uncertainty principle does NOT work on the macro scale.
Schrodingers Cat does NOT work on the macro scale.
Electromagnetic waves from the human brain can NOT be stored in quarks and then later read.

You have still not shown how your claim is consistent with science. My only purpose is to show that your claim isn't consistent with science, i'm not interested in finding out whether or not it is true.

I really, really do resent the fact that bangoskank is allowed to mislead and flat out lie about what I said. I don't care for thisr nasty attitude, but I will not tolerate being misrepresented.

Granted, you write that about bangoskan and not me. But still, why throw rocks in a glass house when what you claim he did(i don't know, and i won't pass judgement one way or the other) is EXACTLY what you have done to me, many times over.

Please, i have been patient, i have not been demeaning, i have not been insulting, i have not lied, i have not misrepresented what you stated, i have not mislead.

All this time i have been decent and fair. I have stated a good argument without resorting to namecalling or falacies(that is not to say that you have done that).

I have not stated other people have been mean or insulting till this message(whereas you have done that many times).

So please. Answer my questions.

How is your claim consistent with science?

And if your claim isn't consistent with science, then it is, per definition, supernatural.
Your claim may, or may not, be true, and if it is, some theories must be created to encompas your claim, but untill that happen, your claim is supernatural, and not consistent with science.

All i want, is for you to tell me how it is consistent with science, that is all, no proof that it is true, no proof that it works, no tests necesarry, just tell me how it is consistent with science. That is all.

And i've asked that now many times, and your replies have either ignored my questions(which i think is mean of you) or made claims about what the science says that is wrong(which i don't blame you for, it is human to error, and everyone can't know everything).

So, how is your claim consistent with science, so that it isn't supernatural. Please


Sincerely
Tobias

 

[thaiboxerken]

To Tobias
sorry for ignoring you, I wasn't aware you were part of this forum. As far as I knew bangoskank was transporting my posts to the JREF forum to be picked apart. I responded to him and to what he did. If in doing this, I ignored you, I apologize.
You are commiting the same logical error as bangoskank, you simply keep repeating the same denial of what I have said as if constant repetition proves your point. O
Now if you wish to drag the level of proof up for the existance of a critter up to the capture of a live or dead exemplar, you may. But the giant squid is hardly in the same class as that blood sucking goat thing from the caribbean. There were numerous examples of sucker wounds on whales and parts of giant squids found in the digestive tract of whales before a live one was observed. Trust me, there weren't a lot of marine biologists who didn't believe. The level of proof available was adequate to a high probability of existence with a possibility of error.
A rational, scientific mindset can include premises that are not yet proven as you say and I say that my scientific mindset does in fact, fiven the points I have previously made concerning relativity and quantum theory, and with certain logical extensions that involve the "shadowing" or echoing of patterns found in the subatomic realm into the macro universe ( by the way Hawking was working on a variation of this to theoretically allow for FTL travel) Now I am not saying that things are precisely mirrored at different levels but that the patterns are reminiscent of each other (and boy do I wish I still had my math. Talking about this in English is a real bitch)
A rational, scientific mindset can consider that a theory like string theory is most likely or probably accurate and operate as if they believe. It would be fair to say that relativity's description of gravity is tough to buy, but one ignores the predictions it makes about the behavior of a system at one's peril. People are working in string theory. I don't know what you mean about not "using" it. People are certainly talking about it, looking for ways to experimentally prove or disprove it or parts of it, no body "uses" special relativity either as we don't have anything that goes nearly fast enough to be overly concerned about. Although, have you heard about the Pioneer Anomaly. I had totally missed that. I read about it for the first time today and am soooooooo psyched.
I also spotted a dear little bit in a recent Scientific American that points out that they have built a quantum computer that works accurately about one third of the time when it is TURNED OFF> So much for quantum effects in the macro universe. We get the information.

There are many ways one can get 70-80% that doesn't conflict with science, and has solely to do with the way the human mind works.

How is that then. Please explain precisely how I visualize the location of an object that does not belong to me, that I never touched and which is not in my house or under my control, with my mind fooling me into this. Obviously we are capable of envisioning things - through concentration or day dreaming or any of several means. What I perceive seems different. Now certainly I could be deluded, but unless you wish to postulate an extreme mind/body duality to think that I am somehow fooled by my own mind without my knowledge or consent, well, that's getting way too Jungian for me.
Even one of your members admitted I made some good points when it comes to physics, you keep repeating that what I have postulated is wrong, but you don't explain why it is wrong. Just repeating that something is or is not so does not make it true.
Science is not an absolute in the sense in which you seem to interpret it. Science is the PROCESS of coming to the truth.
Now again, you claim I have repeatedly ignored me. Where are you registered on this board. I wasn't aware that I was expected to respond to postings from a different forum. Had you expected me to respond through bangoskank as a conduit, it would have been simpler to tell me you expected same. I apologize again.
Read bangoskank's postings on this board. You will see what I mean about misrepresentation.
Please note that after some of your board treated what I said with respect, thes suddenly appeared to apprehend that what I was stating happened was something else, something utterly trivial which entitled thisr to mock me as much as much as thes desired. Whatever. I find this behavior reprehensible and am responding now only because you, Tobias, are presenting yourself as a different person.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

To Tobias
sorry for ignoring you, I wasn't aware you were part of this forum. As far as I knew bangoskank was transporting my posts to the JREF forum to be picked apart. I responded to him and to what he did. If in doing this, I ignored you, I apologize.

I assumed bangoskank had pointed out that it was a poster from jref. Oh well, no harm done.

You are commiting the same logical error as bangoskank, you simply keep repeating the same denial of what I have said as if constant repetition proves your point. O

When you have a made a claim that is demonstratedly false, what can i do but deny it is true.

I must admit i can't remember all your claims anymore, but i'll do the ones i can remember.

Your claims:
1) Any particle without a mass can only travel at c. Any particle with mass can travel at more than c.
2) Something moving faster than c will move backwards in time, and because you can see that particle you can see the future(sometimes). I am not sure if this was your claim, but i think it was, please correct me if i'm wrong.
3) Electromagnetic fields from the brain and body can be "saved" in quarks around us, and can later be "viewed"
4) The uncertainty principle works on the macro scale(can't remember how that was relevant)

1) Any particle without a mass can only travel at c. Any particle with mass can travel at more than c.

To accelerate an object of non-zero rest mass to c would require infinite time with any finite acceleration, or infinite acceleration for a finite amount of time
Either way, such acceleration requires infinite energy. Going beyond the speed of light in a homogeneous space would hence require more than infinite energy, which is not a sensible notion.

Your claim that something with non-zero mass can travel faster than c is false.

Though there is one(1) postulated particle that can only travel faster than c, and that has mass.
That is the tachyon ( as i have stated before ).
So far, it is just an artifact of special relativity, since we don't know if it exists.
If it exists and we can't measure it, can't see it, can't expirement with it, then it might as well not exist.

Now the fundamental fact of relativity is that E2 - p2 = m2. (Let's take c=1 for the rest of the discussion.) For any non-zero value of m (mass), this is a hyperbola with branches in the timelike regions. It passes through the point (p,E) = (0,m), where the particle is at rest. Any particle with mass m is constrained to move on the upper branch of this hyperbola. (Otherwise, it is "off-shell", a term you hear in association with virtual particles - but that's another topic.) For massless particles, E2 = p2, and the particle moves on the light-cone.

These two cases are given the names tardyon (or bradyon in more modern usage) and luxon, for "slow particle" and "light particle". Tachyon is the name given to the supposed "fast particle" which would move with v>c. (Tachyons were first introduced into physics by Gerald Feinberg, in his seminal paper "On the possibility of faster-than-light particles" [Phys.Rev. v.159, pp.1089--1105 (1967)]).

Now another familiar relativistic equation is E = m*[1-(v/c)2]-1/2. Tachyons (if they exist) have v > c. This means that E is imaginary! Well, what if we take the rest mass m, and take it to be imaginary? Then E is negative real, and E2 - p2 = m2 < 0. Or, p2 - E2 = M2, where M is real. This is a hyperbola with branches in the spacelike region of spacetime. The energy and momentum of a tachyon must satisfy this relation.

Now, IF, and lets make an assumption here. The tachyon is real, you wouldn't be able to see it because it would be too small to see with light.

The wavelength of light is simply too big to see it. So any notion of seeing a tachyon with nothing but big science equipment(most likely involving tachyon coliding with electrons) is not doable.


2) Something moving faster than c will move backwards in time, and because you can see that particle you can see the future(sometimes). I am not sure if this was your claim, but i think it was, please correct me if i'm wrong.

Observers with relative motion will disagree which occurs first of any two events that are separated by a space-like interval. In other words, any travel that is faster-than-light in any inertial frame of reference will be travel backwards in time in other, equally valid, frames of reference.

Your claim that it would travel backwards in time is true.

But you would still not be able to get any data from these particles, if they existed, without some pretty big equipment, and maybe not even then.

3) Electromagnetic fields from the brain and body can be "saved" in quarks around us, and can later be "viewed"

While the EM field generated by our brain may or may not be stored in particles around us(i honestly don't know if that is possible). The strength of the EM fields created by our brain would mean that it could only really be stored in matter right next to us. That is, it could, possibly, be stored in the fluid in our brain. But that it would be stored, if at all possible, in our cranium seems a bit of a stretch. And going to a wall, or the air around us. Is just way too improbable to even think about, imo.

4) The uncertainty principle works on the macro scale(can't remember how that was relevant)
Ok, i'll have to admit here that yet, quantum mechanics does work on all scales. And humans really can do quantum mechanic tricks like walking through walls, be two places at once, and be at work before you arrive there.

But if you do the calculations to see the probability you will see that it takes nearly an eternity for it to happen.

For instance, the chances of me going out and buying one(1) lottery ticket now, and winning, are around a billion^billion^billion^billion^billion times more likely than anything the size of a quarter have done any of the things i stated above, through the entire existance of the universe so far.

And to be honest, the billion^billion^billion^billion^billion is way too small, but i got tired of writting more ^billion's.

So yes, theoreticly, it is doable on the macro scale, but it is just so unlikely that you might just as well state it doesn't work on the macro scale.

Think about it, the chance that something the size of quarter have been two places at once during the existince of this universe is smaller than.
1:10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If your argument would be correct, then that would totally shatter quantum mechanics.

Now if you wish to drag the level of proof up for the existance of a critter up to the capture of a live or dead exemplar, you may. But the giant squid is hardly in the same class as that blood sucking goat thing from the caribbean. There were numerous examples of sucker wounds on whales and parts of giant squids found in the digestive tract of whales before a live one was observed. Trust me, there weren't a lot of marine biologists who didn't believe. The level of proof available was adequate to a high probability of existence with a possibility of error.

Non Sequitur

A rational, scientific mindset can include premises that are not yet proven as you say and I say that my scientific mindset does in fact, fiven the points I have previously made concerning relativity and quantum theory, and with certain logical extensions that involve the "shadowing" or echoing of patterns found in the subatomic realm into the macro universe ( by the way Hawking was working on a variation of this to theoretically allow for FTL travel) Now I am not saying that things are precisely mirrored at different levels but that the patterns are reminiscent of each other (and boy do I wish I still had my math. Talking about this in English is a real bitch)

Yes, one can include premises that are not yet proven, and scientist do that, but the result of such a thought experiment can be nothing more than philosophy untill the premise is moved from a hypothesis to a theory.

A rational, scientific mindset can consider that a theory like string theory is most likely or probably accurate and operate as if they believe.

As Steven Weinberg correctly says, Physics is an experimental science. And as long as String Theory can make no predictions for an experiment or an observation it isn't science, it is philosophy.

Personally i really want String Theory, or rather M-Theory, to be true, but, for now, it is simply a philosophy.

It would be fair to say that relativity's description of gravity is tough to buy, but one ignores the predictions it makes about the behavior of a system at one's peril. People are working in string theory. I don't know what you mean about not "using" it. People are certainly talking about it, looking for ways to experimentally prove or disprove it or parts of it, no body "uses" special relativity either as we don't have anything that goes nearly fast enough to be overly concerned about.

By using it i mean, using the gramma and syntax of the theory to learn more about our universe. We do that all the time, still, with Quantum Mechanics, and with Special Relativity.

For instance, the twin problem was tested with atomic clocks on planes, that is "using" special relativity to understand something about the world, as well as it is agreeing with a prediction of special relativity, thus making the theory even more stable.

Untill String Theory advances from a hypothesis to a theory we can't be certain if it descripes the real world, if it is just fancy mathematics. So untill it can make a prediction, or an observation, that agrees with String Theory, we can't know of sure if it has anything, at all, to do with the real world.

The scientists are looking, and i hope that in the next 5 years we will begin to see evidence of Super Symmetry, which is consistent with String Theory. Mind, i don't know if finding Super Symmetry is enough to advance String Theory to a theory.

But using String Theory as an explanation for something is just not valid yet, because we have no idea if it is true, or accurate.

Although, have you heard about the Pioneer Anomaly. I had totally missed that. I read about it for the first time today and am soooooooo psyched.

Yes, MOND is trying to explain that.

I also spotted a dear little bit in a recent Scientific American that points out that they have built a quantum computer that works accurately about one third of the time when it is TURNED OFF> So much for quantum effects in the macro universe. We get the information.

Ehm, what are you trying to say here?
Ok, if i make an experiment in QM and i make an experiment of Schrödingers Cat, i can do that.
Now if i have equipment that can see this, and then show it on a computer screen, that doesn't make Schrödingers Cat work on the macro scale. It is just the computer and our equipment enhancing what is happening.

The same with the quantum computer.

A quantum effect in the macro world would be something like walking through a wall. Or being two places at once. Or arriving somewhere before you arrived there.

As in, arriving to work before you have gone out of bed.

That is QM on the macro level, and it doesn't happen.

How is that then. Please explain precisely how I visualize the location of an object that does not belong to me, that I never touched and which is not in my house or under my control, with my mind fooling me into this. Obviously we are capable of envisioning things - through concentration or day dreaming or any of several means. What I perceive seems different. Now certainly I could be deluded, but unless you wish to postulate an extreme mind/body duality to think that I am somehow fooled by my own mind without my knowledge or consent, well, that's getting way too Jungian for me.

I am not THAT good with psychology, sadly. The best i can do is give an example(which i may have already given, not sure) of what i think can be the cause.

Person A is scared of flying.
Person A boards a plane, deadly afraid that it will crash
Plane crashes, and Person A claims (s)he predicted it.
Person A have forgotten the 10 times in the last year (s)he traveled on a plane and had the exact same feeling, and it didn't crash.

That is not Person A being delusional. That is not Person A lying or being dishonest. That is Person A's brain fooling Person A into thinking something that isn't true, because our brain is hardwired to make connections of cause and effect, and it often makes mistakes.

One way it COULD happen for you(and i'm not saying this is it, but a possible explanation).
Friend A lost slippers.
Friend A asks you where the slippers are, you don't know
Friend A finds slippers under couch
Friend A tells you.
You forget (your brain doesn't see it is relevant).
Friend A looses slippers again
Friend A asks you where the slippers are.
You say "under the couch" even though you don't know, because you have forgotten. But your subconcious is feeding you the information, without your knowledge.
Friend A finds them under the couch.
You think you have a special ability.

That is way what you can experience can happen. I am not saying that is what is happening. I am just saying that is one way it COULD happen.

Even one of your members admitted I made some good points when it comes to physics, you keep repeating that what I have postulated is wrong, but you don't explain why it is wrong. Just repeating that something is or is not so does not make it true.

Not to be evil, but you are doing that just as much as i am. I am repeating that you haven't properly shown that your experience is consistent with science. And you are repeating that it is. And for the last many posts neither of us have expanded on it.

Science is not an absolute in the sense in which you seem to interpret it. Science is the PROCESS of coming to the truth.

True.

Now again, you claim I have repeatedly ignored me. Where are you registered on this board. I wasn't aware that I was expected to respond to postings from a different forum. Had you expected me to respond through bangoskank as a conduit, it would have been simpler to tell me you expected same. I apologize again.

Sorry, i thought he had explained matters. My fault.

Read bangoskank's postings on this board. You will see what I mean about misrepresentation.
Please note that after some of your board treated what I said with respect, thes suddenly appeared to apprehend that what I was stating happened was something else, something utterly trivial which entitled thisr to mock me as much as much as thes desired. Whatever. I find this behavior reprehensible and am responding now only because you, Tobias, are presenting yourself as a different person.

Thanks.


Ok, i think this time i have properly stated my case instead of just denying your argument(though i believe i did more than just deny your argument in the first posts i made, oh well.)

So, that is why your explanation is inconsistent with science. I'm sure there are more, but i can't remember all your arguments.

Oh, and remember, i'm not trying to say that your experience is or isn't happening. I'm not trying to get you to prove it is happening. All i'm interested in is showing that if this is happening, it isn't consistent with the science as we knows it today.

Then, if you want to, and can find a proper way to test it, you may be able to change science forever. But that entirely up to you, and not really interesting for me. My intention here is solely to show that the mechanism you have explained is not consistent with science, and thus, that your claim is supernatural.

Sincerely
Tobias

 

[Hellbound]

Tobias:

Just wanted to add a comment about tachyons.

They aren't really an artifact of GR. Well, I suppose they are, but that seems to be a misleading term, implying somehow that they are an integral part of the theory.

You probably understand this, but I wanted to make clear that nothing in GR requires tachyons to exist. It just doesn't specifically deny their existence. Exotic matter (mass with a negative energy density), wormholes, and some other things fall into this category as well.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Llinn: I never said a particle with a rest mass greater than zero can travel faster than c. I said the possibility is not excluded. In general what SR?GR states is that a particle with a rest mass greater than zero cannot travel AT c. It is potentially possible for a particle of any size to travel faster than c if in fact it can approach c and then somehow skip over the limiting velocity without crossing it. (Please bear in mind that discussing all this in english is not terribly accurate) Math or logic would be way better, but I don't do that anymore and have lost most of it. I gave the example of the electron tunnel effect in order to demonstrate that it is theoretically possible for a particle with a rest mass greater than zero to travel from one space (the s shell) to a different location in space (the p shell) without crossing the intervening space.
This theoretically allows for FTL travel if you postulate that c defines a limiting velocity which is the equivalent of the s shell. And that the space or velocities greater than c are not so limited. There may be another limiting velocity or specific velocities that correspond to distinct energy levels which for some as yet unknown reason simply are not feasible due to some underlying nature of the universe.
Never said that energy fields could be saved in quarks and viewed later. I have no idea how you got that idea. What I said was that the potential energy levels of atomic and subatomic particles are so small that it might be possible to create an effect with the level of bioeletrical energy create by chemical activity in the brain. One of the JDRF posters acknowledged that strong magnetic fields and electrical fields can directly affect brain activity causing hallucinations or visual disturbances if you prefer.
I understand that while theoretically possible, the likelihood of quantum effects at a gross macro scale involving all the molecules of air in a room suddenly "deciding" to be in one corner or the molecules in a wall all harmonizing so that a human could walk through is vanishingly small. You didn't need to type all those zeros. Just use the term "googol" I'm familiar with those numbers or use exponential notation, it's simpler.
What is relevant is that if quantum effects on a subatomic scale can produce massless effects in the macro world, i.e. knowledge. This is why I brought up the quantum computer. While obeying all the known laws of quantum physics it still managed to create an effect in the macro universe. The information was passed to the observers.
Now I keep going back to the post from Tobias and there are two quotes about storing EM energy in the fluid in our brain and one about relative motion separated by a space like interval--those are not mine. I didn't write either of the two quotes and don't actually agree precisely with either.
However, to state that the backward in time particle would require "pretty big equipment" in order to "see" it is not necessarily true. Certainly building a detector out of technological stuff would require something that might surpass the cave full of fluid used for picking up some neutrons, but that is not an absolute. It may be that the EM fields generated in the human brain might be "tuned" to the proper frequencies and pick up information from disturbances or interference patterns caused by the passage of backward moving tachyons in the "ether". (Yes, I know all about the ether don't exist, but some recent thought says maybe it does and we just don't understand it= might be tied up with dark matter and dark energy)
If you wish to dismiss everything I have postulated as philosophy, fine.
It truly doesn't matter to me. But you need to understand that most theoretical physicists do consider themselves to be scientists and you might be irritating to someone like Stephen Hawking.
What I am stating is quite simply that quantum effects can have an impact in the macro universe by transmitting information without requiring macro quantum "activity". I actually think the quantum computer reported in SA proves my case. It worked when turned off. The scientists who created it got accurate information at their scale from something operating in a quantum scale.
I postulate that quantum effects can lead to information not otherwise explanable.
Point proven.

Lin

PS I'm semi-brain dead these days. I don't do physics and philosophy anymore, I have a different life now. But even I am not nearly dumb enough to forget someone told me where their shoes were and then forget and think I psychically "find" the shoes some time later.
I wish I could "change" the world as we know it, but I'm afraid that I'd expend a lot more time and energy trying to make people understand that they are doing a superb job of crapping up the planet and as yet we don't have anywhere else to go.

 

[Ziggurat]

I gave the example of the electron tunnel effect in order to demonstrate that it is theoretically possible for a particle with a rest mass greater than zero to travel from one space (the s shell) to a different location in space (the p shell) without crossing the intervening space. This theoretically allows for FTL travel if you postulate that c defines a limiting velocity which is the equivalent of the s shell.

What do you mean by this? Electron "shells" are not really shells at all. They are particular wave functions, and they overlap each other. There is no "intervening space" to talk about here. That, plus the fact that the transition between states is not actually instantaneous (nor can it be, actually). So if you want to try to assign a velocity to this transition, the only way in which it makes sense is in terms of some expectation position, and how fast that expectation position moves. But it doesn't "jump" over anything, and it doesn't do so instantaneously, so you've got to actually put forward some numbers if you want to try to argue that it's happening faster than c.

What I said was that the potential energy levels of atomic and subatomic particles are so small that it might be possible to create an effect with the level of bioeletrical energy create by chemical activity in the brain.

But they AREN'T small. Energy scales for non-electron sub-atomic particles are HUGE compared to energy scales of electrons. And we know that rather obviously to be so because they do not contribute to the heat capacity of objects. If they did have internal degrees of freedom with small energy scales, then they would become thermally excited and play a role in heat capacity. But they don't, because their energy scales are simply too large.

One of the JDRF posters acknowledged that strong magnetic fields and electrical fields can directly affect brain activity causing hallucinations or visual disturbances if you prefer.

What's your point? A swinging sledgehammer can have a very large effect on my brain activity. My brain activity will not have a corresponding effect on that swinging sledgehammer, unless that activity involves sending signals to my muscles.

This is why I brought up the quantum computer. While obeying all the known laws of quantum physics it still managed to create an effect in the macro universe.

This has essentially nothing to do with what a brain is capable of doing. Quantum computing depends on maintaining quantum coherence effects. That simply isn't possible at room temperatures unless you deal with HUGE energy scales, but there are no huge energy scales in biological systems. It's like ripping out the innards of your computer, throughing them into a furnace and melting the whole mess, and then asking why you can't still use the resulting puddle to run your favorite games.

Certainly building a detector out of technological stuff would require something that might surpass the cave full of fluid used for picking up some neutrons, but that is not an absolute.

I presume you mean neutrinos, not neutrons. Neutrons are not that hard to detect.

 

[talldave]

To address the original question: No, it isn't silly to not understand quantum mechanics. The philosophy surrounding quantum mechanics is most probably incomplete, and so in a certain very specific sense, no one understand quantum mechanics.

If you are serious about begining to under quantum mechanics on a popular level, I highly recommend Feynman's book, QED: The strange theory of light and matter.

If you want to find out about some of the mind blowing aspects of quantum I recommend looking up the article "quantum seeing in the dark".

http://research.physics.uiuc.edu/QI/Photonics/papers/kwiat-sciam-1996-nov.pdf

 

[rocketdodger]

So it is everyone's consensus that free will doesn't exist then? I would like to think it does but I cannot find such a scenario..

 

[Hellbound]

So it is everyone's consensus that free will doesn't exist then? I would like to think it does but I cannot find such a scenario..

My question is, does it matter?

For all intents and purposes, we appear to have free will. Regardless of whether or not it exists ideally, we must act as if it does for there to be any sort of structure or order to society.

It's a sort of meaningless question, IMO. Kind of like "what if the world were really created 5 seconds ago and everything I remember was implanted?" type thing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't believe freewill exists, but it's a good working model to base our laws and ethics off of.

 

[jpowell]

Hmm, I'm a physicist and I believe in free will. Ultimately it's a philosophical question, so science cannot say anything about it. I choose to believe in free will because it's philosophically more palatable for me.

 

[epepke]

Llinn: I never said a particle with a rest mass greater than zero can travel faster than c. I said the possibility is not excluded.

But you're still wrong. If there were a particle (tachyon) that went faster than c, it would have an imaginary mass, because the square of the Minkowskian norm of the energy/momentum vector would be negative. Imaginary numbers do not have an ordering relationship with the reals, so you can't say that the mass is greater than zero. All you can say is that it is not zero. The real component of the rest mass, of course, would be zero.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Ok, i read the reply from Llinn, and saw that she yet again misrepresented what i said, ignored other things i said, and didn't give anything to support her stance.

I see now that you don't want to even understand this.

I am sorry about the tone of this reply, it will be my last as you don't really want to learn.

The tone in this reply is caused by my frustration. And again, i appologize, you may stop reading now if you want.

IF Llinn had tried to actually do what i asked for, instead of letting me do a lot of hard work while she just sits back and gives me more unsubstantiated claims, i might have made the effort to go back and find quotes from Llinn where she says the opposite of what she says in this message. But, when she doesn't try to make the effort, and when she doesn't want to learn, i fail to see the point.

Llinn: I never said a particle with a rest mass greater than zero can travel faster than c.

Yes, you did.

I said the possibility is not excluded. In general what SR?GR states is that a particle with a rest mass greater than zero cannot travel AT c. It is potentially possible for a particle of any size to travel faster than c if in fact it can approach c and then somehow skip over the limiting velocity without crossing it. (Please bear in mind that discussing all this in english is not terribly accurate) Math or logic would be way better, but I don't do that anymore and have lost most of it. I gave the example of the electron tunnel effect in order to demonstrate that it is theoretically possible for a particle with a rest mass greater than zero to travel from one space (the s shell) to a different location in space (the p shell) without crossing the intervening space.

This is not what you stated, and i have already covered this.

This theoretically allows for FTL travel if you postulate that c defines a limiting velocity which is the equivalent of the s shell. And that the space or velocities greater than c are not so limited. There may be another limiting velocity or specific velocities that correspond to distinct energy levels which for some as yet unknown reason simply are not feasible due to some underlying nature of the universe.

non sequitur

Never said that energy fields could be saved in quarks and viewed later. I have no idea how you got that idea. What I said was that the potential energy levels of atomic and subatomic particles are so small that it might be possible to create an effect with the level of bioeletrical energy create by chemical activity in the brain. One of the JDRF posters acknowledged that strong magnetic fields and electrical fields can directly affect brain activity causing hallucinations or visual disturbances if you prefer.

Yes you did.

I understand that while theoretically possible, the likelihood of quantum effects at a gross macro scale involving all the molecules of air in a room suddenly "deciding" to be in one corner or the molecules in a wall all harmonizing so that a human could walk through is vanishingly small. You didn't need to type all those zeros. Just use the term "googol" I'm familiar with those numbers or use exponential notation, it's simpler.

Then why have you used that as an argument so many times if you know it is so vanishingly small.

What is relevant is that if quantum effects on a subatomic scale can produce massless effects in the macro world, i.e. knowledge. This is why I brought up the quantum computer. While obeying all the known laws of quantum physics it still managed to create an effect in the macro universe. The information was passed to the observers.

This has absolutely 100% NOTHING to do with your claim, what so ever.

Now I keep going back to the post from Tobias and there are two quotes about storing EM energy in the fluid in our brain and one about relative motion separated by a space like interval--those are not mine. I didn't write either of the two quotes and don't actually agree precisely with either.

I never insinuated you did.

However, to state that the backward in time particle would require "pretty big equipment" in order to "see" it is not necessarily true. Certainly building a detector out of technological stuff would require something that might surpass the cave full of fluid used for picking up some neutrons, but that is not an absolute. It may be that the EM fields generated in the human brain might be "tuned" to the proper frequencies and pick up information from disturbances or interference patterns caused by the passage of backward moving tachyons in the "ether". (Yes, I know all about the ether don't exist, but some recent thought says maybe it does and we just don't understand it= might be tied up with dark matter and dark energy)

For the umpteenth time you make a claim like this, and you don't back it up.

If you wish to dismiss everything I have postulated as philosophy, fine.

Then come with evidence, not just postulates.

It truly doesn't matter to me. But you need to understand that most theoretical physicists do consider themselves to be scientists and you might be irritating to someone like Stephen Hawking.

Now why would i be that? stephen hawking makes sence, and what he says is science, it agrees with science, it makes testable claims, it makes predictions, it is science.
In contrast to your postulations with nothing to back it up.

What I am stating is quite simply that quantum effects can have an impact in the macro universe by transmitting information without requiring macro quantum "activity". I actually think the quantum computer reported in SA proves my case. It worked when turned off. The scientists who created it got accurate information at their scale from something operating in a quantum scale.

I already explained this.

I postulate that quantum effects can lead to information not otherwise explanable.
Point proven.

Lin

Not in the least.,

PS I'm semi-brain dead these days. I don't do physics and philosophy anymore, I have a different life now. But even I am not nearly dumb enough to forget someone told me where their shoes were and then forget and think I psychically "find" the shoes some time later.
I wish I could "change" the world as we know it, but I'm afraid that I'd expend a lot more time and energy trying to make people understand that they are doing a superb job of crapping up the planet and as yet we don't have anywhere else to go.

[/quote]
Now you totally twist what i wrote, again, which is what you have claimed i did.

Sincerely
Tobias

PS. again, sorry i couldn't keep my tone.


http://rafb.net/paste/results/AFbStp45.html