Waveforms certainly exist in electronics, — jgill
So, a virtual particles have no direction in time. They just go up and down. Since the beginning of time and before — EugeneW
So, a virtual particles have no direction in time. They just go up and down — EugeneW
The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude — universeness
I cannot understand EugeneW, so I don't think an explanation of what I mean is going to come from him.
— noAxioms
He has been quite patient with me when I have demonstrated my limited knowledge of physics. He has demonstrated his deeper grasp of the topic and has not 'dismissed' me as 'not worth his efforts.' As a retired school teacher myself, I appreciate and celebrate his approach and passion for physics and I prefer it to the more pretentious and unwarranted, almost sad, aloof attitudes of other members of this forum, be the thread philosophical, scientific, religious or political. Thankfully, such attitudes are also in the minority on this forum. — universeness
The idea of a wave 'amplitude,', if so, an amplitude must take time to form an it forms in a direction from rest to up (in the case of a crest) or rest to down (in the case of a trough). Does this marry with the proposal of 'rest up to crest as current to future' and 'rest down to trough as current to past?' — universeness
A particle litterally travels on all possible pathways through spacetime. All paths have a probability, and are taken at the same time — EugeneW
How can every possible path be traversed by the 'same' particle in an instant of time? — universeness
press the , and fill in the name you wanna link — EugeneW
That's exactly why hidden variables are invented! How can a particle have a probability to be here or there? Where is it then? — EugeneW
It's a bit hard to visualise, because we are used to particles going forward in time with definite position and energy, mutually related. If energy is zero then momentum squared is −m2−m2, according to E2−p2=m2E2−p2=m2, and this relation doesn't hold for virtual particles. They can have independent values to fit the boundary conditions of two asymptotically free particles. In other words, if the two incoming particles have specified E and p, as the outgoing ones, the virtual particle adjusts to fit these values. It could also adjust to other values. All have certain amplitudes to occur. Qft calculates these scattering amplitudes by means of Feynman diagrams — EugeneW
Imagine being an electron. A virtual one. You travel on all possible paths, with all possible values of E and p, forward and backward in time, at the same time. A real electron does the same, but only forward in time and with fixed E and p (or corresponding t and x, their conjugates, obeying uncertainty relations) — EugeneW
Physics concerns what one expects to measure. Metaphysics concerns what is. So a quantum interpretation like Bohmian mechanics or RQM make zero empirical predictions, hence are not part of quantum mechanics physics theory.I have mixed emotions when it comes to the term 'metaphysical.' Definintions like 'after physics' or 'beyond physics' don't help but I normally do find some value when I read/view 'metaphysical' discussions. — universeness
That breath was made of atoms, and electrons and protons and such. Those particles are still around to this day. They'd be somewhere else had Napoleon never existed, so they constitute a measurement of him.I may have garnished more value from this if you had typed something like 'Some molecule of Napoleans consciousness (not his dying breath), as his physical body starts to disassemble, after his death...interacts with a rock.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.I personally think this idea is nonsense and that such an interaction would leave the rock completely unchanged.
I don't think human consciousness is an assembly of components. More of a process that takes place, like combustion, involving not necessarily the same matter at any given time, just like a candle flame's atoms are almost completely different than the 'same flame' a minute later.I think it's much more likely that disassembled component parts of a dead human consciousness
Not to say anything against that particular quote which seems accurate, but I find Quora to be one of biggest sources of misinformation on the web due to the lack of mechanism to promote correct answers to questions. Physics.StackExchange is far better in this regard and I usually look there first. I'm not a registered user on either site.I base this on a comment made by a physicist on Quora:
"the worldline of light behaves as ligtht-like curves in spacetime"
Depends on your definition of 'exists'. They've been measured, so they exist to us by that definition. They're galaxies, and separate galaxies might merge into bigger ones, but they hardly just cease being there after only several billion yearsYes, so the picture of hubble deepest field image (I have a very large framed print of it in my bedroom) mainly contains objects which probably don't exist anymore.
I didn't say there are no hidden variables.There are no hidden variables in RQM, and humans do not play any preferred role.
— noAxioms
How do you know there are no hidden variables? — EugeneW
You seem all over the map with your 'facts', but without framing them with a specific interpretation, and almost all of them are interpretation-dependent 'facts'.That's exactly why hidden variables are invented! How can a particle have a probability to be here or there? Where is it then? — EugeneW
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.