Quantum Physics Fault?

1. 53

   TruthDebaterposted 14 years ago

   The common idea in common physics is that reality is not there until we observe it there. Everything is in a superposition until observed and the waves collapse to make the object observational.
   
   My question is: We are made of cells, say that the cells created us by their conscious observation. Quantum physics is saying that cells weren't there before we observed them? How can cells make a human in a superposition without observing and collapsing wave function?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I think the suggestion is that observation can, in some cases, affect a system.  Not that observation creates all of reality.

      replyreport
      1. 53

         TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks. Many of the quantum physicists agree that it applies to the macro/large as well as the small, so they are saying this applies to everything/all cases.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Name one.

            replyreport
            1. 53

               TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner "Quantum Enigma"

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  This book is more properly metaphysics than physics, but I guess it is a valid example.

                  replyreport
                  1. 53

                     TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Thank You. They cover all sides from a scientific perspective. I think they did pretty good.

                     replyreport
      2. 67

         ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It is saying that observation determines the kind of experience of reality. Say our eyes. Our eyes see only what is relevant to our survival. But there are many different wavelengths of light that are visible to other creatures, but not to us. So darkness is relative to the optic facility as well as light.
         
         Shibuya at night will be extremely dark when compared to darkest sunspots. But compared to a highway Tennessee, Shibuya is daytime.
         
         As for cells, we see it as cells because we are looking at the gradient of light that sees cells. but from another method of observation, they actually look like the stars in space. So which reality is real. The one our eyes see? Or the one that the computer saw? They are both real, but the method of observations are different.
         
         Quantum Physics just shows you that reality is larger than what the senses can fathom.
         
         Case in point:
         
         http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_ … crets.html

         replyreport
   2. 60

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      pls produce your proof of this comment: "Quantum physics is saying that cells weren't there before we observed them?"

      replyreport
      1. 53

         TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Quantum physics says that observation creates the objective. Science doesn't recognize cells as conscious, but without consciousness, how could the cells have observed and created the objective and humans? Without observation, wouldn't the cells have remained in a superposition? Our observation didn't make the cells become reality, their observation made our reality. I was asking a question above more than making a statement. I am just seeing a problem in quantum physics where consciousness is broken down to the smallest level, yet cells aren't recognized as conscious life. Does this make sense? Thanks

         replyreport
         1. 60

            qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Truth:
            That wasn't the question.
            The question is: " "Quantum physics is saying that cells weren't there before we observed them?"
            Of course cells existed b4 we observed them. If they didn't we wouldn't be here.
            Truth, if by "conscious" you mean mentally aware, it's obvious cells have no "mind," so they can't be mentally aware.
            If you mean cells are "aware" they absolutely are. They adapt to their environments thru the processes of SOR (Stimulus, Organism, Response.) They can mutate to survive.
            Micro evolution of this kind has been empirically proved.

            replyreport
            1. 53

               TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Where is your mind? Where does it come from? Have you ever seen your mind? If you have never seen your mind, how do you know cells don't have a mind? Wouldn't it take a mind for a cell to communicate? A person can be aware and conscious without being able to communicate, to communicate, they need a healthy mind. How is it obvious cells have no mind when mind is something you can't see?
               Nothing has been empirically proved, there is only stronger evidence for some things than others. How do we know that cells were there before we observed them without being able to observe them? Were they cells before we observed them or were they in a superposition? Thanks.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Truth:
                  Respectfully if you were truly a student and interested, there'd be no reason for you to ask this question.
                  I won't respond further.
                  pls, respectfully, go study.   :-)

                  replyreport
                  1. 53

                     TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I asked a lot of them, which one are you referring to? I figured you wouldn't like the question of defining mind, this is why people usually have an explanation in store before using words they can't define. thanks.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Truth:
                        your question is so basic and the answer known by so many that is difficult for me to understand why you don't have the answer.
                        Yes I know the answer but I am not into didactics this afternoon.
                        I leave it up to you to do the study and experience the resulting epiphany.
                        Good luck...:-)

                        replyreport
                        1. 53

                           TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           What is the answer? I find it hard to believe you can define mind when so many others can't. Make me a believer! Which is the basic question I should understand? I see you teaching plenty of others on the forums, I would like to be taught as well. thanks

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Truth:
                              Me? teach?
                              You've mistaken me for someone else.
                              I offer my thoughts for consideration, but teach?
                              I may cause someone to dig and search by offering my opinions, but I never, never intend to teach or instruct, because I am not an expert on any subject.
                              My "knowledge" is a matter of studying as an eclectic searcher...euphamistically a "jack-of-all-trades."
                              I'll suggest this "Truth," study the elements of a single cell, then the evolution of the human mind and consciousness, with sincerity, and I promise, the answer to your question will be found.
                              Good luck...:-)

                              replyreport
                              1. 53

                                 TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 I have more evidence that cells do have mind than you have against cells having mind. Who needs to do more cell research? Please explain where consciousness comes from and what creates consciousness. Please do not answer, "synapse". What leads up to synapse on the "qwark" and quantum level?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 67

                                    ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    I agree with you the cells have some level of mind, not at all like our own but more elementary. The necessity to form communities of cells is in order to have a better way of making a model of reality.
                                    
                                    BACK TO THE OBSERVER
                                    
                                    the notion that visionary physicists are explaining is this:
                                    
                                    that there is no separation from the observer and the observed. You are actually looking at your own hand or foot or whatever, but you are not separate.
                                    
                                    The optics is a way to observe the vastness of the self.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       I could be separate from my foot if you believe that the body is just a material/physical host for the mind. If we look at our hands, we most often come to the conclusion that it is our hand if it is on our body, the question is, is your hand also my hand and is my hand your hand if we are all linked. I don't think one needs objective optics to observe self, only subjective mind. Thanks

                                       report
                                       1. 67

                                          ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          well, I didn't mean it in that literal way. If all is made of the same waves and particles then by observing them you are actually observing aspects of yourself.
                                          
                                          When you observe anything, you already determine how it will look by the sense you use to observe it.
                                          
                                          Like for instance lightning and thunder. Lightning is how it looks and thunder is how it sounds, and being fried with intense heat is how it feels. The heat, the light and the sound are one thing. But because we use different senses to observe them, they become light, sound and temperature. What it is, is the totality of its being. What is it outside of our senses? energy. massive energy. But that's what we are too. If we cannot define it through our methods of observation, is it any different from us? The answer is no.

                                          report
                                    2. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       How does energy become mind and consciousness? thanks

                                       report
                                       1. 67

                                          ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          hmmm...well, that requires a little imagination. But it will not be based on actual scientific consensus as you probably already know.
                                          
                                          This is ME, okay. and how i link the two in my head. It requires a little bit of reverse engineering.
                                          
                                          Our consciousness was found to be made of oscillating waves.
                                          These waves are produced by electro-chemicals circulating through the pathways of the brain from one neuron to the other.  what are electro-chemicals?
                                          
                                          They are chemicals charged with electricity. In short they are polarized chemicals, they move through the attraction to a polar opposite. What are chemicals? they are particles that bond into molecules.
                                          
                                          So electro-chemicals are both energy and particle/matter at the same time.
                                          
                                          The are in the head and they cause the synapses to produce sparks of light and that light signals knowledge was acquired.
                                          
                                          So electrochemicals are moving along pathways in the brain.
                                          
                                          How does energy become consciousness?
                                          
                                          somehow energy becomes contained within a pathway and it circulates. the movement of this energy produces a current of oscillating waves, of volts that from a human perspective is experienced as thoughts.
                                          
                                          If you let electricity and chemicals go through a circuit similar to the brain, will the machine think? There is research being done to test this. It's called the BLUE BRAIN PROJECT. It is working on the theory that the brain is a microscopic model of the greater universe.

                                          report
                                    3. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       I enjoyed reading the idea. So unconscious gravity brings the waves, chemical, and energy together to create consciousness, but no consciousness in gravity? How is it possible for unconscious gravity to connect conscious life? thanks

                                       report
   3. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      TD, the quantified application is strictly from the optic view.
      Light/energy has three parameter bases times itself, three times 3(3³), which includes the wave and ray. So, the cells -to the optic were not because there was no reflection/observation or optic bend of light fragments...

      replyreport
      1. 53

         TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         So because we couldn't see the cells under the microscope, they didn't exist yet? Thanks

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            well to them, the cells didn't because they require observation as application only.

            replyreport
            1. 53

               TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Them who? What do you mean the cells require observation as application only? thanks

               replyreport
         2. 67

            ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            the thing is, if the method of observation was the way we observe  cells now they would be cells. But if they were viewed as the light they emanate and we never discovered their physical qualities, then those won't be cells but energy patterns at a microscopic level. The method of observation determines how it looks and therefore what it is. It s what kind light is shed on what is being observed. reality is highly dependent to the method of observation.

            replyreport
            1. 53

               TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               So on the smallest level, the cell isn't there until it's observed or until the cell observes? thanks

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  its there but it will not be observed as a cell. It will be observed as something else.
                  
                  the optics determine their manifestation. is it wave or particle? But it could be either depending on the method of observation.
                  
                  So the things we see as light right now, like for instance, the sun what if we have the capacity to see something brighter than that, what would it be? Would it look like a giant cell?
                  
                  questions like that tend to come up with quantum physics.

                  replyreport
                  1. 53

                     TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     What I am getting at is, when does life go from a superposition to one conscious host? When the host is observed or when the host observes?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        The observer and observed are the same instance from a varying degree of bent or optic parameter. The host is both.

                        replyreport
            2. 0

               Twenty One Daysposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               exactly. The method of observation -in this case microscopic or nanoscopic- is a limited exploration or measure to view the object. reality = energy x necessity -from a human objective view.

               replyreport
               1. 53

                  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  The subjective creates the objective. I think subjective creates all objective reality. What is the bent or optic parameter that proves both being observed and observing creates a conscious host? thanks

                  replyreport
   4. 60

      Originposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      An analogy would be.. if a tree falls a thousand miles from you, does it make a sound?

      replyreport
      1. 53

         TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         According to quantum physics, the tree doesn't fall or make an impact unless it is observed. According to Einstein, the tree would still make a sound by measuring the sound waves, but measuring is observation. I don't know. thanks

         replyreport
         1. 58

            ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Here, you want to know about QP go here and study:
            
            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quacon.html

            replyreport
            1. 53

               TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I would rather read a book than the website. If you understand QP, surely you would add more knowledge than you already have. thanks

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  This is all I know about QP:
                  
                  
                  
                  

                  replyreport
               2. 67

                  ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  are you marine in disguise?

                  replyreport
   5. 0

      Audacious Shelleyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "Everything is in a superposition until observed and the waves collapse to make the object observational."
      
      Number 1, I had never heard that Quantum Physics had placed that idea out there, and if it did, then it had to have been before the discovery that we are living in a multi-dimensional universe.
      
      Number 2, ideas, imagination, logic, and reason all exist within a dimension not easily observed except with the mind's eye.  Before the first equation was written, did numbers exist?  The answer is yes.  The numbers already existed before they were written in a 2-dimensional form.  Quantification existed before anyone (except God) knew that it existed.  Our minds have the ability to pull existing objects out of a dimension that is invisible and to bring it into a visible dimension.

      replyreport
   6. 51

      fallenangel666posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Cells like the genes they create are not conscious and are insular in their selfisheness, most biologists have abandoned the 'selfish gene' idea, You are confused in your assertion that the paradigm of physics has anything to do with our biological condition, physicists abandoned mechanical models in order to observe the quantum world, biologists should do the same as warranted by Augros and Staccui. If any scientists are open minded to the possibilities of our existence it is physicists, even mathematicicians. You are confusing cells with atoms and needlessly maligning physicists. This is a good example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous.

      replyreport
2. 58

   ediggityposted 14 years ago

   Quantum Physics does not say this at all, TruthDeabater does.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      What part am I wrong on? Thanks

      replyreport
3. 53

   TruthDebaterposted 14 years ago

   What do you think?

   replyreport
   1. 77

      psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      We think you need to study physics more.

      replyreport
      1. 53

         TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You are telling me to study when you don't think the micro applies to the macro? Seriously?

         replyreport
         1. 77

            psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Seriously.

            replyreport
            1. 53

               TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               So what creates reality and the objective? Why is the micro disturbed by observation and the macro isn't in your opinion?

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Because the very laws of physical work differently in these domains.

                  replyreport
                  1. 53

                     TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     How so?

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        You so clearly do not know what you are talking about that I guess you will be a religious troll then ?

                        replyreport
                        1. 53

                           TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           What do you mean, you are the ones acting religious. What part don't I know what i'm talking about? thanks

                           replyreport
                           1. 67

                              alternate poetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              the part between  'once upon a time'  and  'the end'

                              replyreport
                     2. 77

                        psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        For a start I can to be in only one place at a time.  Thus obsersational uncertain it provided with nothing to collapse.

                        replyreport
                        1. 53

                           TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           You can only be in one place at a time because you are consciously always observing. I think by always observing, you cause the collapse keeping you from being in two places at once. Maybe in death, we return to a superposition where we are in many places at once. What do you mean "thus observational uncertain it provided with nothing to collapse"? thanks

                           replyreport
4. 58

   ediggityposted 14 years ago

   Do some research on Quantum Physics and then re-evaluate your post.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You didn't list what part you believe I am wrong about. Thanks

      replyreport
      1. 77

         psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         All of it.

         replyreport
      2. 77

         psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         p.s. you haven't named a single physicist who would support your assertion yet?

         replyreport
         1. 53

            TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You sure?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               psycheskinnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               At the time I wrote it, yes.  Sure and correct.  But of we are not accepting linear time as an assumption of this conversation I don't see how this is going to work.

               replyreport
               1. 53

                  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  You sure? I wrote my response 24 minutes ago, you wrote yours 21 minutes ago, this means that I answered before you wrote the comment. thanks.

                  replyreport
5. 58

   ediggityposted 14 years ago

   Why does he have to be a "religious troll"?  What does that have to do with anything.  I'm a Christian and I don't agree with what he stated.

   replyreport
6. 61

   luvpassionposted 14 years ago

   I think David Bohm provides a clear account of how this incorrect 'particle' conception of matter or wave. The not real until observed not only causes harm to the Sciences, but also to the way we think and live, and thus to our very society and its future evolution.
   
   The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it.
   (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

   replyreport
   1. 53

      TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      In science, should it be theory that causes happy thoughts or theory that doesn't conform to things based on emotions? If it was based only on happy thoughts, it wouldn't be true.
      I am confused, quantum theory says we are all connected, Bohm says we are all connected, I think we are all connected. If Bohm agrees with quantum theory, why does he disagree with the part of quantum theory that says nothing exists until observation? Thanks.

      replyreport
7. 60

   watchyaposted 14 years ago

   No it doesn't

   replyreport
   1. 53

      TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Does it say we are all separate? Thanks

      replyreport
      1. 60

         watchyaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You asked if QPh makes sense. I replied to you.
         
         Does it say we're all separate?
         I don't think so.
         what do you think ?

         replyreport
         1. 53

            TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Quantum entaglement

            replyreport
            1. 60

               watchyaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               
               
               That's what Quantum is about

               replyreport
               1. 53

                  TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Entanglement is that we are connected, not separate. So quantum theory is saying we are all connected. I might be wrong, but I think i'm right. Thanks

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     no. but you can think that from studying it. quantum physics just explains the very different rules of particles to the things we see in classical physics

                     replyreport
                     1. 53

                        TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Quantum entanglement is part of quantum theory. It may not make absolute claims, but it does make strong suggestions. What is the main difference in quantum physics and classical physics? Thanks.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           watchyaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           BP : Before Planck ,Classical
                           AP : After Planck, Quantum

                           replyreport
                        2. 55

                           (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Classical physics looks at the Macro world, the world that we observe all around us and those effects we can measure. Quantum field theory takes us into the Micro world, where the events of the Macro world are broken down into their smallest parts; atoms, molecules, quarks, etc.

                           replyreport
                           1. 53

                              TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              That was very helpful and simplified, thank you. Do you think the micro applies to the macro and follows the same rules? If not, what is the main differences? Thanks.

                              replyreport
                              1. 55

                                 (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 The theories that apply to the Micro world have been married successfully to the Macro world, all except gravity. So far, there is no theory that marries Relativity to the Micro world, this is due to a variety of reasons. One big reason is that the effects of gravity are substantially less than the effects of the other forces, making it extremely difficult to undergo experimentation. A lot of mass is required for any cumulative effects to measure.
                                 
                                 Some camps have taken the purely mathematical approach and have come up with String Theory, while others continue to seek answers within gravity itself along the same lines as the theories that support the other forces.
                                 
                                 Personally, I have yet to grasp the mathematics of String Theory and cannot intelligently comment on them. One thing I do know about it is that experimentation is literally impossible and may never be accomplished due to the logistics. That said, we await further measuring technologies that may some day help to garner sufficient experimentation opportunities.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 58

                                    ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    lol Λ

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 55

                                       (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       Hi ediggity! Such a happy girl.

                                       report
                                       1. 58

                                          ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          I am happy, but all dude.
                                          
                                          

                                          report
                                 2. 53

                                    TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    Thank You Q. I am confused, how can we measure and develop theories on large objects in distant space, yet we can't measure our own gravity? I don't understand how gravities effects are weak when it holds everything in order. How can something so powerful be invisible and weak? If a lot of mass is required in measuring gravity, how did Newton measure it with an apple? Like you, I don't know much about string theory, so I won't even touch that one. You are very helpful,  Thanks.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 55

                                       (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       We can measure the gravity of earth and other large objects in space. And, since gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, our gravity measurement is 9.8 m/s/s.
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       Gravity is only powerful in huge quantities, like planets or moons, or stars. On smaller scales, it's effects are negligible.
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       He didn't, the example of the apple was merely the observation in which he based his hypothesis.
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       Anytime.

                                       report
                                    2. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       The smaller scale meaning the effect our observation causes to photons and electrons in trying to measure them?
                                       So how do we join the two in why our observation disturbs smaller objects and not the larger ones? Why would/is it different for one and not the other when one makes the other? I don't understand, isn't any scientific measurement an observation in which we base our hypothesis? thanks

                                       report
                                       1. 55

                                          (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          Absolutely, the very act of measuring a photon(s) collapses the function of the wave and the energy it carries. That energy is absorbed and the photon disappears. But, we have a measurement of it's energy, hence it's frequency.
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          We have photons which are massless and we have particles with mass. They are measured quite differently because of these properties and others that essentially differentiate fermions from bosons.

                                          report
                                    3. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       I thought I read something that said they are in a superposition in two or more places at once, then when observed, they become one and measurable, what do you mean they disappear?
                                       On the quantum level, wouldn't the massless have to construct the mass? thanks

                                       report
                                       1. 67

                                          ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          if you separate particles from the same atom they still spin in the same direction as if they were not parted at all. What this means is you're just stretching the fabric of space between them but not really separating them.
                                          
                                          and yes they have been observed to be present in two locations at the same time which created the notion of parallel universes that is now very commonly over utilized in science fiction

                                          report
                                       2. 55

                                          (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          I think what you may be referring to with entanglement is that when we observe the type of spin of an entangled pair, and we observe one of them, we already know what the spin will be for the other particle by default.
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          The energy in Photons gets absorbed when it hits something. For example, you can feel this energy absorption as thermal energy (heat) when you stand in the sun. The photon no longer exists once it has been absorbed. It disappears.
                                          
                                          
                                          
                                          I'm not sure what that means, perhaps you could rephrase the question.

                                          report
                                    4. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       The massless meaning little to no mass like the photon or atom. It takes the atoms to make mass showing things with little to no mass can construct objects with much mass. If it takes the small such as atoms to construct us and larger objects, doesn't this give evidence showing the unobservational constructing the observational or matter from nothing/massless? thanks

                                       report
                                       1. 55

                                          (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          Not really, massless particles do not construct other things with mass. Nothing added to nothing is still nothing.

                                          report
                                    5. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       That is hard to argue, but I wouldn't rule it out. How about gravity, isn't it massless particles that construct order and mass? thanks

                                       report
                                       1. 58

                                          ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          Dude, you can answer a lot of your own questions if you just take the time to go read a bit:
                                          
                                          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … nc.html#c2
                                          
                                          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … rk.html#c1
                                          
                                          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … arcon.html

                                          report
                                       2. 58

                                          ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … on.html#c1

                                          report
                                       3. 55

                                          (Q)posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          I think that question has been answered.

                                          report
                                    6. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       Since gravity exists throughout the universe, there is no such thing as empty space since space is made of matter and gravity? thanks

                                       report
                                       1. 58

                                          ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          That's correct, there is no such thing as a completely empty vacuum of space. But science "adjusts" and uses words like "negligible" to tailor their Theories in order for advancement.  Unless you truly understand each and every variable of what you are searching for (which no one does), you will never completely understand (which no one does again)

                                          report
                                    7. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       Is there anything the universe is more dependent on than gravity? thanks

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Audacious Shelleyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          The universe is more dependent on the existence of matter and anti-matter than it is on gravity.
                                          
                                          Because without mass, there is not gravity,
                                          
                                          and without matter/anti-matter, there is no mass.

                                          report
                                       2. 95

                                          Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          
                                          
                                          Everything is needed to make the universe the way it is, but the strong nuclear force is esssential. Without it atoms would not be able to hold together and therefore there would be nothing for gravity to work on.

                                          report
                                          1. 67

                                             ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                             the nuclear force is what creates the phenomenon of gravity in the first place because it occupies space.

                                             report
                                             1. 95

                                                Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                
                                                
                                                Not understanding you - but I'd like to My understanding is that the strong nuclear force only works at very short distances within atoms, so how does that create gravity?

                                                report
                                                1. 67

                                                   ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                   it makes the atoms coalesce and as they do this and acquire mass, the fabric of space is bent and then more mass fall onto the mass that gathered. gravity is a consequence of matter occupying space.
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   its like putting a bowling ball on a bed, put beads and the beads will fall in direction of the bowling bowl.
                                                   
                                                   or sink a giant ship and the little tow boats go down with it too. the force of the presence of large matter bends the fabric of space.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 95

                                                      Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                      
                                                      
                                                      Yes, I see what you mean. I thought you were saying that they had more than a causal relationship, despite being different forces.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 67

                                                         ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                         the way you put that made me think of dark matter and what it is. now i understand why its such holy grail. dark matter will link the two. nuclear forces created the space time continuum but exactly how is the big big question. wtf is it?

                                                         report
                                    8. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       Did nuclear forces create gravity or did gravity create the nuclear forces? Wouldn't it first take gravity in controlling of bringing nuclear forces together or keeping them separated? If gravity wasn't first extablished, it seems there would be no order in the forces. thanks

                                       report
                              2. 53

                                 TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yes, but without gravity dependency, how would the matter and anti-matter be controlled in coming together or staying separated? Is it not gravity that controls it's movements? Without gravity, how would mass ever come together in the first place? It seems like everything needs some sort of magnatism or gravity in bringing it together or keeping it separated. thanks

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 67

                                    ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    At the level of particles is where the weirdness is going on.
                                    like for instance.
                                    
                                    the stars are formed when the elements are stripped of their electron. the force that makes them attach, that make them pull things to themselves. the positive particle collides into another positive particle and that forms the stuff of stars. the massive weight of the stars bend the fabric of space like the presence of the bowling bowl on a bed. put beads there and they'll fall towards the bowling bowl and then we experience gravity. the endless pushing of stars and the constant falling of matter into their weight is what causes the orbits of planets.
                                    
                                    the never ending giving of energy make them spew out more energy that  then does that make them grow and grow and get heavier they get stuck together by the sheer weight of the presence in the fabric of spacetime. The pushing and pulling create stable systems like the solar system and the earth.
                                    
                                    The stars are paradoxes.
                                    
                                    the more you give the more your receive sort of paradox.
                                    
                                    the odd thing is this thing about stars, they evolved exactly the same way as life on earth evolved.
                                    
                                    as soon as the cells learned to organize membranes to separate it from the soup its swimming in, they were able to move counter stream. for some reason, they began forming communities that resulted in stable systems called life that increased and evolved into us. aware individuals talking about stars and cells. things we cannot even see with our naked eyes.
                                    
                                    makes you think.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 53

                                       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       It certainly does, very interesting. Thanks

                                       report
8. 72

   LeanManposted 14 years ago

   eeeerrrrr.... I think that's all i need to add...

   replyreport
9. 0

   Twenty One Daysposted 14 years ago

   Ceci, it could be all three, yet only one being focused on.
   The manifest is the optic of the united ray-wave sequence, from one of the many optic parameters.
   
   muon intersect hedron displays meson, etc etc.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      True, true.  the manifestation is a consequence of observation. so outside of observation nothing exists...meaning NOT DEFINABLE. as I have often described zero to be.

      replyreport
10. 60

    Originposted 14 years ago

    This also reminds me of...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
    
    
    
    ps. I don't condone killing cats, just saying!

    replyreport
    1. 67

       ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       how do you make that box? I can't ever make it.

       replyreport
11. 67

    ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

    and the thread is dead.

    replyreport
12. 67

    ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

    ehem

    replyreport
13. 95

    Susana Sposted 14 years ago

    That's a great theory and a great question. I think you're probably right. Let's hope the scientists get a move on in understanding dark matter, so they can tell us what it is.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Here's something I found:
       
       expressed by a co-inventor of super-string theory, Michael Greene:
       
       "In the theory of gravity, you can't really separate the structure of space and time from the particles which are associated with the force of gravity [ such as gravitons]. The notion of a string is inseparable from the space and time in which it moves.".

       replyreport
14. 67

    ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

    Nobel lauriat Steven Weinberg:
    
    "Space and time coordinates are just four out of many degrees of freedom we need, to specify a self-consistent theory. What we are going to have [in any future Theory of Everything] is not so much a new view of space and time, but a de-emphasis of space and time",

    replyreport
15. 67

    ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

    and to validate truth debater's preoccupation on gravity as the key to understanding everything:
    
    direct quote from Einstein:
    
    "Space-time does not claim existence in its own right, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field".

    replyreport
    1. 53

       TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks Cecilia, I took a chance when I wrote it knowing little about gravity. But I do know it's not coincidence that the greatest mind in our history is the greatest and most well known for a good reason, he picked the most important subject to understanding what governs and what we are most dependent on for life. It is also shown that the universe must attract or repel in order to maintain a balance, order, and design.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          ceciliabeltranposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Thank you too I learned so much from your questions! I was just telling my husband intelligence is not found in the answers but in the questions asked.

          replyreport
          1. 53

             TruthDebaterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Likewise Cecilia, Thank You.

             replyreport
16. 67

    ceciliabeltranposted 14 years ago

    From the left field, Joseph Campbell has a book titled:
    
    THE INNER REACHES OF OUTER SPACE, detailing that outer space is just a manifestation of our inner consciousness.
    
    when we gaze out into the cosmos, do we gaze at our own minds?
    when reason falls short, imagination kicks in.

    replyreport