Reality doesn't exist if you don't look at it

[Occult1]

Of course there are animals, and I'm sure they vary greatly throughout the universe just like they vary on earth. Animals have differing levels of intelligence. But humans... humans are special. The universe and all that dwell therein were created FOR humans.

I did not speak of animals but of extraterrestrial beings, in the same category of 'intelligence' as humans or above. A being which has the same level of awareness is to be treated as an equal. 'Animals' implies an inferiority. There exists very much a possibility for advanced Alien civilizations elsewhere in the Universe.

It just seems incredibly selfish to think of humans as sitting at the apex of Creation, where everything revolve around us.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Phenix20

[robinrenee]

I did not speak of animals but of extraterrestrial beings, in the same category of 'intelligence' as humans or above. A being which has the same level of awareness is to be treated as an equal. 'Animals' implies an inferiority. There exists very much a possibility for advanced Alien civilizations elsewhere in the Universe.

It just seems incredibly selfish to think of humans as sitting at the apex of Creation, where everything revolve around us.

Phenix20, there are extraterrestrial beings (aliens, if you prefer). Those extraterrestrial beings are humans. They have rational souls just like we do. They have the same level of awareness, and they are our equals. Human is the highest level of consciousness in the universe, and we are sprinkled all over the universe on planets capable of supporting life.

Humans on other planets look quite different. Our appearance is dictated by the composition of our planet.

Here's another quote from the Baha'i scriptures.

"There are other worlds than this one which are inhabited by beings capable of knowing God."

Lights of Divine Guidance, Vol. 2, page 82.

[XenoFish]

I think therefore I am. Does that mean I am a thought? A thought-being that only exist if I am perceived by others. Since the results of my actions can be detected by those that have never met me. I exist to them as an idea or a conceptual being, unless I become a reality to them.

[Rlyeh]

Actually I got that from the scriptures of the Baha'i religion... the only religion that I know of that answers questions like that. I happen to think it makes sense. This is one of many quotes about human life on other planets.

"Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute."

... from "Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah" p. 162.

Fantasy in another words. However the quote doesn't say human life on other planets.

I think people like Rlyeh, who meticulously search for trivia like that, must be very bored with their lives.

But not that bored I have to make up garbage about humans in the Andromeda Galaxy. Edited June 27, 2015 by Rlyeh

[Harte]

But not that bored I have to make up garbage about humans in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Well, it's perfectly logical.

Andromeda Galaxy:

Andromeda:

Otherwise, where did the Andromedans get their name?

Harte

[Occult1]

Phenix20, there are extraterrestrial beings (aliens, if you prefer). Those extraterrestrial beings are humans. They have rational souls just like we do. They have the same level of awareness, and they are our equals. Human is the highest level of consciousness in the universe, and we are sprinkled all over the universe on planets capable of supporting life.

''Humans'' is simply a name we have given to our own specy of homo sapiens.

Somehow I don't think our specy necesserely possess the highest level of consciousness in the Universe. I have no reason to believe that.

There could be older, more advanced life forms elsewhere in the Universe. Our solar system is quite young, after all.

Here's another quote from the Baha'i scriptures.

"There are other worlds than this one which are inhabited by beings capable of knowing God."

Lights of Divine Guidance, Vol. 2, page 82.

Nice quote.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Phenix20

[robinrenee]

''Humans'' is simply a name we have given to our own specy of homo sapiens.

True...

Somehow I don't think our specy necesserely possess the highest level of consciousness in the Universe. I have no reason to believe that.

I believe that Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i religion has the credentials to make that statement.

There could be older, more advanced life forms elsewhere in the Universe. Our solar system is quite young, after all.

I believe that older does not necessarily mean better. All civilizations go though (metaphorically) spring, summer, fall, and winter. And then they collapse.

Right now, this world civilization on earth is in its "springtime." As our civilization matures, we will see great technological advances and advances in the world citizens' well-being in ALL facets of life: health, education, work satisfaction, leisure, travel, entertainment, etc. That happens in the "summertime" of a civilization's existence. There ARE "other worlds" experiencing their summertime all over the universe.

[darantus-girl-]

Gotcha .... I think... That means that the nucleus can be measured, but the electrons cannot?

Wait a minute. Electrons can be measured too. http://phys.org/news...ctron-mass.html

So, technically, neither is "infinitely" tiny. They're just tiny.

Point particles? What evidence do you have that they are point particles?

First of all this whole idea of reality doesn't exist until measured is totally wrong and BS...

there are no particles http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0807/0807.3930.pdf

and this solves everything

particle physics is dead

[Harte]

Electrons, and several other particles (excuse the term) have zero volume when considered as a particle (as opposed to a wave.) Technically, they're called "point-like" particles, because it's not understood exactly how a model of a particle with no volume can be described.

Point particles are much more bizarre and are sometimes said to have zero size. This statement has raised more than one eyebrow. How can something have no size at all? And if it has mass, does the zero size mean it has infinite density? (And by the way, as you read on, you’ll see the answer to that last one is no.) You begin to see why some people are skeptical when a scientist says a particle is point-like.

Yet there is a sense in which it’s true. So how can that be?

Let’s start with the easiest point-like particle we know, the electron. Assume it has zero size. Although we know that the quantum realm differs from the familiar world, in which things are measured in inches and feet, we can still get a reasonable mental image of what happens as we imagine looking at an electron with a perfect microscope. To begin with, since it has zero size, you can never actually see the electron itself.

Source

There is no radius to an electron - no size at all.

Same for the other leptons.

This is a mathematical artifact, as your paper points out.

But the paper you linked is just playing with the math as well.

That is, it's obvious that a thing can't be both a particle and a wave, which is the thrust of the linked pdf.

However, both particle and wave are only mathematical models - and extremely successful ones, so I think it's not out of bounds to use either, regardless of what your linked source says about it.

Harte

[sepulchrave]

The preprint that daramantus linked to is rather bizarre.

Electrons, photons, muons, neutrinos, etc. are obviously different things, so the physics community uses the word ``particles'' to describe them.

In quantum mechanics, ``particles'' and ``waves'' are the names given to elements from two orthogonal basis sets (dirac delta functions and complex exponentials in real space, complex exponentials and dirac delta functions in momentum space, respectively) often used to describe the wavefunction.

The use of the word ``particle'' for both situations is perhaps sloppy language, but I would be very surprised if many practicing physicists were often confused by it.

Of course the field of particle physics is completely dominated by quantum mechanics - just look into any textbook on the subject. And of course when discussing this field, perfect localization of the wavefunction in a known position is almost never done and is usually practically impossible. The term ``particle'' is not used as a descriptor for the mathematical form of a wavefunction (it is not a dirac delta function in real space), rather as a way of labeling the different wavefunctions from different objects.

On the other hand, at high energies (as is used in particle physics) the de Broglie wavelength of any ``particle'' with non-zero mass is vanishingly small, so the using the word ``particle'' to reflect both a label for the type of object and as a descriptor of the wavefunction is appropriate.

However in regards to the original argument, I think one might as well argue that ``particle physics is dead'' (or, indeed, ``all of physics is dead'') because there is only one wavefunction for the entire Universe, and in theory we can never perfectly study any single part of the Universe without interference from all the other parts. This argument is foolishly pedantic, because we can - quite easily - conduct experiments in which the interference from the ``rest of the Universe'' is negligible.

---------------------------

In regards to the term ``point particles'', I always like the definition that a point particle has no internal structure. Whenever you try to measure a point particle, that point particle will always act as if it is smaller than your measuring device. In contrast, a ``composite particle'' like a proton has some internal structure (the quarks); under some types of measurement the proton will be larger than your measuring device.

In this context, ``measuring devices'' typically mean other ``particles'' accelerated to high speeds; not the entire measurement apparatus (which is always very large compared to a single particle!). The de Broglie wavelength of the accelerated particle can be used as an estimate of the size of the measuring device.

[darantus-girl-]

On 01/07/2015 at 12:41 AM, sepulchrave said:

The preprint that daramantus linked to is rather bizarre.

Electrons, photons, muons, neutrinos, etc. are obviously different things, so the physics community uses the word ``particles'' to describe them.

In quantum mechanics, ``particles'' and ``waves'' are the names given to elements from two orthogonal basis sets (dirac delta functions and complex exponentials in real space, complex exponentials and dirac delta functions in momentum space, respectively) often used to describe the wavefunction.

The use of the word ``particle'' for both situations is perhaps sloppy language, but I would be very surprised if many practicing physicists were often confused by it.

Of course the field of particle physics is completely dominated by quantum mechanics - just look into any textbook on the subject. And of course when discussing this field, perfect localization of the wavefunction in a known position is almost never done and is usually practically impossible. The term ``particle'' is not used as a descriptor for the mathematical form of a wavefunction (it is not a dirac delta function in real space), rather as a way of labeling the different wavefunctions from different objects.

On the other hand, at high energies (as is used in particle physics) the de Broglie wavelength of any ``particle'' with non-zero mass is vanishingly small, so the using the word ``particle'' to reflect both a label for the type of object and as a descriptor of the wavefunction is appropriate.

However in regards to the original argument, I think one might as well argue that ``particle physics is dead'' (or, indeed, ``all of physics is dead'') because there is only one wavefunction for the entire Universe, and in theory we can never perfectly study any single part of the Universe without interference from all the other parts. This argument is foolishly pedantic, because we can - quite easily - conduct experiments in which the interference from the ``rest of the Universe'' is negligible.

---------------------------

In regards to the term ``point particles'', I always like the definition that a point particle has no internal structure. Whenever you try to measure a point particle, that point particle will always act as if it is smaller than your measuring device. In contrast, a ``composite particle'' like a proton has some internal structure (the quarks); under some types of measurement the proton will be larger than your measuring device.

In this context, ``measuring devices'' typically mean other ``particles'' accelerated to high speeds; not the entire measurement apparatus (which is always very large compared to a single particle!). The de Broglie wavelength of the accelerated particle can be used as an estimate of the size of the measuring device.

No, there is not only "one wave function". cut out the "one", there is no "one" anything.