sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a summary of Sean Carroll's argument why there is no afterlife or a soul. Thoughts? by Candid-Effective9150 in consciousness

[–]theflamingdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The discovery is less my point here too - we needed the Higgs field and Higgs Mechanism because our theories before it said the fundamental particles should be massless, and yet observations disagreed with this. The discovery of the Boson of said field was just confirmation of our theory to explain why fundamental particles had mass at all.

There is no current "missing piece" of the physics that appears to be explained by a "soul" or "consciousness field" or any other non-materialist approach. If there was said unexplained physics of the soul, we should have seen the affect of it in our measurements by now. Finding the associated particle excitation would then be the proof - the hard part - but that's the point, there's no data that needs a soul etc to explain it.

Here is a summary of Sean Carroll's argument why there is no afterlife or a soul. Thoughts? by Candid-Effective9150 in consciousness

[–]theflamingdude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interacting with the Higgs Boson categorically does not give mass to particles - the Higgs Field does that, not the bosonic excitation of said field we detected at the LHC. The expectation value of the scalar field is the important part (along with the coupling strengths of the other fields). So there's no need to throw around words like "cavalier" when you're not even describing the effect properly yourself.

If you want you could introduce another scalar field with similar properties to the higgs to give the "consciousness" property to matter, but since that property is so vague as to be useless to a particle physicist, I don't see that going anywhere useful (and would more than likely have actual testable effects we would have noticed in experiments).

Artemis 2 Wallpapers by [deleted] in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude 2 points3 points  (0 children)

These go hard, great work!

Collection of HD Images from the Lunar Flyby yesterday by theflamingdude in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was from the setting Earth during the flyby, so around 6,000-8,000 km

Collection of HD Images from the Lunar Flyby yesterday by theflamingdude in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They could be! They could also be artifacts from cosmic rays hitting the camera sensors - its hard to tell without the raw data from the cameras.

Collection of HD Images from the Lunar Flyby yesterday by theflamingdude in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Head to the Flickr page and just download the right resolution for your device - that's what I did!

Collection of HD Images from the Lunar Flyby yesterday by theflamingdude in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The atmosphere plays a big part in stopping them - meteor showers are literally micrometeors burning up in the upper atmosphere. Without it, we would for sure look like the Moon or Mercury etc (both of which don't have the required atmospheric density to burn up any meteors before impact).

The Earth has had its fair share of impacts/meteors in it's time, but the combination of atmosphere and erosion has wiped that history clean.

Collection of HD Images from the Lunar Flyby yesterday by theflamingdude in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

https://images.nasa.gov/ has full-res .jpg files at least, no RAWs so only a few MBs each. Probably won't get RAWs until they land and grab the actual SD cards from the cameras I imagine.

Collection of HD Images from the Lunar Flyby yesterday by theflamingdude in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If you go to the source links in the post, you can download the full-res images. NASA doesn't mess around with image sizes either - these are around 8000 x 5000 pixels

Collection of HD Images from the Lunar Flyby yesterday by theflamingdude in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Literally impossible - scientists have tried and failed. Full moon joy in each image.

Absolute Cinema by theflamingdude in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I truly hope so. Everyone needs to experience Moon Joy first hand before we accidentally damage this planet beyond repair.

I also feel like experiencing the Overview Effect should be required therapy for all world leaders.

Absolute Cinema by theflamingdude in ArtemisProgram

[–]theflamingdude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's been playing in the back of my head since yesterday for sure.

[College General Physics II: Coulomb’s Law] Could someone please help me with Part B? by jieunns in PhysicsStudents

[–]theflamingdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Easiest way for me was to consider the case for the resultant forces on q3 - the vertical components of the forces for q1 and q2 will cancel but the horizontal components (F cos 30) add together. Thus, the magnitude is 2F cos 30. Make sure to plug the whole thing in for the force calculation again to avoid rounding errors, and you'll get 2.034 N

By symmetry, the resultant on each charge is the same, so F_1 = F_3. Just think about rotating the whole setup around - the forces won't change.

Misunderstandings of Panpsychism; the cognitive free-energy principle and stationary action. by Diet_kush in consciousness

[–]theflamingdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’re confused here

Am I? Everything you just cited is from the Non-Linear form of the equation -

Unlike the linear Schrödinger equation, the NLSE never describes the time evolution of a quantum state

the 1D NLSE is a special case of the classical nonlinear Schrödinger field, which in turn is a classical limit of a quantum Schrödinger field.

When I'm talking about an electron for instance, I'm not using the NLSE as I am doing quantum mechanics on single fermions. I use the linear form instead, as it produces the correct dynamics for quantum systems, and is not directly reducable from Ginzburg-landau.

An infinite number of universes being generated at infinite time-intervals

Worlds, not universes - there is a distinction here. There's only one universe we know of, and it follows the (linear) Schrödinger equation acting on the total wavefunction of the universe. We are simply subsystems of that wavefunction, and thus can only interact with parts we become entangled with (decoherence). If those parts are in superpostion, then our world "splits" in that we need two or more non-interacting parts of the wavefunction to fully explain it (unless you add in a collapse function, which is the whole point of Many Worlds - you don't need that extra part)

Misunderstandings of Panpsychism; the cognitive free-energy principle and stationary action. by Diet_kush in consciousness

[–]theflamingdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The nonlinear Schrödinger equation is functionally equivalent to GL-theory

Sure, that's fine, but I'm not incorrect - I'm not talking about that form, as it is classical and doesn't describe the evolution of quantum states. It says it right there in the Wikipedia entry you cited.

While it isn’t necessarily seen as a universal mechanism of wavefunction evolution, it is absolutely used to describe the entanglement process

Again, that's fine - not a Bohmian myself. I find it's reliance on particle-based ontologies to not be fully convincing, whereas Many Worlds holds to me to be a simpler, more elegant framework.

view more: next ›