Back
Forum Replies Created
-
I don’t think that observation “collapses” the wave; rather. Why? Because there are probabilities only before the observation. How do we come up with these probabilities? We “collapse” plenty of waves. It just so happens that T1 (Trial 1) when we collapse the wave, the particle is seen to be in place 1; the second time, T2, it’s seen in place 2, etc. We’re still seeing only one part of “reality;” we’re seeing only the collapse of the wave at that particular trial.
Yes, they should. “How” is a totally different ballgame. Science like almost everything else is highly political. My suggestion is to get the politics out of it (probably impossible) and look at everything with a fresh eye. Since this isn’t likely to happen, I don’t see a way foreward. Veru sad.
Perhaps this is the answer, Patrick. The universe is moving outward from the place of the Big Bang. This means that the place of the Big Bang is the center of the universe. Since this almost by definition is not within the confines of the visible universe, we’ll never get to see it and, therefore, for us it doesn’t exist. Everything that we can see is moving away from everything else; what lies beyond that is something that’s never discussed.
Not at all! The cosmos is a huge place and there’s much to be learned. We’ve come a long way; we have a long way to go.
Look at it this way:
If research had been done as much on the 96% as on the 4%, that would have taken away from the 4%. Scientists are studying what’s out there. There are just so many of them and just so much time they and their graduate students and their post-docs each has. The pie has to be divided. If they have X amount of time to spend, it’s going to be divvied up and we’re going to have the same, total amount of research done no matter on what it’s done.
I think, Ram Say, that Prof. Greene would say that “…the most extreme event which theologians would attribute to a miracle of God has been captured by the extreme probability of occurence [sic]” isn’t quite right; I think he’d say that the extreme event has to adhere to the laws of physics as we know them. Your thoughts?