From the ask a physicist site:
It seems strange to abandon the idea of rotation when talking about angular momentum, but there it is. Somehow particles have angular momentum, in almost every important sense, even acting like a gyroscope, but without doing all of the usual rotating. Instead, a particle’s angular momentum is just another property that it has, like charge or mass. Physicists use the word “spin” or “intrinsic spin” to distinguish the angular momentum that particles “just kinda have” from the regular angular momentum of physically rotating things — universeness

That's not the rotation I talk about. You refer to spin. That's something different. The spin can be described by Planck spheres rotating. A small, non pointlike charge distribution creates magnetic moment.

The same can be said for the musings of the DIMP guy, the mobius strip/klein bottle guy and you, the 4d torus guy. — universeness

The difference being, that the 6d spacetime with 3d Planck spheres offers more explanations. It's no torus, by the way...

Yes, I can taste the sweet candy you offer here, but I have experienced a lot of times that the musings of de rechter are based on custom and pre-established norms of conduct. De rechter kan behoorlijk krom zijn! Ook al zegt zuj rechter te zijn dan recht (supposing you are Dutch).

Why?
The flexible paper circle on the surface of the pipe can also rotate(spin) as well as move in 4 directions — universeness

Like I said, for the bulk motion only one component matters, like the 3 for tiny Planck spheres. The rotation degree of freedom has only implications for spin, not for motion in the large dimension. Just imagine you're a small circle on the cylinder, or a tiny Planck sphere on the 6d space. Its fun!

I know, which is why science uses modeling to hypothesize but that doesn't make virtual particles real or bring Calabi-Yau manifolds/strings/branes/10 dimensions onto existence. Such may exist in reality we don't know yet. — universeness

Yes, but some things are obviously just math, without a counterpart in reality. Such a thing is string theory. Just consider its early incarnation 5d Kaluza-Klein theory. Non-quantum but inconsistent. Radion fields dont exist. Like many inventions, if not all, in string theory.

As I suggested before 'virtual' means not real — universeness

No. You said undetectable means not real. Which is the question. What the math in qft describes are litterally particles rotating in spacetime with an infinity of independent momenta and energies.

If you place a circular piece of paper on the surface of a pipe (cylinder) then you can slide it around in 2d. 4 directions, forwards, backwards, left and right. — universeness

But it's the motion in the large dimension that counts. The circle might rotate around the cylinder and that can be interpreted as spin in the 3d case.

The brain of a fruit fly is insignificant, and yet this primitive need for dominance still exists. It is a powerful drive in almost every living creature. In fact, I want to ask what was your motivation when you wrote your reply? Read it again. Was it done to educate me? Reach out and connect with me? No. You did it to for status. To ridicule me and put yourself on top — Philosophim

Well, that's probably my deeply hidden fruitfly brain part talking then. The part beneath the olfactory lizzard part. I smell powerful tendencies here... :smile:

This does not help. You can't see anything with a Planck radius, even with our most powerful microscopes and you cant have a circle in 1d. — universeness

Can't you imagine a thin cylinder? We can't see a Calabi-Yau manifold either. Or even a 26d variation of it. Or branes. Or vibrating strings.

This does not help. You can't see anything with a Planck radius, even with our most powerful microscopes and you cant have a circle in 1d. — universeness

Which doesn't mean that particles are no 3d Planck volumes, looking pointlike from 3 directions. If you're a rigid 1d circle, a circle, on a thin cylinder, you can only move forward or backwards, not around it. If you meet another circle, your distance to it is not zero, though you can't get closer.

From a physicist:
Particles are not like billiard balls; they don't have a well-defined "surface" that could "touch" another particle. Instead, they are described by waves, which are extended — universeness

Yes. The standard view. How then can they couple to a field of virtual gauge particles?

You are using inaccurate terminology. A circle has an inner 2d space. Its curvature or circumference can be parametised to 1d but a CIRCLE is on a 2d plane — universeness

Yes. But if the circle is wrapped around the cylinder it can only move along the cylinder axis. Which means one dimension.

As I typed then, as good as the god posit and more rational and more likely. — universeness

If a "Mindless Spark" created the universe and the creatures in it in it's own image, then the atheist is the living proof!

What else than gods can be concluded after the gaps are closed (if you wanna use God as a god of the gaps, which isn't necessarily the case)?

Not yet. I only see it now! But all things involving QM are interesting. As a physicist I've aways questioned the standard offer in the two fat Cohen-Tannoudji books, interesting their offered story is, and the same can be said about Ryder's QFT book. Griffiths' introduction to elementary particles is vividly written, with fun and anecdote and a lot of prose besides the math, but it still sticks to the standard. I still wonder why David Bohm's take on QM is put aside. In my opinion it's the only viable approach to QM. So, in honor of Bohm (and his holographic universe), a video for you! I watch yours if you watch mine! :smile:

You say that you have a solution about the mystery of the universe and life. How can you demonstrate its indeed a solution(not just a claim) and how can you verify the supernatural nature of it. — Nickolasgaspar

If my model offers an observable and adequate prediction the model is justified. The model can't go deeper than the only thing to conclude is that divine powers have transformed the model in a real tangible universe, like the magician pulls the rabid rabbit out of his hat, but without the magician's trickery.

It is the measurement that collapses the wave function, no consciousness necessary — ArmChairPhilosopher

In the standard interpretation it is the conscious observer who collapses the wavefunction. Only hidden variables offer objective collapse.

Have we ever solved a mystery that was caused by a verified supernatural agent/cause? — Nickolasgaspar

We, or me at least, have solved the mystery of the universe and life in it they created.

ITs 2022....and we still argue against logical fallacies and supernaturalism. This is really sad. — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed! Why not just acknowledging that the supernatural is just as valid as the natural? :up:

About 2145.

Humanities natural state when given free reign is to wage war, kill each other, dominate each other, and have someone come out on top that seeks to control everyone else — Philosophim

My dear gracious good god... Where did you grow up? Ah, of course...you're a philosopher!

Sorry, I had you for a run of the mill apologist... — Tom Storm

:chin:

Not everyone agrees on that...

Then what's the story? Objects following imaginary mathematical patterns, no where to be seen in the real world? Apart from highly artificial, unnatural experimental circumstances? The Books deceive...

Arguments are fucking boring! Who likes to argue? Instead, the reader likes juicy real-life examples and weird abstractions, presented in page-turning format. You gotta lure the reader into temptation and wonder, instead of making him yawn because if knowing where the story goes already after the first 10 pages (which would be a great bedtime story! It has it merit!).

It is also based on case law, codified law, treaties and some say legal principles, but that is debated — Tobias

Well, I asked if modern day law is not based on habit and custom just as well. You replied it's based on case law, codyfied law, treatise, and legal principles. So law is based on codified law? Isn't that circular?

No. It is also based on case law, codified law, treaties and some say legal principles, but that is debated. I know you mean something deeper with your question, but that to me, as the lawyer I am now in this discussion, is meaningles. the source thesis is also a technical aspect of and within law. — Tobias

So the law accepts objective measures of moral, independent of human interest?

You've nothing to contribute, Hilary. — Bartricks

On the contrary! I have much to contribute! At t1 the baby is still a part of mamma. At t2 the baby is free. The baby has self caused freedom.

So set X=freedom. No X at t1, X at t2, X came into existence by self causation. A real-life example, so not about zebras appearing in my room.

Take your reader by the hand and imagine her/him to be a friend. Once in a while address him/her as "dear reader". Make them part of the story, let them feel the cold, see the colors, understand the theories you use, meet the gods you describe, feel the struggle, and experience the storm and lightning. Give them a book that absorbs them and leaves left of the.a puddle of water only.

Something most think impossible has been demonstrated to be possible. — Bartricks

It happens continuously around you.

Relevance? — Bartricks

I confirm what you state! Time 1, no X, time 2, X. Simultaneously causation. X causes and effects itself. But what's the relevance?

Read the OP. Try and understand the argument. You will fail. But if or when you succeed, try and address it — Bartricks

Your argument is CORRECT! t1, nothing...t2, X. Now what?

OP. Read it. Address it. — Bartricks

Your OP has been addressed a 1000 times. What more is there to say? It can happen. As simple as that! Jesus!

Unless X has an Y preceding it it can't come into existence because you can imagine it.
— Hillary

Just obviously question begging. Read the op and address the argument. — Bartricks

Like I said, in the imagination everything can happen. Nothing....FLASH...something. Not so difficult. What point you want to make? X can appear where there was no X before. So?

Very informative is the dialog. It explicates the process of idea development and emphasizes the critique.

It seems to me we have to see causality as linear although this is a habit of mind. Linear causality seems like a masculine, almost phallic, concept of power over potentiality. — Gregory

Do you favor circular causality, feminine, almost, vaginac?

Always thought you might be one of the million monkeys. How's Hamlet coming along? — Wayfarer

:lol:

AS seems the undertaker of philosophy while burying the undertaker at the same time. A strange ying and yang Ouroboros, committing philosophical suicide while pulling himself out of the swamp by his own hairs! An unfathomable clown, always having the last laugh. The new age philosopher, a welcome star, eternally falling brightly, but when we stand on our hands, he's actually shooting upwards!

But maybe we're all just juvenile chimps... :lol:

When you drop an apple, you don't see it fall in a book. These Books just try to tell the story of what happens in the world. — hypericin

You consider them holey books? Anyhow, if they try to tell the story of what happens in the world you can better read a newspaper.

The Sun is made of baryonic matter. Whatever dark matter is made of, it's not made of baryons. — 180 Proof

The sun is also made of electrons. It would be a huge proton! Imagine that! Who says dark matter is not made of them too? Condensed in small black holes?

Is there left and right philosophy? Absolutism vs. Relativism? One objective reality vs. many?

Sustainable economy vs. economical growth?

The scientific method vs. Against method?