I am happy for you, I really am — Sir2u

Thanks! I'm writing a book about it. There are a lot of areas in physics involved. There is a series of big bangs. The end of each expansion being the sign for a new one to occur behind it. There is no beginning. Just partial ones. But where does this eternity come from? It had to be created. The laws of nature are just to stupid to create themselves.

I would rather not insult you — Fooloso4

I rather won't rather insult you either. It's very simple. People holding a moral won't argue about that moral with you. Which means the moral is beyond dispute for them.

Once again no scientific explanation being available for something does not mean that there is not a scientific explanation for it. — Sir2u

I say if the final explanation is given. I have a final exllanation of matter and space. But do you think I know where the eternal universe comes from? No.

Does any evidence hint that nonlocal hidden variables can participate in some sort of collective or spiritual consciousness? — Enrique

That's a very good question! There is no evidence, but I think it does.

I think HV constitute space, and together with the particle they surround form a kind of basic unit of consciousness. Even the particle itself can be thought as made up of space. Though charges must have a place too.

Now you have to figure out what that means — Fooloso4

You can look that up!

From OL:

"clearly established or beyond dispute"

For those holding them it's undisputably true.

As I noted, the theory advocated here is not science. — T Clark

Not yet. And at least he tries.

There are only a few fine-tunings. These are the four coupling strengths of particles. If these are eternal and fixed, there is no explanation needed for their values. They form a logical ensemble to produce massive triplets at the ultra small scale (somewhere between $10^{-22}$ and math]10^{-35}[/math] meter), massive hadrons on a larger scale, and structures evolving in the realm of infinity.

There is no science that says either of these have anything to do with consciousness. — T Clark

There is no science that it doesn't either. In fact, the very theory advocated here says it does.

There is no science that says there is any connection between quantum entanglement and relativistic behavior — T Clark

Well, a fast moving object sees two entangled electron spins collapse one after another when measured simultaneously in the rest frame. But relativity doesn't cause the entanglement.

No moral theory yields unequivocally or apodictically correct answers. — Fooloso4

All moral theories yield apodictically correct answers for the ones holding them.

If you think that if an act having bad consequence is a bad act, then the act is apodictically bad.

Why do you think entanglement has a place in collective neuron currents? Entanglement has no causal power.

I'm not sure what relativity has to do with this.

has progress been made on identifying mechanisms of entanglement and contrasting them with the theoretical dynamics of an extremely fast-moving object within a relativistic reference frame? — Enrique

Non-local hidden variables offer an explanation for entanglement. They can create a correlation between, say, electron spins lightyears apart, or, say, the positions of a single particle within the bounds of a wavefunction.

Philosophers use reasoned argument to try and figure out what's what — Bartricks

A typical empty-head answer of a typical empty head person living in a typical empty head world making argument sound important because he/she thinks philosophy is all about boring arguments. Though "thinks" is too much an appraisal for automated, vapid, and vacuous processes you involve yourself in. You're not doing philosophy. You are wallowing in unreachable dreams of omnipotence while in fact being omni-impotent. Dream on brother/sister...

My arguments start from squawks. Your arguments are vacuous, containing no flesh. Only by assuming a holy triad squawk an argument makes sense. The argument is just an overvalued aid but I can see why it makes sense to you. It's all you value. You like having arguments. I prefer talking.

Yeah, being omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient makes one omni-impotent, omni-absent, omni-malevolent, and omni-ignorant. Those omnigods have got it all!

Can that which is omnipotent and has free will, kill itself? — universeness

I asked the same question! Can an omnipotent god kill himself? Yes! I wouldn't be surprised if he's done that already!

:rofl:

String theory, despite its 10 dimensions, offers one teeny weeny string only. I offer fully blown geometrical structures. Like Scottish malt bottles! Still virtual but if we couple to them they get very real!

That's why it's called virtual. We obviously cant observe it. Which doesn't mean its not happening. The most important stuff happens in the dark...

to buy all the single malt whisky's I will need to keep the jokes flowing! — universeness

:lol:

Can you imagine?

It's a deal! By that time you will be able to buy all the single malt whisky's I will need to keep the jokes flowing! — universeness

I guarantee you Ill take you with me! When the going gets tough you can joke me out!

But there is only one horizontal line in the diagram. — universeness

Exactly. That's the virtual electron. There is no virtual photon (though you could see the two real photons as one long lived virtual photon). That would be the case for two electrons.

You could consider the electron and positron as one long lived virtual electron. Just connect the lines to form a closed line (which represents a vacuum bubble).

It's sure though that sexuality lays at the foundation of woman hate. What else? They are the different sex. Like we are too.

Yeah, I realized. Still, 1 in 5000... That's 60 000 per year.

We have to put humanity in an orgone accumulator!

The graph says 120 per 100 000. 180 even. That's about 1 in 500!

Ooob. It's 12.0

I'm working on it... And when I'm on TV I'll let you come with me. As the co-founder of the new physics. (I'm afraid of cameras, but we cant tellem that!). Dont worry, Ill do the physics talks! You can make jokes!

Can't you see from the diagram no virtual photon is involved? Virtual particles are the horizontal lines in the diagram, representing two time ordered states. A wiggly line is a photon (like the two externals) and a straight line an electron. In the middle, betwe4the two vertices, there is an electron. The electron goes round in a circle in spacetime.

I think I have figured it out already. There are no strings. Only closed geometric structures to contain the three basic charges. How does a string vibrate? It easier than they make you think universeness!

But he writes:

"For instance, when an electron interacts with a positron, it seems like a collision in the lab frame, but in reality it is an electromagnetic interaction (mediated by an exchange of a virtual photon) between the two particles in their COM frame, resulting into emission of two anti-parallel (real) photons. Find appended below a figure of the interaction shown with the help of a Feynman diagram."

This is not happening.

One in 1000 mans kill themselves in the US? Djee, what kind of country is that?

Wilhelm Reich says the same. Restricted sexuality gives birth to worlds of terror.

Where can you see the suicides in the graphic?

At the moment, I am most attracted to the posit that it's a multidimensional string vibration.
If I was going to bet, I would bet on some future version of string theory as being the correct one for the fundamental quanta of the Universe. — universeness

The problem with string vibration is that no mechanism for the vibrating string is given. It just states the string vibrates.

Look at the diagram the "professor" has shown. The electron and positron can be connected on the downside. This represents a virtual electron that is long-lived (a real electron and positron). Connect the two curly photon lines: a virtual photon that is long lived! Stimulated by the long lived virtual electron.

The professor in your example, gave a wrong explanation for the Feynman diagram shown. I doubt the good man is a professor! There is no virtual photon involved. Only a virtual electron. The real electron and positron turn back to a virtual electron and a virtual photon gets real (two photons,)

Look what he writes:

but in reality it is an electromagnetic interaction (mediated by an exchange of a virtual photon

Not true.

So, what is a quantum? It's just a bunch, a bundle of particle trajectories and the wavefunction is the temporary crossection. If the wavefunction evolves in time, the particle hops between all these paths constantly, with a speed such that it seems smeared out. If the wavefunction is stationary (like in the ground state of hydrogen), the particle hops around without velocity.

I think that to fully understand the details of your hypothesis, I would need a much higher grasp of the fundamentals of Quantum physics than I currently have. — universeness

The basics is easy. Particles do not behave like macroscopic objects but they are the same nonetheless. They hop between an infinity of possible paths. That's the different behavior. But they are just like a rock, concentrated pieces of mass, which are concentrated piece of three massless pieces pure kinetic energy, loaded with three kinds of charge, which give you massive particles like quarks, leptons, and Higgs particles. The three massless preons have to be different from pointlike structures to interact. QFT can assume them pointlike and still get interaction (coupling to the virtual field, as in the Feynman diagram) but it needs renormalisation to do so. The particles themselves are assigned unobservable and unphysical infinities to accomplish this. Give them a small geometrically induced extension and they can hit one another, keep the Planck length Lorenz invariant (same in each inertial frame), and won't need renormalization. Three hits in one!