From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Mon, 01 May 2006 23:54:54 +0000, John D wrote:   
      
   > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   > news:pan.2006.05.01.11.36.41.668329@edenroad.demon.co.uk...   
   >> On Mon, 01 May 2006 11:01:08 +0000, John D wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Why should belief make any difference? There are any number of people   
   >> with deeply held beliefs which turned out to be false.  If belief was   
   >> all it took to change reality, things would be a lot more fluid than   
   >> they are.   
   >>   
   > Why should belief make any difference? Brain washing...   
      
   Uh, no.  I'm happy to accept that changing someone's beliefs could change   
   their "personal" reality; but not that simple belief can affect objective   
   reality; which is was we were talking about, wasn't it?   
      
   >>>> They don't.  It's true that "empty" space is full of "virtual"   
   >>>> particles, which flicker in and out of existence before the universe   
   >>>> really notices they are there, but your ordinary "solid" matter is   
   >>>> just that.  ("solid" here has the traditional meaning of "being mostly   
   >>>> empty" ;-)   
   >>>   
   >>> Years ago, scientists found that electrons are not always where they   
   >>> are supposed to be.   
   >>   
   >> Are you talking about the fact that electrons are small enough that   
   >> their wave equation is bigger than they are, so that their location can   
   >> only be accurately described in terms of probability?   
   >   
   > Probability is correct.   
      
   Ooookaaaay, I thing we've established that we're talking about the same   
   thing here.   
      
   The fact that the position of the electon is most accurately described by   
   the Schrodinger equations is one of the more unintuitive aspects of QP;   
   (and it has some surprising consequences at atomic scales), but it's not a   
   recipe for chaos in the macroscopic world - the uncertainty in the   
   position of, for example, a football at room temperature is less that the   
   width of a hydrogen atom.   
      
   >>> Sometimes they are in the "wrong" valence, sometimes they are not in   
   >>> this dimension.   
   >>   
   >> I'd like to see a cite for this, because it's not how I understand   
   >> physics at that scale.   
      
   No cite then?  Or is it another line from the movie?   
      
   What other "dimension" are you talking about, BTW?   
      
   >>   
   >>> They blink out...   
   >>   
   >> Again, I'd like to see a cite for this, since I don't think that they   
   >> do.   
   >   
   > The only reference I have is quotes from the movie...   
      
   So you'll understand if I don't take it too seriously then ;-)   
      
   > What I have read   
   > states that atomic particles act as matter and energy "waves."   
      
   Yes, exactly like the electrons mentioned above.   
      
   > That they are empty shells whose mass is contained in it's shell.   
      
   Well, that sorta describes atoms, except that most of the mass is   
   contained in the centre, since protons (and neutrons) weigh so much more   
   than electrons.   
      
   What kind of parallel universes are you talking about? If you're talking   
   about the MW interpretation of QM, then, in theory AFAIK, it's not   
   possible to transfer anything from one universe to another (if only   
   because there are 10**100 of them splitting off per second, and we'd   
   notice :-)   
      
   If you're talking about the parallel universes which might exist along   
   the other 11 dimensions, well, AFAIK only gravity can cross from one to   
   another.   
      
   > Thanks for the correction. You seem to be so certain of what you know   
   > that you speak as a teacher rather than a seeker...   
      
   It's not a binary thing.  One can be both.   
      
   > Good evidence is my goal... just not sure how to get there.   
      
   For a start you'd need a test subject who claims to be able to affect   
   reality "paranormally" in some way.   
      
   They crop up here from time to time (I think "Dingus" was the last one if   
   you want to Google him); but they all go Real Quiet, when we start talking   
   about testing.   
      
   >   
   >>> What is the point of evolution?   
   >>   
   >> There is none.  It's a process, and incapable of having a point.   
   >   
   > Here we disagree... Perhaps the point of evolution is the development of   
   > the universe itself and we are only an insignificant piece of that   
   > evolution.   
   > I don't know what the point is but I believe there is one.   
      
   You're ascribing intelligence, and motivation to a random process.   
   You may as well say that the rain is talking to you.   
      
   >>   
   >>> Where is it going?   
   >>   
   >> Again, it's not "going" anywhere.  It just _is_.   
   >>   
   >>> If you haven't seen the movie, try it... then get back to me.   
   >>   
   >> It's not on DVD here yet.  From the reviews I've seen it's mainly   
   >> students at MIU talking nonsense.   
   >   
   > You have to love reviews!   
      
   Well, they were during discussions on some of the more science-based fora   
   I use, so they might be considered to be biased.   
      
   OTOH, they do have the virtue of knowing a lot more about physics than I   
   do, so I rather have to accept their opinions.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)