/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2210810]

time is relative, prove or disprove, go

[Anonymous No.2210813]

>implying time exists

[Anonymous No.2210818]

>>2210813
simply, prove it

[Anonymous No.2210819]

of course it is relative
lrn2timezones

[Anonymous No.2210820]

>>2210810
i'm not trying to start trolls or anyything, i just wanted to see everyone's arguments for or against it

[Anonymous No.2210821]

yes it is, proof:
<span class="math"> d \tau = \frac{dt}{\gamma}[/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.2210822]

>>2210820
Um I thought we proved this like 6 decades ago....

[Anonymous No.2210829]

>>2210821 < this guy gets it
>>2210822 even so, it's fun to see peopel arguem about it, i never said if i was for or against it
Hard Mode, provide a convincing, albeit ultimately wrong argument that time is not relative

[Anonymous No.2210836]

GPS.

or

long-lived cosmic/atmospherically generated particles that normally decay at rest in say, .5 seconds, but since their velocity is high c, they can make it to Earth-based observatories through the atmosphere before decaying

/thread

[Anonymous No.2210837]

>>2210829
imokwiththis.jpg

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2210838]

prove or disprove time exists as a dimension, go

[Anonymous No.2210841]

if relativity was right then that would mean the following could happen:

2 twins walk away from each other at close to c
after a while they stop, now because from each twins perspective the other twin was moving while they stood still,
twin 1 looks younger than twin 2 from twin 2s position and
twin 2 looks younger than twin 1 from twin 1s position
now, lets say they have cellphones and call each other
twin 1 tells twin 2 something
now they start walking back to each other, when they reach each other both are the same age again
but now twin 2 knows something that twin 1 said in his future
so they just sent information to the past.
since its impossible, time cannot be relative.
<span class="math"> ~~~~~~Q~~~~~~~EEE~~~~DD [/spoiler]
<span class="math"> ~~~~Q~~Q~~~~EE~~~~~~~D~~D [/spoiler]
<span class="math"> ~~~~~~QQ~~~~EEE~~~~DD [/spoiler]

[Anonymous No.2210842]

>>2210841
Wow you put alot of effort into that nonsense

[Anonymous No.2210844]

there exists an observer somewhere in the universe that sees us traveling arbitrarily close to the speed of light.
if time is relative that means our time is moving arbitrary slow compared to them. but we feel that time moves forward, so relativity is wrong.

[Anonymous No.2210847]

>>2210836
this

[Anonymous No.2210850]

if perspective was right then that would mean the following could happen:

2 twins walk away from each other at close to c
after a while they stop, now because from each twins perspective the other twin was far away while they were still close,
twin 1 looks smaller than twin 2 from twin 2s position and
twin 2 looks smaller than twin 1 from twin 1s position

Q E E F

[Anonymous No.2210855]

Prove proofs, go

[Anonymous No.2210878]

>>2210844
Or you know, our perception of time slows with time.

[Anonymous No.2210882]

>>2210878
how can a particle moving outside our body, influence our souls? our souls aren't physical objects so aren't affected by other objects in this universe

[Anonymous No.2210886]

>>2210878
>implying we can observe a local change in time

[anonn No.2212976]

Mesons are Muons time dilated life spans when they reach the Earth's atmosphere

[Anonymous No.2213003]

go ask wikipedia before making such trivial questions.

[Physics Guy No.2213013]

>>2210882
Souls?.....LMAO....you still believe in the easter bunny too?

[Anonymous No.2213032]

>>2210882
if we assume there is no soul and our minds operate by the laws of physics, and our brains opperate by atomic/chemical interactions, and their speed changes as your velocity changes, why is it inreasonable?

to reverse it : please devise a device (lol) that is independant of photon / electron interactions to tell time

[Anonymous No.2213033]

sleep
enough said

[Anonymous No.2213037]

>>2213013

Wait you must have missed that thread about souls we had here yesterday.

I proved showed you guys proves that souls do exist, and no one could give a valid counter argument no matter how butthurt they were.

[Anonymous No.2213053]

>>2213013

Wait you must have missed that thread about souls we had here yesterday.

I showed you guys prove that souls do exist, and no one could give a valid counter argument no matter how butthurt they were.

[Anonymous No.2213062]

>>2213053
hit me with it, id love you hear your bullshit argument.

before you do, it depends on how you define soul first.

[Anonymous No.2213066]

>>2213053
for someone who wasnt in that thread, paraphrase it for me.

[Physics Guy No.2213097]

>>2213053
LMAO...that sounds like some really fucking highlarious shit you came up with. I could use a laugh.

Yes please explain how you propose a non physicial entity to exist, when we are stuck in a physical "group". Do you know any fucking set theory, Group theory, Galois Theory, anything?....LMAO

It is well established that you cannot get the fuck out of a closed set, no matter how fucking hard you try. The same laws the explain why you can find no general algebraic soloution for a quintic polynomial, also exclude the ability of a non physical enity existing in any sense that it could ever effect us.

[Anonymous No.2213099]

1/2
soul = immaterial entity or the immaterial part of a human/ other being.

The idea of a soul is deeply rooted in society becaus it is a fundemantal part of christianity, judaism and islam.

Some people here it is a ridiculous idea because there is no evidence for it/has nothing to do with sceince/is impossible.

Those people are actually retards who haven`t read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s.

Scince quantum theories make it verry likely matter is made out of more then just some tiny tiny bits of matter, it`s something much more complex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Just pointing out here, souls can`t be excluded because we barely know what the universe/matter is made of.

Therefor it is retarded saying the idea of souls are ridiculous.

This is a rock solid statement so ofcourse you guys going to attacking me on peson, saying i`m a fag, laughable and know nothing about QM; --> which has nothing to do with my statement.

[Anonymous No.2213105]

1/2
Article about the Wheeler's delayed choice experiment being successfully preformed...

>According to quantum mechanics, light can be either a graceful rippling wave or a hail of bulletlike particles, depending on how you look at it. Now, an experiment shows that an observer can make the choice retroactively, after light has entered a measuring apparatus. The result shows that reality is truly in the eye of the beholder.

>The results, reported this week in Science, prove that the photon does not decide whether to behave like a particle or a wave when it hits the first beam splitter, Roch says. Rather, the experimenter decides only later, when he decides whether to put in the second beam splitter. In a sense, at that moment, he chooses his reality.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2007/02/16-04.html

>implying in this experiment the photon is NOT effected by the act MEASUREMENT, but by the act of OBSERVATION.

Epic prove that an observer (in this case a human) must have some form of immaterial element (soul).

Not claiming it a soul exactly as discribed in the bible though.

Sadly most atheists/sceintists think they are too smart to "believe" in something like this. Even with hard evidence.

See on Wiki how it is a disputed subject and people are trying to make the measurement effect more likely by saying most sceintists belief that explanation.
>From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system.[citation needed] A significant minority[who?] still find the equations point to an observer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[lucis !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2213106]

>>2213097
>filename "ccc"
>physics guy

[Anonymous No.2213107]

>>2210810

>>time is relative, prove or disprove, go

prove time, then we'll move on.

troll harder.

[Anonymous No.2213108]

>>2213105
2/2 of course

[Anonymous No.2213112]

>we set our watches together
>I go do something fun for 30 minutes
>You go do something shitty for 30 minutes
>we come back after and check watches
>Mine isn't a future watch
Disproven

[Anonymous No.2213122]

>>2213099
>soul = immaterial entity or the immaterial part of a human/ other being.
>immaterial

stopped reading right there, because there is no such thing as "immaterial" in physics.

[Anonymous No.2213125]

>>2213099
Only an agnostic point of view can be taken by the scientific community

There is nothing saying souls don't hold the universe together, but there also isn't any saying that they are

Also, ur a fagit

[Anonymous No.2213131]

>soul = immaterial entity or the immaterial part of a human/ other being.
>soul = immaterial
>immaterial
Immaterial = Not existing
Christianity proving Christianity, scientifically.

[Anonymous No.2213134]

>>2210844
>there exists an observer

Fuck you, Berkley

[Anonymous No.2213135]

>>2213105
>god of the gaps argument
>prove
>lolno.jpg

the act of observation is used as an example.
you change the wavefunction by interacting with it.
so we need in no way be able to observe it to collapse the wave function.

you have proven nothing, merely pointed out that something that is undetectable cant be disproven.
fail
>dickfeynman.jpg

[Physics Guy No.2213147]

>>2213099
>>2213105

OHH, seriously just GTFO. The act of observation is the act of "interaction" you fucking retard, it is still physical.

You are just full of shit. You are stating mindless "new age" dribble and trying to pass it off as "science". You dont produce any actual scientifc journals, just mindless nonsense.
I don't have time to waste on retards like you. Good day troll

[Anonymous No.2213151]

>>2213125
Only agnostic in so far as they cannot rule something out unless there is a definition with a theory attached to it that makes falsifiable predictions.

If something does not make falsifiable predictions then it's not a scientific theory. At best it's a toy-theory.

So you can only claim that scientists are agnostic towards something untestable. Once someone comes up with a valid theory it becomes testable, and therefore the burden of proof will be on whoever makes the claim that this theory is indeed correct.
So stop claiming that "everyone is agnostic" while implying that they have a neutral stance. Being agnostic does not have to mean being neutral. It can also mean being against it but being open to evidence to the contrary.


Think of it this way: "I will call you an idiot when you claim that the earth is flat, i will ridicule you publicly and believe no word of it. But if you present proof and it gets through peer-review i'll eat my hat, take back what i said and reverse my stance."
That's how science works.


TL;DR: Agnostic != Neutral

[Anonymous No.2213158]

>>2213099
>>2213099
what youre saying is no different than saying
"well we dont know everything so we cant say that god DOESNT exist somewhere out there."

using that logic, unicorns, fairies, santa can exist because, hey, we dont know everything. no, its faulty logic.

after a certain point, we can say theres no evidence of such things so its safe to say they probably dont exist. theres not evidence for the soul, and you havent provided any except "we dont know everything yet"

also- scientists play a drinking game..we take a shot for every time someone uses quantum physics to justify some new-age or religious belief. truthfully, it makes us rage because its being completely distorted.

[Anonymous No.2213185]

>>2213147

HERE YOU GO FAGGOT AS WELL AS ALL THESE OTHER ARROGANT PIECES OF SHIT ON THIS BOARD.

>An implementation of the experiment in 2007 showed that the act of observation ultimately decides whether the photon will behave as a particle or wave, verifying the unintuitive results of the thought experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment

[Anonymous No.2213194]

>>2213185
you ignored the other completely calm and rational explanations provided to you.

[Anonymous No.2213198]

>>2213099

>souls can`t be excluded because we barely know what the universe/matter is made of.

Wrong, we know what shit is made of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

>>2213105
>you state Wheels experiment

All this proves is that the observation, changes shit. We already knew this though. The act of observation, "interaction", is what fundementally defines observables in the universe. This has nothing at all to do with a soul.

ANY SORT OF OBSERVATION CHANGES SHIT! IT DOENST HAVE TO BE A HUMAN YOU FUCKING REATRD. A ROCK COLLPASES A WAVE FUCKING, THE WIND COLLAPSE THE WAVE FUCNTION, THE RAYS OF THE SUN COLLPASE THE WAVE FUCNTION! EVERY FUCKING SINGLE INTERACTION OF EVERY FUCKING KIND IS COLLAPSING WAVE FUCNTIONS ALL THE FUCKING TIME! HUMANS ARE NOT FUCKING SPECIAL YOU DUMB ILLITERATE PIECE OF SHIT!


(not mad, just trying to stress my point)

[Anonymous No.2213206]

>>2213185
>implying nature itself doesnt count as an observer

then how come the interaction of QM particles produce classical effects, if they dont count as observation?

I dont think you understand what you are reading.
ever read a QM book, or had a class?

[Anonymous No.2213217]

inb4 universal perceiver

[Anonymous No.2213223]

>>2213206
I guess this is proof for god? he sees everything so everything is observed

[Anonymous No.2213230]

>>2213185
Lol...it seems that you don't understand Wheelers experiment.

Let me try an help you little guy.
All it says is that observation collpases wavefuction. (we have know this for decades). It doenst say anything about souls. Nor does it limit the type of observations that can be made, and by what kind of objects. Everything collapses wavefunctions. Rocks, Glass, Shit, your moms gaping Vagina. so are you saying everything has a soul? Every fucking peice of matter in the universe? has a soul? cause it collapses wavefunctions? Lol

Thanks for the funny joke

[Anonymous No.2213235]

>>2213198

[Anonymous No.2213241]

>>2213198
u get tits

[Anonymous No.2213258]

>>2213223
LMAO, observation just means "interaction". You dont need any diety for that shit.

Everything interacts with everything else in the universe, constant observation of itself. Again, this is more shit we have known for fucking decades.

[Doktor !!eEkNk6eM3ZP No.2213290]

>mfw the guy claiming soul's exist left because he got so buttfrustrated over science disproving him.

[Anonymous No.2213295]

just to spell this out in very simple words:

Whenever people talk about "observation" in quantum theory they simply mean any interaction with the environment that would carry away information about the quantumy things happening there.

In other words: Quantum effects themselves cannot be "observed" because they cease to happen as soon as they interact with the environment in a way that would allow them to be "observed". But this really is just about information transport even without sentient observers.

[Physics Guy No.2213306]

>>2213295
agreed

[Anonymous No.2213360]

>>2213198
>"interaction", is what fundementally defines observables in the universe

Not claiming i know much QM.

I`ll rather rely on what wiki says thoug. They don`t write things down as they do just because they though it would look funny.

>the experiment in 2007 showed that the act of observation ultimately decides whether the photon will behave as a particle or wave

If what you said would be the conclusion of that experiment i would have read

>the experiment in 2007 showed that interaction ultimately decides whether the photon will behave as a particle or wave

[Anonymous No.2213376]

>>2213360
wtf? Go read a fucking book dumbshit

\thread

[Anonymous No.2213386]

>>2213360
>I`ll rather rely on what wiki says thoug.
sure thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Relational_interpretation

Note how the slits in the double slit experiments are simply called observers.

[Anonymous No.2213388]

>>2213360
Uses wikipedia a source of information.
What are you 12?

[sage No.2213397]

>>2213360
>>2213360
ITT: dumbass little kid keeps getting TOLD

how about you just gtfo of /sci/ and never come back!

[sage No.2213406]

>>2213360

[Anonymous No.2213429]

Wikipedia is pixelated facts, prove or agree, go

[Anonymous No.2213492]

>>2213386

Allright looked it up, turns out wiki and i were wrong, as well as all of the replies above:

Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed choice
GedankenExperiment demonstrates
beyond any doubt that the behavior
of the photon in the interferometer
depends on the choice of the observable
which is measured, even when that
choice is made at a position and a time
such that it is separated from the entrance
of the photon in the interferometer by a
space-like interval

>depends on the choice of the observable
which is measured
>choice

(inb4 me claiming free will might exists and people start raging at me)

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174876

[Anonymous No.2213504]

>>2213386

Allright looked it up, turns out wiki and i were wrong, as well as all of the replies above:

Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed choice GedankenExperiment demonstrates
beyond any doubt that the behavior of the photon in the interferometer depends on the choice of the observable which is measured, even when that choice is made at a position and a time such that it is separated from the entrance of the photon in the interferometer by a
space-like interval.

>depends on the choice of the observable
which is measured
>choice

(inb4 me claiming free will might exists and people start raging again)

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174876

[Anonymous No.2213524]

>>2213386

Allright looked it up, turns out wiki and i were wrong, as well as all of the replies above:

Our realization of Wheeler’s delayed choice GedankenExperiment demonstrates beyond any doubt that the behavior of the photon in the interferometer depends on the choice of the observable which is measured, even when that choice is made at a position and a time such that it is separated from the entrance of the photon in the interferometer by a space-like interval.

>depends on the choice of the observable which is measured
>choice

(inb4 me claiming free will might exists and people start raging again)

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174876

[Anonymous No.2213566]

>>2213524
just give up. it's the same "choice" (as in arbitary, random process) as "observation" (arbitrary interaction with any particle).

This has nothing to do with conscious entities.

[Anonymous No.2213568]

>>2213524
/thread

apparently

[Anonymous No.2213587]

t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), bro

[Anonymous No.2213598]

>>2213360

I totally know what you mean about souls. And how they can be connected. I feel like we're somehow connected. Do you feel it too? Maybe we should hang out some time.

[Anonymous No.2213610]

>>2210836

one of the guys in my physics class did a project about muon decay and how the muon's lifespan is too short without relativity for it to travel from the atmosphere to the detector.

for more information, einstein's theory of special relativity

it's applied in things like GPS satellites and find calculations for other things that move quickly or are far enough away from a major source of gravity to run faster

[Anonymous No.2213627]

the greater the mass of an object the slower time travels near that object

[Anonymous No.2213630]

>>2210810

>the human perception of time is relative

insert shitstorm

[Anonymous No.2213639]

>>2213627


This is because acceleration in a vacuum is equivalent to gravity on earth. (believe it or not, light is affected by gravity, if you shoot a lazer pointer at a wall 6,000 feet away it will be like a centimeter lower than where you fired it). because of this equivalence, and because time travels more slowly in the presence of high speed/acceleration, clocks near a high gravity source run slower

[Anonymous No.2213640]

>>2213630
and that's all that really matters

end shitstorm

[Anonymous No.2213684]

>>2213105
Hurr Durr

An observer is anything that interacts with a system and is not contained within the system itself. With this argument we could say that having a soul is relative.

[Anonymous No.2213720]

Ask them what souls are made of and be prepared for god of the gaps.