Does antimatter weigh more than matter? Lab experiment to find out the answer

Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge. It is possible that gravity changes, making matter and anti-matter gravitationally repulsive.

http://www.physor...ion.html

Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

There is no substance in hope, as it is an illusionary emotional state created by the mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.

Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

There is no substance in hope, as it is an illusionary emotional state created by the mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.

No, hope is a survival mechanism based on an organisms self-perception of its ability to cope with its environment.

Why are you arguing about this, when I was making a point against theism.

Hope is merely a WISH for good things to occur, without knowledge of how such good things can be made to come about

i.e Henrik "hopes" for God's salvation.

Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

There is no substance in hope

mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.

Why are you arguing about this, when I was making a point against theism.

That is the definition.

Get him out of here or I will stop visiting your website.

Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist.

Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away. So I guess that just leaves only us agnostics to hang around.

CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge.

It is possible that gravity changes, making matter and anti-matter gravitationally repulsive.

There is no substance in hope,...

We hope that good things will happen because we can imagine what those good things might be; and we can then choose to work toward making those good things happen.

you get plenty of antimatter shooting into space during a good old lightning storm. What's the matter here?

Relying on magic is not a viable survival strategy and so is non-biological except in a pathological sense.

There have been some interesting theories about anti-matter recently including, I recall, one requiring anti-matter to be self-attracting but repelling to ordinary matter.

Agnostics are just hedging their bets.

Nonsense. It is the most rational position.

Are you agnostic on rainbow colored unicorns, then?

Are you agnostic on rainbow colored unicorns, then?

What's so fifferent that one then should be agnotic on the (non)issue of god(s)?

Now if you actually have evidence that ALL possible gods cannot exist or evidence that some sort of god actually exists then I am willing to take that evidence into account.

Atheism weighs less than theism.. Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away.

IMO ...

the difference ... If AWT model is correct ... differs from the rest mass of gravitons ... neutrino is roughly 10.000x higher than the mass of CMBR photons ... neutrinos will differ from antineutrinos with only 0.01% ... at the case of electrons and positrons this difference will be lower ... barely detectable.

Atheism weighs less than theism.. Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away.

What I don't understand is, why the only comment which deals with subject seriously (Callippo above) is downvoted heavily

Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted

Do not 'crosspost': Do not keep posting the same message, or very similar messages.

tell me the restmass of a Graviton. :) or even better the restmass of a CMBR Photon.

Because you state nonsense to be a fact.

Just my two cents on the agnosticism/atheism debate.

Just saying: Since the the christian (or hebrew, or msulim, or ... ) god is based on the exact same premise as the IPU* or the FSM**

Just because the notion of godS is a bag of such entities doesn't up the probability. A million times zero is still zero.

So does this mean that most black holes are made of anti-matter ?

And what happens when matter falls into a black hole thats already chock full of anti-matter stuffed into a singularity ?

seeker2 pointed here to some analogy of believers and rationalists as an analogy of gravitational attraction of matter and antimatter.

I think matter sinks and antimatter floats away, something like the parable about theists and atheists above... I think spacetime causes anti-matter to float away..

As matter is split up into its constituents on entry to the BH, anti-matter likely gets ejected.

I didn't talk about rest mass of CMBR photons, which is just zero in AWT (with compare to rest mass of photons of shorter wavelengths).

Like gamma rays I presume. I didn't know they were at rest though.

The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself.

The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself.

AKA AWT theory?

Antimatter has positive energy and thus should behave much like matter in a gravity field

Photons don't have rest mass. They only interact gravitationally due to mass-energy equivalence.

You should always use the inductive reasoning in your posts,...Don't spread religion - spread the way of deductions.

The lower limit of this dependency is the wavelength/frequency/energy density of CMBR photons, because every photon of this wavelength...

You should always use the inductive reasoning in your posts,...Don't spread religion - spread the way of deductions.

I think I got lost somewhere here between inductive and deductions.

I've been asking for I can't remember how long what is the wavelength of a CMBR photon?

Photons don't have rest mass. They only interact gravitationally due to mass-energy equivalence.

spacetime causes anti-matter to float away..

How it differs from gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter?

It doesn't matter, how you interpret it, the observable result is what matters in physics.

spacetime causes anti-matter to float away

Although these photons are probably moving with very different speed, which just depends on their wavelength.

Such dual behaviour indeed fooled both the physicists, ..

Sorry to see Ethelred and Otto over analyze the use of the word Hope in the context in which I used it against Henrik,..

spacetime causes anti-matter to float away

But this is just a conjecture of yours. How did you get into it?

Why the space-time should ignore the normal particles and the antimatter particles not? Why it should cause to blow them away instead of attract them? Many people here (including you) are saying essentially correct things, but they're using very shallow deductions for it. They merely guessing what should happen there. This is what I'm calling the fuzzy incoherent thinking. Like I've said, what you think is irrelevant in matter of fact discussion, because it cannot be reproduced it. How did you got into such thinking is what matters here.

Heinrik is clearly trolling and his idiotic off topic comments have derailed another thread

The speed of light depends on its wavelength. I should have guessed.

I've been asking for I can't remember how long what is the wavelength of a CMBR photon?

we can measure the wavelength of these photons (1,873 mm).

Religionists pose a clear and present danger to science and the world.

But I thought the CMBR was blackbody radiation. Where did I go wrong? Maybe this is just the wavelength of blackbody radiation.

photons are forming the core of the cluster, so they move along shorter paths across cosmic space, than the lightweight visible light photons.

Get him out of here or I will stop visiting your website.

AWT thinking is oriented to logical connections, i.e. the causal gradients between facts, not to the facts itself.

we can measure the wavelength of these photons (1,873 mm).

AHA! I finally got an answer

The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K,[3] which peaks at the microwave range frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a 1.873 mm wavelength.

But I thought the CMBR was blackbody radiation. Where did I go wrong?

Maybe this is just the wavelength of blackbody radiation.

So gravitational lensing depends on the wavelength of light. I never thought about that.

That is given as a single wavelength which is wrong. It is a range of of wavelengths.

It only took a moment to look it up.

Deism is completely within the bound of experimental evidence.

To explain, the annihilation of an up quark and an up antiquark produces a very energetic gluon, which is transformed into a top quark and a top antiquark. Now, do these particles represent their exact counterparts precisely?

It is?

I was not aware that there is a possible, unambiguous test for the existence of a god or gods

Could you provide one?

if not then deism isn't within the bounds of exprimental evidence.

How would we even test for omniscience or omnipotence if a 'godlike' creature appeared?

The only question is, why seeker2 begged for such answer so long.

Nope, the fundamentalists do. Atheists can behave in the same fundamentalist way, like the people who can see the God everywhere.

I said it fit the evidence.

Also why it took so long to get the answer.

So does the IPU

the FSM

Evidence is only worth anything if it can delineate between two competing theories.

But all the evidence fits "gods are there" AND "gods are not there".

So it's not 'evidence', now, is it? (i.e.: it makes nothing evident)

Don't confuse 'observation' with 'evidence'

While god(s) fit all observations none of that lends the god(s) hypothesis any credence.

Also why it took so long to get the answer.

Evidence is only worth anything if it can delineate between two competing theories.

Also why it took so long to get the answer.

That one is easy. You didn't look. You made no effort.

Also why it took so long to get the answer.

That one is easy. You didn't look. You made no effort.

Right. I've known about blackbody radiation since before Wiki came along. So why did I raise the issue? Thought is was relevant. Wondered how long it would take to get there. Devious as charged. Guilty as usual.

But all the evidence fits "gods are there" AND "gods are not there".

Nonsense. SOME gods.

Nonsense. It is the most rational position.

It's time for its severely retardative anchoring in obsolete paradigm to come to a definitive end. And that end, too, can be created.

Thus, the a priori probability that a deist-type of god exists is 1:2 or 50%.

Like Einstein said, science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind.

But that is self-defeating, because humans are also part of the universe, and a system cannot explain itself.

you propose something else we can't explain?

Even an atheist will affirm that God could exist without humans, but science cannot.

Ultimately, truth can only be discovered through faith, both in science and in God.

To answer the fundamental questions, one must step outside the system and follow the evidence. Only theism can explain the system by following the evidence based on a belief in God. Even an atheist will affirm that God could exist without humans, but science cannot.

Step outside the system and follow the evidence

Only theism can explain...

Even an atheist ...

There is only so much land surface on Earth. In principle the IPU must be observable, somewhere.

Nonsense. False dichotomy

Nor does it remove any.

This observation fits with both the thesis and the antithesis - but it is not evidence of either.

When starting a hypothesis (like the god hypothesis) the probability is zero until evidence (not observation - EVIDENCE) is presented.

It doesn't jump to 50/50 just because someone states an unsupported premise.

I like the idea of multiple universes but I don't insist on it being true just a useful concept for dealing with the question of fine tuning that is compatible with the actual math of present theory even if some people don't want to accept its mathematical validity

Ascribing a reality to the 'wavefunction' describing a system is not IMO rational as it is not observable in such form.

Ascribing a reality to the 'wavefunction' describing a system is not IMO rational as it is not observable in such form.

It can be measured http://www.nature...120.html

No it can't. They use 'quantum tomography' which requires a multitude of measurements to reconstruct a probability distribution.

Where does the wave-function go after a measurement?

I agree to assign the a priori probability of the truth of the claim to be greater than 0. I assigned it an a priori probability of 1:2

Perhaps, otto, you would care to study up on Bayesian reasoning.

CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge.

Yes. I believe that would be the energy density (but same energy). Ergo spacetime volume is conserved on pair creation, and spacetime remains flat.

Even though it is unlikely, I really hope it turns out antimatter is repulsed by gravity. How awesome would that be to be able to make things that float on gravity... besides the unfortunate side effect of being able to obliterate whole countries at a time if an accident mixes a large amount of it with regular matter.

The a priori definition of probability allows probabilities to be computed in special cases without experimentation. Most notably, probabilities can be computed in games of chance

Atheism weighs less than theism.. Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away.

What I don't understand is, why the only comment which deals with subject seriously (Callippo above) is downvoted heavily - whereas the other senile off topic blurbs are upvoted here? Are the readers here really so imbecile, they cannot recognize, what belongs into discussion here and what not? How do you want to understand something, if you cannot think coherently and concentrate to subject? The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself. But unfortunately it's just a stupidity of readers, what becomes apparent and public.

of surface waves, so that the positive rest mass of every photon must be balanced with negative space-time curvature somewhere else.

Photons don't have "rest mass", they can only exist at lightspeed where nothing can have "rest mass". I learned this in 2nd semester college physics class.

Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.

Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away. So I guess that just leaves only us agnostics to hang around.

Agnosticism is merely the lack of courage to commit to one's beliefs or lack thereof... an agnostic is still a theist or an atheist, just a cowardly one.

I'm pretty sure, many opponents of dense aether model tend to oppose it just because the refusal of aether model currently belongs into intersubjectivelly accepted opinions of physical authorities from historical reasons. It manifests with many subtle ways - for example, the people are asking me for my name and/or qualification often. Their decisions are apparently driven with intersubjectively accepted authorities, not by individual rational stance - which is what the meritocracy is called.

Your stance considers, we always have sufficient amount of information for qualified decision of problem. The dual and probably more realistic stance could be, the agnostic is brave enough to admit, he is still not qualified to decide, whether the existence or nonexistence of God is more correct.

..realize "infinity" exists only in the eschalogical universe of theism...

See how this doesn't follow?

Had philosophy EVER been able to generate a useful argument for or against the existence of god

No. The thing that to me 'doesn't follow' is insisting on using WORDS to try to ascertain whether fantasy exists or not. And if I employ sarcasm in order to press that point then you should at least be entertained.

I spent some hours yesterday roaming around YouTube listening to Dawkins, hitchens, dennett and others arguing the case against god.

Philosophy isn't a rigorous science for the most part.

But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C.

.. Dawkins, hitchens, dennett and others arguing the case against god. None of them evoked Kant or Hume or Russell or any philosophy whatsoever except to deride it in the same context.

Had philosophy EVER been able to generate a useful argument for or against the existence of god, I would think they would all have been citing it.

Yes. The differnce is that in games of chance you know (a priori) all the possible outcomes. This is aa prerequisite. You must know which cards are in the deck to make a prediction.

With the god hypothesis we don't know whether the "there is a god" card is even in the deck. So no a priori possibility can be assigned. Simply stating that it might be in the deck is not enough.

intellectually underdeveloped atheism.

does not alter the posterior probability

Kant isolated himself for over a decade to write the above referenced book that rationally shows that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. This means that no one can prove the non-existence of God.

The sum of all electrical charges can be zero without need of antimatter.

But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C.

Such plan would seriously limit the size of observable part of Milky Way galaxy, which has a diameter 70000 to 100000 light-years (20 to 30 kpc).

@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it.

Well yes assuming creation started from one point. However maybe it was all created from everywhere all at once. Including fossils, of course, only put here to test our faith in creationism.

No observation or measurement would be different in the case of a deistic god's existence than would occur in the case of a deistic god's absence.

It certainly is enough, providing we are extending the principle of charity to the hypothesis that a deistic god exists.

But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C.

Such plan would seriously limit the size of observable part of Milky Way galaxy, which has a diameter 70000 to 100000 light-years (20 to 30 kpc).

Well yes assuming creation started from one point.

Kant isolated himself for over a decade to write the above referenced book that rationally shows that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. This means that no one can prove the non-existence of God.

What do you mean that BECAUSE kant isolated himself or BECAUSE he wrote a book which YOU seem to think was the ultimate textbook on the subject? I reject either such posterior conclusivisms.

Kant the physicist:
"Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding."

-Enrich our understanding... I thought you said that "metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge" -so 'enriching' is not sourcing exactly, but 'enhancing' or 'colorizing' in some fashion without actually 'adding' anything that wasnt already there to begin with?

Oh I get it. 8-P

However maybe it was all created from everywhere all at once.

In brief: "If you don't know, what to say, don't say it here."

Henrik what are you doing in a science site? don't you have to go the church or something?

@GhostofOtto,

In order to demonstrat that God does not exist, YOU have to engage on metaphysical discussions,.. while I put forth that such speculations can not be a source of knowledge , thus YOU cannot have knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.

Probability is inapplicable here.

Great post: Einstein's writings about GR & QM is a far different issue than Kant's writings about meta-physics, etc. Einstein's writings QM & GR can be proven (or disproven)by a mathematical model. The writings of Kant is more like trying to prove a negative.

you must assign the a priori probability that the statement is true to be greater than zero.

you don't based on reasoned argument, that is certain.

@GhostofOtto, I'm not going to argue with random quotes you pick off the Internet, because I don't know the context.

I tried to engage you about physics in the quantum thread

Noumenon: At the risk of becomming what I beheld...
Science is a subset of philosophy, so clearly just as calculus cant replace mathemactics, neither can science replace philosophy as the highest order phenomenon. Specifically science is a belief forming mechanism. The application of the scientific method combined with the principle of falsification is what differentiates scientific beliefs from other types of beliefs. And generally as long as falsification and observations hypothesis experiment have been maintained the results are useful.

Bravo @GhostOfOtto, your feeding the trolls has trashed this comment thread. People are allowed to be wrong, please afford them this right in silence.

Science is a subset of philosophy

neither can science replace philosophy

science is a belief forming mechanism.

The application of the scientific method combined with the principle of falsification is what differentiates scientific beliefs from other types of beliefs.

Bravo @GhostOfOtto, your feeding the trolls has trashed this comment thread. People are allowed to be wrong, please afford them this right in silence.

You quote a few opinions, but ignore the fact that not all physicists feel that way, thus invalidating your rediculous claim.

Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?

Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?

Your opinion based on zero. He is a scientist and wrote a good history of quantum theory.

Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?

Your opinion based on zero. He is a scientist and wrote a good history of quantum theory.

Well actually my opinion is based in part on your excerpt in which he says "These experiments tells us rather emphatically that we can never perceive reality 'as it really is'." -thereby convincingly simulating a hack.

Philosophy may have been the egg from which science emerged. It now lies broken and useless and stinky.

That is an absolute true statement. As I mention above (you seem to skip over posts), an electron is observed as a wave or as a particle depending on experimental arrangement. This of course means that our knowledge of reality is coloured as it were, by our concepts and experimental apparatus.

We cannot know reality, as it is in itself, that is, apart from observation. Our conceptualization of reality differs from Reality as it is in itself, because it was subjected to a-priori concepts that are dependent on mind.

We cannot know reality, as it is in itself, that is, apart from observation. Our conceptualization of reality differs from Reality as it is in itself

The dual nature of an electron is reality is it not? Your attempts at coloring it with unnecessary metaphysical philo terms is not.

We can never know everything about a thing and so this means that it must contain metaphysical things best explored by philos who are experts in such non-things and pseudo-things etc.

Your insistence that unknowable things exist and that somehow they can influence the real world is pure religionism. Intellectual superstition. And dangerous because it involves immortality and cushy university jobs.

You even promise an afterlife of sorts. 'Since everything contains non-things and pseudo-things and unknowable things this must mean there IS a metaphysical realm to which our intellects, if not a thing called a spirit as such, can retire to intact and functional after our corporeal containers have failed us.'

I've never said that.

What the 'electron' IS apart from such conceptualizations is entirely unknowable.

Please do not quote anyone (it appears you are quoting an unknown person with use of '..'), because someone who is anti-philosophy, is not going to reproduce context properly. Speak in your own words. I get bored of quote contests.

Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions; deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions, etc.

-Cannot be reduced to numbers as it is composed entirely of fuzzy and inexplicit words without useful content or value.

@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it.

I've never said that.

What do you think THIS is?

What the 'electron' IS apart from such conceptualizations is entirely unknowable.

-Besides being utter bullshit? What is 'that which is forever unknowable' that is NOT metaphysical? What exactly IS it about an electron that metaphysicians think they can address, that physicists cannot?

@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it.

Jeez I would think that after the 3rd or 4th time you would have realized that there was NOTHING in THERE.

It's true nature, independent of experimental observation and conceptual form, is unknowable by anyone, simply by factual definition.

Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions; deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions, etc.

No, any logic of any use whatsoever is a branch of mathematics and can be reduced to calculations using exclusively numbers.

Now back to the atheism vs. agnosticism. If you think you can demonstrate the non-existence of a metaphysical entity, it is YOU that must partake of metaphysics

There are different scopes of atheism.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" - WIKI

So, some atheists claim there are no gods. This is a positive assertion. Agnostics like me, say it is not possible to make such assertions about metaphysics as metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge either way.

Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions....

No, any logic of any use whatsoever is a branch of mathematics and can be reduced to calculations using exclusively numbers.

Mathematical Logic:
http://en.wikiped...al_logic

Philosophical Logic:
http://en.wikiped...al_logic

We distinguish between the two today, we didn't always but we do today. Philosophy has largely been consumed by science. Many questions that were once impossible to answer through the scientific method are now within our ability to investigate empirically.

Philosophy has largely been consumed by science.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, which concerns knowledge itself

Your immaturity causes you to imagine a competition between mathematics and philosophy where none exists.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, which concerns knowledge itself

But which never generated much insight at all on the subject. Because it relied on juggling words instead of investigating reality scientifically.

You are exactly correct. Also, "philosophy of physics" and "philosophy of mathematics" are distinct from physics and mathematics. GhostOfOtto is trying to arguing that philosophy is invalid as a subject matter, which is factually false.

There would be no physics without metaphysics. Physics works because it rests on a metaphysical foundation of thought.

I still remember the opening statement of the professor on that first day of Philosophy class in college:

"Philosophy is an exact science".

I still remember the opening statement of the professor on that first day of Philosophy class in college:

"Philosophy is an exact science".

As a junior year engineering student, I almost fell out of my chair at that statement. He went on a rant (at least that's the way it sounded to me) why his professorship as head of the Philosophy Dept made him a "scientist", but we could never discern from his long list of degrees if he had even had a college level algebra course.

You offer roger penrose who seems to think 'consciousness' is something otherworldly.

@GhostofOtto, A soul has spiritual connotations while consciousness does not

it has a real meaning; self-awareness.

No one knows how to explain it, but obviously it is a real thing

"Philosophy is an exact science".

The problem of philosophy is not a lack of rigor in execution - it's a lack of rigor in its context (sometimes even a total lack of context).

It cannot be anything else than the sum total of physical processes available to the human brain and the senses. It is a mechanical thing. It cannot be anything else and we need no new meta-physics to explain it. - Otto

Penrose sees mystery in how humans think and believes this is an indication of qualities unique to our brains? He ignores their flawed haphazard nature due to the FACT that our brains have been pushed to evolve far beyond the capacities of their natural structural limitations.

I never invoked metaphysics here, so what

It's rather astonishing that someone with zero knowledge of a subject feels compelled none the less to assert that that subject is "not a discipline" or is invalid in anyway.

that it exists as a matter of fact and is pursued by some physicists and mathematicians, to prove it is a legitimate field of study.

Of course you would have to provide specific examples

Some physicists and mathematicians pursue beliefs in sky fairies and their earthly extensions. Does this make sky fairies any more real? Of course not. Does this make philo any more useful in the work of scientists?

GhostOfOtto posts; "...philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."[ - Stephen Hawking]

Obviously, if some physicist think it important, it is not a dead subject.

You, quoting a few physicists who think otherwise does not negate all other physicists and mathematicians.

Albert Einstein was deeply interested in philosophy his entire life

I have shown that Hawking has engaged in philosophy of physics, and epistemology.

One cannot accept ANY of his flummery as valid in light of his endorsement of voodoo and the effect this may have had on his thinking.

I have shown that Hawking has engaged in philosophy of physics, and epistemology. - Noumenon

-According to YOUR definition of what he was engaged in, not HIS. - GhostOfOtto

I have shown that Hawking thinks philo is worthless because thats what he SAYS. - TheGhostofOtto1923

Even in the quantum thread I said just speak about physics and even asked a specific question, but no, he kept with the anti-philo non-sense.

He need not read Kant to debate you anything because of your rather blatant attempt to put a boundary of YOU deciding what 'understanding' is.

And I suspect that demand is based on an erroneous assumption that YOU understand it. Did you read it in the original language and do you think it if you did? And of course there is the strong possibility of a false dichotomy there. It may be there really isn't anything to understand it. The title itself is a rather big giveaway that it is self contradictory. Your statements on it show a major contradiction.

metaphysics CANNOT be a source of knowledge,... so clearly, his belief in god didn't effect that conclusion.

Above, I have quoted Hawking citing a philosopher in support of positivism,...

I and another poster independent come to the same use of Kant. This is an example of the relevance to physics.

You may speak to me about philosophy in one year, after you have read 'A Critique of pure Reason' and understood it, other wise do not attempt further debates about Kant with me.

How many experiments did Kant perform to test his thesis?

And your nice list of scientists? who may have said this or that, isnt really the same as my various quotes and youtube vids of preeminent scientists declaring their rejection of your little hobby.

The ONLY WAY to enrich our understanding of space and time is SCIENTIFICALLY. Scientists who have rejected kants obvious BULLSHIT have made great strides in this understanding whereas kant DID NOT. Which is what hawking was saying.

And your nice list of scientists? who may have said this or that, isnt really the same as my various quotes and youtube vids of preeminent scientists declaring their rejection of your little hobby

Science cannot discover space and time as independent entities.

A) I provided a list of top physicist and mathematicians who were also renowned philosophers and or who wrote books on Philosophy of Physics or Philosophy of Mathematics, and even provided reference titles, thus proving that philosophy is relevant to science.

Popper. Put science on a solid footing. End of argument.

"Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience.

The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding."

@Ethelre, what are you talking about?

GhostOfOtto, is not making arguments against Kant

validity of philosophy in general,

I've been through this non-sense with him over and over.

he kept with the anti-philo non-sense.

LOL, reading Kant is a prerequisite to debating him, not a boundary.

Also, his position that philosophy is pointless or meaningless is absurd; I already demonstrated above that it isn't and is relievent to physics.

Really?, you "suspect", and there "is a possibility", and "it may be", and you rely on the title.

not are you in a position to question whether I've read Kant.

I've attempted to explain it numerous time here and at the forum.

. I have only seen one poster who understood it fully.

I'm not interested in debating whether philo is valid or not as a subject.

If you or Otto have arguments against some post I made, then argue against that, anti-philo is not an argument.

My use of Kant supports scientific positivism and is an argument against scientific realism.

I have provided a list of physicists and mathematicians that have written on philosophy of physics or philosophy of mathematics above,

I have provided a list of physicists and mathematicians that have written on philosophy of physics or philosophy of mathematics above,

Again, I've never said that physics advances because of philosophical analysis

although Einstein was in a quagmire over philosophical issues.

. He said he majored in philosophy and didn't agree with Kant

It's not like philosophy is akin to religion.

Erhelred, try reading the thread before commenting.

Yet he ignores this fact and continues his pointless arguments.

where it was presumed that new things about reality could be obtained through pure philosophy.

That is old philosophy.

Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. - Stephen Hawking"

Science cannot discover space and time as independent entities.

These concepts can only be applied as a conceptual structure in which to order experience.

This is in essence Immanuel Kant.

Popper. Put science on a solid footing. End of argument.

Did you read it in the original language? If not then YOU have it second hand.

Your evasion of the question makes it clear that you only have it second hand.

Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. - Stephen Hawking"

Which why we TEST. And do more tests with different methods. It doesn't matter how are brains shape the knowledge if we test it against reality.

Logically its possible, but its not useful.

Without falsification you cant tell if you have an actual predictive explanatory theory or if you have a curve fitting back tested 'just so story'.

Falsification also provides a method for determining

Post normalism (i.e the abandonment of falsfication) is not science, its politics.

Orac is a sockpuppet,

It doesn't matter how are brains shape the knowledge if we test it against reality.

I own a translation of Kant's Critique which is regarded as one of the best in English, and which also contains the original in German, but I don't read German.

Also, I have other sources, for example F. Coppleston's nine volume history regarded as the "best written in English".

You don't understand what Hawking is saying, nor Bohr's point, nor what i've been saying when mentioning Kant as a reference

This is why it is frustrating arguing with you two knuckleheads,

your not willing to attempt to learn anything,

you interject irrelevancy and end up missing the point.

I FULLY COMPREHEND THE CLAIM that our language and senses and minds effect how we see things. YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND that is why we use MATH and INSTRUMENTS.>>

"testing" does not alleviate the issue Hawking is speaking about here, so is irrelevent to his point

so your response misses the point and adds irrelevancy

"mechanics" of the mind in how it processes sense experience (I've said it in many different ways

It is unavoidable, as Hawking said, and as Kant has said

What we can ever know about reality must be in the form of these a-priori intuitions

the act of conceptualizing reality changes the form of how reality IS apart from us.

Why does this matter? Because it is why Feynman said "no one understands qm

we cannot have an intuitive understanding of qm

, as long as one learns this lesson and realizes that some concepts like space and time (or space-time) come from us

and are not in fact discovered entities existing independently of us

Obviously such assumptions break down in qm, as well as causality

I should mention that Kant could not conceive of science being able to progress without an intuitive understanding possible

There was no irrelevancy and if you think you can others of going on second information when you are doing that yoursel

but this is where I break from him.

I don't expect him to know this is 1790.

so this in principal is knowable by definition and is not metaphysics as such.

Knowing Kant, I simply point out that the Bohr core argument is in fact a physical rediscovery of Kant,...

What we can ever know about reality must be in the form of these a-priori intuitions

False. We can and do use math. We can and do use instruments. We can and DO change our minds. A-priori is what YOU are stuck in. I am not limited to YOUR pigheaded insistence that YOU are stuck in the past.>>

we cannot have an intuitive understanding of qm

Yet we can handle it with math and instruments exactly as you say we cannot. In fact, all the math is wave based. Nothing impossible to understand even if it is counterintuitive.

and the reason qm is strange is due to epistemological reasons first analyzed by Kant.

If a theory cannot be falsified in principal it is not a science.

String theory is a science because in principal it might be able to be tested.

i.e. the waveform is not a thing in itself.

You don't 'listen'. Using "MATH and INSTRUMENTS" has NO BEARING on the above, none,

or does it fix the problem about how a-priori intuitions effect out understanding of reality as outlined above.

It was already presupposed that math and observations are used.

Yes, science progresses despite the above, as I've stated,.. but effects our understanding no less.

The map is not the territory but that doesn't hold for the waveform since the math is wave based AND it works. So far the waveform is the thing. Until proven otherwise.

The translation that I have is regarded as one of the best.

Unless you can show where it differs from the original in concept your point is empty.

Otto dumps quotes about a subject he apparently despises and thinks is invalid ,

I would rather he actually study the subject before pronouncing it invalid by invoking authority he retrieved off the Internet .

As I demonstrated I can do the same thing .

I try to simplify in my own imperfect words.

What does changing ones mind have to do with anything?

Statements like the above are why i conclude you don't understand.

surely HE knows that math and observation are used in physics, right?

Instruments and interpretations of observations are extensions of the mind, they don't side step the unavoidable issue raised by Hawking in that quote.

The measurement problem

and the unintuitive nature of qm,

therefore the above applies, as does the core Bohr interpretation.

never said it cannot be handled with math and instruments

I just said "cannot have an intuitive understanding

then you retort "[can] understand even if it is counterintuitive". I qualified my use of "understand" by using the word "intuitive"

The math is wave-based while the observation is either wave or particle based dependant on arrangement

The math is wave-based while the observation is either wave or particle based dependant on arrangement

and not how reality IS independent of us

so cannot be equated to a "measurement or observation" where state reduction actually occurs as outlined by Von Neumann.

An observation is fundamentally different than simply an interaction.

The wavefunction is not an entity,

as its not observable in that form.

as its not observable in that form.

(Even wave interference observations use multiple point particle observations to build up the wave like interference effects).

You appear to accept Scientific Realism as opposed to Scientific Positivism.

This is metaphysics in spirit.

I believe most physicists are positivists.

(Even wave interference observations use multiple point particle observations to build up the wave like interference effects).

OOOOH so false. Tests have been done with only one photon at at time. For a particle to interfere with itself the particle must actually be a wave and not actually a particle.

You may use as many silly words as you wish for a while as I must shut down and do internal maintenance.

For a particle to interfere with itself the particle must actually be a wave and not actually a particle.

If you're saying that because of what I said to GhostOfOtto, it was because Otto dumps quotes about a subject he apparently despises and thinks is invalid

I try to simplify in my own imperfect words.

My use of Kant supports scientific positivism and is an argument against scientific realism. - Noumenon

That is what you think. And it looks just bit contradictory. Science either deal with reality or it doesn't. You are trying to have it both ways. - Ethelred

The Natural Philosophers learned that logic CAN produce new ideas but they have to be tested to find out if they apply to this universe. - Ethelred

Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. - Stephen Hawking"

Which why we TEST. And do more tests with different methods. It doesn't matter how are brains shape the knowledge if we test it against reality. - Ethelred

Since the philosophical musings of Kant are not germaine to the topic of anti-matter, ALL posts referencing him must be removed for "pointless" verbiage. - Cynical1

What does changing ones mind have to do with anything?!

Statements like the above are why i conclude you don't understand.

Kant showed conclusively imo, that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge

@Ethelred,

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (1958)

@Ethelred,

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (1958)

-And the more answers we get, the more and better questions we can ask. This process proceeds until we know ALL there is to know about a phenomenon.

Your response is not relevant to the point made by Heisenberg

Since the philosophical musings of Kant are not germaine to the topic of anti-matter, ALL posts referencing him must be removed for "pointless" verbiage. - Cynical1

Your posts is senseless.

You have made about seven posts in this thread, none of which have anything to do with gravitational effects on anti-matter.

Posts made by GhostOfOtto and Ethelred and 98% of other posters in this thread including you, have nothing to do with the topic of anti-matter, either, so why single out Kant posts?

String theory is a science because in principal it might be able to be tested.

It is not testable. It can produce any Universe you can imagine. Heck any that any SF author can imagine.-Ethelred