Marius Moe

Drammen, Norway

Someone is shy

Marius hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

128714
Marius Moe
Posted about 3 years ago
If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?
If you don't "believe" that our universe is expanding, you should do some observations. Not only is it expanding, but it's expansion is accellerating. To learn from youtube is quite possible, but i'd rather see one of the several hundred lectures from stanford university again, than to watch more of the pseudo-scientific, unjustified, musings about the nature of reality spouted as fact by people with little to no education and expertise in the area of which they are speaking.
128714
Marius Moe
Posted about 3 years ago
In double slit experiment of Thomas Young, why do electrons (particles) behave like waves when we aren't observing them?
The physical detection IS the act that causes the wave-particle duality collapse. The method was refined earlier this year, and photons could be detected without interfering with their wave-like properties. Refinement of tools, no consciousness involved. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/disentangling-the-wave-particle-duality-in-the-double-slit-experiment/
128714
Marius Moe
Posted about 3 years ago
In double slit experiment of Thomas Young, why do electrons (particles) behave like waves when we aren't observing them?
The double slit experiment was done earlier this year, both observing which slit the particle went through, and observing without interfering on it's wave-like properties. Consciousness didn't seem to have anything to do with it, just the detection technique, which now is much more advanced. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/disentangling-the-wave-particle-duality-in-the-double-slit-experiment/
128714
Marius Moe
Posted about 3 years ago
In double slit experiment of Thomas Young, why do electrons (particles) behave like waves when we aren't observing them?
Actually, it's the detectors in the test themselves. As an analogy, imagine trying to find the position of a marble in a dark room, by hitting it with another marble. It's kind of hard to do without interfering with the marble that you hit. Earlier this year, researchers managed to do the experiment using more advanced technology and tools, so they could observe which slit it went through without interfering with the wave-like properties of the particle. Nothing about our eyes, just a huge refinement of the detection system in the test itself. Here's an article that talks a little about it: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/disentangling-the-wave-particle-duality-in-the-double-slit-experiment/
128714
Marius Moe
Posted about 3 years ago
In double slit experiment of Thomas Young, why do electrons (particles) behave like waves when we aren't observing them?
For instance, an experiment where the results would change, based on whether or not the experiment was observed, and nothing else. The double-slit experiment have seemed that way for many who doesn't understand what the detectors do, and how they interfere with particles by detecting them. To scale, it has been kind of like hitting a marble (1) with another marble (2) in a dark room to find the position of marble (1). Earlier this year, with a more advanced detecting technique, it became possible to observe which slit the foton went through without interfering with the wave-like property of the particle itself, putting to rest filosophical musings as to whether or not light particles change their behavior "if they know they're being watched". It's the mechanics of the experiment that hasn't been advanced enough, yet. Not a form of consciousness. I have no aversion to philosophical musings or even fringe experiments that examines our reality and whether or not there are things that we operate under the impression of, that in reality are false, but blanket statements that goes directly against evidence is hard for me to swallow. When someone makes a statement about fundamental forces in the universe, it would be nice if they themselves could attempt to back it up with evidence, instead of me finding ways to do their experiments for them.
128714
Marius Moe
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
Odds are a funny thing. Here in Norway, there is one lottery eweek, where people have a less than 1 in 8.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 to win, if you go by the possible combinations. Weirdly enough, someone wins every week. Even though there are only 5-6 million people here.
128714
Marius Moe
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
Hi Peter. I'm replying to your previous question in this post, because i'm not able to directly reply to your other post. In the lab, my sister has observed speciation in insects, a kind of short-lived flie. (the more generations in a short time, the better) These were separated and put under different severely altered conditions, manually "steering" evolution by changing environments a great deal. The flies went on, through over 100 generations, to change so radically that they could not interbreed. They had speciated. Their appearance was so radically different, that they did not appear as the same species, and, indeed, were not. So genetically different (caused by isolation and extreme environments) they had become, that one of the three or four sets of flies couldn't longer produce offspring with it's originated species. It had, in short terms, become "something else" than a fly. Still an insect, but a pre-fly. Kind of the same way that wales are still mammals, even though their lineage is from land animals, only with a significant time difference. One "kind" became another "kind". Disproving macroevolution could be done by finding a genetic mechanism that disallowed a certain magnitude of change, but has not yet been found. And, since we among other things have the fossils that tracks whale lineage, its hard to say that macroevolution doesnt exist when we can track the wale through the fossil layer and see that it "used to" live on land.
128714
Marius Moe
Posted over 3 years ago
Intelligent Design
Dear Ms. Rose. I just wanted you to know, that my sister, who is doing her doctorate on microbiology here in Norway, has directly observed speciation (what you would call macro-evolution), as have all university students of microbiology in Norway. It's sad that you don't know enough about evolution to know how the mechanisms of it is. To David Kaufman: Quoting a Nobel Laureate, you did. You also did it out of the context of the book, and failed to mention that your equations, based on the Nobel Laureates words (you say), goes DIRECTLY AGAINST what the Nobel Laureate himself beliefs and thinks. Simply put, it is YOU who disagree with him, and when you get insulted by others who you dishonestly says disagree with him, you are "only" insulted by people not agreeing with you. One of them happens to be a Nobel laureate. They may still be wrong, and you can still be right, but please stop being intellectually dishonest or lazy.