Not long ago I had a discussion similar to the OP with my son, who is a scientist. I, being a Buddhist, asked him what he thought of the Buddhist concept of “becoming one with the universe” when you leave this life. Having a limited knowledge of science, I proposed that since there are just so many atoms in the universe, and the ones that my corporeal body are composed of will eventually move on to different states of matter, as they are after all just a bunch of atoms, and I will indeed become “one with the universe”. To my satisfaction he confirmed my belief and took it a step further telling me that his view of the universe is that it is infinite. And that the two views of infinity are either circular or lineal and eventually…well, who knows . A lot of heavy science going on there but what it all boils down to is that sooner or later you’ll be back. Wishful thinking or scientific fact? All I know is that it makes more sense than an invisible man with magical powers who lives in the sky. And, not being a youngster anymore, you start thinking about these things more often than you want to and it gives me comfort knowing that I’ll see him again next time around. ( I love that kid)
May the Buddha smile upon you.
Peanuthead
Oh, and Little Nemo, it’s not the individual atoms that make you who they are; it’s the (incredibly complicated) way in which they’re arranged. Saying it’s not your actual body because it’s made up of different carbon atoms is like saying that the book on the shelf next to me isn’t really The Lord of the Rings since it’s not the same ink that came out of Tolkien’s pen.
“Atoms, once drawn into the torrent of living matter, do not readily leave it.” —Vladimir Vernadsky
I wish I understood all of this better. It’s mostly Greek to me. But fascinating, none the less.
I grew up with religion, not science. I had no idea until recently, just how much I bought into the nonsense that I now consider the bible to be. So, now at the ripe old age of 55, I find myself having to learn what will really happen. And what did happen. How’d this all get started. I mean, I have heard of the big bang of course and I know about evolution, though not as much as I’d like.
I want someone to tell me a story like the bible did. Only with facts instead of junk. And one that is more easily understood than the bible. One with fewer ( a lot fewer) contradictions and more, what? Truth? I don’t know. I just know that I need to learn a whole new beginning and ending and stories are a great way to learn. Anyone know of such a book?
Is there a Scientific bible for dummies?
Not what you’d expect, I really like your question – perhaps you should consider asking it in a separate thread, where it may receive more attention. (Perhaps avoid the term ‘scientific bible’, though – it’s clear what you mean, but people tend to react touchy in that area. …On second thought, that’s not actually a good reason to avoid the term, so include it if you want. ;))
The latter is certainly where I got it – specifically, from Paul Teller’s An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, though I believe he only uses thisness or primitive thisness.
Yeah, I’m not sure how else to phrase my question, but it sounds like you got my drift. Have you a suggestion for a better way to ask the question?
Also, what would be an appropriate forum for that type of question, do you think?
I think it’s fine the way you asked; and as for forum, since you’re asking for a book, perhaps Cafe Society?
Thanks. I’m probably posting too much as it is, but I’ll consider that.
Re: heat death of the universe
So…black matter has been downgraded? There won’t be a big crunch?
In other news, “arbitrarily low energy” is what I have right now, so I don’t feel the need to wait for the end of the universe. It’s a good thing my grandson is on the way, maybe he’ll re-energize me.
Unless something entirely unanticipated happens (which it might; what we don’t know about dark energy could fill whole libraries), the Big Crunch is almost certainly off the table. We might yet get a Big Rip, though.
So, re all of the above. Is that what happened to the atoms of Schrödinger’s cat? 
I am a strange loop…and so is everyone else.
Stranger
No, you’re a stranger loop.
This would be the argument of my coworkers, especially those who fine it peculiar that I name computing systems after characters of Hamlet and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
Stranger
Only certain in the sense that emptiness is certain. The universe is tending towards maximimal entropy, not zero entropy.
Also, even in empty space, there’s still quantum foam which adds entropy.
So when those lovely curly tracks from accelerators are pointed out (“labeled”), what are we looking at? Is the answer related to Heisenberg, and by labeling we changed the particle’s “natural” nature from the state you are referring to?
We look at interactions with some medium, i.e. the detector. Take the simple case of a bubble chamber: whenever some particle of ionizing radiation interacts with the medium, it creates a tiny bubble; the stream of bubbles marks the trail of the particle. But at least in principle, you could switch out the particle ‘in between’ interactions, with one identical in every respect, and get the same bubble stream (or one functionally identical – there’s of course always an element of randomness to quantum mechanics).
You say “you could.” Is this “only” a theoretically correct principle (which I have no reason to doubt), or is this actually happening in a bubble stream, or is the answer to that question we have no way of knowing?
According to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11893583
Anyone have access to the study they’re referring to? Has it been confirmed or refuted in the 58 years since?
The answer to that question is something we have no way of knowing. If the particles in question are fermions, the only change would be a switch in the absolute phase of the wavefunction, but that’s not observable. If they’re bosons, there isn’t even that change.