User:Mpatel

User:Mpatel/userboxes

Wikipedia:WikiProject Relativity.

Wikipedia seems like an outstanding idea - anyone can edit a page etc. - but this has obvious disadvantages: vandals seem to be prowling around almost everywhere. Even if you find a sufficiently obscure or technical article to edit, the chances are that there is someone out there who will probably either engage in an edit war or just vandalise the article for the fun of it. Other people to watch out for are those who try to promote their own (unofficial) ideas in insidious and devious ways (for example, by slipping in a few sly links at the bottom of articles which many people overlook). Also, it's good to be aware of reading someone's comments that may initially seem offensive, but their intention is just to help out (especially those whose first language is not English). It's very easy to fall into the trap of 'snapping' back at someone. With wikipedia, patience is the name of the game: it's in the nature of WP that good articles are created by lengthy discussions (over many moons) and these discussions are worthwhile in the long run - if anything, you will always learn something useful at WP - it is an encyclopedia after all ! Also, you may make 'edit friends' here. I have !

I am mainly interested in contributing to the following categories:

I've contributed a fair bit.

• Pauli exclusion principle
• Entropy
• Quantum Mechanics
• Schrödinger equation
• Supersymmetry
• Thermodynamics
• Uncertainty principle

...are those articles I'm rewriting and can be found in my sandbox.

• What does the EPR paradox tell us (if anything) about the structure of spacetime ?

• How fundamental is the second law of thermodynamics and would the existence of white holes violate this law ?

• Do wormholes exist and if so can they be used to perform time-travel ? Does Einstein's theory of general relativity rule out closed timelike curves and does exotic matter really exist?

• Planck's relation between the energy and frequency of a photon can be derived using special relativity. Does this mean that light quantization is implicit in special relativity ?

• Does the general principle of relativity hold for quantum phenomena or is it just an approximate principle ? How fundamental is the principle of general covariance ?

• As the reduction of the state vector is a time irreversible process (see Penrose, 'Emperor's New Mind'), must a TOE be time irreversible ?

• What implications does Gödel's Incompleteness theorem have for the nature of mathematics? Does it restrict what we can do with mathematics, or does it indicate a limitation of the axiomatic method ?

• Electromagnetic theories of consciousness
• General semantics
• Presentism (philosophy of time)
• Quantum mind
• Space-time theories of consciousness
• Technological singularity

• Is Zamzam water healthier than 'normal water' ?

• Win a million dollars !!! - if you think you can crack one of the Millennium Prize Problems.

• Is telekinesis a real phenomena and can current theories of physics account for it ?

• At what point does a piece of matter become living ? Do current theories give a convincing explanation for the origin of life ? Can reductionism really explain the nature of consciousness - or life ?

• Are some ufo's extraterrestrial ? Did SETI find evidence of an alien civilisation when they detected the wow! signal ?

• If the universe really has more than 4 dimensions, what are the others and can we influence (or be influenced by) them ? Are current physical theories which assume more than 4 dimensions unfalsifiable ?

• Is Darwinian evolution (DE) unfalsifiable (not because it assumes more than 4 dimensions !) ? It purports to explain the variation of life based on a few assumptions, but appears to explain nothing else - does this mean that it's an ad hoc theory (notice the similarity here with the theory of Lorentz contraction) ? Compare this biological evolution theory with a physical evolution theory, the Big Bang theory, which was not formulated to account for the expansion of the universe - this was a consequence of general relativity; it also makes many other predictions which have been verified. What does this reveal about the scientific quality of current biological evolution 'theories' (apart from it's ad hocness, how much quantitative support exists for DE anyway) ? - I'm not suggesting that DE is totally false, just that it should be tested more rigorously and is probably only an approximation to a more comprehensive evolution theory (in the same way that Newtonian mechanics is an approximation of special relativity).

Some political and current issues for consideration:

• Should secret societies be banned ? What exactly is freemasonry ?

• Think twice before you eat that chocolate bar.

... on my talk page.

• Two moons (4 start of mosque page)
• Bahrain grand mosque (night)
• Ablution facilities
• Pattern in Paris mosque
• Ladies prayer hall
• Pattern in Yavuz Sultan Selim
• Haji Ali Mosque and Dargah (sunset ?)
• Taj Mahal Mosque arches
• Islamic Centre Samarinda at night
• Design on ceiling
• Ablution area in courtyard Isfahan

• Wikipedian teachers
• WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors participants
• WikiProject Islam participants
• Wikipedians interested in Islam
• WikiProject Relativity participants
• Wikipedians interested in mathematics
• Wikipedians interested in physics
• Wikipedian mathematicians
• User en-GB