On the ftl neutrino

[stormkroe]

My list came directly from an actual Bible, Genesis 1:26-31. You want a better source than the Bible to refute the scientific accuracy of the Bible?



Yes, it sure does. Now, go and re-read your apologetics through the rational lens of science and see how it comes off.

I think your list came from a book or website that has no problem with disinformation, because the verses you listed have nothing to do with creation events. Maybe you didn't verify? My list DOES come right from genesis 1:1-26, and it conforms exactly with modern cosmology. A large portion of my library is from secular scientists (as it should since there are more secular scientists to write), so I have no problem putting people like Dr. Ross 'to the test'. What is the reason you misquote my sources for me? Seems like you might be using your own lense.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

I think your list came from a book or website that has no problem with disinformation, because the verses you listed have nothing to do with creation events. Maybe you didn't verify?

stormkroe, the events of my #1-9 list are directly out of the Bible (NIV). Ironically, however, that means you were correct (for the wrong reason) when you assumed my source was a book that has no problem with disinformation ;-)

Here, I'll even show you the DIRECT transcription from the Bible next to my list (how's that for verification?):

1) Gen 1:1, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. = creation of Earth
2) Gen 1:3, And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. = creation of ambiguous light (it is ambiguous because the source of the light wasn't stated)
3) Gen 1:7, So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. = creation of water below and above (?) the sky (I didn't add the part about water above the sky - that's actually in the Bible)
4) Gen 1:9, And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." = creation of land on Earth
5) Gen 1:11, Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation" = creation of plants on land
6) Gen 1:16, God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. = creation of the Sun and Moon
7) Gen 1:20, And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." = creation of aquatic life and birds
8) Gen 1:24, And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds" = creation of land animals
9) Gen 1:26, Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image" = creation of humans

Seriously, the two sides of each equation above are identical. I'm not sure how this, out of everything I wrote, is what you're choosing to take issue with!

I'm quite honestly shocked that you don't recognize those events as the Genesis creation events. I'm an atheist and I'm familiar with them.

My list DOES come right from genesis 1:1-26, and it conforms exactly with modern cosmology.

Ok, so maybe the problem is that you don't understand cosmology. That's fine - most people don't. Just please don't pretend that you do simply because you've read some religious apologetics.

Here's a big hint: cosmology (or any of science) doesn't invoke the supernatural to set events in motion.

What is the reason you misquote my sources for me? Seems like you might be using your own lense.

I never once spoke about your sources! I told you that the Bible was MY source for that list. Don't twist my words in some futile attempt to bolster your argument.

 

[stormkroe]

Jack,
Please don't feel like i'm attacking you or your view point (whether you care or not, I don't want to come off that way). My issue with your points was the veses you yourself cited were not the creation account (you said 1:27-36, which is not right) so when I was looking up your side, what was I supposed to assume? Also, of course I recognize the creation account, my list was almost exactly the same as yours, except mine didn't ignore the contexts involved, which changes what is written into the rediculous story you think is what I am defending. As I have stated before, I don't keep my information limited to people who agree with me, so I don't base my knowledge on apologetical authors exclusively. in fact, we may have read some if the same things. But seriousely, unless you have a degree in cosmology yourself, the information I contribute should be just as welcome as yours, as I have yet to (and never will) assert my opinions as fact.
Lastly, bigbang cosmology is unaffected by the presence or not of a Beginner. Causality, infact, requires one, though what form it takes is up to your own interpretation.
On a lighter note, I enjoy this banter and apologize if you do not.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

My issue with your points was the veses you yourself cited were not the creation account (you said 1:27-36, which is not right) so when I was looking up your side, what was I supposed to assume?

No, I incorrectly said Genesis 1:26-31 but not 1:27-36. While citing "Genesis 1:26-31" was a bad copy/paste error on my part, it is actually still part of the creation account (the creation of humans).

My #1-9 list *was* from Genesis 1:1-26, in fact, but I had forgotten the verse numbers since the time I originally looked it up so instead of looking it up again I copied/pasted "Genesis 1:26-31" from my earlier post at 11:44am yesterday.

The fact that I wrote the wrong verses, however, has no bearing whatsoever on the creation events which I listed. Therefore, it is still incorrect for you to say that my list contained disinformation. It seems to me like you're grasping at straws here when you take such issue with me writing the wrong numbers while listing the events correctly as described.

As I have stated before, I don't keep my information limited to people who agree with me, so I don't base my knowledge on apologetical authors exclusively. in fact, we may have read some if the same things.

I've read and I'm familiar with the Bible. As an atheist, I believe that certainly qualifies me to also say that I don't only read books which agree with my views.

But seriousely, unless you have a degree in cosmology yourself, the information I contribute should be just as welcome as yours, as I have yet to (and never will) assert my opinions as fact.

I don't have a degree in cosmology (does anyone - wouldn't it be in physics?). However, my sources are physicists. That's what matters.

Lastly, bigbang cosmology is unaffected by the presence or not of a Beginner. Causality, infact, requires one, though what form it takes is up to your own interpretation.

No, the Big Bang does not require a beginner.

"Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." - Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design

Lawrence Krauss also has a great lecture on this topic. It is called 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 on YouTube. It's long, but well worth the time to watch.

On a lighter note, I enjoy this banter and apologize if you do not.

Obviously, I do too. Otherwise I wouldn't put nearly this much time into the discussion.

 

[William Gaatjes]

That you two make point of this is something i find strange.

In the past i took 5 different bibles. Five random bibles. I found differences in all five of them when comparing these bibles with each other. Differences about the appearances of certain individuals, Differences about the individuals that bring despair or the "wrath" of god.
Differences about how to treat people. Unless you have access to the vatican library, it is of no use.

 

[Brian Stirling]

When I worked at IBM many years ago I had a co-worker engineer that was also a devote christian that believed in Creation and opposed evolution. I'd get into arguments with him from time-to-time and noticed that much of his arguments sounded very boiler plate and then I found out why. On his desk was a little book entitled "Handy dandy evolution refuter".



Brian

 

[Lemon law]

When I worked at IBM many years ago I had a co-worker engineer that was also a devote christian that believed in Creation and opposed evolution. I'd get into arguments with him from time-to-time and noticed that much of his arguments sounded very boiler plate and then I found out why. On his desk was a little book entitled "Handy dandy evolution refuter".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound similar with Rush Limbaugh, who has the support of 14 million ditto heads.

But the other appeal of Rush with his supporters is the difference in results. When Rush's listeners use the same arguments Rush advances on "normal" people, they usually fail miserably in convincing their critics, which leads ditto heads to only more worship of Rush because he succeeds when they can't.

Of course missing in action is the Rush secret of success, don't allow any articulate critic on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Proving once again, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Why bother to prove anything when Rush's alter ego Snurdely is the poster child of all of Rush's critics. Behold the power of lack of logic.

 

[C1]

re: FTL - Dont get your hopes up too high
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/mundane-explanations-neutrinos/

 

[William Gaatjes]

It seems the search for faster then light neutrino's is still alive and kicking :

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=neutrino-experiment-replicates

Neutrino Experiment Replicates Faster-Than-Light Finding

Latest data show the subatomic particles continue to break the speed limit.

November 18, 2011 | 23


By Eugenie Samuel Reich of Nature magazine


Physicists have replicated the finding that the subatomic particles called neutrinos seem to travel faster than light. It is a remarkable confirmation of a stunning result, yet most in the field remain sceptical that the ultimate cosmic speed limit has truly been broken.


The collaboration behind the experiment, called OPERA (Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tracking Apparatus), made headlines in September with its claim that a beam of neutrinos made the 730-kilometer journey from CERN, Europe's particle-physics lab near Geneva in Switzerland, to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory near L'Aquila, Italy, faster than the speed of light. The result defies Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, which states that this cannot happen.


The result was highly statistically significant, but following author and astrophysicist Carl Sagan's dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, most physicists expressed doubts. Few questioned the carefulness of OPERA's data-taking and analysis, but there was rampant speculation about possible sources of error. Some made claims of mistakes that the collaboration was quick to address (see 'Faster-than-light neutrinos face time trial').


One concern was that, at 10.5 microseconds (millionths of a second), the proton pulses that CERN used to generate the neutrino pulses were relatively long. OPERA could not know whether individual neutrinos received at Gran Sasso corresponded to protons early or late in the proton pulse, creating uncertainty around their travel time.


In October, OPERA therefore asked CERN to generate shorter proton pulses, lasting just 3 nanoseconds (billionths of a second), more than 3,000 times briefer than the earlier test. They have now recorded 20 events in the new data run, and have claimed a similar level of statistical significance to the first set of results.


Once again, the neutrinos would beat a light beam to Gran Sasso by 60 nanoseconds. The new result was released on the arXiv preprint server on November 17.


Confidence boost

"It's slightly better than the previous result," says OPERA's physics coordinator, Dario Autiero of the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Lyons (IPNL), France. He adds that most of the members of OPERA who declined to sign the original paper because they wanted more time to check the result have now come on board.


One of these is Caren Hagner of the University of Hamburg in Germany. Not only has the beam precision been improved, she says, but the statistical analysis is also more robust and has been replicated by groups within OPERA besides the original team. "We gained much more confidence," Hagner says.


OPERA expects the new result to rule out uncertainties due to duration of the proton pulses. But concerns about the experiment's use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) to synchronize clocks at each end of the neutrino beam are unlikely to be as easily allayed.


GPS, which was used in both the original and latest experiments, is previously untried in the field of high-energy and particle physics. Hagner adds that she would like to see the time measurement checked using another part of the OPERA detector.


For most physicists outside the collaboration, the key test will be replication by an independent experiment. The project best placed to confirm or refute OPERA's result soonest is MINOS (Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search) at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois.


In response to the latest OPERA result, MINOS issued a statement saying that it is upgrading its timing system to match OPERA's precision. MINOS might also be able to complete a preliminary check of the OPERA result, using its existing system, as soon as early 2012.


"OPERA is to be congratulated for doing some important and sensitive checks, but independent checks are the way to go," says Rob Plunkett, co-spokesman for MINOS.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It seems it will not take long anymore before people start laughing when someone claims "It is utterly impossible to go faster then light in vacuum : c"

Quantum entanglement is still very mysterious. It has been mentioned that a form of inter communication is going on that is faster then light.

But the big question with this experiment is, is the reaction of diamond nr2 only happening with a small delay after the laser was firing 100 femtosecond pulses at diamond nr1 or was the reaction simultaneously ?
Because with the ftl neutrino experiment, the difference was only around 60 nanoseconds for a distance of more then 700km ?
It will take some time before we can measure the timing differences at small scales. Or perhaps the experiment with specially prepared diamonds can be executed at one side of the earth(diamond nr1) and measured on the other side of the earth (diamond nr2). This would give more then enough accuracy to measure if there is a delay or not.



http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-world-diamonds.html

Researchers working at the Clarendon Laboratory at the University of Oxford in England have managed to get one small diamond to communicate with another small diamond utilizing "quantum entanglement," one of the more mind-blowing features of quantum physics.

Entanglement has been proven before but what makes the Oxford experiment unique is that concept was demonstrated with substantial solid objects at room temperature. Previous entanglements of matter involved submicroscopic particles, often at cold temperatures. This experiment employed millimeter-scale diamonds, "not individual atoms, not gaseous clouds," said Ian Walmsley, professor of experimental physics at Oxford's Clarendon Laboratory, one of the international team of researchers.

The experiment is reported in this week's edition of Science.
When zapping one artificial diamond with ultrashort laser pulses they managed to change the vibrations of a second diamond sitting a half a foot away without touching it.

Entanglement originated in the mind of Albert Einstein, who ironically came up with the notion trying to disprove quantum mechanics, a branch of physics he mistrusted all his life. Under the theory, if two particles, say electrons, are created together, some of their attributes will become "entangled." If the two are then separated, doing something to one instantly affects the other. This would happen whether they were next to each other or across the universe.
For instance, electrons act as if they have tiny bar magnets that point up or down, described by an attribute called "spin." If the two electrons are entangled through their spins -- up or down -- and a scientist measures the spin of one, the spin of the other will react even if one is on a lab table in Oxford and the other were on a planet near the star Antares, 1,000 light years away. Instantly. This would mean that the information about the change traveled faster than the speed of light -- which Einstein said was impossible -- or that long distances are some kind of illusion.

Einstein disparaged it as "spooky action at a distance." The German physicist Erwin Schrodinger used the term "entanglement" in a letter to Einstein. He didn't believe in quantum mechanics either. "I think I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics," the late physicist Richard Feynman once famously explained. Nonetheless, quantum mechanics is now the paradigm for nature at the atomic level. It serves as the foundation of much of modern technology, from lasers to transistors. And entanglement comes as part of the package. Physicists have been demonstrating it in laboratories since the 1980s, and it is being used in laboratories experimenting with the building blocks of quantum computers. The diamonds Walmsley and his international team used were approximately 3 millimeters (a tenth of an inch) square and 1 millimeter thick. "We used short pulse lasers with pulse durations of around 100 femtoseconds (a quadrillionth of a second). A femtosecond is to a second as a nickel is to the debt of the federal government generally speaking," he said.

They chose diamonds because they are crystals, so it was easier to measure molecular vibrations, and because they are transparent in visible wavelengths. Light from the lasers altered a kind of mass vibration in the diamond crystal called phonons, and the measurements showed they were entangled: The vibrations of the second diamond reacted to what happened to the vibrations of the first. Performing the experiment with ultrafast laser pulses enabled the researchers to catch entanglement, which is usually very short-lived in large objects at room temperature.

"It remains a counterintuitive way of thinking about objects," Walmsley admitted. "It's a very nice and clever piece of work with potentially big implications," said Sidney Perkowitz, a physicist at Emory University in Atlanta, and author of "Slow Light: Invisibility, Teleportation and Other Mysteries of Light," a book partially about entanglement. The macroscopic size, and the fact that this was done at room temperature, would be important steps toward a practical quantum technology for telecommunications and computing, and toward deeper understanding of how the quantum world and the human-scale world are related."

Source: Inside Science News Service

But there is also more news from a recent experiment where researcher seemed to be able to force virtual particles into reality by creating photons.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-researchers-create-light-from-almost.html

(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of physicists working out of Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, have succeeded in proving what was until now, just theory; and that is, that visible photons could be produced from the virtual particles that have been thought to exist in a quantum vacuum. In a paper published on arXiv, the team describes how they used a specially created circuit called a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) to modulate a bit of wire length at a roughly five percent of the speed of light, to produce visible "sparks" from the nothingness of a vacuum.

The experiment shows that the Casimir effect is not just theory; named after Dutch physicist Hendrik B. G. Casimir who along with Dirk Polderfirst first proposed back in the late 1940’s, the idea of a force that existed in a vacuum; a force that should, if manipulated just right between two plates, or mirrors, result in the creation of photons.
The thinking goes that in any vacuum, virtual particles come into existence and then disappear on a constant ongoing basis; and they do so in waves. The Casimir effect proposes that if two very tiny mirrors were to be placed very close together; close enough that the distance between them would be smaller than the length of some of the virtual waves, a force would be created as the number of particles outside of the space between the mirrors grows higher than the number that exists between them, causing a pull on the mirrors, dragging them closer together. The force that is created, it has been theorized, could then be used to generate photons.
Later researchers proposed that the same effect could be achieved using just one mirror if it were moved back and forth very quickly; and that’s the approach the team took in the experiment. The quick movement of the mirror serves to separate pairs of virtual particles which then provide the energy to convert the virtual particles into real photons, which is what happened in the SQUID, allowing the team to see the photons that were produced.
Such research, while theoretically satisfying, doesn’t really offer much in the way of practical applications, at least not at this time; but that’s not to say that new developments that arise as a result of this research couldn’t conceivably lead to something more profound, such as a means of harnessing energy from the vacuum of space to be used to push a vehicle as it travels throughout the universe.

More information: Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect in a Superconducting Circuit, arXiv:1105.4714v1 [quant-ph]

Abstract
One of the most surprising predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual particles flitting in and out of existence. While initially a curiosity, it was quickly realized that these vacuum fluctuations had measurable consequences, for instance producing the Lamb shift of atomic spectra and modifying the magnetic moment for the electron. This type of renormalization due to vacuum fluctuations is now central to our understanding of nature. However, these effects provide indirect evidence for the existence of vacuum fluctuations. From early on, it was discussed if it might instead be possible to more directly observe the virtual particles that compose the quantum vacuum. 40 years ago, Moore suggested that a mirror undergoing relativistic motion could convert virtual photons into directly observable real photons. This effect was later named the dynamical Casimir effect (DCE). Using a superconducting circuit, we have observed the DCE for the first time. The circuit consists of a coplanar transmission line with an electrical length that can be changed at a few percent of the speed of light. The length is changed by modulating the inductance of a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) at high frequencies (~11 GHz). In addition to observing the creation of real photons, we observe two-mode squeezing of the emitted radiation, which is a signature of the quantum character of the generation process.

I would think :
Let just suppose that it is possible for the aether(or quantum foam or virtual particles or gods cradle for the universe) vibrate at frequencies so incredible high that we can only experience and are part of the result of the interactions of those 3d oscillations...

That could be fun... ^_^



p.s.

Imagine this :

A point in a really empty dimension that is really just the size as the point. Not even virtual particles exist because even these are the results and not the causes. But...
All 3d oscillations that happen, happen actually at that same point and at the same moment.
But not with the same amplitude. The interactions cause space (action becomes distance) and time (changes over distance). The universe would seem to originate from a single point. But there really only is that point. If these oscillations could be manipulated as desired, it is possible to travel from one side of the universe to the other side in a very short time. Teleportation at it's finest. And it is possible to reverse the entire universe to a previous state. However, in both cases, the amount of energy required ...
Think of way more advanced form of life then a type III civilization (Kardashev)...

 

[William Gaatjes]

This is going to be fun :

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-faster-than-light-particles-science-drama.html

"If this result at CERN is proved to be right, and particles are found to travel faster than the speed of light, then I am prepared to eat my shorts, live on TV," declared Jim Al-Khalili, a professor of theoretical physics at Britain's University of Surrey.