form_srcid: creeky belly
form_srcid: creeky belly
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 54.156.42.165
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: creeky belly
q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'creeky belly%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #6
Date: 2006/06/26 14:08:28, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
I've been watching this thread for a while, it's not often you hear much about geocentrism and quantum mechanics mentioned in the same sentence. I know Ghost has been claiming that quantum mechanics can govern things as large as planets and celestial bodies. I can recall going over this topic in my first undergraduate quantum class, and it's a fairly simple derivation. Since Ghost prefers to use atomic and molecular potentials and the basic properties of the quantum system depend on the potential being used, it's a fairly trivial process changing a potential from a electric potential to a gravitational. Not suprisingly, by substituting in the values of the solar mass, earth mass, you can derive the basic wave functions of a gravitational potential. Now, as most know who've taken QM, there's an expectation value for the radius of an "orbiting body" and it depends on the energy level. The uncertainty in measuring this value decreases as the energy level, therefore the higher the energy level, the more the body approaches classical observation. In the case of the sunearth orbit, the energy level turns out to be around 10^74, and not to throw around arbitrarily large numbers, but the point is that using an atomic or even molecular approximation for our orbiting bodies, etc, is fine, it just doesn't render any of the bizarre quantum mechanic behavior Ghost trying to take advantage of. (This exercise has particular relevance to try and approximate the wavelength of the graviton, the possible graviational force exchange particle) Oh and while we're on the subject, Ghost: what is your quantum theory of gravity? 
Date: 2006/06/27 08:42:53, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
I understand Eric's objection, and it should suffice to show that the consequences of quantum mechanics on macroscopic objects is negligible/unobservable. I was objecting to Ghost's treatment of objects like the sun and earth in orbitals as acting quantum mechanically, and it's fairly trivial to show that they do not. If this discussion had predated perhaps Copernicus, then it might have some sort of viability, but there's far too much empirical evidence to make a case like this, and frankly my interest starts to wane. Ghost, for an interesting history on the spinning bucket/stationary earth problem check out the Newton/Mach/Einstein discussion. 
Date: 2006/06/27 11:15:43, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
This would be alright, except for an object in a potential does not have an arbitrary wavevector k, unless it happens to be a free particle (zero potential), in which case to normalize the distribution we think of the wavefunction as being localized (wavepacket). If the particle has more energy than the potential, the particle will oscillate like a wave, if it has less energy it will decay into the potential. As far as the complex numbers go, it is perfectly fine to have a complex wavefunction, but when you look at the expectation value of the position of the particle <r>, you multiply the wavefunction by its complex conjugate and get a real solution. The wavefunction is simply a vector in Hilbert space, whose physical interperetation is whose magnitude is the probability distribution in a particular space. Since position and momentum are related by the Fourier transform, you can choose either space to find a momentum or position distribution. In fact it is the Fourier transform which yields the uncertainty principle, since localizing a particle in momentum space spreads out the position distribution and vice versa. The minimum, which can be proved, is the Gaussian shape and yields the result: dpdx >= hbar/2. Your wave function is no exception as the momentum space of your function is spread out (since the position is localized more or less to the origin). I can do the math for you, but it's a rather remedial exercise to do, so I will reference you to look in Quantum Physics by Gasiorowicz or Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths. 
Date: 2006/06/27 11:52:22, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
To be nitpicky about the integral, you need a factor of 'r' in the integral since you're assuming that the wavefuntion is rotated around the f[_r] axis (Jacobian: r*dtheta*dr) 
Date: 2006/06/27 13:02:21, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
In order to calculate the uncertainty, you need <r^2><r>^2, which I think is incalculable, since <r^2> will yield an infinite result. To find the uncertainty relation, you need <p^2><p>^2 as well. You will find that (<r^2><r>^2)(<p^2><p>^2) >= hbar/2.
I'm not sure what you mean by "twist", or what "information" really has to do with anything physical, but all the particle physics for the last century has supported the fact that, yes, the momentum/position distributions support both the Fourier relation and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I think you're starting to bark up your own tree here. You can't use your equations to support the logic, without some sort of physical consequence: i.e. if the constants are different in different spaces, then the distributions in each space should be off by your scale factor. It's measurable; the problem is that it just doesn't happen the way you describe it. 
Date: 2006/06/27 13:05:08, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Oops that should be: (<r^2><r>^2)(<p^2><p>^2) >= (hbar/2)^2 
Date: 2006/06/27 14:33:00, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
That's what Mars orbit looks like from the earth, somewhat exaggerated. Imagine the earth is in the middle, Mars traces out a path in the direction of the arrows. 
Date: 2006/06/27 22:34:16, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
The choice of constant is simply to keep the vector in Hilbert space and serve as an accurate statistical tool for quantum mechanics. That is precisely the ratio for the deBroiglie, Heisenberg, and Schroedinger equations; nothing mysterious, just a statistical consequence. As for this:
You need to define what "information" and what "physical space" are. Is "information" U "physical space" = Hilbert Space? Is "information" c= "physical space"/Hilbert space? What are the properties of "information"/"physical space"? Does "information" represent squareintegrable wave functions? How do "information" elements describe a quantum system? I understand this is a pathetic level of detail, but quantum mechanics as used in any discipline requires at a basic level of this kind of formalism. 
Date: 2006/06/27 22:45:58, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I don't think I'm that belllllllllah, but all this talk has really pushed me to look for that elusive quantum theory of gravity. I recently took a class from one of the greatest perturbational cosmologists, James Bardeen, and he pretty much laughed his way through the history of the last 20 years of people trying to solve this problem. Perhaps the time has come, but I had a pretty good impression that he knew where the solution would come from, and it wasn't anything conventional. This is why I don't mind spending time on Paley; not that he might stumble across it, but that something that he says may spark my own brain onto the right track. Of course his model is still bollocks... 
Date: 2006/06/28 08:12:59, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
If this were true then you would be messing with the total angular momentum of the system, which would inevitably destabilize and destroy the bonding mechanism. Unless you're going to formally define what information "space", or "energy" is, or present some empirical evidence that this can take place, this whole exercise is a waste of time. You're trying to handwave your way through this while skipping some crucial steps (missing energy/momentum, quantum formalism, justifying the existence of information space, justifying information space has anything to do with orbitals). 
Date: 2006/06/28 09:04:36, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Ahem, you're still missing a crucial aspect of the radial part of the 3D equation, namely the radial function. Orbitals are the spherical harmonic solutions associated with the solution to the angular equation. They only yield angular information. Here's where the radial equation comes in. The radial equation yields the probability density for a particles distance away from the center of the atom. Put them together with the gravitational potential and masses in the solar system, you got yourself a classical (read: not QM) orbit. Just so it doesn't sound arbitrary, the Bohr radius for the sunearth system is 2.29x10^138 m, which means that the average distance between the sun and earth in the ground state is 100 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck scale. This is why gravity doesn't work well on Planck scales: it's super weak compared to the other forces. Until the solar body is dense enough, everything you try to do with gravity will end up being classical. Hooray, now I have to go eat by measuring photons off my bagel and hoping the outcome leaves it in my belllah. 
Date: 2006/06/28 09:45:52, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Gravitational force per unit mass on the earth: 5.83x10^3 N/kg Electromagnetic force per unit mass on an electron: 1.02x10^21 N/kg There's no comparison, gravity is just not strong enough to merit a quantum treatment.
Right, because if you had addressed the three quantum numbers you would have found the classical orbit, and we wouldn't still be having this conversation. Pick any bounded quantum system you'd like, the 10^74 energy level will still be classical. If you don't believe me, go ahead and compute <r>, <r^2><r>^2 for R nl where n is the energy level. This will cause <p^2><p>^2 to increase, why? Because classical objects have poorly defined wavelengths. 
Date: 2006/06/28 21:09:23, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I'm ready to do a little bit of science now, since all these assertions mean nothing unless they have observational consequences: In the blue corner we have the Theory of General Relativity which correctly accounts for the precessional motion of Mercury, the dynamics of nearly all celestial bodies (until someone comes up with a viable theory of Quantum Gravity ), and accounts for nearly all the observed astrophysical phenomena (the jury's still out on dark energy/matter). In the red corner we have Quantum Mechanics, which correctly predicts atomic orbitals and double slit electron interference. Using the weak field approximation for the lunar orbit, we first determine the distance the moon is away from the earth using parallax method, then using General Relativity, we predict where the moon will be in an arbitrary amount of time. Low and behold GR picks correctly, and we observe the moon has followed the correct elliptical orbit around the earth. Using the 3D Schroedinger equation of quantum mechanics , we measure the position of the moon. This collapses the wavefunction to a spherically symmetric diracdelta function. Since the solutions from Schroedinger's equation form a complete set, the dirac delta function will be represented by a linear combination of energy eigenstates, which will evolve in time at different rates. Now we wait an arbitrary amount of time. Let's measure the position again. Well golly, depending on the evolution of the energy eigenstates the moon could be anywhere. Do we see this? No. But we forgot to take information space into account, which corrects the measurement and mimics GR. The real winner, GR. You can gripe about the specifics, but it comes down to this. I know with much more certainty how the celestial bodies move and where they are at any given time. And I'm curious, what does the information tell you?
It did so quite successfully and was verified with OBSERVATIONS. By the way you can find the value of Planck's constant from more places than just the blackbody formula. The photoelectric effect, the Balmer series of hydrogen, any of these experimentally verify the value. Guess what, they all agree. 
Date: 2006/06/30 09:37:12, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Which of course has nothing at all to do with gravity or scale invariance. You're still characterizing the E/M interactions of atoms as if macroscopic interaction of matter with the force of gravity are the same thing. They're not. Tell me the gravitational conductivity of a hammer, or a planet. Explain to me the valence band of a planet. Show me the Van der Waals interactions of a pile of rocks. 
Date: 2006/07/03 10:25:02, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Here's the immidiate problem with try to use Time dependent perturbation theory: The energy of states is quantum relation E=h*f or E=hbar*omega, when the particle is more quantum than GR. But if you recall E^2=p^2*c^2+m^2c^4, which for masses like the sun, earth, bodies is entirely dominated by their relativistic mass, or good 'ole Einstein's E=m*c^2. If you don't believe me throw in some test values. Like I've said many times, the sma equations you throw around for orbits and your valence bands, make quite "ho hum" predictions about things like the sun, earth, or moon. (Especially if you understand where and why quantum approximations break down in the equations)
(taken from source 2) All of these equations are based on statistical mechanics, which work excellently for quantum systems, but for the same reasons as above, have absolutely nothing to do with classical mechanics. The entire paper is based on the principle of two bodies of gas that start out in equilibrium, and the inhomegeneities in the wavefunctions causes friction due to the fields. It's all about the eigenstates baby. Again the smallness of hbar prevents you from treating this classical system quantum mechanically, and physically this is what we see. Reminds me of a joke, "A man walks into an hbar, he says ouch because it's a public hbar. I mean an iron hbar! Now that's a joke!" "And they say it's how you tell 'em." 
Date: 2006/07/03 10:43:32, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Oops, should have checked my math first. Using the nonrelativistic approximation in the E^2 equation, you get 1/2m*v^2, since m*v dominates h/lambda, but the point is the same. 
Date: 2006/07/04 21:36:50, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I could give you several reasons why this is incorrect, but I'll focus on actual empirical evidence for this. If you take a look at the WMAP satellite data (a 3 year CMB anisotropy probe), the motion of the earth around the sun was evident by the shift in the frequency of the radiation in a year cycle, light from stars would shift to blue and then shift to red, as if the entire universe were moving towards then away and the towards earth again. This is to be expected as part of a sun centered solar system, but makes little sense in the context of an earth centered system. You could make a case for a oscillating background, but it wouldn't explain the polarization effects of the radiation.
I'm betting that there will be a huge handwaving arguement based on the Bell inequality, but that's just me. The fancy math and physics can't save you if you don't observe it. I will point you to this paper, and this site for more information on the probe. WMAP information WMAP Polarization Analysis 
Date: 2006/07/09 19:55:48, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Isochron analysis of RbSr, ArKr About halfway down the page:
This publication has more direct answers to the geomorphology questions, and why the date analysis is difficult, but much closer to the middle answer of 1100 Ma:

Date: 2006/07/10 15:45:20, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Hmm, I guess all I have to do to win this arguement is to take all observational science and cite it. Your objections are simple enough to reconcile, and your model is easy enough to take down. Here's an example of what I think you're trying to get at: Alex Mayer's Theories on Cosmology His theories are in the same nature as Paley's arguement; uses more math, has an actual MODEL with predictions, but he is equally as incorrect as you in his conclusions. He does address what the implications of his model are, and how it can reconcile astrophysical puzzles, but he makes some fundamental mistakes which hamper his entire thesis. 
Date: 2006/07/12 12:22:30, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I've had the opportunity to read through the paper on quantum friction, and it's a good read if you can stomach some quantum field theory and dirac notation. I was trying to figure out exactly why this paper would be useful in GoP's arguement, so I read further. Basically a system, "A", which consists of an atom (hmm) and all of it's possible energy levels, is placed in an infintely large system, "B", so the temperature does not change, but has a positive temperature equal to 1/beta. At time t=0, the atom in a particular state, we'll call it, statea (could be a combination of different energy levels, whatever). The atom then goes through a scattering process, until it is in thermal equilibrium with "B". There is a "lifetime" associated with the average time that it takes a system to go from statea to a particular energy state and emit a photon, through all of the famous processes (spontaneous emission, stimulated emission [since the "B" is considered to be massless bosons, namely photons]). The paper then proceeds to formalize this interaction and then states:
This is the reason why the arguements don't help, Paley. Perturbation theory is useful when the perturbation , here ~Hl, is small compared to the potential. Once ~Hl becomes significantly large, higher order terms begin to affect the validity of the approximation, and the theory ceases to an accurate physical representation (no matter how tantalizing the math). I'm reminded of a quote, the name escapes me, but after the results of the Bell inequality confirmed quantum mechanics some one said: it is no longer the fact that quantum mechanics is a peculiar theory, but that the world is a more peculiar place than anyone could have imagined. You can make any zany theory you want, but it has to be confirmed experimentally or observationally in a nontrivial manner. Happy Wednesday, hope you feel better GoP 
Date: 2006/07/17 10:22:31, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
I'm no chemist, but I have a rough idea of what's in water. I especially liked the part where they turn water(H2O) into HHO. Completely different! I know my chemistry's a little fuzzy, but I didn't think you could have an HHO molecule. I know that you can separate the hydrogen gas from the oxygen, but I seriously doubt that it's very efficient yet (note that the car was a hybrid and there was talk that it "COULD" run on just water/HHHHHHO, not that it did) 
Date: 2006/07/17 10:26:56, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
(ellipses) 
Date: 2006/07/17 20:47:29, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I'm actually surprised it's taken Dave this long to get to this canard with all the talk of flood geology. The reason no one really responded, IMO, is the relatively little knowledge of geology required to analyze the Grand Canyon/Toutle River . I would expect anyone who ever took Geology 101 (lovingly named Rocks for Jocks at the University of Washington, but I'm sure this is not uncommon) anywhere to answer this question. Not to sound condescending, but perhaps Dave could enlighten us on which geologic principles he chooses to use and which he ignores, and why. Certainly, if you look at the two cases using liberal amounts of geological data, you could immidiately come to the conclusion which best fits the data (and supported by ALL empirical evidence). I don't think this needs to be an exercise for the entire forum to complete, but perhaps something for Dave to show us how you can draw such a conclusion logically. I'm an optimist, I know Dave's history of selectively choosing data, but I would rather hear how HE justifies it logically. So far the only similarity between these cases that I've heard is that they are both canyons. So Dave here's [I]your[i] chance, how do you compare these sites geologically? 
Date: 2006/07/18 10:51:21, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Here's a better picture of the Toutle River: Note that it's quite easy to differentiate between the glaciated and the sedimented areas. 
Date: 2006/07/20 15:28:30, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Yeah, let's ditch the whole constant, you can use natural units if you want, I don't really care. As far as periodic perturbations go, you're willing to accept Planck's constant in certain places and not others. Or are you arguing against the basics of Schroedinger's equation. Is it a wave that has a different constant under Fourier Transformation, or are you arguing that in fact i*hbar*psi` is not equal to the Hamilton operator operating on psi. You can't have it both ways. 
Date: 2006/07/20 15:35:40, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Pardon my lack of correct punctuation. I finished a huge project today, and once 5 o'clock rolls around: it's Miller time. 
Date: 2006/07/20 15:58:21, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
On page 99 of Quantum Physics (Gasiorowicz): The Hamiltonian is invariant under displacements of 'a' (the period) E = hbar^2*k^2/2m Here, the periodicity of the universe is around 300 Mpc (homogeneity), tell me how you apply any sort of band structure when the perodicity of the universe so large. Take your time. Even in natural units, comparing this to an insulator/conductor makes no sense. Particularly when the value of a increases (and E), the band structure is nonexistant (using the approximation <sigmax> << a). If you need assistance with the math, I'm always here to help. 
Date: 2006/07/20 22:31:02, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
<Yawn> Wake me up when we get out of Geology 101. If you want real science, browse Georef, and you can reference and argue methods all you want. You don't need any more lecturing Dave, but I suggest you move to a different topic, something more obscure where you might have an advantage. There is no ambiguity in this discussion, and as Walter Sobchak would say, "Forget it, Dave, you're out of your element." "You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie" 
Date: 2006/07/25 12:04:37, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Hmm, and I guess you're trying to come up with a theory on why parallax isn't observed, or is misinterpereted, or the numerous other methods used to verify the earth's motion (WMAP, EGRET) and just about every astronomical observation in the last 200 years are fundamentally flawed. AND Why we should consider a theory with no formal definition (if information space is a space, then it needs to have elements, rules, operations) as a nontrivial explanation for these effects, and preferential treatment (via Occam's) over GR. AND Why scale invariance is not an issue when dealing with the quantum mechanics of nontrivially massive and large bodies. I'm all ears. 
Date: 2006/07/27 20:34:14, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
I have to say at this point, Dave really makes me love science. Imagine if any real science today was done the way Dave does science: we'd have the continents flying around the globe, mountains flying up in weeks, flood waters washing everywhere (and leaving no trace) to name a few. Why doesn't Dave like our science method? Eh, too many assumptions. The sun just might not come back up tomorrow. And this is what I love, the same science method that built the technology that lets us communicate and watch 'the Hoff' helps us understand silly things like plate techtonics and relativity. I know Dave brings on his own heaping portions of criticism everyday, but I think he likes it. And just like a bad car accident, we can't help but to watch either. Eric made a comment that he was like a pinata, and I would agree, but to him we're just as silly and fun to play with. And now we've reach 125 pages. I think for posterity we should catalog "Dave's take on:", for future generations to enjoy and learn from. So here's to Dave for making me glad I don't inhabit his world! 
Date: 2006/07/28 07:47:16, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Hitler and Bob the Builder 
Date: 2006/07/28 12:43:53, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
I'm going to attempt to bait Paley back here: Here's a discussion of an Nbody orbiting diagram, it has that nice Kleinjunction shape that Paley loves. Nbody Gravitation Solution 
Date: 2006/07/29 13:45:35, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
IIRC conservatives have been the majority in making policy in our government for the past decade. Please address all complaints to: Newt Gingrich c/o American Enterprise Institute 
Date: 2006/08/04 15:49:21, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Yeah, and my ass looks like a couple of pressed hams when I put it on a pane of glass; what's your point? Congratulations, you've reached the level of inquiry of a 5 year old. Shit, or get off the pot. Show me the data that the picture DOESN'T show, like a record of the stresses on the plate or perhaps some geological evidence that would indicate that plates have been only flying around for 6000 years, or STFU. 
Date: 2006/08/04 17:19:26, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
********************************** evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence 
Date: 2006/08/10 12:52:46, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
LA LA LA LA LA.... LA LA LA LA LA .... LA LA LA LA LA Tcha know what? Uh uh. 
Date: 2006/08/10 13:27:15, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Real data, as in he's not holding all these fossils in his hands along with geological samples, or real data in the sense that this hasn't been carried out over, and over, and over again? So if we gave you real data using this "hypothetical" method, you would concede the point that there was no catastrophic flood, and millionsofyearism is actually plausible? Congratulations Eric, it only took 130+ pages for him to concede anything. 
Date: 2006/08/10 17:44:08, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Dave's criticism (earlier by Steve S) "I don't know how it works, but I know it's wrong." Lovely. 
Date: 2006/08/20 21:18:55, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Since this is really the only forum I can particularly post about physics things, besides Dave's RM quibbling, I felt that I'd share this with the thread. On Wednesday, we had a guest speaker from Harvard, Shariar Afshar, talk to us about refute Bohr's waveparticle complimentarity. Interesting work, not sure how I feel about the measurement of absence as being absence of measurement, but an interesting proposition. One of my profs, Vladi Chaloupka (an experimentalist), crashed this meeting of theorists with the following exchange: V: "But what would you say to Mr. Bohr if you had the chance, that you've refuted the Copenhagen viewpoint? He would look at your experiment and say, "Of course!" Afshar: "I would say Mr.Bohr there is a nonperturbative method for determining both position and momentum." V: "Nonsense. It is only the illusion that you have measured both, and Mr Bohr would say 'AHA!' This exchange continued for about 10 minutes before, finally, the chair of the Theory dept broke up the dispute and moved on. I think that Afshar raised a particularly interesting concept, that the language that we use to desribe quantum mechanics is hardly logical, since much of QM is highly illogical, and what's really required, is a language which can explain why an electron behaved like a wave here and a particle here. Afshar's Experiment Bring on the insanity! 
Date: 2006/08/21 09:12:57, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
I've heard Mallet's arguement before, there is nothing outright that could refute it, and like the article says, with the onset of a quantum theory of gravity we may have a better idea of how that might work. There have been many gedanken exercises to this effect, such as the shadow of a bug on the lens of a projector. I think I understand what you mean by information space now, and you're describing perfectly what the Bell Inequality refutes. You're describing what we would call a "hidden variable" theory, and there have been numerous experiments that have refuted this point, mostly inspired by Bell's inequality. This really goes to the core of why quantum mechanics breaks down on a macroscopic level, since quantum mechanics is inherently nonlocal. Take for instance the wave function of two particles, Y(x1,x2,t) or F(p1,p2,t) if you'd prefer momentum space. When you calculate the wavefunction for the particles, what you get cannot be decomposed into a function that is the product of wavefunctions of the individual particles; Y1(x1,t)Y2(x2,t). Your model still does not explain, theoretically or quantitatively, any reason for an earth centered universe. We've already dealt with the classicality of band structures and Coulomb potentials for massive objects. You understand that the potential for the Sun is a factor of 6 larger than the earth (the concept of a center of mass for the sun/earth system). You've done nothing to refute Focault's pendulum, or address the Mach/Einstein rotation arguements. So maybe we could start at the top of the grocery list with why the earth isn't rotating. This should be priority one. 
Date: 2006/08/21 09:28:49, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
For all of those interested NASA finds direct evidence for dark matter 
Date: 2006/08/21 12:42:37, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
1) has been shown quite simply through SternGerlack (sp?) experiments. The question of causality and violations of relativity are resolved in noting that while the quantum information may have happened instantaneously, the experimenters still need to "compare notes" and to do that does not violate relativity. 2) the fact that you're attributing nonlocalized interactions to localized scenarios, means that you're adding information locally, which is the entire basis for the hidden variable theorem. In addition, you're going to have a hard time justifying the use of additional space to Hilbert space without some experimental evidence (evolution outside of Hilbert space). What does information space predict? what are its elements, operators, dimension, fundamental properties? You seem to think that the explanation ends at the Kleinbottle shape, but you've only scratched the surface of formality here. None of which addresses the classical data, other than to say,"Oh yeah, it takes care of it." 
Date: 2006/08/21 21:54:01, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
You're talking exactly about the propagation of probability current, well understood within the confines of QM. I would say that quantum cryptography works pretty well on its own, locality or no. It is a lucrative field, however, since there does not seems to be a real way to crack it. In the long run, these points are all moot if you use any massive objects, which are well understood within the language of GR. This also does not address any of the fundamental problems with a geocentric universe. I will defer to Eric's posts for now, since conflicts within quantum mechanics really have little to do with the phenomenon you need to address. 
Date: 2006/09/26 09:41:01, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
The first attempts to characterize the "relative" age of the landscape using fossil was done in the 1830s, almost 30 years before Darwin's work. Similar patterns of fossils were discovered in landscapes in different countries, and these were the first attempts of using the geological process of superposition. The actual pattern of fossils made sense in the light of the TOE, and then finally in the early 1900s the first absolute dating methods were discovered with radioactive decay and radiometric dating. To say that the method requires knowledge of evolution is absurd. It requires you to assume that certain species lived at the same time together, and that the species should correlate in some way with the stratographic column. Eric, deadman, JonF and others showed you this many times before, and even offered you a testable method for carrying this out. The assumption of evolution becomes an independent verification when species complexity decreases with age. This doesn't begin to address other dating methods either, which the thread has called you on many times.
I love how you can understand the deep innerworkings of an entire field of science from a few quotes. I wish I had that talent. 
Date: 2006/09/26 11:35:35, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Sweet! Ghost of Paley has a new challenger for the most "more on XXXXXX which I will completely garble tomorrow!" 
Date: 2006/09/27 13:57:39, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Don't worry, it was a legally sanctioned fight. The sixth grader just has a bad promoter. 
Date: 2006/10/02 18:50:27, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Reminds me of Karl Pilkington: "I mean a seal, what's already halfway between a fish...and a dog." Pilkipedia 
Date: 2006/10/04 09:06:36, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Hehe, Dave's turned common ancestry into ancestry. Go on Dave, beat that strawman! 
Date: 2006/10/11 12:21:50, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Let me know when you're going to start. You're certainly posing some good questions for AFDavian Evolution. 
Date: 2006/10/22 12:00:18, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I think youre really limiting yourself, though, if you're only looking at the constants. For instance, what if the divergence of magnetic fields wasn't zero, or what if the gravitational interaction wasn't proportional to the square of the distance. The fact that you can imagine different constants, or proportions, or powers, really has no significance; especially since we really don't understand whether or not the constants are connected to something more fundamental to our universe. By the way, 4% isn't exactly small either. 
Date: 2006/10/23 20:17:01, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Forget going east BWE, Earl's on University Way. Two long islands. Done. 
Date: 2006/12/21 18:33:37, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
We're back to butterflies and watches again, hooray! Do mechanical motors require a designer to reproduce? How about bacteria? (Yawn) Argument by analogy, next! 
Date: 2006/12/21 18:39:47, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Seattle Sounds like a couple of us are at the U perhaps.... 
Date: 2007/01/05 01:56:23, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
In defense of a physics student, I would say you are pretty much encouraged on every exam to make liberal use of physical laws and concepts. This is especially prevalent in statistical mechanics, since instead of asking specific questions about a particular particle you make probablistic statements and generalizations for macro systems. That being said, this is just another example of argument by absurdly small number. 
Date: 2007/01/08 12:30:57, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Scary, This is probably the best flash example I have for imagining the multiverse/multi dimensions. It took me two or three times to get it. The tenth dimension 
Date: 2007/01/09 03:07:50, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I would agree, but I think it's a simple way of thinking about a branching universe, not necessarily in being the direct analog of ours, but the general concept of moving around a multiverse can be likened to this. I know specifically the Mtheory branch of string theory posits 11dimesions (to unify the 5 types of 10d theory), so to say that a single point in 10d is all that there can ever be is misleading. It's thought that the reason gravity might be the weakest interacting force (I'll go against DaveScot on this one) has to do with the possibility of the force being spread out over more dimensions than the other forces. This is all conjecture until we actually see the escaping graviton, but it would be a start (they're hoping to catch one at the LHC). There's many popular books on this and even a three part Nova special with Brian Greene, if you were so inclined. It's very similar to the flash animation in the sense that it gets the point across while being slightly misleading. 
Date: 2007/01/09 15:48:07, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I'd recommend "Fabric of the Cosmos", by Brian Greene. To illustrate most of his points he uses various staples of the giant nerd crew in the form of Simpsons and Xfiles references. For me these weren't nearly as crucial as the sheer bulk of history covered; you really get the sense how the view of the universe has shifted since the quantum/GR revolution and where it might be headed. 
Date: 2007/01/23 23:58:09, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
edit  moved to avocationist thread 
Date: 2007/01/24 00:36:02, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
By the common view of the SLOT, I assume you mean the general: "Things don't go from disorder to order" The second law in general is: "A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax (each subsystem will approach the average internal energy) and will occupy the most probable state." Entropy itself is a function of the internal energy of the system, the volume the system occupies, and the number of particles in the system. It's a dimensionless number, it has no units (like meters, or degrees Celsius). Let's say system A has 6 possible states, system B has 10, possible states, then there are 60 (6x10) possible states for the two together, AB, easy enough. The entropy of a system is the natural logarithm of the number of states. It turns the total states from a multiplicative quantity (6x10) into an additive quanitity ( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10) ). The total number of states can be calculated from classical and quantum mechanics. I won't go into the details here (relates to something called phase volume), since it doesn't have much bearing on the point I'm trying to make. The second law says that the number of states in A will increase and the number of states in B will decrease until they come to an equal quanitity (6>8 10>8). The total number of states then becomes (8x8) = 64, thus the total entropy will then go from ln( 60 ) to ln ( 64 ). Notice that the entropy of B actually decreases in the process, from ln(10) >ln(8), which you might think violates the second law, but since B is not in thermal equilibrium with A, this is perfectly legal. edit  added phase volume info edit  removed old tag 
Date: 2007/01/24 01:07:33, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Personally, I think the SLOT discussion would be better suited on this thread, but I don't think you're forced to post only here. The LUCA thread seems to have deteriorated into GoP and his counterparts bumping it every once in a while, and I think it helps focus the discussion if we're all on the same page, literally. Mike probably has more information on the chemical aspects of Entropy, and I believe there was an abiogenesis thread discussing chemical potentials. Personally, I'm curious in what manner you're interested in applying the 2nd law. Is it abiogenesis, or evolution, or genetic information, or even something as general as having a universe that isn't in thermal equilibrium? 
Date: 2007/01/24 11:46:21, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy. dS/dt for the entire isolated system, which can be expressed as the sum of the entropy of all of the subsystems, must necessarily be positive or 0. Disorder here is the sense that the number of states of the system reaches a maximum at thermal equilibrium. In the case of a gas at a pressure separated by wall with a vacuum, the number of states initially is much smaller than after the divider has been lifted and the system has been allowed to relax into thermal eq. The system naturally picks the state with highest entropy, which will be a state in which the gas particles are distributed evenly in the entire box. It is an irreversible process (since the entropy changes), and therefore must be a state of high disorder as I've defined it. 
Date: 2007/01/24 14:24:58, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
In high school my friend and I spent a whole summer making short, stupidly comedic movies, and it took so much of our time we ended up missing meals; thus our bellies creaked. It became the nickname of our production company, and just kinda stuck with me. Quote "A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax
You can do work on certain subsystems to decrease entropy, but the work you do will always result in the entropy of the whole system (including you) remaining constant or increasing.
So you multiply the states because you can have the following: State A (16) State B (110) 1 1 ... ... 1 10 2 1 .... .... 6 10 therefore there are 6x10=60 total states. Entropy uses a logarithm, which allows us to add the quantities since it has the property that: logarithm(6x10) = logarithm(6)+logarithm(10) There are different logarithm bases to choose from, and the simplest is base 10, so that: log(10) = 1 therefore: log(1000) = log(10x10x10) = log(10)+log(10)+log(10) = 3 There's what we call the natural logarithm, as well, in a base which is called 'e', and is abbreviated 'ln' ln(e) = ln(2.7181) = 1 It has the same additive properties as the other base 10, but the actual values will be different. In this setup A is allowed to interact with B, but is otherwise isolated. 
Date: 2007/01/24 23:25:49, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I agree. It's a very interesting consequence of thermal physics, but like any physical theory, it makes a strong statement when it's applicable. If what you observe differs from what you predict, either the theory is wrong, or your assumptions are wrong. In the case of SLOT, you can bet on the latter. 
Date: 2007/01/25 02:22:37, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Temperature. From thermo, the change in internal energy divided by the change in entropy is exactly the temperature (at constant volume and particle number). There's lots of info on thermodynamic potentials available to elucidate this more. Remember that these are all statistical quantities, you're assuming that there's some underlying distribution which is characterized generally by internal energy, entropy, pressure, volume, particle number, and chemical potential. Changing some of these quantities causes heat(energy) to flow in or out of the system, and we can draw conclusions about the energy transfer. I apologize if my logarithm discussion didn't make much sense. The main point was that when you tack on another system, the entropy increases additively rather than by multiplication ( S_total = S_A+S_B rather than S_total = S_A x S_B ). 
Date: 2007/01/25 11:59:16, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Certainly, that's why I said dS/dt must be positive or 0. In the previous setup, I was assuming that the system was allowed to change in an irreversible (dS/dt>0) manner. 
Date: 2007/01/25 13:57:40, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
The theory of ID, if you can find someone who will actually spell it out, is not falsifiable. The evidence that they use, they believe, is positive evidence for ID, but usually turns out to be negative arguments against evolution or arguments from incredulity. Here, then, is the logical fallacy: We see A, therefore evolution is wrong. Intelligent design is correct. or Evolution can't explain A yet. Therefore Intelligent design. Personally, I don't like to think that God exists in these "margins of science", because if we find some material explanation down the road, His domain shrinks. But this movement has never been about the science, and to not know that is not to know the history of intelligent design. 
Date: 2007/01/26 01:05:46, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I agree, but what you've just stated is not a theory of ID, it's a creationist (philosophical) argument, all or nothing. ID wants to have it both ways: X can be observed naturally, therefore supernatural explanation. It masquerades as science until it draws a conclusion. Unfortunately for ID, scientists can see through the bullshit. (I should say, to keep with the logical fallacies, true scientists can see through the bullshit) edit  scotsman 
Date: 2007/01/29 01:43:09, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I don't think it shrinks and I'm not particularly worried, since I don't think we can empirically support the supernatural. If we could, then we could rule out God from natural processes and in that sense God's domain would necessarily diminish. That's why I spoke in the domain of philosophy; since in science, the answer is simple: God gets dropped by Occam's Razor. 
Date: 2007/01/29 13:29:42, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
You should be very careful when you start talking about dimensions; did you mean it in the scientific sense or as an analogy? If you're interested in the scientific aspect of multidimensions, I can direct you to a wealth of information on String Theory. What I meant by God is removed by Occam's; it's not that his existence is disproved, but that God is removed as an explanation for a natural process (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). Either God is supernatural, or he isn't.
This is an argument from incredulity, and unless you're going to provide some evidence for this you're going to be stuck in the realm of philosophy. I don't mind, since I agree with you there. To say that it's more difficult to justify a natural universe than one created by God is to ignore the body of work in chemistry, physics, and biology. 
Date: 2007/01/29 22:06:19, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
What you just described is the basis for string theory. As we increase the power of our particle colliders, we will be able to probe such scales. In fact, it's thought that the reason gravity is so weak might derive from the fact that it could operate in such extra dimensions. The new Large Hadron Collider is designed to test some of the basics of string theory in a nontrivial way. See: LHC
You might want to save yourself the embarrassment and not post drivel like this. 
Date: 2007/02/02 20:44:18, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
We have ways of measuring these things, verifying empirically that they exist. That human beings can't see Xrays or hear dog whistles, is inconsequential since we can construct devices that measure pressure or react when exposed to xrays which produce observations that we can understand/perceive. String theory is no different. If string theory is correct, then there are certain things that we should observe, nontrivially, that would confirm the basic tenants of the theory (Lorentz invariance, hopefully the escaping graviton, etc). We can reconstruct data that supports the theory without being able to sense it directly. If God exists in some other dimension, then He too must be able to act in a nontrivially way. Judging from the last sentence you wrote, again, you should probably save yourself the embarrassment, if that's really how you think scientists view the world. We have at least 10 experiments coming in the next decade, one of which I'm a part of, that are remeasuring parts of the EM spectrum in our universe(from Gammarays to Radio). They've all been measured before, but breakthroughs in technology and theory have driven us to peer deeper and further than ever before. To say that the scientific community thinks that the most recent experiment is the final tellall displays great ignorance of the discipline of science and the current state of science research. At this point I will wish you good luck in your philosophical quest, I respectfully disagree with your position, and hope you spend some time reading about real science instead of what you think science is. 
Date: 2007/02/05 17:49:07, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
There are many candidates for a theory of quantum gravity, all of which have yet to be tested. This begs the question, was the luminous ether theory of light not a scientific theory until Michaelson and Morely created the interferometer and falsified it? ID is, by its own nature, untestable. There is no amount testing we can do in the natural world that would confirm the supernatural. 
Date: 2007/02/07 03:10:42, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I would say that general relativity recharacterizes gravity, due to limitations of the speed of light. Gravity becomes warps in space time, in which light and mass are affected. Newton's laws are, in essence, a subset of gen rel; as massive, low speed solutions. (As a side note: Gen Rel shows up in String Theory as lowenergy solutions) 
Date: 2007/02/10 17:48:39, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Is that Boggy Creek or Boggy Creek II? If it's the movie I'm thinking of, then there's chicks wrestling in the mud, a kid who can't seem to find his shirt, and a guy that looks like Grissom from CSI who's got a PhD in "Boggy Creek Studies". Oh, and a hick that looks like DaveScot. 
Date: 2007/02/12 06:33:21, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Light = EM Wave = ELECTROMAGNETIC wave This does remind me of the ole LET THERE BE LIGHT! How else can a lot of light be created? (hint: when an electron and a proton love each other very much....) 
Date: 2007/03/12 05:05:24, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
He seems to have solved AFdave's problem of where the water for the Global Flud came from: It just showed up. Since it seems somewhat serious (I'd hate to be dissecting parody), I'd also like to know exactly why the earth expanded.
His animation of the hydrogen atom is awesome; I wish I could explain particle theory with the science I learned in middle school. Imagine the cool animations he could have produced if he had taken quantum physics. What a waste. edit: I actually got a spam letter a while ago from him (he sent it to everyone in the UW phys dept) about the prime matter particles. Just made the connection. 
Date: 2007/04/10 00:32:58, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Sorry I missed this discussion, but I'd recommend a couple: Statistical Physics: Landau and Lifshitz (part 5 of their epic series ) Statistical Physics: Wannier (starts nearly immediately with FLOT and SLOT justification) 
Date: 2007/04/17 02:11:59, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
In high school, I went to youth group in Tacoma, WA, and most of the time I didn't have a problem. Then they started showing the Hovind tapes, and at one point I just starting laughing. I couldn't help it, he started talking about the probabilities of prophecies. Needless to say, this was not the "appropriate" response, and the rest of the discussion focused on me politely explaining most of the science/mathematical flaws. Later, I was over at a get together and some of the parents happened to be there. They began to asked me all sorts of questions: "Why can't you teach creation in schools?" "What about the law of disorder that says evolution can't happen?" "Did you know Darwin recanted on his deathbed?"...etc. I explained what the scientific method was, why it was useful, and why it wasn't useful for creationism. I got a couple head nods, but I knew they already made up their minds. In 2002, I attended a talk at the University of Washington by someone from the DI (I want to say Stephen Meyer, I don't think it was an old person). I had no idea that I'd be paying so much attention to it a few years later, but I when one of my friends told me, "The devil is trying to lead you away from God" when I was discussing radiometric dating and wanted to send me some of Hovind's tapes, that's when I decided to see who else had to deal with this. Most of my time here initially was spent arguing with Paley about geocentrism (remember that juicy thread?). Occasionally, I'll post when there's physics involved, but I enjoy lurking most of the time. There's no way I would have taken as much interest in biology if it hadn't been at the center of most of it (I'm a physics man by trade), but it feels like a brain enema every time you guys take down an absurd claim. 
Date: 2007/05/10 23:23:34, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
We trust doctors with our LIVES all the time, and I doubt you would understand the exact mechanisms of illness and the immune system. Why is this one area subject to your scrutiny?
As Einstein once said, "If I were wrong, one would be enough." 
Date: 2007/06/03 01:06:06, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
The randomness is a statistical effect (lattice vibrations etc.), so whenever you describe something large like a billiard ball it's actually a generalization of the internal thermal motion.
The wavefunction of a particle prohibits this. You can think of white noise: when you look at it in the time domain you will see spikes, but the frequency domain will be nearly flat. This is the equivalent of what's happening in time/energy or position/momentum wavefunction for a particle. The flat line means that the particle will be equally likely to have any energy as it becomes more localized. Beyond that, the wavefunction interpretation means that whenever you go to measure something, you will measure (energy, time, momentum, position) a value determined statistically from the wave function. This is what Einstein referred to when he said, "God does not play dice.", but in fact "He" does just that. 
Date: 2007/06/06 01:59:07, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
What about the walking whale? Creationists mocked it for years before they found the fossils (look up the cartoons). What would it take to convince you?
One is supported by evidence, the other isn't. Finish this sentence: Special Creation predicts..... 
Date: 2007/06/13 01:48:04, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
...in Bizarro World. People also say 'goodbye' when they arrive and 'hello' when they leave.
Except that they don't, and they absolutely do ride on the backs of evolution research.
Just like Jesus. NEXT! 
Date: 2007/06/19 19:14:59, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Who's theories? Witten's, Feynman's, Bohr's, Einstein's, Newton's, Galileo's, Kepler's, Aristotle's? The mathematical description of natural forces has been investigated for centuries. They've been supported by evidence, which gives us some idea that we're on the right track. Behe's IC is just wrong, there's no other word for it, there's a wealth of evidence that contradicts what he says.
We should follow the data, and the data has shown us that Behe is wrong. End of story.
This is the only way for ID to be successful; if we stop doing science and ponder at how marvelous a creation the flagellum/immune system/gonads are. You're walking a thin line between skepticism and denialism. 
Date: 2007/06/20 09:53:48, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
IC: Wrong. ID: Not testable. IC does not imply ID, thus there is no contradiction. 
Date: 2007/06/22 14:55:53, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
What good is mining for gold if you can't share it with the townspeople? I believe Sal owes Mark H a bottle of singlemalt scotch. Miyah and also miyah. 
Date: 2007/06/24 12:40:13, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
See here for a discussion on the Oort cloud and belt formation. There's lots of useful information on short and long period comet formation in section 3 and section 4 deals specifically with the Oort cloud. The question these days isn't so much if it exists, but the dynamics of the cloud formation. Let me know if you have questions! 
Date: 2007/06/24 20:56:07, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
The people that get published are those who question paradigms well supported by evidence; indeed the whole point of science is that it can be done and verified by anyone. It's more than just saying, "Yeah, my theory can account for X, Y, and Z." He doesn't want to have his ideas tested, because it will take an independent referee about 5 seconds to spot the flaws in his argument. For example, he says his hydroplate theory is correct and the earth is not 4.6 billion years old. Fair enough, would you care to refute the entire branch of radiometric dating, cosmology, and earth science? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and he doesn't have it. His premise that most elements that make up comets aren't found in space seems to ignore the fact that many of them are found during star system formation. His only source of water for these comets is from earth, but he doesn't even do basic calculations of how much water it took to form these comets, or take into account that there are other objects within our own solar system that could have contributed. And it goes on, and on. This is sloppy scholarship pure and simple.
Here is a good discussion about why we don't take them seriously. 
Date: 2007/06/24 22:07:42, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
The whole premise of the movie seems rather bizarre: a lighthearted romp through God's wrath. I'd love to see a comedy about Judges, Deuteronomy, or the book of Job. (Although the Brick Testament did that somewhat already). There's a couple of good discussions on Slate already about this, but I think the book sums it up the best:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 
Date: 2007/06/25 01:26:14, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Refer to the first part. This is a forum, not Bio 101. Get off your lazy ass and RTFM. Wes has spent years studying creationist claims and their evidence, the least you could do is become familiar with basic biology. I don't know why you're so angry; you were talking out of your ass and Wes called you out. Yeah, you're absolutely right, we've never seen this type of dishonesty from a creationist before. We should show you extra patience since you clearly refuse to read and attempt to comprehend basic biological tenets. Where can I sign up for that? Give us a break or you'll receive the same treatment as Afdave. 
Date: 2007/06/26 14:40:12, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Controversy...CONTROVERSY....No, it's quite tinny. 
Date: 2007/06/28 19:47:28, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Not so much endorsement as statement of fact. "A dump is a treasure trove of garbage", one might say. "UD is a treasure trove of tard." 
Date: 2007/07/11 04:43:01, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Podcast is up. Lots of talk about Shlowmo Penis. Robert didn't really have a chance to discuss it on the show, but does it really matter to Christian faith whether Christ is a true historical figure or not? 
Date: 2007/07/18 03:26:46, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Jehu guesses(?)
1. The universe is on average isotropic and homogeneous which means everything outside our galaxy should be about uniform. 2. If we were at the center we wouldn't see something called THE GALACTIC CENTER, which impedes about 10% of the sky. 3. Our galaxy isn't even in the same plane as the rest of the UNIVERSE! 
Date: 2007/08/12 01:06:36, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Since you seem to be talking out of your ass here (from the way you describe inflation you probably haven't kept up with any of the cosmology or astrophysical data for the past few decades), the concept that there is matter which doesn't couple with photons is really not that far fetched. Neutrinos also fall into this category. Indeed, observations from the Chandra XRO and Hubble telescope have evidence of DM halos, from colliding galaxies and gravitational lensing. The project I'm currently working on will be looking for DM annihilation signatures (from the Weakly Interacting Massive Particles approach), which will add another piece to the theory, particularly a mass estimate. Inflation has been well supported since the Penzias and Wilson experiment, and continues to be confirmed by subsequent missions (WMAP, BOOMERANG). You come at us with claims, we come at you with reality. Get of your duff and do some research. 
Date: 2007/08/12 01:30:26, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
There are a lot of places already where our natural laws don't work, black holes for instance. That doesn't make them supernatural, just not well described. We know how they form, we know how they die, we know how they interact with stars, just not what happens at the singularity. Hope that gives you a better idea (we call them theories these days). 
Date: 2007/09/23 00:24:57, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Except there is no authority here; if you follow the scientific method properly, there is no boss. I wouldn't use the clocks as an example, it reminds me of the fallacy: "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong". The truth is that most scientists do use some sort of Bayesian approach to new claims, since there is a lot that we already know.
This assumes that fossilization is a uniform process throughout the lineage of a species. Unfortunately, fossilization is a relatively rare event, and to see such a process is very unlikely. This doesn't mean we see nothing.
This is demonstrably false. It's like staring at a puzzle after a few pieces have been laid out and saying "We'll never see the picture of Garfield." It's absurd. Look at whale evolution: this use to be trotted out by creationists as an impossible transition only to find that it existed in the fossil record.. You can quote this book all you want, but you're in a poor position to rebut considering that the book is about 60 years old. There have been numerous discoveries of transitional forms in fish, birds, and mammals since then, all of which dispute this point. This doesn't even get into disciplines like genetics, where you'll have an even worse time. Please continue, though. I'm interested what this man from the past thinks we'll never find. 
Date: 2007/09/23 05:40:59, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I'm sure he understood the process of fossilization and I've seen his data (although I'm surprised with the amount of life that's inhabited the planet compared to the number of fossils, he would be so shocked to see gaps in the fossil record. I guess he wanted a poster child for the transition). He could have spent 250 pages and it still wouldn't make a difference, this is not 1950. He used the evidence that he had at the time to construct an argument and made a case. Now we have something like this: And here
Do you mean "archetypes" like he writes on page 411? As he says: "In contrast, we stay with the objective natural data and strive to arrange the morphological steps in the system in their natural sequence." So let's look at fossils that have been discovered since 1950: how about the TherapsidMammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). ReptileAmphibian? Try here. FishAmphibian? Try here!
Sure, and his ideas were shown through observation to be incomplete, and in most cases incorrect. 
Date: 2007/09/23 14:35:51, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
So the result of the experiment was to couple two macroscopic neural cultures, and then see how strongly coupled the state was? How did they deal with decoherence? Unless you're dealing with superconductors, optical qubits, ion traps, or cavity QED, there's no way to keep the quantum state from reverting to a classical state (300 ms is way too long). I think you could make a strong case that this is probably not a quantum effect they're observing. 
Date: 2007/09/24 00:28:12, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
This is absurd, they would most certain couple strongly with the EM force, it would be way more dominant. If you're talking about any type of molecule, it's their electric orbitals which count. And it's waaaaay stronger than gravity. Even the microtubules would be subject to it's coupling effects.
Pretty much all of them do not last for 100ms, most couple to the environment after anywhere from few pico/femto seconds to a micro second. In addition, all of them require great care in keeping them from coupling when they shouldn't and safety from decoherence. How are the atoms coupled specifically to send information? You don't just get spooky action at a distance, you need a specific interaction to generate it. 
Date: 2007/09/24 12:44:48, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation). That's essentially the best way for determining whether something will exhibit quantum effects. In addition, nuclear spin quantum computers have made use of a rather large molecule (like the one that figured out that 15 factors into 3 and 5), however, there's big difference between 1 molecule of a substance and 1 mol. I'm not here to debate with you the primary tenets of quantum mechanics; I know things like Schroedinger's cat are physical implications for the wavelike behavior of light and particles. (An aside: "Dead" is not a quantum state, it's a macroscopic description of the animal, what we're really asking is: which detector fired? That requires collapsing the wave function in order to fire the gun, release the poison, whatever.) What I called "absurd" was ignoring the effects of the EM potentials and interactions, when they are much more dominant than gravity. You can't just handwave it away and say it will be fine, especially when the quantum computer is immersed in a electric dipole fluid along with one of the strongest ferromagnetic substances. That's absurd. All of this makes it less feasible that our brain can properly transport quantum information.
Photon states work differently than electrons, they're based on the polarization rather than the spin state. We typically refer to them as flying qubits, and in fact some basic quantum cryptography systems (random number generators, AEC transmission lines) have already been created (google Magiq). Unfortunately, as you know, lower energy photons (like the kinds that would be safe to transmit through the body) are absorbed and scattered easily by electrons. They wouldn't make very good transmitters in our bodies. 
Date: 2007/09/24 14:05:04, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Sorry, I should have clarified. I said proportional when I meant comparable, and by size I meant volume. Essentially a 1000 kg car (average dimensions of 2m on a side) at 10 m/s has a wavelength of about 1e37 m, or 1e28 nm. An proton (1e4 nm radius) moving at the same velocity has a wavelength of about 600 nm. That's not to say you can't see quantum effects through macroscopic objects (take NMR and spinspin times), but it's a pretty good indicator of what basic objects are prone to quantum effects. 
Date: 2007/09/24 18:32:35, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I'm still waiting for him to figure out what advances have been made in molecular genetics since 1950. Oh well. 
Date: 2007/09/24 21:43:09, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
And if you read my clarification you'd understand what I meant by "size":
Another way to write deBroglie's equation is obviously: lambda = h/p Where lambda is the quantum wavelength. When the quantum wavelength of the object is comparable to its size (cube root of volume if you want), it will exhibit quantum characteristics.
Which does nothing to address the point that I raised, namely that there's no way to express a macroscopic object in terms of a pure quantum state (instead of a mixed state). You seem (along with Penrose) to think that we can handwave our way up from QM with electrons to QM with mols of atoms. Bulk QC with large magnets This is realistically the only way to get even partial macroscopic entanglement: Large precision magnets, low temps, and photons. From the paper: "99.99999999% of the time a generously sized roomtemperature sample (10^22 spins) contains no 100spin molecules in the ground state a1, a2 . . . an, or in any other single one of its 2^100 quantum states." IOW: large molecule + room temperature = no entanglement
Again, maybe I missed it, but what was the last experimental quantum computation paper that Penrose wrote? Penrose can have all the theory he wants (gedanken out the wazoo); it's not discomfort if it doesn't describe reality, full stop. And this still doesn't explain why we can just handwave away EM interactions or temperature effects (how do you get a ground state in a 325K person?). 
Date: 2007/09/24 23:07:15, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. Admin]<br/><br/>
Hmm, perhaps you should look at what I calculated: For the car lambda = 6.62 x 10e34 m^2 kg/s / (1000 kg * 10 m/s) lambda = 1e37 m = 1e28nm size of car: 2 m lambda is much smaller than the size of the car, thus the quantum effects are NEGLIGIBLE For the electron lambda = 6.62 X10e34 m^2 kg/s /( 1.67 x10e27 kg*10 m/s) lambda = 60 nm size of electron = 1e4 nm since lambda is larger than the size of the electron, it will exhibit quantum properties So maybe you should STFU and work on your reading comprehension. Since you're such a moron, I've politely linked to some pertinent places where they've also done with calculation. YOU SCREWED UP. Deal with it. Want some more links: here and here and here's some stuff about that pesky cube root of volume here here's a page from a textbook here
Mic Jagger was knighted, too. Why should he be immune when people actually carry out tests and show him to be wrong? Gimme a break.

Date: 2007/09/24 23:13:45, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Since my last post has been relegated to the Bathroom Wall for tone I'll just repost the calculations: perhaps you should look at what I calculated: For the car lambda = 6.62 x 10e34 m^2 kg/s / (1000 kg * 10 m/s) lambda = 1e37 m = 1e28nm size of car: 2 m lambda is much smaller than the size of the car, thus the quantum effects are NEGLIGIBLE For the electron lambda = 6.62 X10e34 m^2 kg/s /( 1.67 x10e27 kg*10 m/s) lambda = 60 nm size of electron = 1e4 nm since lambda is larger than the size of the electron, it will exhibit quantum properties 
Date: 2007/09/24 23:25:31, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Here are some links to places where they also did the calculation: here and here and here's some stuff about that pesky cube root of volume here here's a page from a textbook here 
Date: 2007/09/25 10:23:53, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
A more complete description of the GHZ game.
They are also nontrivial, what mechanism front loads a probability distribution other than potential perturbations? 
Date: 2007/09/25 16:01:13, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Actually, this is a misinterpretation of the concept of spacetime. There are different ways of moving through it: timelike: t^2 >> x^2+y^2+z^2 represent objects moving within same light cone. spacelike: t^2 << x^2+y^2+z^2 represent objects in different light cones (causally separated) lightlike: t^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2 > L=0 represents the spacetime for objects at the speed of light (gravity, photons, etc) The GHZ game can be resolved by noting that in order to compare the states through causally separated entangled pairs (or trios) information must be exchanged which requires GR causality.
“Examples of this sort [Maxwell's magnetic flux experiment], together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover the motion of the earth relatively to the ‘light medium’, suggest the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.” Einstein
In the classical sense they can't, only probabilistically can you tie them together. 
Date: 2007/09/25 22:17:35, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
What you added was meaningless. When events are spacelike, they are not causally connected, so you don't interpret the result the same way. I chose to use an actual General Relativity text, in this case Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry which is based on the work of Thorne, Weinberg, Taylor, Wheeler, Hawking, Ellis, and Nash. There are actually different schools of thought on which convention to use, but the negative one is added to the metric, not the actual vector. If you want to classify imaginary numbers above as spacelike separation that's fine, but you're arguing a convention, nothing more.
I never made such a claim, merely that relativity was built up from electrodynamics as a way of satisfying Maxwell's equations in moving reference frames. No point was being made, just wanted to share some of his words. The twin paradox represents and equivalence in spacetime. In this case dL^2 must be the same for both the traveling twin and the stationary twin. In the earth's frame of reference (with the speed of light set to 1): Stationary twin: by definition x,y,z=0, let's say 1 year passes and the brother travels 0.5 light years, the observer will see L^2 = t^2  x^2y^2z^2 = 1^2  0.5^2 > L = 0.75 lightyears Traveling twin: How much time has passed in his frame? L^2 = t^2x^2y^2z^2 > 0.75^2 = t^2 > t = 0.75 years Time passed for stationary: 1 year. Time for traveling: 0.75 years.
My point was that even though things like collapsing the wave function seem to violate relativity, they don't. You still need to compare the results, which will subject to the rules of spacetime. I wasn't really trying to contradict, mainly to point out the practicality of socalled faster than light communication.
Quite. The structure of our universe was built up from density and tensor perturbations (quantum effects), much of that information can be found in things like the CMB. However, the unfortunate result from QM shows that as you increase the energy level, you revert to a classical state, in which case the wavefunction really becomes indistinguishable from a classical description.
Unless you start talking about inflationary epochs, in which regions of the universe became causally disconnected as it expanded. I recommend Peacock's Physical Cosmology or Peeble's Inflationary Cosmology for more information. 
Date: 2007/09/27 16:22:27, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Maybe entanglement, but I doubt that it's an actual quantum computer because, again, decoherence at room temperatures will be a problem. For a quantum computer to be truly effective, it must entangle many lines and keep them coherent with a strong perturbation long enough to perform quantum operations (phase flips, rotations like the Hadamard, controlled NOTs, the Quantum Fourier Transform). The photosynthesis article you provided before talked about timing on the level of tenths of picoseconds and temperatures of 77K (223 C for those of you at home). This is well below an acceptable level for claiming that the proteins would be able to exhibit the same behavior. It also used a much simpler quantum process of entangling energy eigenstates, not performing true computation.
Except when you use labels incorrectly, such as "quantum computer". 
Date: 2007/09/27 17:24:38, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Quite. Evolutionary algorithms are a good example of this (especially the "Macguyver solutions").
No, I'm suggesting that some of the ease of observing quantum effects were from keeping the plants cold (average energy state is lower, allows for longer coherence time), even then they were relegated to coherences of femtoseconds. The fact that plants operate at a higher average temperatures makes it difficult to determine how prevalent this quantum effect is when the temperature is closer to 290300K (I believe the group is working towards this). In addition, it's a pretty basic quantum effect, in the sense that energy levels constitute well defined quantum state, with incident photons accounting for the measurement process. This is quite another thing from performing complex quantum operations; there's just not much from the data that suggests this is being done. And just to be fair and balanced: "By demonstrating that the energy transfer process does involve electronic coherence and that this coherence is much stronger than we would ever have expected, we have shown that the process can be much more efficient than the classical view could explain. However, we still don’t know to what degree photosynthesis benefits from these quantum effects." from the link. 
Date: 2007/09/27 21:22:58, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
He talks about enzymes forming a shield, but these are the same temperature concerns I have. I haven't found any links to experiments carried out since this....but if you know of any that would be very interesting. Sincerely. From another of Dr. Patel's papers: arxiv:quantph/0105001v2:
I'd like think so, too, but there's still no evidence for this yet. We both share the same question about the coherence times at high temperatures. As Dr. Patel says in his most recent paper, arxiv:0705.3895v1:

Date: 2007/09/27 23:48:00, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
It depends on their kinetic energy, if they collide relativistically, they tend to scatter like billiard balls. The Pauli exclusion principle rules electrons most of the time when they're sent to collide at nonrelativistic speeds, which means they're never found at the same spot. That's probably why it was tough to find anything on it. The only way they can be found near each other is by coupling two with opposite spin, which usually happens in atoms. This "pseudoforce" actually keeps white dwarfs from collapsing, the fact that particles don't want to be found near each other causes a pressure, which keeps the dying star from imploding. 
Date: 2007/09/28 11:02:36, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I have to admit this was one of the more entertaining seminars I've gone to (John Cramer is a faculty member at my university). One of my professors at the time told us about Afshar's experiment and that he would be giving a talk on campus. So imagine a room filled with experimentalists (including Afshar) and the theorists who invited him. My prof opened up the comment session by suggesting that this result isn't particularly surprising and this turned into quite a heated argument amongst the theorist (mostly Cramer) and the experimentalists. Much of the criticism came from the points brought up by the wiki page, mainly the fringe visibility and the existence of true whichway information. My feeling is that this is a fringe visibility problem, from what I've read about the experiment on arxiv. If every quantum theory is consistent in content with OrchOR, then why bring this up? If OrchOR theory really doesn't require complementarity, it's a moot point. I know you like to pick up on the traditional woo words like spacetime and timetravel, but take another look at Libet's experiments. Does he really say that the brain works backwards in time, or that the brain has a buffer? 
Date: 2007/09/29 02:14:55, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I didn't hear about Libet's death, but here are some thoughts. There could be many other factors that tennis players pick up on: frequency of faults, favoring down the middle versus cross court, watching opponent's body orientation and habits, looking at the racket orientation. Having played tennis myself, much of it is knowing the best place position yourself. If you're talking about raw reaction time, simply trying to react to the ball is probably not a good strategy (around 186 ms for the ball to leave the racket and reach the net on a serve).
Except when you say things like: "Even though my theory doesn't fit the content of this other theory, it's just a labeling problem. They're really one in the same." That really gets my goad, because it smacks of equivocation. I'd be perfectly happy to accept that you think that quantum reality acts more like TIQM, and in that respect, you disagree with the OrchOR interpretation. Or to go just one level deeper and explain exactly how OrchOR is consistent with any interpretation of QM. You also scoffed at my questions about temperature related decoherence, which have still yet to be answered. That's all I'm looking for; some acknowledgment of your "wooery". 
Date: 2007/09/29 11:56:53, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Fine my comment is this: is TIQM really consistent with OrchOr? Why? How is OrchOR a Copenhagen interpretation? That's all I want.
I actually brought this up a few pages back (page 1) when talking about the GHZ game:
Quantum information in the GHZ game can be transferred instantaneously, but comparing the states requires the exchange of classical information, which is subject to the limits of relativity. 
Date: 2007/09/29 13:27:24, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
We touched briefly in Phil 160 at the UW (Washington). Although the course structure tends to differ depending the professor, ID was brought up during my class in the context of epistemology. 
Date: 2007/09/29 14:26:00, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
That answers my question; I don't dispute that OR is Copenhagen, but it seems to me that Copenhagen and TIQM interpret the reality of the wavefunction and the role of the observer much differently. From Cramer's page, they agree on most of the interpretations up until then (commuting observables, etc.).
I don't think it's a stretch, considering that the deBroglie wavelength (the molecular mass is about 750 amu or 1.25e24 kg) is still on the order of the size of the molecule. If the slit widths were proper, I'd expect it to exhibit interference.
If you take one step beyond Cramer's theory, and do some experiments, you know that you will get a decoherence timeout. You can fire up an NMR experiment and couple different atoms within C60 or an organic molecule; they will decohere like everything else.
But we know things don't stay coherent "as long as necessary", that would pretty much invalidate NMR and statistical mechanics. It would really be interesting if they could find something analogous to quantum error correction in tubulins, I think that would seal it for me. Unfortunately, this all looks great on paper, but I'd rather see some experiments. 
Date: 2007/09/30 12:55:11, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
But you must know how it starts: you have particle annihilation, oscillating and translational charge distributions, and transitional levels in atoms. In fact, the CMB was the result of the first electrons bound to nuclei when the temperature dropped below 3000K. The origin of photons and the EM force came from the symmetry breaking of the Electroweak force. This is essentially what's been probed for the last 30 years in high energy physics. Is this the sort of answer you were looking for?
That's very interesting, but it's not quantum error correction. Here are some resources from a quantum computing class I took a few years back. Here's some intro for QEC. Here's a follow up. If they were somehow able to determine that microtubules had functionality like this, it would be an interesting result. That, and seeing if enzymes really function as a shielding for decoherence in DNA. These were the experiments I was alluding to.
At least it's actually being settled in the lab. I'm having trouble accessing the Italian's experiment with the cultures, but I'm very interested in their setup and results. (The university is having trouble authenticating with the online journal) 
Date: 2007/09/30 14:40:13, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
The article you think seems to raise more questions than it can answer. There was no waveform collapse until conscious beings evolved? Are detectors conscious? Why is the notion of decoherence with neighboring systems not enough? 
Date: 2007/09/30 16:04:59, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Not only mass, but thermal noise. It's not particularly evident that the microtubules can remove the thermal coupling from the dimers, when the temperature noise dominates at 300K. I'm still trying to obtain the Italian group's paper. 
Date: 2007/10/01 16:01:25, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I'm arguing that a practical quantum mechanical brain would have to deal with error correction; essentially any quantum computing requires some notion of fault tolerance. In the case of the quantum search algorithm (Grover's), there's only a notion of binary choice, instead of weighted choice (like Heuristic search algorithms). If you wanted to look at the search space of all chess games, that would require 10e134 or 445 qubits. Even the first 6 moves would require a bandwidth of 30 qubits. In some sense, it's impractical to keep that many qubits entangled at the temperature domains "human" quantum computers would typically be embedded. With thermal noise, the pure state would almost immediately decohere into a mixed state, and I haven't seen much evidence that this isn't the case for a large scale quantum computer. It's more likely that we take a nonalgorithmic shortcut based on a Bayesian analysis (using priors) than following a strict needle in the haystack approach. 
Date: 2007/10/01 16:15:49, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
If you constrain it to "perfect" chess, which is reasonable for computers like DEEP BLUE, games don't typically last more than 5060 moves. 
Date: 2007/10/03 21:29:33, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Well, if you look at experiment to uncover the quantum mechanisms involved with photosynthesis, they were able to resolve the beats to femtosecond timing (I believe the beats are similar to NMR spinecho or Rabi oscillations). I think this is the sort of data that would suggest that there was at least some coherence. BTW, I was still wondering about the 77K, since I knew I've used that number in experiments before. Turns out it's the temperature of liquid nitrogen, which I assume is what they bathed the plants in to limit the decoherence (we used it to measure Boltzmann's constant). However, since I still can't gain access to the paper produced by the Italian group, I would like to know the exact experimental setup and some results (other than the vague description in the abstract). Do you have access to the paper? Can you quote part of it? I have to echo JAM here, how did they isolate the microtubules as the source of quantum coherence? 
Date: 2007/10/04 22:19:42, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Hmm, I must have missed his paper where he beat out the rest of these. What was the point of the spacetime calculation? What does keiths dispute that's clarified by this exercise?
Until you get past the abstract and tell us what the experimental setup and data was, you can BS us until you're blue in the face. 
Date: 2007/10/05 10:34:08, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Cross posted from Telic Thoughts.
Typically, that's not the frame that gets treatment. The center of mass frame is typically where the equations for orbits, etc are solved (makes the central potential equations much easier). I believe this is typically known as a barycenter. 
Date: 2007/10/05 15:48:18, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Yeah, I believe things like the Machian view of inertial reference frames was finally resolved with general relativity and the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. I suppose it could be argued that we know one twin has to have been in a noninertial frame a priori, which is what the article you linked to suggests. If both twins were in inertial frames, then a simple Lorentz transform would show that the twins would disagree both on the time elapsed and the distance traveled, in the typical special relativity solution. 
Date: 2007/10/07 11:41:21, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Neither do you apparently, how much energy is required to accelerate an object (with mass) to the speed of light? (Special or GR) Don't let the mathematics bother you, it's a simple integral.
By the time the test subject sees the light, the quantum effect is over. The act of choosing which light to show has already collapsed the wavefunction (the detector is an "observer"). Most likely the data would be Poisson distributed for both the quantum generator and pseudorandom, with the same average reaction time for both (around 500 ms). If you wanted better statistics, the timing should be randomized as well, so the observers can't anticipate when the light will be shown. Again, this wouldn't be a test for quantum effects, but how much more random is a pseudorandom generator than a quantum random generator to human perception. 
Date: 2007/10/08 23:08:24, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
No. The quantum random number generator doesn't work this way, there's no entanglement. It's most likely a polarizing beam splitter with an input polarization at 45 degrees to it (that's how most of the commercial ones work). To get entanglement you need a twoparticle system in a superposition state, ie one that can't be written as a product state. What you're really measuring is the stochastic QM process, transmitted as classical bits. You can look at the bits long before it gets to the observer without changing the result. Here's an example of entanglement. Suppose you had two bits, of which there are four possible states: 00,01,10, and 11. Let's say the probability of the first bit being 0 was p and the probability of the second bit being 0 was q. Then, the probability of measuring each of the four states is as follows: 00: pq 01: p*(1q) 10: (1p)*q 11: (1p)*(1q) If p=q=0.5, then the probability of measuring any of the four states is 25%. If we write this as a vector, it looks like 0.25 * [1,1,1,1]. This is the classic representation of probability. Ok so far? Now we get to the quantum states. What are the requirements for QM? Namely the inner product of the state vector must be normalized to 1. Let's say that this is a pi0 decay, in that case the probability of measuring 00 and 11 is 0 (pi0's decay into a spinup, spindown pair, but the actual choice follows a stochastic process). From our classical equations, this means that p*q = 0, so either p or q is 0. But our equations also say that p*(1q) != 0, so then p=1 and q=0. If we look at the third equation, (1p)*q != 0, we see that there's a contradiction, since the probability for measuring 10 is not 0 in this decay. This means it can't be expressed as a classical probability of bits. In fact, the state vector would be 0.707 * [ 0, 1, 1, 0], with either +/ or i's as long as the state vector had the correct inner product. What constitutes entanglement? Take the state 0.707 * [1,1,0,0]. This is the state where 00 and 01 are equally likely, but 10 or 11 will never be measured. Does the measurement of one state fix the other? No. If we measure 0 on the first bit, there is no way to figure out what the other bit will be (50% 0, 50% 1). We can rewrite this as a tensor product of two spin 1/2 states: 0.707 * [1,0] x [1,1]. Quantum? Yes, it breaks the classical probabilities. Entangled? No. Let's look at the state 0.707 * [0,1,1,0]. We already know it's quantum, is it entangled? If we measure 0 on the first bit does it fix the second bit? Yes. So there's no way to write [0,1,1,0] as the tensor product of two spin 1/2 systems. That's entanglement, which is not present in a quantum random number generator by design. Having any entanglement compromises the security of your protocol, which is why they use single photon generators such as quantum dots. 
Date: 2007/10/13 15:41:26, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Technically, any frame of reference that's not accelerating is an inertial reference frame. Typically, that's why the comoving reference frame is used in cosmology (removes the expansion parameter from RobertsonWalker spacetime metric).
Sort of. When a pure quantum state decoheres, it becomes a mixed state, which lacks the interference properties that create quantum "magic". Typically, the measurement is some sort of EM perturbation; charge (electron) or force (photon). This doesn't require consciousness, just a PMT which amplifies the small charge or photon into a large signal through another quantum effect: the photoelectric effect. I won't harp on this too much, since I assume as an EE type you know what I'm talking about.
The word you're searching for is stochastic, and they do exhibit this (product of Hilbert space). Decoherent quantum states do not interfere and create quantum effects, so the majority of our universe is not connected in any pure quantum state. Which means classical or stat mech rules work just fine.
This experiment used superconducting qubits, specifically Josephsen junctions, which makes use of phase differences to move charge around at temperature near absolute zero. This is a far cry from keeping something in a pure state at a temperature of 300K.
I agree that it's too early to dismiss the possibility that the brain can exhibit quantum effects. However, there are still many different experiments that need to be performed before we jump to any consciousness answer that Hammeroff suggests. 
Date: 2007/10/13 19:25:44, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Interference, like your Bucky ball experiment, has nothing to do with entanglement or computation, but rather the effect of the deBroglie wavelength on molecular structures. There is no temperature effect, because they aren't trying to entangle Bucky balls to do computation, it's just another doubleslit experiment. I also read the paper from Ouyang and Awschalom, which found that spin transfer was 20% more efficient at room temperatures, but, and here's the kicker, with coherence times of hundreds of pico seconds. I think it's disingenuous to claim that you can entangle at that temperature, and overlook coherence time issues. I'll look through the rest of the literature he cites, but this doesn't bode well. If he's going to do the research, stick to one thing: MT's. In my email I described many experiments they could run to verify their results rather than relying on papers which don't always support their conclusions. 
Date: 2007/10/14 15:13:04, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
1. Agree 2. Agree 36. Disagree
You're talking about single particle(molecule) decoherence in a vacuum. The molecule isn't affected by thermal emission from other atoms, and isn't entangling itself with photons. Color me shocked. BTW, what's the temperature in a vacuum? What's the average energy level?
The slit widths were 100 nm, and they calculated that the spread would be in microradians. Again, color me shocked. It's another double slit experiment, with the same calculations, but with the deBroglie wavelength inserted for the wavelength of light. This isn't the situation in the human body; they took great pains to eliminate every possible source of noise for this experiment (spreads in velocity, thermal noise, photon coupling and emission). It's just unrealistic that if you performed the same experiment in an environment similar to the human body or cell, that you could expect the same results. More importantly, this says nothing of keeping multiple particles in a coherent, entangled state. It looks like they have something that would be great for testing this though: a large molecule with many nuclear spins. 
Date: 2007/10/14 16:42:37, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Like I've explained to you before, I think there are more direct ways of isolating things like shielding and error correction. What I think needs to be stressed with regards to the C60 experiment, is the demonstration of tranverse coherence for a single molecule. For something like quantum computation, which requires coherence across multiple molecules, this doesn't follow from the results. I'd expect that the if the monomer were the size you describe and you sent it into a similar experiment, it would exhibit interference, but there's no indication of spin or momentum state coherence. So to answer your question: yes, a single molecule can be in a coherent quantum state for 25 ms(they've demonstrated this), can multiple molecule be entangled for a similar amount of time (at 9000K)? That answer is not so clear, since the experiment wasn't set up to see this. Obviously, the temperature of the molecule, assuming that it's the average kinetic energy of the atoms, is not so important for interference experiments as long as they are sufficiently isolated. There are some straightforward experiments that could be performed to test the coherence time, similar to the Dibit paper, and I'm curious why Hameroff hasn't pursued this himself. 
Date: 2007/10/14 22:00:42, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
The difficulty was producing uniform momentum particles, but decoherence times are much different for this quantum interaction than for say, spin states. I don't think you can just sidestep this issue and say you're not worried, there's some real considerations that need to be made when you talk about exactly what is being entangled. Coherence times across molecules run the risk of quickly going into a mixed state (no interference), which is why not everything is connected in a quantum sense. I guess what I'm really trying to say is, I don't really care if you can accept that molecules don't have trouble staying in a coherent state, the evidence is on my side that they have short times at room temperature.
That's a great model. Where's the evidence? Is it quantum error correction that he's referring to? I suspect it's not. 
Date: 2007/10/14 23:52:05, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Maybe I missed something in these papers, but nowhere do I see any discussion of superposition or coherence. There's no evidence that these bends constitute a well defined quantum state. Never did I say that I thought DNA could maintain coherence, only that it could exhibit and use quantum effects. I believe that's part of the transcription error process, and ultimately the source of the random mutation aspect of evolution. Again, this needs to be settled in the lab, and since I'm already tied up with another science project, you should get Hameroff to pursue it. Otherwise, we're at an impass, and I don't know how fruitful the rest of the conversations will be. It's nice to think that evolution took advantage of such a powerful tool like quantum computation, but until we can discover the mechanisms and figure out if some glaring barriers are overcome, the point is moot. 
Date: 2007/10/15 18:36:59, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Ran across this while perusing the intertube. The law of controversy 
Date: 2007/10/16 15:14:08, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Materialistic in what sense? The fact that most of the universe is not in a coherent quantum state and can be treated classically? Not everything is interconnected in a quantum sense like you suggest, we've been over this many times. If things were connected in this way, our daily experience would be something quite enigmatic. In physics we don't say that solid particles exist, we typically talk about solids, liquids, gases, and plasmas, all with distinct properties as a macroscopic distribution of quantum perturbations. They have an effective interaction range, and depending on the interaction, it will have some unit of mass or charge. Being solid is a product of lattice structure, and I don't know a single scientist who would claim that a single particle has to be a billiard ball. There is a reason they don't have to be coherent, which you always seem to skip over. We have many experiments that show the difficulty of keeping coherent quantum states at in a thermally noisy environment. The onus is on you to show through experimentation that microtubles (or dimers) 1) have well defined quantum states, 2) long coherence times, 3) perform quantum computation, and 4) are the source of consciousness. The experiments for 13 are straightforward, and should be performed by Hameroff (currently nonactive experimentally), or the Dibit group (need more specific interactions). I leave 4) to you to dispute through metaphysics if you wish, but I have no reason to accept the premise until 13 are satisfied. 
Date: 2007/10/16 16:57:14, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Classical is not always Euclidean; hyperbolic geometry falls out of special/general relativity which are classical equations. I define classical as not exhibiting wave interference behavior, which happens at larger scales. That is a fact. You can set your watch to it. At the classical level, the quantum "interconnectedness" is lost or equivalent to classical treatment. It's only a philosophical bias if you look at the entire world this way, like you do with quantum effects.
My model says that due to the thermal activity and decoherence times of coupled molecular structures, the likelihood that quantum computing takes place in the brain is negligible. Microtubules (or tubulin dimers) do not exhibit well defined quantum states, and thus will constitute a classical arrangement of matter. Any interference that might occur in such a system will decohere in a time insufficient to perform quantum calculations. Since your experiment has not been tested, and mine has been backed up by years of peerreviewed research, you are in a poor position to dispute. Thus, you need to perform the experiment to show that this model is not consistent with what actually goes on in the brain, or microtubules, or tubulin dimers, whatever. 
Date: 2007/10/16 17:47:14, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Minkowskian geometry is hyperbolic geometry. Coherent quantum systems are in pure states. Decoherent quantum systems are mixed states, classical states that lack interference. What's the problem? Maybe I don't know understand what you mean by "interconnected". Do you mean entangled, in the same light cone? The former is certainly not true. The GHZ is a basis measurement problem, by measuring in X and Z angular momentum for a spin 1/2 system, and by taking one of three entangled qubits (in the superposition 000> + 111>) you can beat classical expectation values with interference. Again, for a coherent, entangled state, not for every quantum effect. You can have a pure quantum state that is not entangled, and will therefore not be interconnected. Look at the state 001> + 011>. A pure state? Yes. Entangled? No. The effect of measuring one of the bits will not affect the measurement of the others (in the same basis) which is the whole reason the GHZ game works. 
Date: 2007/10/16 21:08:18, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
You mean connected by the same wave function? Yeah, ok write out the formula, what potentials are you assuming? What happens when this wavefunction is measured, does it collapse into an energy eigenstate? What is the time evolution like? When you get to the gravitational potentials, let me know, there are some Nobel people waiting for you. Try googling quantum field theory.
Ok, here's the setup, which has already been done with quantum computers: Couple three qubits, could be quantum dots, whatever. Initialize them to the ground state in whatever basis (x,y,zmomentum etc): 000> Perform the Hadamard transformation on the second qubit: 000> > 000>+010> Measure each qubit. You will get the following: qubit1: always 0 qubit2: 50% 0, 50% 1 qubit3: always 0 Let's run this again, but with a twist: Initialize to 000> Perform Hadamard on first qubit: 000> > 000>+100> Perform controlled NOT on both the second and third qubit, with the first as control: 000> + 100> > 000> + 111> Measure each bit: If you measure 0 on qubit 1: then 2 and 3 will also be 0 (entangled) If you measure 1 on qubit 1: then 2 and 3 will also be 1 (entangled) That's exactly how it's been done experimentally; they even did something slightly more complicated, Shor's algorithm.
WTF is substance? The word isn't random, it's stochastic, and it's not dogmatism, it's an empirical and mathematical result (from Hilbert space). If quantum mechanics isn't stochastic, then I believe you can collect some money from Magiq when you break their quantum number generator. 
Date: 2007/10/17 01:57:10, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Christopher's been taking Aesop's fables too literally. 
Date: 2007/10/22 02:26:25, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I think her answer was something to the effect: People just got busy. I think this would be acceptable to a little kid, and certainly if every person was able to "beget" 12+ people, of course you could imagine it. Heck, with a little math, you could figure that they could make at least 156,728,328,192 people if that it were so simple. To treat this fairly, I think it's acceptable to question, with any logistic growth, limiting factors. Paradise was gone and there was no more endless bounty, so what was the competition like for resources? What was the fertility/mortality rate? How did they avoid obvious genetic problems associated with inbreeding? 
Date: 2007/10/22 11:44:10, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Let's just hear from Henry Morris's The Bible Has the Answer:
How is that any different than what I said? He basically says that the human growth rate would have made the population too large compared to today's population. Again, if there were no limiting factors, this would be acceptable. Why don't bacteria take over the planet? After all, they can reproduce exponentially faster than we can. Again, Morris is being disingenuous in ignoring obvious limits in population growth. He just ignores it. All things being equal, populations ebb and flow; they reach a maximum that the environment can support (sometimes to their own detriment) and fluctuate. The fact that we developed technology that aids our survival to reproduction helps maintain this growth, but this is a recent effect. Look at the growth rates over the past 1400 years:

Date: 2007/10/22 14:38:14, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Can we put this one to bed now? I found a clear instance of creationists ignoring simple objections in Henry Morris's book. He purposefully avoided any legitimate discussion of population dynamics and resorts to pulling numbers out of his ass. Every creationist site I found uses the same failed method for extrapolation: modeling growth as a pure exponential without actually utilizing historical population data. It's demonstrably wrong. 
Date: 2007/10/29 20:39:17, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
This is actually a line from Rip Torn's character in the movie Dodgeball: IF YOU CAN DODGE A WRENCH, YOU CAN DODGE A BALL, HOMO. DS 
Date: 2007/11/01 01:41:56, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I was particularly amused by the orbital mechanics thread (IT BURNS!):
Conventional wisdom? Like EulerLagrange equations? His ignorance knows no bounds. 
Date: 2007/11/06 16:04:47, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I agree, look at what they did to Newton. I'm glad he didn't agree to take part, it would have been a PR nightmare for the physics community. 
Date: 2007/11/07 18:51:01, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Quiet Riot: Come on, feel the tard 
Date: 2007/11/14 23:21:37, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
I've sort of lost touch with this court case, but what's the status of the California trial he's supposed to be involved with now? I remember he was going to testify for that hideous Bob Jones book, but is the case still pending? 
Date: 2007/12/12 13:38:47, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
He's Lost in Hilbert Space. *DANGER* Sal Cordova! *DANGER* 
Date: 2007/12/20 23:17:13, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Did you see the John A Davidson paper? I thought they were on bad terms, or at least at UD. 
Date: 2008/01/23 14:35:14, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
TP, I've explained this to you before, it's a product of the deBroglie wavelength and coherence. If you read that paper I sent you on decoherence, you'd know this already. The fact that you still bring this up makes me think that you would rather keep the question mysterious in your head rather than actually examine the literature. In the interest of full disclosure, I've corresponded to TP by email a few times. I felt like the physics discussion, despite pages of afdave's drivel, was best left to PM's. My personal opinion is that too often "quantum" gets invoked anytime we want to explain something mysterious. It's requirement for any of the phenomena he presented (specifically Hameroff's model), seemed tenuous from the evidence presented. I provided peer reviewed literature that supports my contention exactly: the Coulomb interaction between 2 protons and 2 electrons is sufficient to cause decoherence. Personally, I think you should follow up their experiments. You need a better grasp of quantum physics and mechanics beyond the people who popularize it; maybe look for an evening Master's program in physics. I'm sure there are plenty of institutions with access to laser tables, and you could probably secure neural cultures through a biology lab. You have the opportunity to show me I'm wrong, but you need to first recognize your own deficiencies. 
Date: 2008/01/23 16:19:48, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
It doesn't make me uncomfortable; the conservation of the speed of light forces spacetime to be what it is: a hyperbolic geometry. This is only scratching the surface, though. If you want a proper treatment you need to introduce affine connections, something that hints at the dynamics. It's the only way to resolve things like Mach's principle. Also, quantum information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, I think that was a corollary of Bell's experiment. However, classical transmission of information faster than the speed of light is still forbidden. 
Date: 2008/01/24 00:26:42, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
That's really cool. I'm working in a ChemE lab this quarter, trying to create batteries with thin films (~10nm). We're using a polymer spincoated onto a silicon wafer to suppress the crystallization (ruins the electrolyte properties of the polymer), and a scanning force microscope to probe the mechanical properties. The next generation of LEDs will most likely stem from the same research, using the crystal properties of polymers to draw thin nanosized wires. The field is pretty much wide open at this point, as the technology has really only been utilized in the past decade or so. 
Date: 2008/01/24 22:12:19, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
No acceleration? Look carefully. How did the velocity vector go from rest to +0.8c? How did the velocity vector go from +0.8c to 0.8c? How much force would be required to do this instantaneously? How much force would be required to change the momentum of a 1 kg object by 1.6c in 8 seconds? What is the average acceleration? Shh, don't help him. He's getting so close to answering his own question, but TP needs to recall a few principles from Newtonian dynamics. EDIT: You probably need the relativistic momentum to solve this problem, but the principle is the same. 
Date: 2008/01/24 23:16:18, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I don't mean to withhold the answer from you, but this is the way I was taught physics. Simply giving you the answer is unsatisfactory to me; you start from your base assumptions and work your way up. You asserted that there was no acceleration, and logically deduced that the implication was that there exists no preferred reference frame. Your logic was fine, but your conclusion was based on false assumptions. So how do you know you were incorrect? Apply the concepts of Newtonian dynamics. Now, of course, with the hubris you showed the rest of the commenters on this board, perhaps I took a little schadenfreude in getting you to admit your mistake. On the other hand, you didn't come here looking for answers, you came to spout off about your theory. You then proceeded to tell everyone how wrong they were about physics, and now it's some wonder when they throw it back in your face. I think you're genuinely interested in the science, but I don't think you do yourself justice when you can't be humble enough to ask for help. 
Date: 2008/01/25 11:33:39, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
You don't need to bring in any concept of curved space to see that it undergoes an acceleration. Since velocity is a vector quantity, you can apply the definition of average acceleration(vector) in this context as the change in the velocity(vector) in a period of time. For a circular orbit, you'll notice that even though the magnitude of the velocity does not change, usually the direction will (the special case is one revolution, the average acceleration(vector) will be zero, since the direction and magnitude of the velocity will be the same). This link shows you how to derive the instantaneous acceleration from the limiting case of average acceleration (just like Newton). In general, when the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity, you will see a change in the direction of the velocity vector, but the magnitude will be constant.
Here's the problem: this isn't about thinking for yourself, it's about the sound application of basic physics principles. If your assumptions are wrong, then your conclusions are tenuous. I'll admit that your mistake is particularly common among students first introduced to the concepts of Newtonian dynamics with vectors, and I'm sure it's helpful to those who might not be familiar with the concepts to learn about them. On the other hand, you came here to promote your point of view. If I can't trust that you know what you're talking about (you clearly don't), then I, like others on this board, have no reason to listen. You need to take the initiative: put down the popular books, pick up a textbook, work out some examples, and convince us that you have a mastery of the basics before you even think about relativity. EDIT: added 'velocity' qualifier 
Date: 2008/01/25 15:19:39, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
It's quite evident from your statements about orbits that you don't have the first clue about vector calculus or Newtonian dynamics. I've been trying to focus on the science, you turn around and focus on people. I don't care what you've done in the past, I don't care about Roger Penrose. If you spout nonsense about physics, I'm going to call you on it.
I understand Minkowskian geometry, moreover I know when it's applicable. When you gave your example of the traveling twin, I showed that the solution came from both accelerating to +0.8c and 0.8c, you can show that the traveling twin enters a noninertial reference frame and thus the conflict is resolved. The fact that you're still arguing about physics from special relativity is telling, you need general relativity at least to have any knowledge of gravity. Here's the catch with Minkowskian geometry: spacelike separated events are not causally connected in the classical relativistic picture. If you want to argue that they are, you can perform some experiments to test this. The fact that you can flip signs around doesn't mean anything unless there's a physical effect that we can measure. Look, I've been reasonably supportive to the point where I'm genuinely interested in the physics research you present. However, when you say things that are demonstrably false, and chide people for holding on to outdated scientific dogma, I get a little annoyed. You complain that we're arguing from authority (I'm not, I'm arguing from the principles of physics), then you turn around and do exactly that. Man up and show me you know what you're talking about. 
Date: 2008/02/01 18:22:04, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
There's an inherent threshold of learning that can take place when sifting through your misconceptions. The people who know the subject well can tell your conclusion is wrong from the premises, but it might not be obvious to those who aren't as technically proficient. I can tune you out because I know you lack the core competency to draw conclusions from the science. I'm not being mean, you've demonstrated this to us before. However, your tone is from a position of authority, and for people unfamiliar with the subject, you represent something antithetical to learning.
Except if it's Hameroff or Penrose.
And it's clear that your learning has illequipped you to discuss the science. I wonder why. 
Date: 2008/02/02 14:44:15, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
This is a perfect example of speaking as an authority and then completely undermining your argument. The Fourier transform of a deltafunction (spike) is not a sine wave, it's a constant. It's also evident from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: something with perfectly determined position will have a completely uniform distribution of momentum. The advanced wavefunction and the retarded wavefunction are part of a special set of equations called Green's function, which can be derived from quantum electrodynamics. Why can't we apply these equations to the universe in general? There's no quantum theory which can deal with gravity. That's why you can't just throw up a wavefunction and say it describes the universe. If Penrose wants to think of it that way, it's a philosophical position, not a scientific one. olegt, Afshar's experiment was trying to test Bohr's complimentarity: extracting whichway information and retaining interference. It's similar to a double slit experiment, where the interference pattern is measured close to the screen and the photons are allowed to propagate a distance further in order to differentiate which slit the photon travelled through. 
Date: 2008/02/02 15:16:24, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I should say that the square modulus is the uniformity, not the Fourier series. I retract this point. 
Date: 2008/02/04 16:56:39, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
It's similar to an NMR experiment. You take a sample and place it in a large (as homogenous as possible) magnetic field. You then apply an EM wave perpendicular to the field, with a frequency which resonates with the gyromagnetic ratio and the magnetic field strength. There are quite a few experiments you can do. The first is a relaxation experiment: if you apply the EM wave for just the right amount of time, most of the spins in the material will flip to an alignment opposite to the field. This is the 180 degree pulse. The spins will then try to align back with the field. This is called the relaxation time, and usually denoted T1. The other experiment you can do is called spinecho, and it sounds like this is the experiment in the paper. If you hit the material with a 90 degree pulse, most of the spins will be aligned perpendicular to the magnetic field in the same direction. When this happens, classical physics says they will precess, but they will not all precess at the same rate. After waiting and then applying a 180 degree pulse, it essentially causes the film to run backwards until most of the spins return to being aligned. Some fraction will relax back into the environment each time you hit it with a 180 degree pulse, and the measurement of this decay time is called T2, which is the decoherence time. NMR was one of the initial investigations into quantum computing, since it could be done easily at room temperature. Unfortunately, it becomes difficult to scale up for practical purposes, but remains a simple way to generate long coherence times. I think the researchers' goal is figuring out if T1, lattice vibrations, or dipolar interactions are the limit for coherence. Is there any particular reason you linked to this paper? Or did you latch onto the title and pick out the conclusion without looking at the science? Here's a good visual source for the setup. Here's an explanation of the spinecho process. 
Date: 2008/02/04 17:58:12, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Well, a cursory glance of the papers linked to in the article, which I highly recommend, shows this plot as the argument. Which means that for temperatures below 50K the power law is approximately T^0.5. Then it falls off, as one would expect. EDIT: The paper was: Fluorescence yield and lifetime of isolated polydiacetylene chains: Evidence for a onedimensional exciton band in a conjugated polymer, R. Le´cuiller, J. Berre´har, J. D. Ganie`re, C. LapersonneMeyer, P. Lavallard, and M. Schott, PHYSICAL REVIEW B 66, 125205, 2002 
Date: 2008/02/05 12:23:01, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Well, the first question I had, as you did, was why the square root? So I followed the citation. Step 1. That led me to the Fluorescence paper above. This plot was prominently displayed in their results sections, and was well described in their conclusion. Step 2. I understand that not everybody has access to Phys Rev, but at the same time, if you're trying to form a conclusion from a review article, you should really know the experiments it's based on. If this means making a trip to a library, I think that's a reasonable expectation. This is about the fifth or sixth time I've done this for you, but I warn you Mr. Bond, my patience is not inexhaustible. It sounds like you have a daughter pursuing a PhD; typically that means she will have access to a number of journals. If the school has a physics program, no doubt she'll have access to all of the Phys Rev's. To answer another question, I thought Tegmark's estimations were too generous, it seems to me like surface forces would be much more prevalent at those length scales. As Hameroff noted, he also seems to ignore much more prevalent sources of decoherence at those temperatures. That being said, I also read the rebuttal, and found it to be less than convincing, just substituting one bad model for another. EDIT: removed s from surfaces 
Date: 2008/05/02 20:31:35, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Inaction, FTW! http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/14149

Date: 2008/05/05 12:52:36, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Fountains of the Deep (space) http://arxivblog.com/?p=397

Date: 2008/06/20 13:00:36, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Patrick edits to add
blames everyone but himself
then asks a question:
DID THE BIOLOGIC LAB POOF INTO EXISTENCE? YOU HAVE A LAB! NOW STFU AND DO SOME RESEARCH! In the meantime you can read into any one of these subjects: Project Funding, Where to get Grant Proposals, How to write Scientific Method, The Scientific Papers, How to write Peer Review, Submitting for 
Date: 2008/08/06 20:42:48, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
To quote Lewis Black, "Now get in the car, kids! If we have time, we can still sacrifice your sister at the Hoover Dam." Well, here's a thought from astrophysics: transcription errors are quantum effects (at the molecular level). We have neutron stars (pulsars) going back ~3 billion years, which wouldn't exist without the physics of fermion degeneracy pressure (a quantum effect). So we have a pretty good idea how long these processes have been going on. Although, I don't know what your opinion is on the age of the earth, so I'm not sure that this will mean anything. 
Date: 2008/08/17 23:28:31, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I know your ability to "pour" through scientific papers amounts to quoting abstracts; that much was apparent from previous pages in this thread. Do I need to bring up the DiBit paper and Minkowski space again? If that was supposed to keep your ego in check, I don't know what to say, you must be a joy to be around. 
Date: 2008/08/18 01:55:23, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Pretty much this whole thread DiBit Paper You lectured on nothing but your misunderstanding of Penrose in this thread. The juicy bits are here. Your conclusion: "I was wrong, but I'm still right." Then you tried to apply an equation for a low temperature limit to a room temperature setup, because you didn't bother to read the actual paper the equation was based on. It took me about ~5 minutes to find it. This is the general lack of scholarship and hubris which gets the goad of many of the scientists around here. In your mind, you're doing scholarly and revolutionary work; to me, and I suspect others on this board, you come off as antiintellectual and arrogant. This is what I hear when you talk: Einstein's Idiots  The HAtom 
Date: 2008/08/18 14:08:10, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Finding the answer took all of 5 minutes as I explained on the other thread: 1. Find citation in paper. 2. Look up corresponding equation and data in cited paper. If you read that thread for comprehension, you would have remembered that the decoherence of the Bucky Balls occurred in a VACUUM, not a thermal bath at 300K. We've been over this all before (as documented in the threads I linked to). 
Date: 2008/08/18 19:55:33, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
And yet another paper with mathematical gymnastics. Did you read it? They create a set of canonical operators which commute locally, but are noncommutative globally. This has the effect, as they say, of fuzzing out the position and momentum measurements as the distance between points grows. Much like Penrose found, it's a fun sandbox for a special set of functions, which may or may not be useful in the long run. And your point is.... 
Date: 2008/08/19 01:49:37, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
My question isn't about the validity of the paper, it was the point of linking it. What do these particular functions have to do with the idea you are trying to put forward? To understand these papers you need to understand commutators, groups, quantization, propagators, operators, not to mention general relativity. These are typically taught over 3 years (grad and undergrad education), culminating in quantum field theory. Based on your own statements, I doubt if you know enough of these subjects to either endorse or reject any of these papers. This is further supported by your "I'll just copy and paste a paper that sounds good" posts with no comment. Stop copying papers and start dissecting them; that's what good scientists do. Stop pretending to simultaneously an authority and a student. You're either one or the other (it's clear you're the latter but act like the former), and it's definitely not my job to teach you. Returning to the subject at hand, neither you, nor the authors in these papers, connect these constructs to any experiment (save a brief mention of Lorentz invariance, but many theories predict this violation). That's why they are "mathematical gymnastics"; there's no connection to reality. 
Date: 2008/09/24 00:59:06, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
And the train falls off the tracks. You were on the page. You should know better than to lie. 
Date: 2008/09/27 02:08:36, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
This is an ahistorical assertion refuted quite easily here, here, here, and here. 
Date: 2008/10/02 11:35:53, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
jerry is not long for this world:

Date: 2008/11/17 11:50:53, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Does this mean "Story Time with Gerry Rzeppa" is returning? 
Date: 2008/12/10 18:46:17, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I've never been so proud of my state. 
Date: 2009/01/10 13:58:58, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
LOL, spoken like a true snake oil salesman. 
Date: 2009/01/11 22:29:14, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
More like Dick van Dyke's accent. 
Date: 2009/02/19 02:43:43, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Jimmy: Uhh, Mr. McClure? I have a crazy friend who says creationists are wrong. Is he crazy? Troy: Nooo, just ignorant. You see your crazy friend never heard of "The Bible". Just ask this scientician. 
Date: 2009/02/24 10:33:32, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
XKCD has something similar 
Date: 2009/03/25 21:07:49, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Steve Schafersman liveblogged today's The link 
Date: 2009/04/16 11:42:54, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I'd suggest either a 2D contour plot or a binned 2D contour plot. That way the trending will be much more obvious along lines of constant mutation rate or constant population size. Or you could use something with interpolation like pylab's IMshow. My 2c. 
Date: 2009/05/04 12:48:10, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
The view of a fitness function as a 2D landscape only works in the case where there are a low number of effective selection criteria which are highly correlated. This may be the case, as IANAB, but the concept of finding a stable extrema in higher dimensionality fitness functions has been tackled before by Mark CC. Not faulting Orr here, but I think it's a fallacy to think that the organism must quickly find a maximum for all fitness criteria. 
Date: 2009/05/04 14:40:39, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I didn't think you were being sarcastic :) , I was just commenting that a 2D landscape is often used as a pedagogical example of fitness, when in fact it tends to be much more complicated. Like the model of an atom with electrons orbits misses some of the subtlety of QM, but gets the general point about the structure of an atom. Again, IANAB, so I couldn't comment on this as it pertained to your work. In particular, whether you had enough control over the parameters of your system so that you could effectively model fitness as a 1D or 2D function. I think Orr does get the main points quite well (variability in the fitness function over both time and space), but misses the subtlety of multidimensional fitness which may not lead to the extrema he imagines. 
Date: 2009/05/09 12:22:38, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
potholer54debunks has a nice series which addresses all of these claims on flood geology. You can find it here. 
Date: 2009/05/13 23:02:30, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
IIRC they've been able to implement Shor's Algorithm on 7 qbits to factor 15 into 3 and 5 (which I think is the smallest nontrivial implementation) with a simple NMR setup. Probably not going to be where the first quantum computers come from, but still impressive that they were able to entangle that setup long enough to perform the measurement.

Date: 2009/07/07 23:21:29, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
In high school I was in a movie with Heath Ledger, 10 Things I Hate About You. It was filmed at my high school, so we got first dibs on being extras. You may remember me as "Confused Nerd #3", where I was noticeably amused at Heath's antics for 0.0015 seconds. That makes my Bacon number 3, because I was ACTING! BRILLIANT! 
Date: 2009/07/08 15:58:34, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Well that's the difference between Heath Ledger and the jokes: only one of them gets old. {Grabs umbrella} 
Date: 2009/07/19 04:16:53, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Mapou can't seem to understand why there are no square circles.:
Why do all of the elements defined by their commonality all have something in common? Why is an electron not a muon or a tau or a upquark or a downquark or a Wboson or a Zboson? 
Date: 2009/07/19 13:21:17, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
They must still be on Christmas break. 
Date: 2009/07/20 00:39:59, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Yeah, this I don't get. I assume he's talking about the fact that modern (by this I mean post 1880s) electrodynamics assumes that the EM fields at a given position are a function of charge and current distributions of the retarded potential. You can do very, very simple experiments to show how this works. By Zeus's beard, all radio communications are based on this principle. In fact, all of this took places 20 years before the Nobel was ever AWARDED. Talk about missing the Titanic. As for gravity, it's also been done, and in fact I believe some folks named Hulse and Taylor made it to Oslo. Then again, what would I know, it took me all of a minute to find this information online. 
Date: 2009/09/17 15:53:37, Link 
Author: creeky belly 
Moved to peanut gallery. cb 
Date: 2009/09/17 16:15:39, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Moved from FL thread:

Date: 2009/09/18 12:10:47, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
You made the claim that physics or astronomy didn't make such pronouncements. My claim was that it HAS before, that heliocentrism WAS incompatible with Christianity (see Galelei, Galileo). I guess you don't see heresy as being incompatible with Christianity.  Remember Ecclesiastes 1:5? The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The story of Joshua? Psalm 104: 5? [God] (w)ho laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Isaiah 66:1? Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool. I Chronicles 16:30? Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. Psalm 96:10? the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.  Save it, Augustine had this wrapped up in the 4th century:

Date: 2009/09/20 01:20:04, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I went for the numerical alphabet for convenience and wrote it up in python. It has a variable alphabet length, phrase length, number of generations, population size, and flat mutation rate per letter (plus a random 'phrase' every time). Anyone enjoy python? (insert Randall Munroe joke here)
Here's some sample output:

Date: 2009/10/18 14:11:36, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I'm sorry, but the following passage is not an example of a trivial mistake, it tells me that you haven't actually cracked open even an intro book to physics:
You don't need journal articles to show that you don't have a clue here. Or how about the cooling of the earth:
Some of the first attempts at calculating the age of the earth were done with simple, albeit crude, thermodynamic models (Thomson, in 1862, calculated 20 million years assuming a molten ball of iron which cooled). For me, the interesting part is what followed: rather than sitting back and saying "Well that's good enough.", scientists actually tried to verify a number of assumptions. This is covered by a great article (American Scientist 95.4 (JulyAugust 2007): p342(8)) I suppose my point is this, when you look at creationist "calculations", they look much like Thomson's (assume a linear model an extrapolate), but rather than revising their model in the face of contradictory evidence, they just ignore it. Which brings us back to you: your intuition is demonstrably incorrect in many branches of science. This leaves you a couple of choices. You can: A) Crack open some books and LEARN, I would recommend an introduction to Thermal Physics and Geophysics. Heck, there may even be some online material. OR B) Get picked apart (and rightly so) when you can't justify the cut+paste job. You're not a coward, you're just ignorant. That's fine, ignorance can be corrected (see A). But if you're not scrupulous with the, well, let's just call is tosh that you c+p, then you don't deserve to be treated as honest person. The educator in me wants to see A), but I have to admit B) is much more fun to watch. 
Date: 2009/10/26 20:45:05, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
I debated whether or not to comment on the general relativity thread, it seemed like genuine interest on the part of the guy starting the thread. I had recently watched some BBC production called Einstein and Eddington, so I thought I'd share some of the history of the photograph of the eclipse, but another commenter (CTD) decided to crap all over the thread. When you read stuff like:
and
There's not enough HEADON in the world to get through it. 
Date: 2009/10/27 01:03:46, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Actually, from what I've read, measurements made on pulsar 1913+16 show that gravity propagates within 1% of the speed of light (in GR). This isn't quite a direct method, but considering the success of GR, its probably not a coincidence. 
Date: 2009/10/28 16:01:18, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
There's (Gordon) Freeman Dyson, who worked on Quantum Electrodynamics, the Dyson sphere, and more recently AGW. I also recognize someone from my department (physics), Michael Schick. He takes the raft metaphor seriously. 
Date: 2009/11/23 10:40:29, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
jerry don't blow your cover!

Date: 2010/01/12 18:00:01, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
This looks like as good of a place as any to end this thread. Take us home, God's iPod!

Date: 2010/04/14 16:50:24, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Sorry for being TARDy to the party, but this is simply not true. Kixsen et. al (1996) found that our motion with respect to the CMB in the earth frame is ~371 km/s towards (l,b)=(264,48). The Milky Way center is no better, it's moving at 600 km/s towards (l,b)=(270,30). ** End Transmission ** 
Date: 2010/04/14 21:34:41, Link  
Author: creeky belly  
Homogeneity => Isotropy Homogeneity therefore Numerology 
=====