AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: creeky belly

form_srcid: creeky belly

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.


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 = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'creeky belly%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


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 sun-earth 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
If we plug this wavefunction (which is normalised as the wavevector k approaches the centerpoint of the distribution, as my second installment shows) into the positive definite polynomial (with wavelength being the "x-value" of this polynomial), pull the constant term out (which may or may not be Planck's constant) and assume that the discriminant of the above polynomial is negative or zero (as we must if the expression is positive definite), then r^4<or= a negative constant, which shows that my wavefunction's length dimensions exist in imaginary space. Which blows the uncertainty relation out the window. Which means that quantum principles apply across the information, rather than spatial, dimension, thereby allowing the Planck scale to be applied across an arbitrary length.

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 wave-function as being localized (wave-packet). 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
Remember my wave function?

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

I just redid the calculation, taking care to define an f = original wavefunction, g = complex conjugate, and h = f' (didn't have to, but I'm lazy with technology). Ignoring the root (r^4 must have been a screwup), I still came up with r<-constant. The problem is converting the hamiltonian
from position to momentum. I used Messiah's guidelines, which included an 'i' term, and squaring it I obtained the -1 which flipped the inequality. That's why the results still hold, at least when k = 0.

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.

In effect, I'm choosing different constants for different spaces, because the energies are not invariant across the "twist". In fact the twist changes the momentum, although this is only intuitive for now.

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
What sort of wacky orbits do they have?

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
Yes. Messiah actually is proving <x^2><p^2> >= (.5h/2Pi)^2, but says that the results are analogous if one replaces x by x - <x>. He also says that the same reasoning applies to three spatial dimensions, but why do something three times when once will suffice? And once again, even if I screwed up, the choice of constant in the original differential equation is arbitrary.

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:

The "twist" is the node in the figure eight; this represents the boundary between information and physical space.

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 square-integrable 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
and here I thought GoP would produce a GUT, not just a belly-laugh. (no offense, creeky...and are you the bellah I know? If so, HOWDY, and arrrrrr!!!;)

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
it can work physically if we keep information space in mind....

Dembski (the Wizard) was busy proving that information "energy" is distinct from, and necessary for, the creation of complexity.

if the information antibonding orbital's energy is too high and its probability density is too low, then it won't get through the kleinjunction, which only allows the passage of bonding orbital information

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
But, but, but, informational entities form molecular bonds in information space, and planets (which are atoms embedded in the grand atom of the universe, like Russian dolls) combine just like hydrogen atoms to form an analogue to the hydrogen molecule, with the 2 "S subshells" making a bonding orbital.

Ahem, you're still missing a crucial aspect of the radial part of the 3-D 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 sun-earth 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.

Yes, my proof didn't touch on this; it merely justified the scale change. Nor did it address the other three quantum numbers.

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 3-D Schroedinger equation of quantum mechanics , we measure the position of the moon.  This collapses the wavefunction to a spherically symmetric dirac-delta 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?

Problem is, the constant is deduced from Planck's law, which was an attempt to wed the Wien and Rayleigh-Jean blackbody radiation formulae:

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
I'm confusing nothing. I know methane's molecular formula; in fact, I use the molecule as a prime example of tetrahedral/tetrahedral bonding when I help the neighborhood kids with their chemistry. I was talking about the forces between molecules (Van der Waals forces, etc). That's why I used terms like "band gap" and "conduction bands", two phrases that apparently have no meaning for you. Perhaps you need to consult with that materials sci guy down the hall after all. And of course, you missed my main point, which is self-evident on this site.

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)

Let B be an infinite heat bath. In this paper B will be an infinite free Bose
gas at inverse temperature B = 1/kT without Bose-Einstein condensate.

The function w(k) is the energy of a boson with momentum k, element of R3

(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 non-relativistic 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 hope to justify why an earth-centered cosmos is probabilistically favoured.

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 should start addressing the aberration of starlight, parallax shift, and the Foucault pendulum before too long.

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 Rb-Sr, Ar-Kr

About halfway down the page:

Larson, et al. (1994, p. 266-267) found a correlation between the K-Ar dates and weight percent K2O in the samples. Samples with anomalously high K2O values are associated with younger dates so they proposed a perfectly reasonable (and testable!;) explanation for the bad K-Ar dates from the Cardenas Basalt:

   The explanation that seems most consistent with the data is that the progressive decrease in the dates is the result of increased loss of Ar associated with preferential burial alteration of those flows containing the higher contents of K2O. The more felsic the flow, the greater its viscosity, and the greater the content of mesostasis material containing large quantities of K2O and, therefore, the greater the likelihood of Ar loss during burial metamorphism.

Therefore it's clear that Woodmorappe misquoted McKee and Noble and was very selective in the presentation of data to support his claims. A full examination of the data shows the reliability of the Rb-Sr method for dating the Cardenas Basalt and a testable explanation for the argon loss and unsuitability of the Cardenas for K-Ar dating methods.

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:

"Tectonic inferences from the ca. 1255–1100 Ma Unkar Group and Nankoweap Formation, Grand Canyon: Intracratonic deformation and basin formation during protracted Grenville orogenesis" J. Michael Timmons, et al

Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol.117, no.11-12, pp.1573-1595, Dec 2005

Date: 2006/07/10 15:45:20, Link
Author: creeky belly
Good work, creeky. I'll destroy it either Wednesday or Thursday.

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, state-a (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 state-a 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:

Concerning the "usual" derivation of (1.11)-(1.12), note that the relation (1.11) cannot hold at zero-temperature for all times, since spectrum
of ~Hl is bounded from below. Even at positive temperature, it can hold only as an approximation, and to quote [SI], it is often discussed fact in the physics literature that the usual "textbook derivation" of the time-dependent series is internally inconsistent and there is not universal agreement among physicists concerning either the higher order terms in the series or the precise
quantity which is being approximated.

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 non-trivial 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 H-H-O 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

Date: 2006/07/17 20:47:29, Link
Author: creeky belly
The two pictures below were taken from different angles in the canyon.  Can you identify the name of the formation?  What is your explanation for how it formed?  How many years, what the composition is, did it form at the bottom of an ocean, etc.

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
I'm currently looking at periodic perturbations and band energy gaps. What I've seen so far underlines the wisdom of ditching Planck's constant.

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 non-existant (using the approximation <sigma-x> << 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

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.


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 non-trivial explanation for these effects, and preferential treatment (via Occam's) over GR.


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 N-body orbiting diagram, it has that nice Kleinjunction shape that Paley loves.

N-body 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
Looks like both of the North and South American continents might have "slammed on the brakes" quite suddenly, wouldn't you say?

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
In my scenario, the sediments are still soft and pliable due to recent sedimentation in some cases, and partial melting in other cases.

evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence

Date: 2006/08/10 12:52:46, Link
Author: creeky belly


Tcha know what? Uh uh.

Date: 2006/08/10 13:27:15, Link
Author: creeky belly
The only one here that has tried to give me this info is Eric ... and his explanation was hypothetical ... he has no real data ...

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
OK.  I have to hand it to you.  At least you came up with something that SOUNDS scientific. I have no idea how 10Be and 26Al dating works, but I am sure that people much wiser than myself do **ahem** just like much wiser folks know that apes and humans have a common ancestor, just like much wiser folks know that bacteria turned into jellyfish over millions of years, etc. etc.

Dave's criticism (earlier by Steve S)

"I don't know how it works, but I know it's wrong."


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 wave-particle 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 non-perturbative 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 non-local.  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) There has not been a loophole-free experiment yet.

2) The kleinbottle is not necessarily "hidden variable", as the path could be instantaneous across the junction, at least when the times are averaged across the figure eights.

1) has been shown quite simply through Stern-Gerlack (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 non-localized 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
Remember that no problem exists so long as the quantum information potential decreases when the kinetic energy increases. The total energy remains the same, like a frictionless pendulum. Think of Bohm particles or even the Führungsfeld (yeah, that's a pretentious term but it's sorta catchy), both of which tranfer information between local subsystems. Notice how the "R" variable in the quantum potential expression corresponds with Shannon informational entropy; this is no coincidence. In fact, it's eerie how my ideas are retracing Bohm's hypothesis, since I'm not cribbing from anyone.

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

... implying, of course, that "Fossils are King" ... they are standard by which other methods are judged.  See?  "with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units restricted to the most recent 12% or so of geologic time."  IOW ... "We used to only be able to date rock layers with fossils and it only covered 12% of geologic time.  Now we can obtain the same precision on the remaining 88% of geologic time."

Notice they did NOT say, "RM dating allows to VERIFY our fossil-based guesses about millions of years."  No no no.  That's because ...

1) FOSSILS ARE KING (and Evo assumptions with them)
2) FOSSILS VERIFY RM DATES (and determine which ones are "wrong" and "right")

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.


Here's another quote I like ...        
Absolute dating > Major methods of isotopic dating
Isotopic dating relative to fossil dating requires a great deal of effort and depends on the integrated specialized skills of geologists, chemists, and physicists. It is, nevertheless, a valuable resource that allows correlations to be made over virtually all of Earth history with a precision once only possible with fossiliferous units that are restricted to the most recent 12 percent or so of geologic time.

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

Creek Belly ... more on RM dating tomorrow!

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
A very appropriate analogy and should really give you guys pause in light of the fact (and if you continue the anaolgy) that if Tyson actually did hit a 6th grader he'd be in prison again.  You guys ought to feel a little ashamed of yourselves.

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
apparently the tards are reading us.


I ain’t seen no dog turn into no cat

Sound familiar?

Reminds me of Karl Pilkington:

"I mean a seal, what's already halfway between a fish...and a dog."


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
Or are you going to try to answer some of the real problems I have posed for ToE?

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
No, you're making the same mistake Ikeda-Jeffries did. The fact that the universe's constants are hospitable to life does not surprise me -- if our scientific theories are valid, they had better be. What's surprising is the narrow room for error. If you could change the fine structure constant by several orders of magnitude and still obtain carbon-based life forms (the only form of life of which we know), then I wouldn't consider it very surprising. Or, if we had evidence that many other types of life were possible, I wouldn't be suspicious. But the parameters are pretty narrow; any change of more than 4% renders the development of carbon-based life impossible.

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
Sure, I'll just hop on up I-5 till I hit 405 in Renton, stay on that till bellvue where I hop I-90 and I'll be right there. Where should I meet you guys?

Who's all coming?

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

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

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
So I just spent the last couple hours reading what I could find about string theory, quantum mechanics, etc. and it seems this flash--while simple to understand--doesn't really represent the ideas most physicists think will eventually develop into a cohesive theory.

I will have to read more to have even a basic understanding, but it seems many physicists have discounted this particular flash as being misleading.

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 M-theory branch of string theory posits 11-dimesions (to unify the 5 types of 10-d theory), so to say that a single point in 10-d 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
Do you have any books you would recommend?  I have read BHOT and not yet Briefer--though I will pick up the latter this week.

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 X-files 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
"Violation" is easily misused (often by those who are using it for the purpose it was never designed for). An increased amount of disorder would render a low entropic reading. Lesser equilibrium, low entropy. Less complex, higher entropy.

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
Hello Creek (where do some people come up with these names?),

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.

"A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax


Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I didn't understand your post and I'm not sure I should ask.

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.


Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)

So you multiply the states because you can have the following:

State A (1-6)   State B (1-10)
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


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
Short answer: nothing in entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution.

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
I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?

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
Quote (Serendipity @ Jan. 25 2007,03:21)

These same systems could experience reverse isocaloric/adiabatics - making an isentropic process. Which of course causes no change in entropy.

Sorry its taken so long to reply to this: I was reading back over the thread and picked it up.


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
For example, I said I don't want to get sidetracked into falsifiability. It would be fine if this were a normal sedate discussion. I have seen good responses to this, and I have little doubt the poster could find them. Behe made a nice answer, in which he calls people on the fact that they refute ID will claiming it is nonrefutable.

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.


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
In the end, I can see only two choices. Ether there is a mind involved in the whole process of this cosmos, or there isn't. They aren't the same at all, and they won't look the same. I would just not worry too much about diminishing God by finding natural explanations. The question is, do we live in a universe with a mind or not. The idea that God shrinks is downright silly. Supposedly, people were real deflated when they figured out angels didn't push the planets around. So they said God lost a job. What nonsense. Isn't the truth more magnificent, the planning more impressive? The old way of looking at things was like a fairy tale, with a magic-wand God. God's domain can never shrink. It is a nonproblem.

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'm not sure which part you agree with, and which is creationist bullshit. Yes, it was a philosophical answer, because your original question was philosophical: you worry that if we find naturalistic explanations for things, God's domain shrinks.

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
I don't consider God to be supernatural. I don't think the situation is one where God is here but not there. I think it is a lot like the idea of two dimensional beings seeing a third dimensional being jump up and down. When he jumps up off the flat plane, he disappears, so he is supernatural and has magical powers. It seems obvious enough that we are also like these two dimensional beings, and when we see only dimly or not at all or by clues and inferences, we consign the phenomenon to a realm called supernatural.

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 multi-dimensions, 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.

And accounting for existence and a highly complex universe without recourse to any sort of mind or causation is actually the more difficult route.

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
Other dimensions are not supernatural. They are very much part of your reality. I personally think the subquantum, sub-planck-length may be a divide into another, smaller dimension.

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 non-trivial way. See: LHC

That you can't perceive it means little. Can you hear a dog whistle? Can you see xrays?

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
Why is it drivel? Someone responds to the idea of other dimensions as if they were a magical idea, and I point out that if they exist, they are invisible to us. As you mentioned yourself, it is a part of string theory. If the string theorists are right, then those other dimensions are the bedrock of what we call reality, and yet we can't perceive those dimensions. We already know that there is a world of the unseen - life forms, molecules, atoms. We know that we can perceive but a small band of the electromagnetic spectrum, and yet people perist in always thinking that the latest discovery is the final and last. That we have already uncovered so much of the unseen, should instead have the opposite effect.

We have ways of measuring these things, verifying empirically that they exist. That human beings can't see X-rays or hear dog whistles, is inconsequential since we can construct devices that measure pressure or react when exposed to x-rays 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, non-trivially, 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 non-trivially 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 re-measuring parts of the EM spectrum in our universe(from Gamma-rays 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 tell-all 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
Re "Gravity - it's just a theory"

Technically though, isn't it general relativity that's "just" a theory, with gravity being the thing it attempts to explain?


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 low-energy solutions)

Date: 2007/02/10 17:48:39, Link
Author: creeky belly
Now I'm home again watching Legend of Boggy Creek and too much noise will scare away the creature.

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 = ELECTRO-MAGNETIC 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.

This is not quantum physics here, it’s simple. You learn this kind of math in grade school. This is undeniable and clear.

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
Quote (stevestory @ April 09 2007,21:17)
I liked this one. If he read any entry to thermo book, maybe he would stop making these nonsense SLOT arguments.

I am not familiar with that text. I think this one is good for straight stat mech but "milk before the meat," as they say.

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
True, the scientists here know more about “how science works” than I do.  So, if I understand you correctly, the best thing for myself and others is to let go of our skepticism and trust the scientists who support evolution even though they are not able to explain these things to us unless we have taken years of science courses.

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?

We should also reject the views of those who dissent because they have silly religious beliefs that don’t jive with reality.  See, I have a very hard time with this suggestion.  It is next to impossible for me to believe that everyone who dissents is simply ignorant or a religious nut.

As Einstein once said, "If I were wrong, one would be enough."

Date: 2007/06/03 01:06:06, Link
Author: creeky belly
Maybe I'm off base here--and I know DT is--but I am thinking the problem with the pool ball illustration is that, given a complete understanding of the forces acting on the initial ball, as well as the precise locations and forces acting on each subsequent ball, there is no randomness.  What we perceive as randomness is just lack of understanding, no?

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.

But if we could find both for a given particle at a given time then randomness would not be a part of the equation.

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
Dave, call me a tard, but I just don't understand why common descent is vital to the example you’ve provided.
You don't understand why common descent is important to genetics? Come on, RTFM!
I, personally, don’t see any empirical evidence that macroev. actually occurs in nature.

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?
What I keep trying to get across to you is that I don’t understand why a creationist and an evolutionist couldn’t work side by side and come up with the same conclusions.  Either way...whether by common descent or special creation, we’re studying and comparing similarities between species.  Both a creationist and an evolutionist will come to the same conclusions regardless of ~how~ they believe it “evolved” to its present state

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
You have to try to remember that Creationists do not disregard the mechanisms of evolution in the least. Bizarro World. People also say 'goodbye' when they arrive and 'hello' when they leave.
Creationists use evolutionary mechanisms to explain and predict these changes just as evolutionists do, and they are not riding on the backs of evolutionists because we were aware that organisms have the ability adapt to their environments before Darwin‘s time.

Except that they don't, and they absolutely do ride on the backs of evolution research.
Common descent is an historical inference that is not supported with enough empirical evidence to be considered a “fact”.  

Just like Jesus. NEXT!

Date: 2007/06/19 19:14:59, Link
Author: creeky belly
Let me put it to you this way,  I place Brian Greene and Behe in the same catagory.  Both are relating a theory composed largely of someone else's ideas that can not be empirically supported.

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.

Greene's ideas challenge no necessary dogma and hence are no threat and even more interestingly indirect methods to support this theory are now being contemplated or tested.  What happens if some method arises to test Behe's claims, I don't believe this is possible, but what if?  This is why no question should ever be off limits to science.  Each new day brings new data and who knows which direction it will lead us; we have to be willing to follow.

We should follow the data, and the data has shown us that Behe is wrong. End of story.

Personally, I get real nervous when someone wants to completely shut the book on some line of inquiry in the name of "science."  That justs screams of agenda (i.e. global warming).

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
You guys are contradicting yourself somewhat.  ID is not science as thus can neither be proven nor disproven.

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 single-malt scotch.
Miyah and also miyah.

Date: 2007/06/24 12:40:13, Link
Author: creeky belly
Hmmm...."tentative" information is, well, "tentative".  Obviously, many scientists believe that the Oort cloud exists, but there are many issues that conflict with that belief.  Here's the index in which the Oort cloud is listed.  You can read more about the problems surrounding the Oort cloud in the links provided.

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
I didn't say anything about a conspiracy.  I'm merely stating that scientists certainly wouldn't publish something that they feel goes completely and utterly against the grain.
Especially when it's poor science. If you look at Brown's page, he eliminates himself from being able to publish:
I certainly want my ideas tested and have frequently initiated and appreciated cordial, factual exchanges with scientists who are not creationists. But in a journal, who does the testing, and does a writer have a right to challenge the reviewer’s conclusions if the writer disagrees? In other words, is there an unbiased judge? Unfortunately, leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists. Evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case?  The playing field is not level.

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.
The alternative would be to actually consider creation and ID theories seriously, and obviously guys like you are not going to be open to that.
Well we've tackled some of the creation arguments.  What ID argument  do you think is the most well supported by evidence? IC, EF, the flagellum, the immune system?

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 light-hearted 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:

Genesis 6:7:
Yahweh said, 'I shall destroy humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- humankind, as well as animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky. For I am sorry that I have made them.'


Date: 2007/06/25 01:26:14, Link
Author: creeky belly
I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.  

Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.

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
I've been thinking for a while now of creating a bot-style website where every controversy known to man is answered by quotes from Monty Python.

It would be very "woody".

Controversy...CONTROVERSY....No, it's quite tinny.

Date: 2007/06/28 19:47:28, Link
Author: creeky belly
Quote (Sal @ June 28 2007)
Access Research Network (ARN) is a great place for serious ID enthusiasts. In fact,even Darwinists like Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross give their endorsement:

   ARN [Access Research Network]….offers a host of resources,many of which may be downloaded without cost….

   ARN is a treasure trove of ID materials…a vital arm of the Wedge…

   Forrest and Gross,
   Creationism’s Trojan Horse

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(?)

The earth is pretty darn close to the center. We see the same amount of universe in every direction we look, which is consistent with being in the center.

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
All you are doing is pushing the buck back to something else that won't do the trick.  Reminds me of physicists and their "dark matter" or Expansion Theory.

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
His latest is telling me that for something to break the natural laws, it must be supernatural, and if the laws didn't apply pre big bang, the laws governing the state must be supernatural, since today's natural laws didn't hold sway (I'm paraphrasing).

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

We are talking about people here - not clocks.
If you were in a meeting, and nine out of ten people agreed with everything the boss said, but one disagreed, would you automatically go along with the 9 or listen closely to the 1?

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.
"As we all know, Darwin's theory of evolutionary descent asserts that organisms evolve slowly and very gradually through the smallest of individual steps, through the accumulation of an infinite number of small transformations.  Consequently, the fossil organic world would have to consist of an uninterrupted, undivided continuum of forms; as Darwin himself said, geological strata must be filled with the remains of every conceivable transitional form between taxonomic groups, between types of organizations and structural designs of differing magnitudes.

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.

Fossil material did not then and, based on the present state of our knowledge, does not today meet this challenge, not by a long shot. It is true that we know of countless lineages with continuous transformation, in as uninterrupted a sequence as could be desired.  However, each time we go back to the beginning of these consistent, abundantly documented series, we stand before an unbridgeable gulf.  The series break off and do not lead beyond the boundaries of their own particular structural type.  The link connecting them is not discernible; the individual structural designs stand apart, beside one another or in sequence, without true transitional forms"

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
Schindewolf was a paleontologist.  He knew how fossilization occurred.  To accuse him of assuming something when (I'm pretty sure) you haven't read the book is presumptuous.  He bases his arguments on a multitude of fossil lineages that are thoroughly understood. He spends 55 pages discussing evolutionary patterns among the Cephalopods and the Stony Corals.  He uses real world examples in support of his arguments.

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

But we do see it (transitional forms) over and over and over again - only they are not transitional between types, but only within types.  Now I ask you: Why is it that only these transitional forms are preserved?

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 Therapsid-Mammal transition, are they far enough apart? Try Colbert and Morales (1991) or Strahler(1987). Reptile-Amphibian? Try here. Fish-Amphibian? Try here!
You have to remember that Schindewolf is no creationist.  He advocated saltational evolution of types, followed by gradual evolution within types.  He did something remarkable: he tailored his views to fit the evidence rather than trying to make the evidence fit his views.

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
The EPR paradox has demonstrated "spooky action at a distance" for seventy years in quantum experiment after experiment.

Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.

As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...  
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."
(emphasis mine)
Nonlocal correlations between separated neural networks

BTW, the term "nonlocal" is a direct reference to "spooky action at a distance" of the EPR Paradox

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
Penrose offers E=h/t as the equation for determining timing of decoherence where E is gravitational energy, h (h bar) is Planck’s constant over 2 pi and t is time.  The more mass that is involved the shorter the Objective Reduction (OR) because when E is large, t is small.  The tubulin dimers in microtubules are small enough that they can avoid decoherence for a long time as long as they remain isolated from large mass.

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.

You have mentioned multiple artificial ways for quantum effects to last 100s of milliseconds.  Is it so hard to consider that billions of years of evolution could do the same thing naturally?

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
Have you heard of Bucky Balls?  These are miniature soccer balls made up of 60 carbon atoms.  They demonstrate EPR-like effects.  The basic question is, why do Bucky Balls behave differently than normal soccer balls?  Penrose offers it is due to their mass.

By the way, Penrose and Stephen Hawking had a famous debate over this issue in 1994.  While Hawking didn't agree with Penrose, he didn't suggest Penrose's idea was "absurd".  I would be curious as to what Hawking thinks about it today in light of advances in maintaining superposition longer and with larger massed objects.

The Schrödinger's cat paradox refuses to go away by itself.   Penrose's OR quantum interpretation explains it.

Penrose has suggested an experiment named FELIX to test his hypothesis with a tiny mirror.  The mirror is would have just the right mass to be in superposition for the forward going light beam but not for the return.

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 wave-like 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.

You are correct that currently it doesn’t appear we are capable of developing long term quantum memory, yet (we are working on it).  However, we do know the photons can avoid decoherence for years.  I don’t know if any scientific observation like this has been done for cosmic particles other than photons.  Do you know of any?  I will look for them.

Penrose argues against Strong AI.  That is, Penrose argues the human mind can’t be a consistent formal algorithm.  And pseudorandom generators don’t help (they are algorithms).  Here is Planet Math's analysis of it.  Penrose argues that Quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random.  Ergo, it is extremely likely the human mind (consciousness) depends on quantum effects.

Whether or not Artificial Intelligence could have been accomplished without quantum effects has probably become a moot point since AI researchers are now designing quantum computers into their systems.

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
Proportional, or inversely proportional? (And perhaps to mass rather than size?)


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 1e-37 m, or 1e-28 nm. An proton (1e-4 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 spin-spin 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 myself am no scientist.  As far as formal training, I'm more than ignorant. What little I know has been self taught.

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
Hi creeky belly,

Thank you for your reasoned responses.

You wrote...
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.


E = h/t came directly from deBroglie's work.

"The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy." link

Momentum and kinetic energy are proportional to mass, not size.

deBroglie's equations are...
p = hk
E = hw

When you substitute 1/t for w, you get the form Penrose uses.

And if you read my clarification you'd understand what I meant by "size":
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 1e-37 m, or 1e-28 nm. An proton (1e-4 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 spin-spin times), but it's a pretty good indicator of what basic objects are prone to quantum effects.

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.
My point is there is no such thing as a minor inconsistency in logic.  You would not be the first one to attempt to hand-wave away the inconvenient existence of "quantum weirdness".  For seventy years people have been waiting for the logical explanation to present itself.  Penrose quit waiting.  He accepted it as reality and built a consistent model to explain it all.  The final piece was consciousness.

Are you familiar with the story behind Penrose Tilings?

It started out as a mathematical curiosity.  At one time it was assumed that any effort to tile a surface (e.g. a floor) with a limited number of shapes would result in a repeating pattern.  This is known as periodic tiling.  However, attempts to prove that mathematically failed.  One day, someone proved that aperiodic tiling was, in fact, possible.  The race was on to find examples.  The first example had 20426 tile shapes.  To make a long story short, Penrose found a solution that used only TWO tile shapes (he did it in his spare time as “a hobby”).

This still might be considered just an interesting mathematical curiosity except for two things.  Ten years later, an “impossible” crystal formation was discovered.  You see it was thought that all crystals had to be made up of repeating structures (periodic).  An aperiodic crystal formation was discovered, it matched Penrose Tilings.

The second interesting aspect is that Penrose claims his solution couldn’t have been found algorithmically, i.e. Turing Machine couldn’t be programmed to find the answer not matter how powerful it was.

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 room-temperature sample (10^22 spins) contains no 100-spin 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

Penrose admits that he might be wrong on the details of how.  He isn't a biologist.  But it is obvious Penrose is firmly convinced he is right about the quantum physics.  The implications make others uncomfortable, but a lack of comfort doesn't hold a candle to experiment after experiment showing interconnected quantum effects are a reality.

Dr. Hameroff is convinced Penrose is right based on his experience in suppressing consciousness (anesthesia).

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/>
Did you read the link I provided?

p = momentum = mass * velocity

"size" neither volume nor the cube-root of volume has anything to do with momentum.

From the career survey results, I would have thought a majority of the people in this forum would be explaining this obvious physics property to you.

Was I too polite?


Do you see the "m" in the first equation under the words "de Broglie relations"?

"m" stands for MASS!

Hmm, perhaps you should look at what I calculated:

For the car
lambda = 6.62 x 10e-34 m^2 kg/s / (1000 kg * 10 m/s)
lambda = 1e-37 m = 1e-28nm
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 X10e-34 m^2 kg/s /( 1.67 x10e-27 kg*10 m/s)
lambda = 60 nm
size of electron = 1e-4 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
Penrose is 65 years old.  He has been knighted.  He knows he will be proven correct.  This book should dissuade those tempted to suggest he got lucky again.  After all, Penrose was right about Black Holes and aperiodic tilings.  Why should he be correct in suggesting the obvious implications of deBroglie's equations are correct?

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.
A tubulin dimer is 8 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm and weighs 55,000 daltons.
Great, is it surrounded by a vacuum at low temperature? NEXT!

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 10e-34 m^2 kg/s / (1000 kg * 10 m/s)
lambda = 1e-37 m = 1e-28nm
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 X10e-34 m^2 kg/s /( 1.67 x10e-27 kg*10 m/s)
lambda = 60 nm
size of electron = 1e-4 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.

Even though quantum effects are non-deterministic they aren’t random.

You might ask what quantum level effects have to do with Intelligent Design.

First of all, it goes to show that magic-like effects can be scientific. There is also reason to believe quantum effects where instrumental to function in early life on Earth (front loaded?).

They are also non-trivial, what mechanism front loads a probability distribution other than potential perturbations?

Date: 2007/09/25 16:01:13, Link
Author: creeky belly
The fourth complex dimension, time, contains the square-root of negative one.

Actually, this is a misinterpretation of the concept of space-time. There are different ways of moving through it:
time-like: t^2 >> x^2+y^2+z^2 represent objects moving within same light cone.
space-like: t^2 << x^2+y^2+z^2 represent objects in different light cones (causally separated)
light-like: t^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2 -> L=0 represents the space-time 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.

In 1905 Einstein came along and started messing up this view.  I suggest the implications of what was started 100 years ago are just now beginning to fully manifest themselves.

“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

Heck, they can be thought of as the same photon! EPR paradox, superposition, etc all melt away once you combine General Relativity with Quantum Theory.  However, particles lose their identity in the process.

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
You might want to read Penrose's The Road to Reality.

Penrose provides hypothetical geometries that could have been "real".  Using complex numbers for dimensional quantities isn't a problem.  Actually, not using complex numbers makes things unrealistic.  Otherwise, you end of trying to segment things artificially in an attempt to avoid negative square roots (like you did above).  Complex numbers are no more artificial than irrational numbers.

What you added was meaningless. When events are space-like, 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 space-like separation that's fine, but you're arguing a convention, nothing more.

BTW, if you are suggesting their is no interial frame of reference, how do you explain the Twin Paradox?  The problem looks the same to both Twins.  Each twin is standing still in his/her frame of reference and the other twin is the one moving.  Why are the results different?

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 space-time. 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^2-y^2-z^2 = 1^2 - 0.5^2 -> L = 0.75 light-years

Traveling twin:
How much time has passed in his frame?
L^2 = t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2 -> 0.75^2 = t^2 -> t = 0.75 years

Time passed for stationary: 1 year. Time for traveling: 0.75 years.

Say that three times fast.  Better yet, say it in terms the listening audience can understand.

I think they may figure out you aren't saying anything that contradicts what I said.

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 space-time. I wasn't really trying to contradict, mainly to point out the practicality of so-called faster than light communication.

This makes the entire universe (space and time) one large wavefunction in Minkowskian geometry.

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.

Hearing no objections from my last comment (I waited a whole five minutes), I will presume everyone understands and agrees that quantum effects are interconnected both in space and time.

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
Could the RecA protein be another example of life taking advantage of the power of quantum computing for a key function?

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 pico-seconds 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.

Labels aren't important, ideas are.

Except when you use labels incorrectly, such as "quantum computer".

Date: 2007/09/27 17:24:38, Link
Author: creeky belly
This isn't the first time nature has managed to do something that proves difficult to replicate artificially.

Quite. Evolutionary algorithms are a good example of this (especially the "Macguyver solutions").

Are you suggesting plants operate at 77 Kelvin?

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 femto-seconds. 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 290-300K (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
With all this information, the quantum search algorithmic requirements from the DNA structure are clear. It is convenient to take the distinct nucleotide bases as the quantum basis states in the Hilbert space. Then (1) The
quantum query transformation Ub must be found in the base-pairing with Hydrogen bonds. (2) The symmetric
transformation Us must be found in the base-independent processes occurring along the sides of the ladder. (3) An
environment with good quantum coherence must exist. Thermal noise is inevitable at T ? 300?K inside the cells, so
the transformations must be stable against such fluctuations.
Figuratively, the best that can be achieved is
Actual evolution = lim decoherence ? 0

[Quantum evolution] . (4)
Thus we need quantum features that smoothly cross over to the classical regime, i.e. features that are reasonably
stable against small decoherent fluctuations. Examples are: (a) geometric and topological phases, and (b) projection/
measurement operators.

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:quant-ph/0105001v2:
The optimal quantum search algorithm was found by Lov Grover (Grover 1996), and it relates the number of objects, N, that can be distinguished by a number of yes/no queries, Q, according to

(2Q + 1) sin?1(1/pN) = /2 . (1)

This algorithm does not use the full power of quantum logic; concepts of superposition and interference familiar from the study of classical waves are sufficient to describe it. The algorithm starts with a uniform superposition of all possible states, corresponding to equal probability for every building block to get selected. Then it applies two reflection operations alternately: (a) change the sign of the amplitude of the desired state by the yes/no query, and (b) reflect all amplitudes about their average value. The algorithm stops after Q of these alternating reflections
to yield the desired state with a high probability.

Excuse me while I suggest it is a pretty safe presumption that nature figured out a way.

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:
In principle, this is experimentally testable. Our technology is yet to reach a stage where we can directly observe molecular dynamics in a liquid environment. But indirect tests of optimality are plausible, e.g. constructing artificial genetic texts containing a different number of letters and letting it compete with the supposedly optimal natural language [Patel (2001b)]. ... Explicit formulation of a testable scenario, based on physical properties of the available molecules and capable of avoiding fast decoherence, is an open challenge.

Date: 2007/09/27 23:48:00, Link
Author: creeky belly
What happens to particles when they meet an opposite phase?

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 non-relativistic 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 "pseudo-force" 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
And while K.E. may consider it just more "psuedoscience", here are some interesting experimental results (Ashfer Experiment).

Afshar claims that his experiment invalidates the complementarity principle and has far-reaching implications for the understanding of quantum mechanics, challenging the Copenhagen interpretation. According to John G. Cramer, Afshar's results support Cramer's own transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics and challenges the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

So what is this "transactional interpretation"?

More from Wikipedia...
Suppose a particle (such as a photon) emitted from a source could interact with one of two detectors. According to TIQM, the source emits a usual (retarded) wave forward in time, the "offer wave", and when this wave reaches the detectors, each one replies with an advanced wave, the "confirmation wave", that travels backwards in time, back to the source. The phases of offer and confirmation waves are correlated in such a way that these waves interfere positively to form a wave of the full amplitude in the space-time region between emitting and detection events, and they interfere negatively and cancel out elsewhere in space-time (i.e., before the emitting point and after the absorption point). The size of the interaction between the offer wave and a detector's confirmation wave determines the probability with which the particle will strike that detector rather than the other one. In this interpretation, the collapse of the wavefunction does not happen at any specific point in time, but is "atemporal" and occurs along the whole transaction, the region of space-time where offer and confirmation waves interact. The waves are seen as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical device to record the observer's knowledge as in some other interpretations of quantum mechanics.

John Cramer has argued that the transactional interpretation is consistent with the outcome of the Afshar experiment, while the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are not.[3]

Sound familiar?  It sounds like a different way of describing Penrose's OR interpretation.

I consider Penrose's OR to be a Copenhagen derivative, but that is just a label.

Labels aren't important, ideas are.

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 which-way 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 Orch-OR, then why bring this up? If Orch-OR theory really doesn't require complementarity, it's a moot point. I know you like to pick up on the traditional woo words like space-time and time-travel, 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
This brings up the issue of explaining how professional tennis can be played when a half a second delay in response is too long.

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).
Have you figured out I am not your typical bad guy yet?  I may be a quantum quack, but I am being honest about it.  Your attempts at twisting my words isn't being honest.

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 Orch-OR interpretation. Or to go just one level deeper and explain exactly how Orch-OR 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
When you put quotation marks around a multiple sentence quote, it is usually assumed it is an exact quotation.  Even more so when you preface it with "Except when you say things like...".

This is a case of you literally trying to put words in my mouth.  What you suggested is not what I said, it is not what I think.

If you rephrase your comment I will answer it appropriately.

Fine my comment is this: is TIQM really consistent with Orch-Or? Why? How is Orch-OR a Copenhagen interpretation? That's all I want.

BTW, no one has brought up causal paradox yet (killing your own ancestors).  If this is holding you back from acceptance, don't let it.  The interesting part of interconnected quantum effects is that no peeking is allowed.  No causal paradox can happen because observing the quantum effect forces the objective reduction.  Unknowable quantum information is all that can travel in time.  What we would think of as normal information can not.

I actually brought this up a few pages back (page 1) when talking about the GHZ game:
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.

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
Which is essentially what I said.  I will turn the question around.  Why do you think the Penrose OR Interpretation is NOT an Copenhagen derivative?

The Orch OR takes OR and adds the implication of consciousness.  TIQM  is not equivalent to Orch OR.  However, TIQM is similar the basic Penrose quantum interpretation (just "OR"), IMO.

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 consider Penrose's OR to be a Copenhagen derivitative because Penrose's "Objective Reduction" serves the same purpose as Copenhagen's "Waveform Collapse" and is generally the same thing.  However, while Copenhagen left fuzzy the possibility that the waveform of an object collapsed into an actual particleform of the object. That was fine for photons and, possibly, electrons.  But for 60 atom molecules (Bucky Balls) it became too much of a stretch for getting matter from non-matter.

I don't think it's a stretch, considering that the deBroglie wavelength (the molecular mass is about 750 amu or 1.25e-24 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.
It looks like the main the elements I need for the Third Choice are here.  John G. Cramer is saying quantum effects are interconnection through space and time.  DNA and microtubules can be interconnected quantum computers just as easily under TIQM as under Penrose's OR.  It looks like TIQM doesn't have a decoherence timeout like Penrose's OR.

If you take one step beyond Cramer's theory, and do some experiments, you know that you will get a decoherence time-out. You can fire up an NMR experiment and couple different atoms within C60 or an organic molecule; they will decohere like everything else.
From the link...
"The TI avoids the conceptual problems implicit in this experiment by eliminating any SV collapse which occurs at some definite instant... Instead it employs an atemporal four-space description implicit in the transaction model..."

It looks like TIQM will allow things to remain in superposition as long as necessary.

I understand Penrose's OR interpretation better.  If you want to think of things in TIQM terms, you will have to explain to me the fundamental differences you see that invalidates what I have been saying.

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
It is my opinion that we live in a universe were if something can happen, it does.  When I was learning about Maxwell's equations I could understand, and calculate, how a collapsing magnetic field creates an electrical field and how a collapsing electrical field creates a magnetic field.  It all made sense except for one thing, how and why did it start?

This wasn't a religious "why" (at least I wasn't thinking in those terms).  This was an engineering/scientific "why".  The only answer that made sense to me was, because it can.  In the 30+ years since then, I haven't come up with a better answer.

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?
The RecA protein is directly involved in finding and fixing errors in DNA.  RecA protein has the same physical structure as microtubules.

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.
I understand this is the way of science.  I suspect other ID proponents can only wish they had the amount of scientific support for their ideas as Orch OR has (meager as it is).

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
Consciousness causes quantum collapse

Now you might understand the rock and the hard place quantum physicists are trapped between.  The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment introduced the role of the conscious observer in an attempt to show how ridiculous the implication of the Copenhagen interpretation was.  Ridiculous or not, the Schrödinger's cat experiment is still both dead and alive.  And if Penrose is correct, the objective reality of the interconnectedness of quantum effects with consciousness collapses into the state of being really real.

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
Decoherence can result from interference from neighboring mass.  That is why Penrose-Hameroff spend the effort to explain how the microtubule structure keeps tubulin dimers isolated from neighboring systems.

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
This is an inevidable outcome of debating on forums.  You are arguing the quantum mechanical brain would be too perfect while Creek Belly is arguing the quantum mechanical brain would be too imperfect without error correction

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 non-algorithmic short-cut 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
Are you sure the problem is bound / finite?

If you constrain it to "perfect" chess, which is reasonable for computers like DEEP BLUE, games don't typically last more than 50-60 moves.

Date: 2007/10/03 21:29:33, Link
Author: creeky belly
Do you have what you would call "data" for an alternative explaination for quantum computations for consciousness?

As I have indicated before, I'm open to the idea that quantum computations could be the result of microtubules, actin or pixie dust.  It is a detail as far as the Third Choice hypothesis is concerned

Well, if you look at experiment to uncover the quantum mechanisms involved with photosynthesis, they were able to resolve the beats to femto-second timing (I believe the beats are similar to NMR spin-echo 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
I suggest the opposite of what you are talking about is compartmentalizing.  One of the things Penrose did was to merge General Relativity with quantum physics.  A complete model needs to explain both realities.  Consciousness plays into this too.  It is part of the measurement problem for quantum mechanics.  Penrose didn't ignore this inconvienient observation.  He offered a mathematical proof against Strong AI.  Here is Planet math's analysis of it.

Hmm, I must have missed his paper where he beat out the rest of these. What was the point of the space-time calculation? What does keiths dispute that's clarified by this exercise?
And Penrose has offered testable prediction based in E=h/t.  His FELIX experiments tests the predicted decoherence time of a small mirror.

Penrose/Hameroff model implies that once AI starts using quantum computation the results will be "surprisingly" human-like.

And, oh yea, the prediction that neural networks will “…present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."

Here is the link to that experiment you have assured me has nothing to do with microtubules even though the authors mention Penrose-Hameroff by name.

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.
I also offered the earth and sun example. Why does the sun's reference frame get preferential treatment?

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
Hi Creeky Belly,
The issue is the lack of completeness and/or correctness of Special Relativity.  Do you agree or disagree with this assessment?

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 non-inertial 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
You really don't like General Relativity do you?

Ok, even with Special Relativity, what do you think would happen if you took a quick trip to the moon and back at twice the speed of light?

Don't let that negative square-root bother you, there are ways around it (complex numbers).

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.

The data will be statistically analyzed for correlation between the test subject’s choice with the actual light.  The correlation will then be plotted against the time delta between the light flash and the choice.  The graph of the primary testing will then be compared to the graph of the control testing.

It would be expected that choices made 500ms after the light flash would correlate well, whereas the choices made prior to the light flash wouldn’t correlate well at all.  The focus of the analysis would be to determine the crossover point between correlated and uncorrelated.

If, for example, the crossover point for the quantum randomizer is 100ms and the crossover point for the pseudorandom generator is 400ms, this would suggest conscious decisions are directly influenced by quantum effects.  However, if there is no significant difference between the crossover points, then this would be a negative result to the Orch-OR hypothesis’ prediction.

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 wave-function (the detector is an "observer"). Most likely the data would be Poisson distributed for both the quantum generator and pseudo-random, 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 pseudo-random generator than a quantum random generator to human perception.

Date: 2007/10/08 23:08:24, Link
Author: creeky belly
This experiment wouldn't test for quantum entanglements within the body (e.g. eyes to brain to fingers) but would be looking for external quantum entanglements  (quantum randomizer to test subject).

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 two-particle 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*(1-q)
10: (1-p)*q
11: (1-p)*(1-q)

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 spin-up, spin-down 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*(1-q) != 0, so then p=1 and q=0.  If we look at the third equation, (1-p)*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
I think this concept is key to understanding the reality that includes cosmology, quantum physics along with biology.  Special Relativity is NOT reality.  It is incomplete.  General Relativity is the observed reality.  There is a single, inertial frame of reference.  This means our universe exhibits Minkowskian Geometry (not Euclidean Geometry).  From Einstein’s Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?...

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 Robertson-Walker space-time metric).

The term "decoherence" harkens back to the time when scientists were arguing whether light was made up of waves, particles or both.  After many experiments the prevailing thought was that a light wave collapsed into actual particle for some to-be-discovered reason.  However, a universally acceptable reason never materialised and the term "decoherence" has morphed into a term loosely describing a process of transforming quantum effects into macro observations.

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.

Hopefully, we can generally agree that quantum effects can be interconnected in space and time. The question becomes are they interconnected?

I believe they are for the same reason I believe magnetic fields and electrical fields are interconnected.  It makes for an understandable model.  Maxwell's equations would be just a mathematical model if not for the consistency it has to observations.  Penrose's mathematical model does the same thing for quantum observations.

If quantum effects are interconnected, their randomness is an illusion.  Quantum effects are non-deterministic but they are also not random.  This leave consciousness.

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.

How long can quantum states remain in superposition?

Arguably they can remain in superposition years.  I say "arguably" because it is mostly theoretical but experiments have been performed involving things like pulsars with massive galaxies in between acting like dual-slit experiments.

For a more down-to-earth experiment NIST has shown qubit superposition lasting 7 to 10 seconds.

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.

The processing power that quantum superposition provides, whether for photosynthesis, DNA processing or cellular awareness could be very useful to living organisms.  Is it such a far-fetched presumption that life has evolved a method to take advantage of this useful tool?

The answer has become obvious in the case of photosynthesis (yes, it has).  It is also likely for DNA.  While the case for microtubules is harder to make right now, too many observations are explained by it to dismiss it out of hand, IMO.

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
Hi Creeky Belly,

Thank you for the reasoned and reasonable response.

As to the 300 degree K situation.  I would like to direct your attention to this link where the experiment was not run at cold temperatures.  In fact, the Fullerenes (i.e. Bucky Balls) were heated to 900K.

Here is the link to The wave nature of biomolecules and fluorofullerenes  which used fluorofullerene which are 2.5 times larger than Fullerenes.  The experiment was basically the same as the one for Fullerenes.

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 double-slit 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/disagree that it is likely life directly uses quantum effects for photosynthesis?

2. Agree/disagree that it is likely that DNA function directly involves quantum effects?

3. Agree/disagree that it is likely the cytoskeleton is the mechanism for the appearance of single-cell awareness?

4. Agree/disagree that this awareness is likely due to the direct involvement of quantum effect in microtubules?

5. Agree/disagree that cytoskeleton awareness of neuron cells plays a part in the appearance of human consciousness?

6. Agree/disagree that synchronized microtubule decoherence is likely responsible for the 40hz (25ms) EEG frequency that corresponds to state of consciousness?

1. Agree
2. Agree
3-6. Disagree
I thought we were talking about 300K decoherence.
(entanglement and quantum calculations are a separate issue, IMO)

In simpler English…
The superposition states of individual BuckyBalls aren't very far apart when they come out of the oven.  However the superpositions drift apart on their way through the experiment's two collimating slits that "improve the spatial coherence and limit the angular spread of the beam".  This allows for the individual Bucky Balls to go through the 100 nanometer grating with enough quantum superposition spread to be detectable.

Note, the experiment assumes the individual Bucky Balls remain in superposition for the entire 2.29 meter trip and don't undergo decoherence too early.  At 200 meters/second, that means this very warm biomolecule can remain in superposition for at least  11.45 milliseconds.

This experiment isolates the molecules in superposition via a simple vaccum, not via cold temperatures.

11.45 milliseconds isn't that far from the 25 milliseconds required for the Penrose/Hameroff model.

I look forward to hearing your explanations as to how I am “misunderstanding” the situation.

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?
That is 2.8 picometers

2.8x10^-12 = 6.63x10^-34 / (1.2x10^-24 * 200)

A fullerene is one NANOmeter (10^-9) in diameter.  Fluorofullerenes are bigger yet.

I think this illustrates some main differences that you and I have in our views of this.  I consider the superposition/coherence property fundamental to all quantum effects especially in the double-slit interference experiment.  The "decoherence" question is basically how long can coherence be maintained for nanometer sized particles like tubulin dimers.

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
At this point, that is exactly what I am talking about.  I am looking to see if it is possible for an isolated biomolecule that has a dimension of 4 nm by 4 nm by 5 nm and weighs 55K amu to remain in quantum superposition for around 25ms.

It looks like researchers are on their way to showing this experimentally.  For the purposes of our discussion, are you are willing to agree there is nothing fundamental preventing a tubulin monomer from being in a quantum superposition state for 25 ms as long as it "...isn't affected by thermal emission from other atoms, and isn't entangling itself with photons"?

And, furthermore, do you agree the internal temperature of a biomolecule isn't a factor?

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
To the first point,  I wasn't overly worried about the fact the C60 experiment had a different kind of superposition.  The double-slit superposition is much harder to accomplish than having superpositioned states of the same biomolecule in essentially the same location.  Doing it is relatively easy; detecting it is the hard part.

As to the "coherence across multiple molecules".  I am probably more willing to accept that as a given based on my view of the inherent interconnectedness of quantum effects in space-time geometry.  So, I don't have a ready answer to that one.  I think we will have enough to talk about getting past the isolation question (i.e. warm, wet brain).  I suggest tabling this one for later.

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 side-step 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.
As to the error correction.  Dr. Hameroff has pointed out various inherent error correction mechanisms in his view the microtubule model.  He even suggests it helps with decoherence in that the other tubulins literally prevent strays from getting out of line.

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
If I am understanding things correctly.  There isn't much of a question that tubulin dimers exhibit two distinct states.  This appears to be a scientific observation.  What is being questioned is whether superposition of this bend is possible/likely if the tubulin dimers are appropriately isolated.

Not to take too much advantage of your DNA concession, but DNA superposition would be of a similar nature.  We aren't talking spinning electrons here.  We are talking about the physical orientations of biomolecules.

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
“Materialism” is a philosophical outlook.  I think it is outdated considering what we know from quantum physics.  The Many Worlds interpretation is a desperate attempt to hang on to the security blanket of presuming solid particles actually exist.

I am not suggesting God or even Intelligent Designer(s) should be presumed.  A lot of people have complained that my philosophical leaning is “Naturalism” which, to some, is just as bad as “Materialism”.

We can’t escape our biases.  We all have them.  But I suggest in this case, you might be attempting to presume a biased position that you have no right to claim as the default ("conventional models").

I am an engineer putting together my model.  You put together yours and we will compare them.  Ok?

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 1-3 are straightforward, and should be performed by Hameroff (currently non-active 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 1-3 are satisfied.

Date: 2007/10/16 16:57:14, Link
Author: creeky belly
Treating it "classically" is your philosophical bias.  Thinking of things as solid object existing in a specific location in Euclidean Space where the frame by frame movie is always moving forward in time is a biased view point.

This view isn't consistent with scientific observations.

You might as well be saying that we must treat the world as flat except under special circumstances where its "roundness" manifests itself.

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.

I disagree, absent a default explanation, all I have to do is present a consistent model for testing.

You present your model, I present mine.  We compare.

What does your model say about single-celled organisms avoiding obstacles, finding food and engaging in sex?

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 peer-reviewed 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
I say it isn't a problem once you accept Minkowskian Geometry's...

dL^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2 reality.  Quantum effects are interconnected.

All quantum effects are interconnected, in the GHZ states the interconnectedness is detectable, in "classical" situations it is not.

That is my explaination.  What's yours?

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
Quantum effects are interconnected because quantum effects are patterns in the single space-time wavefunction that is our universe.

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.

At best you only mathematically described the observation and without offering an explanation.  On the other hand, you provided support for what I have been saying.

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,z-momentum 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.

BTW, are you still holding on to a dogmatic belief that matter has substance and there is such a thing as randomness?

It is hard to see past your own philosophical presumptions.

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
How about this, Christopher.  I won't teach morals from evolutionary theory, and you don't teach science from the Bible.  Sound reasonable?

Christopher's been taking Aesop's fables too literally.

Date: 2007/10/22 02:26:25, Link
Author: creeky belly
I specifically asked you how the population of the world could be 30,000,000 a mere 13 or so generations after the population of the world was 6.

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
To all those who are trying to pull me into a discussion about a young earth....take a flying leap.  It will be a sunny day in hell before I get in a discussion like that here.

As to your pyramid/population, blah, blah, blah, issues.  Google for a while...seriously.  If you think that creation scientists haven't considered these issues, you're nuts.

Let's just hear from Henry Morris's The Bible Has the Answer:


The human population must have started originally from the first pair, and the question is whether that pair was Noah and his wife 4,300 years ago (the time of the worldwide Flood according to the Ussher chronology of the Bible) or the first “dawn-man” and his mate a million years ago.

   The present rate of population increase in the world is more than two per cent per year, and the population is now over four billion. [This figure was correct when Dr. Morris wrote this. The figure is now much higher. — Creation Tips editor.] However, the average rate would only have to be one half of one per cent per year to produce the present world population in 4,300 years.

   To put it another way, an average family size of only 2.5 children per family would suffice to develop the present population in just the length of time since Noah, even with an average life-span of only about 40 years per person. These figures are very reasonable, and in fact extremely conservative, showing that the Bible chronology is quite plausible in every way.

   On the other hand, this same very conservative rate of population growth (only one fourth what it is at present), if continued for a million years, would have produced a present population infinitely greater than could be packed into every cubic foot of the entire universe! This fact alone argues that the supposed million-year history of man on the earth is completely absurd, whereas the Biblical chronology is perfectly reasonable …

   Even if, by some miracle, the population growth rates were slowed down sufficiently to produce a population of only the present figure of three billion people after one million years of human life on earth, this would still mean that over 3,000 billion individual people had lived and died during that period of time. It is therefore strange that it is so difficult to find human fossils! It would seem rather that human remains ought to be extremely abundant everywhere. And this should be even more true of the pre-human ape-men that were supposedly evolving into men during 60 or 70 million years of pre-history.

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:
Population expert Paul Ehrlich gives world average yearly growth rates of 0.9 per cent between 1850 and 1930, 0.3 per cent between 1650 and 1850, and a mere 0.07 per cent in the thousand years prior to 1650. And in the fourteenth century the population increase must have been very small indeed, and it may even have been turned into a big decrease, because of the Black Death. Ehrlich's figures are not just guesses; they are based on historical records.
via Dr. Alan Hayward

Date: 2007/10/22 14:38:14, Link
Author: creeky belly
As to your pyramid/population, blah, blah, blah, issues.  Google for a while...seriously.  If you think that creation scientists haven't considered these issues, you're nuts.

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
Thanks for showing us all the 5 D’s of Darwinism, by the way. Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge!   -ds

Are you sure  that's FIVE D's, DT?

Davescot must save paper with the 3 R's: Reduce, Reuse, Reduce.

This is actually a line from Rip Torn's character in the movie Dodgeball:


Date: 2007/11/01 01:41:56, Link
Author: creeky belly
Thought you might be amused by shithead AFDave Hawkins' latest antics at IIDB

Dave's latest ploy is to bombard those he considers his biggest critics with pms, threatening them and and/or C&Ping the same bullshit claims he makes on the open board.  He did this to at least half a dozen folks whom I've compared notes with.

Me personally, I got a threat from Dave that he was now going to get me banned from IIDB.

I was particularly amused by the orbital mechanics thread (IT BURNS!):
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 15 2007,04:00)
Can you explain how conventional wisdom explains the near circular orbits of the planets? How about the elliptical orbits of comets?

Conventional wisdom? Like Euler-Lagrange equations? His ignorance knows no bounds.

Date: 2007/11/06 16:04:47, Link
Author: creeky belly
ID reps did show up at the trial, and it's well documented why some of the DI fellows weren't there.  You're well aware of the situation, and I'm tired of repeating the same shit day in, day out.

Why wouldn't they take part in the documentary? word - NOVA.  

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
Sal continues his penetrating mathematical treatise vis the Alien vs. Predator theme:

Post #3: Schrodinger wrote an influential book. Also, Schrodinger’s equation. Here it is again! Darwin was a falsified math-challenged puppy beater. I know Abstact Algebra! Who was the real scientist?

(Note to Sal: this is gonna take more than a year.)

He's Lost in Hilbert Space. *DANGER* Sal Cordova! *DANGER*

Date: 2007/12/20 23:17:13, Link
Author: creeky belly
When you spend millions of dollars and produce less than a single average grad student, you really suck at science. All I can say is that the crazy zealot idiots who fund these underachievers must have inherited their wealth, because a good businessman would do a cost/benefit analysis and fire all those losers.

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
Why do BuckyBalls exhibit superposition but baseballs don't?

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
First things first.  

Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.


Minkowskian space-time geometry easily allows for the interconnection of things that travel at the speed of light.  It practically forces it.

As uncomfortable as it might make you, would you agree to that too?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable; the conservation of the speed of light forces space-time 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
Anyway, it turns out that nanotechnology will be the key to our next generation of ultra-light, long-life batteries.  Imagine a laptop that can go for a month without a charge, but weighs less than 3 lbs?  The batteries exist but they cost $100,000 each at the research stage.  The key is to use carbon nanotubes to position dual lithium crystals using chelation, similar to EDTA binding metals, like copper.

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 spin-coated 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 nano-sized 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
All I can do is my best.

ds = sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

For homebody; dt = 2 years, dx = dy = dz = 0

Homebody's clock = sqrt(2^2) = 2 years.

For traveler; dt = 1 year, dx = 0.8 light years (trip out)
                 dt = 1 year, dx = -0.8 light years (trip back)

Traveler's clock = 2 x sqrt(1^2 - 0.8^2) =  1.2 years.

No acceleration, no preferential frame of reference.

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 usually like resort to sarcasm, but it is getting a little irritating that those who understand this better than I aren't stepping up and explaining it in terms we all can understand.

It is a whole lot easier to set back and throw stones from the sidelines, isn't it?

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
In one sense an ORBITING spaceship doesn't experience force because of the gravity well it is in.  Therefore, it doesn't experience acceleration.

It is my understanding the concept of "centripetal acceleration" is an artificial explanation for dealing with the reality of curved space.

That is what I meant about my understanding matching Newtonian Physics.  It also exposes the limitations of "special" relativity (i.e. only works in special cases).

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.
As for my "lecturing", why on earth would you consider an anonymous non-person to be an authority on anything?

All I have are my arguments.  I think they are valid.  I think they might help others re-think what they do and don't really understand.  My provocative style forces people, like you, to defend their understanding.

If you are successful, it helps me.  If you are not, it helps others.  Either way, it makes for a positive development.

It causes people to think for themselves.

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
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Whether you believe me or not, I have spent years developing computerized models that deal with the non-linear equations inherent in real-world six-degree of freedom situations.  This not only included force, acceleration, velocity and position vectors in both absolute and relative frames.  I also had to deal with moments of inertial and quaternians with matrix transfer functions.

When I said "I work with plenty of people with PhDs" I meant it.  You can feel sorry for them now, because I have been the interface between them and turning their concepts into reality.

I am good at understanding things well enough to explain it to management and programmers.

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.
Creeky Belly, you have been reasonably supportive of me, especially in the e-mails.  I sense that you are earnestly looking for a better understanding yourself.  Let me ask you some probing questions.

Do you view the universe as a three-dimensional Euclidean Geometry that clicks by frame-by-frame as the time passes?

I suspect that is how most people think of the universe.

If you do too, how does that correspond with the concept of curved space-time, gravity wells, Black holes, etc?

Do you accept that time is one of four complex dimensions?

I am presuming you understand the Euclidean arc segment of…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)


Presuming you don’t have a problem with complex numbers then dt could (and would) have a SQRT(-1) factor.  Coming up with the arc length segment of the four dimensional space results in…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2)

So far so good?

Penrose calls this ”space-like”, but that is just his convention.  Another convention he uses is to flip the complex dimensions to the perpendicular orientation.  Resulting in a “time-like” arc length segment of…

ds = SQRT(-dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 + dt^2)


ds = SQRT(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

Which is the equation I used to solve the Twin Paradox.

Final question, do you understand and accept truly four dimensional space-time, or are you really thinking a 3+1 modification of Euclidean Geometry because you don’t want to let go of familiar concepts?

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 non-inertial 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: space-like 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
I think I am doing more good than harm.  If I force people to re-evaluate what they thought they knew, great.  Whether they change their minds or gain a better understanding of what they already knew, this is a plus.

If I frustrate and humble some people resting on larels, it helps them see that they are, in fact, resting on larels.

If my bumbling around amuses those that see my bumbling for what it is, I am providing entertainment.

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.
Sorry, but I am not the type of individual to fall in line and follow anyone's lead, regardless of title, experience or popularity of the one doing the leading.

Except if it's Hameroff or Penrose.
Another way of looking at it is that I want to, and can, learn (I consider myself a quick learner) but I refuse to be taught.

And it's clear that your learning has ill-equipped you to discuss the science. I wonder why.

Date: 2008/02/02 14:44:15, Link
Author: creeky belly
As an electrical engineer I am comfortable with looking at things in time domain and frequency domain.  A single spike in the time domain is a sine wave in the frequency domain and a single spike in the frequency domain is a sine wave in the time domain.

This is a perfect example of speaking as an authority and then completely undermining your argument. The Fourier transform of a delta-function (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 which-way 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
This is a perfect example of speaking as an authority and then completely undermining your argument. The Fourier transform of a delta-function (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.

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
A quick internet search of scientific papers resulted in me finding this...

Long coherence times at 300 K for nitrogen-vacancy center spins

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 spin-echo, 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 spin-echo process.

Date: 2008/02/04 17:58:12, Link
Author: creeky belly
I would agree that the logical thing would be that the relationship between temperature and coherence time should be inversely proportional.  That is why I am confused by references where it seems the opposite is being suggested.  

The paper on organic quantum wire suggested the time INCREASED according to the squareroot of temperature.

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 one-dimensional
exciton band in a conjugated polymer
, R. Le´cuiller, J. Berre´har, J. D. Ganie`re, C. Lapersonne-Meyer, P. Lavallard, and M. Schott, PHYSICAL REVIEW B 66, 125205, 2002

Date: 2008/02/05 12:23:01, Link
Author: creeky belly
I long ago realized Creeky Belly has better access to research material than I do.  I could only find the abstract to the paper he mentioned.  Keiths, you did notice that Creeky Belly took the time and effort to upload the chart to image shack so he could post it, didn't you?

While it is obvious this took a little more effort than a "cursory glance" on Creeky Belly's part, I'm not complaining.  In fact, I appreciate the effort and information he has provided.

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!
Hotly debated evolution bills that critics said would inject religious doctrine into public schools in the guise of science also died a quiet death Friday on the final day of the legislative session.


Meanwhile, House and Senate supporters, mostly Republicans, were unable to resolve their dispute over two versions of the evolution legislation before the close of the session.

The Senate favored a bill (SB 2692) that would have prohibited school officials from punishing teachers who used "scientific information'' to challenge evolution.

A House bill (HB 1483) would have gone farther, not just allowing such challenges but requiring that schools teach "critical analysis'' of evolution.

The Senate version was based on model legislation advocated by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that supports research on intelligent design. That theory holds that some features of the universe and living things can be explained by an "intelligent cause.''

Some intelligent design advocates claim it's scientific in nature but a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that it is a religious concept.

The Discovery Institute says no state has yet adopted its legislation but five have included critical analysis requirements in their school science standards.

Date: 2008/05/05 12:52:36, Link
Author: creeky belly
Fountains of the Deep (space)

Water is the most abundant solid material in space. Astronomers see it on various planets, on moons, in comets and in interstellar clouds. But how did it get there? Nobody really knows how water could possibly form in the freezing darkness of interstellar space.

At least they didn’t until now. Today, Akira Kouchi and buddies at the Institute of Low Temperature Science at Hokkaido University in Japan say that have created water for the first in conditions similar to those found in interstellar space.

Water forms quite easily when oxygen and atomic hydrogen meet. The problem is that there is not enough of it floating around as gas in interstellar dust clouds. So instead, the thinking is that water must form when atomic hydrogen interacts with frozen solid oxygen on the surface of dust grains in these clouds.

Kouchi and co recreated this process by creating a layer of solid oxygen on an aluminum substrate at 10K and then bombarding it with hydrogen. Sure enough, infrared spectroscopy confirmed the presence of water and hydrogen peroxide, and in the right quantities to explain the abundance of water seen in interstellar clouds.

That’s cool and in more ways than one. All the water in the solar system–in comets, on Mars and in the oceans on Earth–must have formed in exactly this way in the interstellar dustcloud which pre-dated Sol and the planets.

So that’s not just any old water you’re sipping, that’s interstellar star juice.

Date: 2008/06/20 13:00:36, Link
Author: creeky belly
Patrick edits to add
I’d be lying if I said that the ID movement has all its ducks in a row. The relatively low amount of ID research is one of them.

blames everyone but himself
It’s a real problem even if there are a real life reasons such as persecution and the need to maintain day jobs that usually don’t provide the opportunity for ID research. But increasing the amount of ID research is fixable, given enough support.

This is one aspect of this news that casts some gloom on the otherwise sunny outlook. This is exactly the type of research that Darwinists have effectively prevented ID proponents from undertaking. ID proponents have been talking about looking for such mechanisms for years.

then asks a question:
But how do you do research when they run you out of labs and universities and deny you funding?

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
It is my belief we sinned and that is what is leading our DNA to get errors and such.  We were perfect until in our arrogance we sinned and let decay and death into this world.

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
What do you suggest?

How about catching up on something outside my field of expertise?

Maybe reading and understanding a 1000 page book written prominent physicist?

How about pouring through multiple scientific papers covering complex topics in Biology and Quantum Mechanics?

Of course I have to do this in my spare time, because my work keeps me quite busy.

Believe it or not, I post on the internet as a method to help keep my ego in check at work and home.

A way to get it out of my system.

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 anti-intellectual and arrogant.

This is what I hear when you talk:
Einstein's Idiots - The H-Atom

Date: 2008/08/18 14:08:10, Link
Author: creeky belly
I appreciated you taking the time and effort to download the paper I didn't have access to and loading the picture up to imageshack so you could provide it to all.

I suspect it took more than five minutes, but that is all the more reason to thank you for it.

Yes, understanding decoherence is complicated, but I am betting Penrose's E=h/T and suggestion about macro-level decoherence at room temperatures is going to become accepted.  It explains too much (e.g. Buckyballs).

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...

And yet another paper with mathematical gymnastics. Did you read it? They create a set of canonical operators which commute locally, but are non-commutative 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
Penrose is a mathematician whose other "fun sandbox" predicted things like Black Holes.

I hope you are aware of how this thread's discussion involves multiple levels.

The lowest level is deciding whether or not I am a stupid ignoramous lacking any usable skills and incapable of learning any.

"Deciding" is probably not the right term.  The activity is more of an attempt to frame and spin that perception.

The next level of framing is that I am stick-in-the-mud stubborn and will never be persuaded of anything different than my unsupportable preconceptions.

At some point accusations of narcissism set in.  (Keiths has already had accused me of compensating for a "sagging ego").

A more charitable level of framing is recognition that I am earnestly trying to learn, but I have sadly missed the mark.  My interpretations are so completely off that no knowledgeable person would have come to the same mistaken conclusions I have.

Then there is the framing in the face of evidence that maybe there are people out there who share my opinion (e.g. Dr. Hameroff).  But, hey, it’s the internet.  You can find someone supporting just about any crazy idea.  All that means is framing the perceptions of the those people too.

Then there is the framing in the face of evidence that not-so-crazy and very knowledgeable people share some of the ideas (e.g. Sir Roger Penrose).  Well, this tends to require more diplomatic handling, often patronizing.  Something similar to calling them bold ideas requiring further support, etc.   That, coupled with a good sounding statement like “appeals to authority aren't scientific.”.

Then there is the framing in the face of evidence of popular support.  A useful tactic here is to label it “mathematical gymnastics” which may or may not be useful in the long run.

I would be quite content to understand these “mathematical gymnastics”.  Maybe with the LHC the run won’t have to be that long.

BTW, I liked your Einstein's Idiots.  Thank you for linking to it.

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
Also, Wes, along with everyone else I have ever talked to in these hard core Darwinist forums *refuses* to contact creationists like Walt Brown.  Now, truth be told I think you’re all a bunch of pussies due to the fact that you can’t confront one measly creationist.  You act as if it’s beneath you or that you don’t have the time to go back and forth with someone whom you believe has everything wrong.  YET, some of you seem to have hours upon hours to sit in this forum and banter with a 43 year old mother of 2 who is neither a scientist nor much of an intellect at all, for Gods sake.   Get off your high horses and start communicating respectfully with your opposition.

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
Darwinists seemed to think that junk DNA (made of many duplications) was just junk.  Common ancestry had to have attributed to that belief.  They thought it was just a bunch of accidental gene duplications, etc..  I’d don't think that considering “junk DNA” just “junk” did medical science any good.

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:

3:14 am


Get real and go on to something else.

How about you move along to something else? Let me know if you need help with that.

Date: 2008/11/17 11:50:53, Link
Author: creeky belly
Barry decides to change the tone of his post:

17 November 2008
DaveScot Has Resigned
Barry Arrington

DaveScot has resigned his position as UD’s primary moderator. We wish him well in his endeavors.

Update: The previous title to this post ("I Booted DaveScot's Cheezy-Poof-Eating Ass") raised questions about whether I booted DaveScot. That is not the case. DaveScot resigned as moderator, but he remains a friend to the site.

ETA: OK, I tweaked the former title of the post just a little bit.

Does this mean "Story Time with Gerry Rzeppa" is returning?

Date: 2008/12/10 18:46:17, Link
Author: creeky belly
OLYMPIA, Wash. - State officials, besieged by requests for more seasonal displays at the state Capitol, have approved several more - including a "Festivus" display honoring a faux holiday popularized by TV comedian Jerry Seinfeld.
The new display requests come on top of an anti-religion placard, a Christmas tree and a Christian nativity scene erected earlier this week and a pro-religion sign added Friday.

I've never been so proud of my state.

Date: 2009/01/10 13:58:58, Link
Author: creeky belly
Hey, we can all be selective readers. Check out the hundreds of satisfied customers on Winge away, but there is more than one school of thought on Expelled.

LOL, spoken like a true snake oil salesman.

Date: 2009/01/11 22:29:14, Link
Author: creeky belly
Quote (khan @ Jan. 11 2009,22:21)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 11 2009,13:05)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 11 2009,17:54)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 11 2009,08:34)
I realise that this makes me a bad person. Oh well!

Well. That and several other things.

True, true. My own fallibility is undeniable. However, my humility is so bloody brilliant it makes me wonderful and practically perfect in every way, so there.


Mary Poppins?

More like Dick van Dyke's accent.

Date: 2009/02/19 02:43:43, Link
Author: creeky belly
getting tired--the scientist was an ex-evolutionist-turned creationist, and knew evolution just as good as you guys.  He had the best multi slide presentation I have ever seen.  his research on river canyons and multiple forests was the bomb--you had to see it.

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
How about this:

"False" in big letters, followed by
"Correction available upon request"

XKCD has something similar

Date: 2009/03/25 21:07:49, Link
Author: creeky belly
Steve Schafersman live-blogged today's shenanigans proceedings of the TSBOE. One creationist lawyer (suprisingly not Casey Luskin) said the board would be sued if they took out the "strengths and weaknesses" language. Thankfully, there were some great representatives from both science and industry, but I get the feeling from the board's comments that this is largely a repeat of KBOE. They seem to have made up there minds already, so to see anything but a one vote victory would be very surprising.

The link

Date: 2009/04/16 11:42:54, Link
Author: creeky belly
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 16 2009,11:21)
I have a proof of concept image:

Population size is on the x-axis, mutation rate on the y-axis, and the proportion of runs showing a loss of a correct base that is visible in the summary output is on the z-axis. This image was made on the basis of 5 runs per data point. I quantized mutation rate at steps of 0.002, and population size by 5. The output is pretty rough, but that isn't surprising, as the z-values can only take on values in [0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0]. For any mutation rate, it is still clear that the proportion drops with increasing N, with no evidence of an upward sweep as the arguments made by Gordon Mullings would require. Recall that Mullings indicated that such an effect would be apparent by the time N=500 at a mutation rate of 0.05.

The runs took a couple of hours. I've set up another set of runs at 100 runs per data point. That should complete sometime tomorrow, so I hope to have the resulting graphic up over the weekend.

I'd suggest either a 2-D contour plot or a binned 2-D 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
Quote (ERV @ May 04 2009,11:43)
I dont know who Orr is:
In reviewing William Dembski’s No Free Lunch, Orr writes,   Consider fitness functions that are as unsmooth as you like, i.e., rugged ones, having lots of peaks and few long paths up high hills. (These are the best studied of all fitness landscapes.) Now drop many geographically separate populations on these landscapes and let them evolve independently. Each will quickly get stuck atop a nearby peak. You might think then that Dembski’s right; we don’t get much that’s interesting. But now change the environment. This shifts the landscape’s topography: a sequence’s fitness isn’t cast in stone but depends on the environment it finds itself in. Each population may now find it’s no longer at the best sequence and so can evolve somewhat even if the new landscape is still rugged. Different populations will go to different sequences as they live in different environments. Now repeat this for 3.5 billion years. Will this process yield interesting products? Will we get different looking beasts, living different kinds of lives? My guess is yes

This is what I do, but I dont have to wait 3.5 billion years.  Orr was right.  Fun!  After I publish, I should send him a cookie.

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
Quote (ERV @ May 04 2009,13:28)
Quote (creeky belly @ May 04 2009,12:48)
Quote (ERV @ May 04 2009,11:43)
I dont know who Orr is:
In reviewing William Dembski’s No Free Lunch, Orr writes,   Consider fitness functions that are as unsmooth as you like, i.e., rugged ones, having lots of peaks and few long paths up high hills. (These are the best studied of all fitness landscapes.) Now drop many geographically separate populations on these landscapes and let them evolve independently. Each will quickly get stuck atop a nearby peak. You might think then that Dembski’s right; we don’t get much that’s interesting. But now change the environment. This shifts the landscape’s topography: a sequence’s fitness isn’t cast in stone but depends on the environment it finds itself in. Each population may now find it’s no longer at the best sequence and so can evolve somewhat even if the new landscape is still rugged. Different populations will go to different sequences as they live in different environments. Now repeat this for 3.5 billion years. Will this process yield interesting products? Will we get different looking beasts, living different kinds of lives? My guess is yes

This is what I do, but I dont have to wait 3.5 billion years.  Orr was right.  Fun!  After I publish, I should send him a cookie.

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.

No, I mean Orr is right :) I wasnt being sarcastic :)

Meh I cant say anything without scooping myself.  Make me ignore this topic for a year.

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
Incidentally, that's precisely the reason why a quantum computer is expected to be exponentially faster than a classical one.  Its quantum bits can be set simultaneously to 0s and 1s, so it performs a massively parallel computation.

A photon simultaneously existing and not is just a variant of the same type of quantum superposition.
Indeed, there is already a commercial line of quantum random number generators which use the stochastic measurement process of that superposition to create sets of truly randomized numbers.

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 non-trivial 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.

I don’t see how any discovery could possibly establish beyond all rational doubt that a thing can simultaneously exist and not exist.
I'm reminded of the remark: It's not that QM is a bizarre theory, the universe is just more bizarre than anyone could have imagined. There are multiple interpretations of the source of the superposition of states, but the basic fact that there are such superpositions has already been demonstrated.

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!


Date: 2009/07/08 15:58:34, Link
Author: creeky belly
Quote (Louis @ July 08 2009,11:24)
Quote (creeky belly @ July 08 2009,05:21)
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!


Now that is genuinely quite cool. Do you have an Ambien number of 100000?

Too soon?

{Gets coat}


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.:
When you think about it, why do all electrons in the entire universe (an extremely huge number) have the exact same properties (charge, mass) when the number of possible such properties are infinite? Who ordered that?

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 up-quark or a down-quark or a W-boson or a Z-boson?

Date: 2009/07/19 13:21:17, Link
Author: creeky belly
Quote (sparc @ July 19 2009,12:52)
In the long run it may be a good sign that DO'L is taking over UD completely: After the same happened to OE all other posters left (IIRC, JAD was banned):

They must still be on Christmas break.

Date: 2009/07/20 00:39:59, Link
Author: creeky belly
Quote (didymos @ July 19 2009,23:30)
Wow, Mapou is just fucking nuts:



10:40 pm

Mr. Charrington:

   What test can you do that will differentiate your idea and show it to be right and capable of explaining more then the ideas of the relativists?

I have already said more than I had planned but I have a prediction regarding the propagation of the electric charge that is at odds with relativity. Relativists claim that the electric charge propagates at c. I claim that it is a non-local phenomenon and I predict that that its effect is instantaneous. The same goes for the gravitational potential. So there you go. Come up with an experiment to measure the speed of the electric charge and get ready for a trip to Oslo. You don’t even need to mention my name. Gotta go.

What the hell does that even mean?  "the speed of the electric charge"? HUHWTFBBQLOLWUT?  More importantly, what letter do we use to represent it?  'C' and 'c' are already taken.

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:
Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 17 2009,2:15)

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:07)
No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

This is contradicted by the vast history of science. You don't think that this argument ever came up in physics and astronomy, as the earth being the privileged, center of the universe created 6000 years ago?

Yawn. Keep trying.

Date: 2009/09/18 12:10:47, Link
Author: creeky belly
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,08:36)
"No. No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity."

This is contradicted by the vast history of science. You don't think that this argument ever came up in physics and astronomy, as the earth being the privileged, center of the universe created 6000 years ago?

So far I haven't said anything about the age of the universe or of the earth.  In fact, ALL of the Big Four Incompatibilities are actually independent of the age of the earth, as you've probably noticed.

So, can you show me exactly how what I said is "contradicted by the vast history of science"?


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:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (1 Timothy 1.7)

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)

import pylab as p
import numpy as N
import copy as c

# main function - runs WEASEL simulation
def main(let=27,lin=20,pop=50,mut=0.05,gen=100):

   # 'let' = length of alphabet
   # 'lin' = 'phrase' length
   # 'pop' = number of offspring
   # 'mut' = probability of mutation of any letter in offspring
   # 'gen' = number of generations to simulate
   #create an array of 'lin' elements from a 'let' length alphabet
   target = N.array([int(let*p.rand()) for x in N.arange(0,lin,1)])
   #create initial population of completely random lines (offspring)
   offsp = []
   for i in N.arange(0,pop,1):
       offsp.append(N.array([int(let*p.rand()) for x in N.arange(0,lin,1)]))
   #store best fit
   ##loop over generations
   for i in N.arange(0,gen,1):

       #initialize best fit offspring parameters

       ##loop over offspring
       for off in offsp:
           #initialize fitness
           currentfit = 0

           ##loop over 'letters' in 'phrase'
           for pos in N.arange(0,lin,1):
               #letters match => (fitness+1)
               if target[pos]==off[pos]:
           ##end letter loop
           #found a more fit individual, use it to populate next generation
           if currentfit>bestfit:

       ##end offspring loop

       #only output if there's a change in fitness between generations
       if curbest != bestfit:
           print 'Best fit candidate %s out of %s in generation %s'% (bestfit,lin,i)
           curbest = bestfit

       ##create next generation from the most fit candidate from previous generation
       for k in N.arange(0,pop,1):
           #make a copy of 'fittest' offspring
           coff = c.copy(bestoff)
           #create an array of uniform random numbers [0,1) of the 'phrase' length
           probs = p.rand(lin)

           ##loop over random number array
           for z in N.arange(0,lin,1):

               #mutate corresponding letter if random number is less than the mutation rate
               if probs[z]<mut:
           ##end random array loop
           #add offspring to next generation

       #set new generation

       ##end 'reproduction' loop

   ##end generation loop
   print 'Target',target
   print 'Best  ',bestoff

Here's some sample output:

In [106]: we.main(lin=25,let=27,pop=100,mut=0.05,gen=50)
Best fit candidate 4 out of 25 in generation 0
Best fit candidate 5 out of 25 in generation 1
Best fit candidate 6 out of 25 in generation 2
Best fit candidate 8 out of 25 in generation 3
Best fit candidate 9 out of 25 in generation 4
Best fit candidate 10 out of 25 in generation 5
Best fit candidate 11 out of 25 in generation 6
Best fit candidate 12 out of 25 in generation 7
Best fit candidate 13 out of 25 in generation 8
Best fit candidate 14 out of 25 in generation 9
Best fit candidate 15 out of 25 in generation 10
Best fit candidate 16 out of 25 in generation 13
Best fit candidate 17 out of 25 in generation 14
Best fit candidate 18 out of 25 in generation 16
Best fit candidate 19 out of 25 in generation 22
Best fit candidate 20 out of 25 in generation 27
Best fit candidate 21 out of 25 in generation 28
Best fit candidate 22 out of 25 in generation 34
Best fit candidate 23 out of 25 in generation 35
Target [ 2  1 25 14  6 10  3 10 21 16 17 10  5 19  5 10 11  1 18 23 24  3 21  8  8]
Best   [ 2  1 25 14  6 10  3 10 21 16 12 15  5 19  5 10 11  1 18 23 24  3 21  8  8]

Date: 2009/10/18 14:11:36, Link
Author: creeky belly
Also if you give a hurried cut and paste answer for sake of reference and quotation from authority they condemn you because you don't think. But if you give a general unreferenced response based on your personal knowledge of the subject, someone will eventually demand a 10 page technical journal response which might require knowledge in fields (such as for me--physics) in which you don't have much of a clue. Overall you might be going against people in 8 different science fields, and because you ignore some (for lack of time) you are a coward.

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:
This is off the subject of the flood. During the formation of the earth why did the rocks and asteroids in open space defy Newton's third law?    

If I take a bat and hit a ball it rebounds from the bat in reaction--I understand we are talking about very large objects. i understand this is based on Einstein's theory--gravitational attraction pulls the objects together. But meteorites come to us from our asteroid belt regularly as a result of collisions.  Newton's third law is empirical in nature and in space.

No.1 This VIDEO does not teach that they were pulled gently into each other, they were "violent" collisions.  

No2. Either way--gentle or violent--I tend to think Newton's law is going to work.  They are going to bounce off of each other--otherwise why should we ever have to worry about any asteroids from our asteroid belt?  I realize that other asteroids come in from other places--but some of them come from the AB--some of them no doubt resulting from collisions.

You don't need journal articles to show that you don't have a clue here. Or how about the cooling of the earth:
Did you calculate all the water in the oceans and where that came from--water vapor wasn't it--I believe the Archaen era--not looking--may be wrong.  Water vapor, methane, nitrogen, CO2 all from volcanoes--and the earth cooled how again?  Where did all the greenhouse gases go--the CO2 and water vapor?  How did the earth cool so that the water vapor could form an ocean.  That's alot of water vapor--it expands 1600 times the volume of liquid water.  

So you have the same problem accounting for water--only you have no God in your equations--no creator who might be catalyst for some phenomena.  

Again as I said no one knows the height of any mountains 4000 years ago. Your math is without variables when it is based on today's data.

It might be more pertinent to know something of thermal runaway in silicate and other minerals.

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 (July-August 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.


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
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 26 2009,17:27)
It may be okay to go there if you crave for a whiff of tard but I really think we should not honor them with the offering of comments there.

They've chosen what company to keep, it is well deserved!

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:
(Of the null result from the Michelson-Morley interferometer) I do understand outright lies. Your mention of apparatus indicates you're not just repeating the textbook lie either; you want to sound like you know some of the history. I do know the history, as will anyone who follows my link and investigates. You just made my ignore list. Be not seeing you.

Get real. Attempts have been made to measure the speed of gravity, and it leaves light standing still. Newton may yet be vindicated, although I know quite well who'll never admit it. If you had repeated it the way they did it, you would've obtained the same results. Others have.

There's not enough HEAD-ON in the world to get through it.

Date: 2009/10/27 01:03:46, Link
Author: creeky belly
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 26 2009,23:29)
Get real. Attempts have been made to measure the speed of gravity, and it leaves light standing still.

As I understand it, though, that just means that objects being accelerated by gravity are pulled toward the current location of the other object, whereas light has a noticible time lag over astronomical distances.

As far as I can tell, that doesn't necessarily imply that any objects are moving faster than light.


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
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 28 2009,15:49)
Ha!  I don't recognise any of the names.  I wonder how many of those folks are biologists.

See here for more details

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!
First of all if I make an absolute comment it is for hyperbole. So if I say

“No natural process has been discovered that builds up information over time. And no observation of increased information has been observed.”

It is a generally true statement but like anything that operates on a random basis, there are occasional exceptions. I am willing to allow the T-urf13 protein as an example of a random process that created a functional protein.

Having observed this debate for 10 years now, I can usually make a better case for naturalistic evolution than most of those who come here.

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!
Gods iPod
6:21 pm

In my view, and I know a little about vaccines, they should be avoided at all costs. Vaccines are the last vestige of quackery in modern medicine.

Date: 2010/04/14 16:50:24, Link
Author: creeky belly
Quote (fnxtr @ April 13 2010,12:44)
Quote (keiths @ April 13 2010,10:25)
batshit77 thinks we must be at the center of the universe because no matter which way we look, the cosmic microwave background appears the same distance away:
my point was not to contest heliocentrism, which I fully accept as perfectly valid in regards to our relative motion in the cosmos, and indeed I would hold anyone very suspect of scientific integrity who maintained the sun revolved around the earth just to support a particular Biblical interpretation, my post was aimed chiefly to point out the obvious fact that the centrality we observe for ourselves in the universe as a whole in regards to the CMBR, regardless of our motion around the sun, brings us full circle from the mediocrity that was derived from Copernicus’s and Galileo’s geocentrism. Indeed we find ourselves smack dab in the middle of the universe again. Just look at the video I linked. I would think that centrality should at least cause some small surprise to the person who has been told, relentlessly, as I was, through his life that we hold absolutely no special place in the universe (Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot comes to mind).

That's about as dumb as someone who sees his shadow on a sunny day, walks a mile, sees his shadow again, and concludes that he therefore has not moved.

The girl next door and I did a similar experiment when we were about 5 years old. We walked in opposite directions to see which of us the sun was following.

Maybe 4 years old...

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
Quote (keiths @ April 14 2010,21:06)
Quote (creeky belly @ April 14 2010,14:50)
Quote (fnxtr @ April 13 2010,12:44)
Quote (keiths @ April 13 2010,10:25)
batshit77 thinks we must be at the center of the universe because no matter which way we look, the cosmic microwave background appears the same distance away:
my point was not to contest heliocentrism, which I fully accept as perfectly valid in regards to our relative motion in the cosmos, and indeed I would hold anyone very suspect of scientific integrity who maintained the sun revolved around the earth just to support a particular Biblical interpretation, my post was aimed chiefly to point out the obvious fact that the centrality we observe for ourselves in the universe as a whole in regards to the CMBR, regardless of our motion around the sun, brings us full circle from the mediocrity that was derived from Copernicus’s and Galileo’s geocentrism. Indeed we find ourselves smack dab in the middle of the universe again. Just look at the video I linked. I would think that centrality should at least cause some small surprise to the person who has been told, relentlessly, as I was, through his life that we hold absolutely no special place in the universe (Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot comes to mind).

That's about as dumb as someone who sees his shadow on a sunny day, walks a mile, sees his shadow again, and concludes that he therefore has not moved.

The girl next door and I did a similar experiment when we were about 5 years old. We walked in opposite directions to see which of us the sun was following.

Maybe 4 years old...

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 **

Both of those speeds might as well be zero, given that the speed of light is ~300,000 km/s.

Anyway, Batshit77's argument is that the Earth must be at the center of the universe because the CMBR appears to be coming from a sphere centered on the Earth.  It's a miracle!
you may just want to step away from all the rationalizations for a moment, for why the Earth is nothing special, just to watch this video again, and please stop the frame at the CMBR, and carefully notice where the earth sits in the mist of a thoroughly homogeneous universe:

Homogeneity => Isotropy