SHtRO

This is from the Washington Post: Now, considering that I personally have noticed an abundance of synchronicity in my personal life regarding information whenever meditating heavily on the nature of the center of the galaxy and black holes, I refuse to exclude the idea of "higher consciousness". Nevertheless, there is nothing balanced about I.D. as it stands in the school curricula of mention, any theory of Intelligent Design must be predicated on ideas such as strange loops and the abundance of "junk DNA". Does anyone think that Behe (as opposed to the theologians) makes a valid point here? I am undecided.

Yeah, it looks like Philip Johnson. Here you go: http://www.origins.com/ Rip 'em a new one...

First to address Luc... Yes, I said: I believe this statement is historically accurate, even if the theory Hubble propounded turned out not to be (accurate, that is). Notice I also said: I also recently learned that something like 10,000,000 models based on these theories were compared against the WMAP data. Maybe you didn't get past the first paragraph? Secondly to address CPL.Luke... Yes, I am familiar with Copenhagen model and Feynman. Feynman died in 1988 (sadly) and did not benefit much from the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra, or WMAP observations. While his mathematics was sharp, his physics was no more accurate than the Standard Big Bang model. I did mention QM so your response wasn't wholly unexpected. I will not dispute that Feynman diagrams are extremely helpful tools for imagining the trajectories of light, but they are like trying to draw a detailed mandelbrot set using graph paper and hand calculations. While accurate, they are a woefully incomplete "approximation" of the reality, especially in regions as spacially dense as the center of galaxies. This is where we need to focus our attention, IMHO. And yes, I know the theory is old, and that is my point. It is difficult to fathom why an assumption of "Big Bang" and "expansion" was kept when the orginal assumption (Doppler effect due to recession) which predicated both concepts was disgarded? Surely we don't want to dump the baby with the bathwater, but in this case we only kept the bathwater (the baby grew up and went into a career in Computer Science instead of Physics). Thirdly to address Nicholas, who said: This is a weird comment, which is more than a bit confusing. I'm not sure the intent, but I'll bite... "larger" relative to what? "smaller" relative to what? If you run time "backwards" there cannot be a beginning because by this logic, if you are going backwards it presumes that any given moment is preceded. It is a paradox, no way around it. Therefore any theory of "Big Bang" must discard the notion of time, which is a predicate of every "Big Bang" theory by definition. Finally to address "amazed"... heh! Wouldn't it be sad if a theory that made a wrong turn at Albequerque managed to cast such doubt on a theory as solid as GR just because we figured out how to blow things up? I suspect that "expansion" observations are a relativistic effect due to the local field holding our galaxy together and changes in "expansion velocities" are artifacts of that field's history. I also suspect we will find much more interesting things at the center of the Milky Way than we will find staring at the "cosmic hum" of trillions of trillions of distant galaxies. Did I miss anyone?

On Sept.6 or Sept.7, 2001, I had a nightmare that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed by a nuclear bomb in the very near future. The dream manifested from reading newspaper accounts of our lackluster diplomacy and all the racism and hatred in the region, combined with my Christian upbringing repleat with multiple readings of the Old Testament and Revelations. I was so disturbed by the dream I called one my U.S. Senators to share the experience. I guess I was wrong, though...but not by much...

Such a philosophical question... Most of the arguments against life in the Universe on probabilistic grounds are flawed on two points: (1) they assume life must be "like us", and (2) they are based on an assumption about the size and population of the Universe. Spritually I'd say the Universe IS alive. How else do you explain consciousness? More practically, though even if we assumed that the chances of life arising around some star are only 1/1,000,000,000,000,000, there are still more than enough stars to cover the probability. I often consider that life exists as a symmetrical complement to entropy. Has anyone else ever puzzled over the fact that we can mathematically generate something like Sierpenski's Triangle using at least three different methods: IFS, cellular automata, and discrete fractal iteration of line segments; all of which are iterative (note: DNA is iterative)? Does life describe a fractal shape between 3 and 4 dimensions? Is the existence of information quantitative? Why does DNA have to be present for there to be "life"? Would any self-replicating, iterative process of such fractal dimension result in "life"? What is "life" anyway?

The "wave-function" is a mathematical tool to describe the "probability wave". Take the photon for example. Such a probability wave collapses when we know where the photon is (or isn't) and the probability becomes 1 (or 0). That is to say, until we know where the photon is, mathematically we have to use the probability wave function. Once we know where the photon is (or isn't), the probability becomes 1 or 0 of it being in a particular place. No "wave-function", just a discrete value.

These type of blanket absolute statements are not scientific enough for my tastes. As far as I can see all "confirmations" and "proofs" of the Big Bang consist of circular logic. We assume a Big Bang, propose what it would look like, and "confirm" with observation. However, the Big Bang theory itself has been modified numerous times, and the only things that QM tells us about the Universe are on a sub-atomic level. QM is really good at explaining matter. All these scientists proved is what a soup of subatomic particles would look like (QM is accurate) and the resulting manifestations of matter (QM is accurate). However, such "soups" may exist across the Universe at the high energy states such as surround Black Holes (our understanding of which is limited). Alternatively, Big Bang theory is somewhat accurate and such a soup did exist in the "past" for lack of a better term. While the theories are upheld, and I'm not disputing that, the skeptic in me points out that a lack of understanding of both Gravity and Time makes it impossible to prove the Big Bang. As far as I can tell (and I may be wrong), all the main pillars of the theory can be explained by alternate explanations that do not yet contradict the observations. Not to mention that gravity is itself an expansion, that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are both TBD, and the idea of recession is only supported by light observations (and we don't even fully understand light). For example, the claim that homogenous CMB radiation is indicitive of a Big Bang phenomenon (a soup) could also be explained by the existence of a googleplex of Galaxies at enormous distances (well beyond 15 Billion Light Years in a Symmetrical Universe) and we are simply seeing their harmonics (equal proton/neutron balance) as every radiant source's emissions are summing and interfering across the massive distance. Believe me, I'm not "heretical" just skeptical. I'm not arguing with QM, as that would be pointless. I'm just pointing out that many physicists are too "religious" about theories like the Big Bang. Why not infinite symmetrical "little bangs" that leave the same preponderance of light elements? I'm not saying Big Bang theory is wrong. We just don't know enough yet.

Try this link...Cosmology 101, mentioned in my recent posting .

Racism, homophobia, and most bullying in fact is the result of an instinctive threat response. It is nothing more than uncivilized, animalistic behavior. The only thing it has to do with evolution is that people that pracitice hate as a norm are probably less evolved than those who do not.

Saw this once on a Hard Rock Cafe matchbook: All is One.

So you're saying that Rutherford did successful desktop fusion experiments? Can you direct to literature? Besides, I think by your logic, nothing in Science is really "new" since someone always did something similar before... Honestly though, can you direct by reference to the Rutherford experiments whatever they were?

The Big Bang theory, derived from Hubble's original hypothesis regarding red-shift, states that the Universe is expanding. Hubble's hypothesis was effected by Einstein's observations of light (c is constant) and by Doppler's experiments and statement of the "Doppler Effect". The three fundamental supporting pillars for the "Big Bang" are: redshift interpreted as the Doppler Effect the abundance of light elements in the visible Universe cosmic background radiation interpreted as remnant heat The problems with these pillars (and I've always had this issue) is that the theoretical logic is exceptionally circular and affected by the "culture of the times." The observations support "Big Bang" only if you assume the observations support "Big Bang". The Big Bang theory cannot be deduced from the observations in a provable way. Because experimental evidence and observations have cast much doubt on the original hypotheses of the Doppler qualities of the light, the Big Bang theory itself has been revised innumerable times. Most recently something like 23 competing theories of Universal Expansion were tested against WMAP observations and revealed that only one theory held . That theory provided unknowns on both the matter and energy sides of the general relativity equation (dubbed "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" respectively). These observations and verifications also upheld that the Universe was "flat" (neither open nor closed). If, for the sake of proof by contradiction, one were to assume that there was no Big Bang (heresy, I realize) then we can assume no mysterious initial "explosion" to propel the expansion and resulting redshift, yet we cannot dismiss the observational existence of the three pillars above. Since we cannot, without assumption, assume the redshift is caused by recession (Doppler) we must find another explanation. By Occam's Razor, we would look to the next logical candidate (one we don't fully understand mind you). My own conclusion is that the redshift is due to "expansion" which is occuring only within gravitational fields. For instance, when we look at the core of our own galaxy (of which we simply don't do enough, IMHO), we would "measure" the diameter from our own relative perspective. However, if we resided in the core, the curvature of space due to gravitation would be such that the distances are actually much larger. The preponderence of light elements such as Hydrogen, Deuterium, Helium, can be easily explained by known processes such as star formation, nuclear fusion and fission, and especially major phenonmena such as galactic collisions. The background radiation itself cannot be explained without a better understanding of the nature of light itself and its interaction with gravity. For instance, if one were to assume that the microwave radiation was nothing more than the resonance of fully formed galaxies throughout the Universe, on a scale heretofore unimagined, the observations (fuzziness, equal proton/neutron distribution) would not contradict that assumption. After all the parallax of particles at that enormous (unknown) distance could very well prevent the resolution of a single photon and instead result in "summing" of photons of extremely high wavelength. Because matter consists of equal parts photons and neutrons, then the apparition of deuterium spectra would not be a surprise at all. The two most critical things to consider, if assuming there is no Big Bang, are the facts that we observe nothing but light in some wavelength. Secondly, that the observation of light may have an inherent "limit" due to the field natures of light and gravity and the enormous distances light must travel. The assumption that the light does nothing but redden across a distance as enormous as 15 billion light years (perhaps much further) cannot be proven. Nor do we have any decent models of what extremely distant light would look like to someone in the center of a massive gravitational field that increased in strength over time. Consider that if Big Bang were not assumed, then we might conclude something completely different about the light we view and might have predicted the following before the observations were made: The Hubble Telescope's observations of innumerable fully formed galaxies at previously unpredicted distances. The WMAP observations that the CMB is not homogenous. Chandra observations of thousands of black holes in the core of the Milky Way. Further (and finally) if we were to stop assuming a "beginning" and take into account that QM delayed-choice experiments point to the possibility that our own perception of time's arrow may be nothing more than a multi-dimensional vector, then we might conclude that the other physical evidence supporting the notion of an explosion might be better related to Gamma Ray Bursts and galactic collisions than one single universal phenomenon. My point is that the Big Bang theory cannot be easily proven by contradiction, and furthermore that the assumption of "no Big Bang" does not contradict the known observations and experiments. We simply don't know because we ourselves are within a gravitational field we don't fully understand, nor do we fully understand the nature of consciousness and observation itself, as the current state of QM demonstrates. (Sorry for the touch of meta-physics but I think it drives the point home.)

Alright, I think this is where I belong...I'm new here so bear with me if I look like an idiot (I'm not). I've been a fan of Einstein since I was 9 and came to understand his General Theory of Relativity. As a relativist I have always had difficulty accepting the assertions of Schroedinger, Heisenberg, et al. I have only recently come to understand and accept the concepts such as entanglement and wave-collapse. However, I've always felt I had an "open understanding" of the nature of light. So now, on to my question/puzzlement... Isn't wave-collapse just a transfer of momentum? Since photons, electrons, etc. travel at c (or near c) relativity seems to me to explain such experiments as delayed-choice. That is to say, from the relativistic perspective of the "wave/particle" (field?) time is practically stand-still, so there is no such thing as "delayed choice" with respect to the particle(?) frame of reference. I have read that because electrons are STL particles this perspective does not hold ("The Fabric of the Cosmos", Greene, 2004. p. 512, Ch. 7 footnote #4). However, I'm not in full agreement as it seems the relativistic speeds of quanta are so close to c so that practically relativistic logic holds. Regardless, the puzzlement for *all* seems to focus on whether we are dealing with decoherence or something else with respect to wave-collapse. Is it not possible that the momentum of the wave function is transferred into our own (observer's material world) "entangled wave-function"? That is the interaction of coherent (big) matter, bound by all the usual forces, with energy fields such as photons and electrons is simply a transfer of momentum? If I'm off-base, someone please direct me to experimental data if you can...