backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by jv0704.. on Jul 9 at 7:20 AM


A visualization of the molecule. The triangular depression on the bottom right represents the arsenic atom. The dots in the center saucer are bonding locations for a single electron. The yellow dots in the upper left center are bonding locations in which the electron is in a quantum state.  (Source: Purdue University image/David Ebert)
Nanoelectronics researchers discover a bizarre shaped molecule in one of their devices can act as first known quantum state-manipulable atom

Imagine a tiny arsenic atom embedded in a tiny strip of silicon atoms.  An electric current is applied.  Something strange arises on the surface -- an exotic molecule.  On one end is the spherical submerged arsenic atom; on the other end is an "artificial" flat atom, seemingly 2D, created as an artifact.  The pair form an exotic molecule, which has a shared electron, which can be manipulated to be at either end, or in an intermediate quantum state.

Thus arose one of the most confusing, most promising, and strangest breakthroughs in the newly formed field of quantum computing. 

Quantum computing is the term referring to a unique type of computing that takes advantage of physics phenomena on a very small subatomic scale.  Whereas a traditional computer works in bits -- 1s and 0s, which represent the presence or absence of groups of electrons -- a quantum computer use qubits -- multi-state units based on the position and characteristics of a single electron.  A single qubit can encode far more information leading to faster, smaller computers.

Imagine a census computer.  In a modern computer, information would be stored across trillions of bits, encoding the person's name, address, and status.  In a quantum computer this same information could be stored across a much smaller handful of bits.  The computer could "see" multiple people's information simultaneously, allowing for instant processing of vast amounts of data and easier searches.

Further quantum computing looks to exploit other unusual physical phenomena such as entanglement, which allows two atoms at a distance to instantly communicate.  Such communication could be faster than light without violating relativity.

In order to construct a full quantum computer, you must have an atom or molecule capable of containing multiple quantum states.  Formerly, such a manipulable molecule remained undiscovered, but with the discovery of the exotic compound, quantum computing hopes are invigorated.

Gerhard Klimeck, professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue University and associate director for technology for the national Network for Computational Nanotechnology remarked, "Up to now large-scale quantum computing has been a dream.  This development may not bring us a quantum computer 10 years faster, but our dreams about these machines are now more realistic."

He continued, "If you want to build a quantum computer you have to be able to control the occupancy of the quantum states.  We can control the location of the electron in this artificial atom and, therefore, control the quantum state with an externally applied electrical field."

The new molecule was first discovered by Sven Rogge and his colleagues at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.  His team was experimenting on impurities in nano-scale transistors.  They found that a single atom was transporting electrons, but could not find the impurity responsible.  It turned out it was not an impurity, but a synthetic atom with an unknown proton/neutron character, created by the electrical current.  The exotic atom was flat and formed a molecule with an arsenic atom on the transistor.

Much of this picture only became clear thanks to the work of physicist Lloyd Hollenberg and colleagues at the University of Melbourne in Australia who helped to explain the molecule's strange behavior and appearance.

Hollenberg explained, "The team found that the measurements only made sense if the molecule was considered to be made of two parts.  One end comprised the arsenic atom embedded in the silicon, while the 'artificial' end of the molecule forms near the silicon surface of the transistor. A single electron was spread across both ends.  What is strange about the 'surface' end of the molecule is that it occurs as an artifact when we apply electrical current across the transistor and hence can be considered 'manmade.' We have no equivalent form existing naturally in the world around us."

Klimeck, and graduate student Rajib Rahman used the analysis to develop a three million-atom model in nano-electronics modeling program NEMO 3-D to analyze the behavior.  From this, they determined that the exotic flat atom represented a controllable quantum state atom, via its electron.  The quantum state was voltage dependent, the necessary characteristic for an electricity-based quantum computer.

Last David Ebert, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue, and graduate student Insoo Woo, helped transform the model into an image to help visualize the discovery.

Delft's Rogge, the first of the discoverers stated, "Our experiment made us realize that industrial electronic devices have now reached the level where we can study and manipulate the state of a single atom.  This is the ultimate limit, you cannot get smaller than that."

The breakthrough, like many historic ones (such as the discovery of Penicillin), was largely accidental.  And it is extremely fortunate, in that it may one day allow complex, incredibly powerful quantum computers to become reality and solve many complex sets of problems.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

atom?
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 7/2/2008 12:23:22 PM , Rating: 3
I thought arsenic was a molecule.




RE: atom?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 12:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's an element, which means it can be present in atomic or molecular form.


RE: atom?
By geddarkstorm on 7/2/2008 12:56:30 PM , Rating: 3
Oiy, arsenic is an atom. When it forms a bond with another atom, that makes a molecule. Molecule is two or more bonded atoms. In this discussion, the arsenic formed a bond with a fake, induced "atom", which was an artifact created by electron flow through the semi-conductor; thus making a "manmade" molecule.


RE: atom?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 3:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "Oiy, arsenic is an atom."

Oiy, if you find a piece of pure arsenic, it will be in molecular form, just as you'll find hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and most other elements. Nature abhors an unbonded atom.


RE: atom?
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/2/2008 7:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Specially if the atom is in gaseous form.


RE: atom?
By biotech on 7/2/2008 8:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
Not entirely true! Elemental gases exists as molecules, for example Hydrogen, Oxygen, Chlorine, etc. etc. Which is the reason we write them as H2, O2 and Cl2. The Valence Electron Shell Pair Repulsion Theory explains most of this.

Most pure metals on the other hand exist in the atomic and not molecular state including arsenic. If you would heat a metal to a gaseous state it will be molecular. Pure solid elemental metals are atomic and not molecular.


RE: atom?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 10:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "Most pure metals on the other hand exist in the atomic and not molecular state including arsenic."

You forget arsenic has many allotropes. Yellow arsenic -- which is about the only pure arsenic you're likely to find in nature -- is As4, which is, of course, the molecular form. The metalloid forms are atomic.


RE: atom?
By Torres9 on 7/5/2008 1:17:21 AM , Rating: 1
erm.... just thought to mention group VIII on the periodic table.. you know... the inert/noble gases.. that have a full valence shell and thus don't bond well... maybe you should make sure you don't discriminate against such "noble" gases :P... get your facts straight!!
just to name a few of them :D:D
argon, radon, xenon, neon, krypton, AND HELIUM
I'm not saying they don't bond... i'm just saying there are atoms out there that are unbonded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gas_compound


RE: atom?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/6/2008 6:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why I stated "most" elements.


RE: atom?
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 7/2/2008 5:37:59 PM , Rating: 3
oops, you are correct. I was thinking of cyanide -- got my poisons mixed up.


RE: atom?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 7:05:03 PM , Rating: 5
Remind me to not eat dinner at your house anytime soon.


RE: atom?
By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 10:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remind me to not eat dinner at your house anytime soon.


You deserve a plussy for that one. But, seriously, is one poison worse than the other? Or do you figure it rude to be poisoned by cyanide when you were expecting arsenic seasoning?


RE: atom?
By sinful on 7/3/2008 7:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Cyanide tastes like almonds.
Maybe some people don't like almond flavor poison.
;)


By jv0704 on 7/3/2008 7:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
im not sure if this is any related to this post but after reading the thread, i was a bit intrigued by the discussion of the big bang theory and had a little say.

firstly, when i think about big bang, the first question to me is, why was there a big bang in the first place?

which then leads to questions like, what are we doing here?

i'm not a scientists of any sort, i'm just a programmer who try to get by life who have a wife and a daughter. but i am fascinated by this world and i just can't help to think but to question myself, 'finding the meaning behind the purpose of big bang'.

i don't know why scientists work so hard to understand the theory behind big bang. it seems a bit dubious that they try to find out what happened at the moment big bang occurred instead of trying to understand what could have happened before it/or triggered it.

can we use this world as the basis of fact for scientists to study that God exists? possibly open up a new venue for scientists to look into?

because it seems like scientists are so concerned about no facts in God when i think the facts are staring right at them.

i may be scolded for saying this but, i think we really have to give credit to this old saying, 'And God said let there be light'. i'm not sure if any scientific theories can top this one. because at the end, some 'thing' had to create the light.

i'm not here to make any judgement or be biased to who is right or wrong.

i'm just stating my feelings when it comes to science and religion. i just can't help to wonder what type of advancements we would make when we combine science and religion to one?

- JV




By Aloonatic on 7/3/2008 8:48:39 AM , Rating: 3
I think you are kinda talking about a branch of creationism called "intelligent design"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

I think science just examines what is available and tries to understand it, there's no real goal or focus other than to further understanding, though it invariably goes where the money is too of course, but not always.

Now if you're Christian, you'll know that God doesn't like people trying to gain knowledge especially when it is comes in apple form, apparently. :)

When you're talking about the bigger questions, scientists just go where their discoveries take them, and maybe through trying to understand the Big Bang they mite prove that God does exist?

Then I guess when God holds his/her/its hands up and says "you've found me" they mite then shed a little light on who/what made god and what came before them and so on.....

Thinking that a scientist cannot believe in god is a mistake that many people make, there's no reason why that should be the case and I'm sure that many do.


By Yossarian22 on 7/5/2008 12:39:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
i may be scolded for saying this but, i think we really have to give credit to this old saying, 'And God said let there be light'. i'm not sure if any scientific theories can top this one. because at the end, some 'thing' had to create the light.

And then something had to create that thing. And something had to create that something ad infinitum.

Saying "God did it" or "It just happens" are both entirely useless responses to how the universe came into being. If anything, the problem of a first cause points more towards a flaw in our notion of causality than anything else.


By jv0704 on 7/6/2008 7:30:32 AM , Rating: 2
But we all know this universe indeed had a beginning, and even this one scientists agree on it.

So if anything, whatever created it, is indeed probably the Creator(?)


By wordsworm on 7/6/2008 11:12:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But we all know this universe indeed had a beginning, and even this one scientists agree on it.


Don't be silly. Those scientists who agreed on that were a priest and a Jew. Not to put down Einstein, but I do believe his vision was clouded by his religion.

"Beginnings" and "ends" are what we understand, but in an infinite universe, in an infinite amount of time, 1+infinity=infinity. There's no beginning, no end.


By Jim28 on 7/6/2008 6:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
It is not exactly clear the Universe in infinite.

How can it be infinite if it started from a single point in space? How can it be infinite if it is expanding. If it is expanding that implies that finite space is getting larger.
Granted you can turn these questions around and say how is the Universe finite? I was simply saying we do not know.


By wordsworm on 7/7/2008 12:28:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I'd have to believe in the big bang. I believe that both time and space does not have a beginning, nor an end. If we look around in all directions, we see stuff. For billions of light-years we see stuff. I feel certain that if we traveled a 100 billion years in any direction, we'd still find an infinite universe. Since no one can travel 100 billion light years in any direction, no can either prove or disprove my belief.


By jv0704 on 7/9/2008 7:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
so scientifically speaking how is it possible to create something ... out of nothing?


On another note...
By KaiserCSS on 7/2/2008 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 4
I'm not going to pretend to be an armchair physicist like the rest of this article discussion. Rather, I am simply amazed at how discoveries of this are still being made, through accidents and experiments.

If I read the article correctly, these researchers were not working on discovering anything related to quantum computing. Instead, they were experimenting on impurities in nanoscale transistors. They simply stumbled across a very strange molecule. Who knows how many potential discoveries are made, then lost... as luck would have, Mr. Lloyd Hollenberg and his colleagues were on hand to explain the strange phenomenon Sven Rogge found.

I am just so astounded at the thought. What sorts of things will humanity discover next? What are we really capable of?




RE: On another note...
By sld on 7/2/2008 2:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
We are only capable of discovering phenomena. Everything is already created for our discovery.


RE: On another note...
By Jimbo1234 on 7/2/2008 3:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not exactly. There are plenty of elements in the periodic table that do not occur naturally. They were created in a lab.


RE: On another note...
By Siki on 7/2/2008 4:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
Just because they are not found in our environment without human interaction doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere occurring naturally.


RE: On another note...
By brenatevi on 7/3/2008 3:22:01 AM , Rating: 2
You have to understand the nature of these "man-made" elements: most of them have half-lifes (lives) measured in seconds, or even nano-seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununhexium

quote:
The claimed isotope 289116 decayed by 11.63MeV alpha emission with a halflife of 0.64 ms

So if stars make them, they never last very long.


RE: On another note...
By MicahK on 7/5/2008 3:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
Stars only produce the first 26 elements through fusion (up to Iron). After that, it takes energy to make other elements instead of releasing it... So it really only happens in a Supernova where there is plenty of energy kicking around... so kinda hard to say if they occur in nature, its hard to observe an element with a half life of a few milliseconds in all the turmoil of a supernova...


Quantum drives? Processors?
By StormEffect on 7/2/2008 5:57:12 AM , Rating: 2
How would a future, consumer quantum computer differ from a current desktop? Would hard drives still come in the 3.5 inch variety? Would a processor tout "Quantum Processing" as a feature much like x64 capability was to x86? Will the heatsink be entangled with the processor, offering unprecedented cooling efficiency?

Or will the future be run by electric gerbils?

(short answer: gerbils)




RE: Quantum drives? Processors?
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2008 7:48:55 AM , Rating: 1
It's doubtful quantum computing will ever come to the desktop market. Especially in our lifetime.


RE: Quantum drives? Processors?
By Digimonkey on 7/2/2008 8:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with the desktop market, there are many things they can still do to increase speed, and creating a whole quantum computer would be very complex. However, it would be nice to see this technology used for internet backbones.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 10:51:53 AM , Rating: 1
I don't see how quantum computing would benefit an Internet backbone. If you can't design a probabilistic algorithm to solve the problem, you can't use a quantum computer to solve it.


RE: Quantum drives? Processors?
By imaheadcase on 7/2/2008 8:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
You are actually not thinking correctly, quantum computing would have no hardrive, no cpu, etc. It would be just that, quantum scale and still super fast. The biggest thing on a quantum "computer" would be the inputs for devices oddly enough. lol


RE: Quantum drives? Processors?
By Goty on 7/2/2008 10:31:24 AM , Rating: 1
Please don't speak on subjects on which you clearly have no understanding.


By MrBlastman on 7/2/2008 10:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
Lemmiwinks would store your q-bits in the quantum cave... That is how. :(


Not a first...
By MC17 on 7/2/2008 10:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't hydrogen atoms already flat? Apart from deuterium, that is.




RE: Not a first...
By geddarkstorm on 7/2/2008 1:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
No. This "flat atom" isn't actually an "atom". It's a fake "atom" created by an anomaly from the flow of electrons in the semi-conductor interacting with the arsenic atom. The arsenic forms a covalent bond with the "fake" atom, which doesn't actually exist, and isn't a real atom, so the way the electron in the bond from the arsenic gets distributed to this artifact makes a "flat" instead of spherical orbital distribution. That's what you see in this picture.

Hydrogen has the normal spherical distribution as all real atoms have.

What's cool about this, is now you can manipulate that electron from the arsenic by changing the properties of the "fake atom" it's bound do, by simply modifying the electrical flow through the semi-conductor (which, again, is what is generating the "fake atom"). In turn, this could allow us to manipulate specific quantum states between the arsenic and the "fake atom", which in turn overcomes a massive hurdle in the way of making viable quantum computing.

By manipulating and reading the quantum state, you can make memory and transistors all in a quantum form on one atom, where the electron being manipulated can have more than one value at the exact same time. This means massive amounts of memory storage and processing throughput.


RE: Not a first...
By djc208 on 7/2/2008 2:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
While this all sounds really cool, I finally understand the glazed look people get whenever I talk about certain subjects. The whole thing makes my head hurt.


RE: Not a first...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 4:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "Hydrogen has the normal spherical distribution as all real atoms have."

The hydrogen electron cloud isn't spherical in all cases, even in the bound state.


Great Comments
By metasin on 7/2/2008 1:32:30 PM , Rating: 3
I have made this site a daily stop with little regret. The comments on this article are exactly the reason. I have thoroughly enjoyed the depth and civility of the debate. This seems to be the case most often. I often get very caught up in the back and forth and also laugh out loud occasionally. I would comment more myself if I were not such a moron. Next time out I will be sure to dedicate a cold one to the DailyTech community.




RE: Great Comments
By Lawsy on 7/3/2008 12:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree mate, I've only really started reading this site, but in the future I will give it more of my attention.

And I suggest you are less moronic than you realise.
Keeping things simple doesn't mean they are moronic :)


But...
By wavetrex on 7/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: But...
By daar on 7/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: But...
By MRwizard on 7/2/2008 10:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
lol. thats like saying can my new quad core run the first version of ping pong (and very very under exaggerated)


Memory 1st
By knipfty on 7/2/2008 9:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
I believe that when quantum computing become commercially viable, it will 1st appear as a memory device. Not sure if that means a hard drive replacement, or DRAM replacement, or incorporated on the CPU as a cache.

This would allow these types of devices to increase the amount of storage and quite possibly the speed of retrieval to increase.




More power for given space.
By excelsium on 7/2/2008 10:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
So if they can make billions/trillions of these flat atoms fit together into a small space and have them do regular computing like regular chips with regular atoms, then we have much more computing capacity fit in a given area than regular chips.

AM I missing something?

...




Alright!
By chrispyski on 7/2/2008 6:02:24 AM , Rating: 1
Let's overclock this little guy and go back in time!

It'll be like "Back to the Future", but without the uncomfortable incestuous overtones.




nit pick - incredibly power quantum computers
By wordsworm on 7/2/08, Rating: -1
By Aloonatic on 7/2/2008 8:04:30 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure that your science = faith argument is really valid?

Scientists use laws and theories as a tool, not a belief.

There's no point in them if it can not be replicated or proof written down.

The whole point of "old ideas" is that they are constantly being readdressed and questioned, that is how science works, and if they happen to help you find how something works and "believing" that they are correct then points you in the right direction that's all well and good?


RE: nit pick - incredibly power quantum computers
By wordsworm on 7/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: nit pick - incredibly power quantum computers
By 1078feba on 7/2/2008 9:06:35 AM , Rating: 2
Been studying "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maitnenance"...


RE: nit pick - incredibly power quantum computers
By paydirt on 7/2/2008 9:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
how's "your logic" working out for you in producing results in your relationships?


By MrBlastman on 7/2/2008 9:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
It depends if he is in an entangled relationship or not?

I mean, if he has no sense of his superposition then honestly what could the results be?

However, if you try and figure this out and observe it - I strongly urge you to not do this, he might experience a wave function collapse... :(

Could you really be willing to put a friendly DT'er at such risk?


RE: nit pick - incredibly power quantum computers
By wordsworm on 7/2/08, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 10:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
Idolizing Spock might explain part of the problem you have with the ladies :p


By overzealot on 7/2/2008 1:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not if you're at a SciFi convention.


By DeepBlue1975 on 7/2/2008 2:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
[nerdupid mode engaged]

Applying the incertitude principle and quantum mechanics to relationships with girls can be very interesting.

In any given moment, you can be having her naked at your side waiting for you to jump over her, or she can be knocking the crap out of you for trying to seduce her, or you could have already left her pregnant.
All of those situations and many more happening at the very same time!

Quantum physics = Adrenaline.

[nerdupid mode switch broken, engaged forever... Sorry!]


By elessar1 on 7/3/2008 2:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
if you wanna observe it: try a videocamara...

cheers... ;)


RE: nit pick - incredibly power quantum computers
By ET on 7/2/2008 9:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between belief and science is that science can make predictions which can be tested. Einstein's theory made many predictions which were later confirmed by measurement. Belief in God or any other supernatural phenomenon, doesn't make predictions and can't be tested. That's why it's much weaker.


By therealnickdanger on 7/2/2008 10:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Belief in God or any other supernatural phenomenon, doesn't make predictions and can't be tested. That's why it's much weaker.

One could argue that prophesy is a prediction. In the Bible, for example, the same "spiritual laws" remain constant and continually undue those that attempt to change or hinder them. And it remains to be seen if after you die YOU won't be tested... Semantics aside, belief can't be tested, its intangible. I would argue that it doesn't make it weaker in any sense other than the scientific realm which can only follow physical laws.


By mmc4587 on 7/2/2008 12:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One could argue that prophesy is a prediction.


Not exactly. Biblical prophecy is not a prediction so much as it is a promise of future events. Let me explain..

God does not 'see' the future. He can tell us what is going to happen because He will do whatever He decides to do, and no one will ever stop Him. God doesn't have to see into the future, because He creates it.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 11:10:04 AM , Rating: 3
> "No scientist can tell you with any certainty beyond faith whether or not the big bang happened."

Right so far.

> "It's as speculative as the idea that God created everything"

Dead wrong. We have evidence for the Big Bang. Mounds of it, in fact.


By wordsworm on 7/2/2008 11:41:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Dead wrong. We have evidence for the Big Bang. Mounds of it, in fact.

Alright, give me a small mound and I'll help you reinterpret it. One thing I remember is that if you look at neighboring galaxies, they're all moving away from us. The further you look, the faster they seem to be moving away. However, based on that line of reasoning, the Milky Way should be completely safe. The reality, unfortunately, is entirely different. Even if we manage to survive as a species long after our own star has died out, there's a galaxy, Andromeda, on a collision course with our own. Furthermore, we can't really see very far without looking deep into the history of our universe (assuming that our history is the same as what we see 5,000,000,000 ly away.) Anyways, maybe you have some other evidence that you decided to reserve should I retort your claim.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 12:13:11 PM , Rating: 5
> "However, based on that line of reasoning, the Milky Way should be completely safe"

Eh? If you believe this, pack yourself into a large pipe bomb filled with shrapnel and set it off. By your logic, you have nothing to fear -- since the entire mass is expanding, nothing else inside can possibly strike you.

In any case, there is far more evidence for the Big Bang than expansion of the universe. As just one example, there is the cosmic background radiation, along with its very unique structure.


By wordsworm on 7/2/2008 2:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eh? If you believe this, pack yourself into a large pipe bomb filled with shrapnel and set it off. By your logic, you have nothing to fear -- since the entire mass is expanding, nothing else inside can possibly strike you.


Not quite. The line of reasoning is more along this: two pieces of shrapnel will not collide with one another (barring external forces, such as it hitting a structure.) All the pieces are being flung by the same central force. Unless a piece is acted upon by another force, then there's no reason for it to collide with another.

Pope Pious was a big supporter of the Big Bang because it supported the idea that some central power created the universe at a specific point in time.

Anyways, just to throw another wrench into your belief in the big bang: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/08/galaxies....

Even better - check this out: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

Big bang was invented by deeply religious men who believed in a point of creation. I don't buy into the other theories about how the universe was created. I don't have any to offer in their stead. There's just too much contrary evidence against the big bang and the other theories for me to believe that man has attained sufficient intelligence to divine the answer.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "All the pieces are being flung by the same central force."

But they're not being flung at the exact velocity. In fact, Big Bang cosmology requires a certain degree of random variance in expansion speeds....if expansion was perfectly uniform, that would actually disprove the theory quite handily.

> "Anyways, just to throw another wrench into your belief in the big bang: "

The dangers of reading popular accounts of scientific research, written by a CNN journalist who doesn't understand it himself. That particular research didn't question the basic theory itself, just our understanding of the exact mechanics governing interactions shortly thereafter.

In any case, your basic premise is incorrect. Big Bang theory doesn't explain how the universe itself originated. It takes over slightly *after* the universe came into existence, and tells us what happened after that.


By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 10:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Big Bang theory doesn't explain how the universe itself originated.


Have you ever read "The First Three Minutes"? Though it doesn't try to explain how the primeval atom got there in the first place, or anything much about it really, it does nonetheless, as you say, describe what happened slightly after it exploded. If you want to split hairs and say it didn't describe the moments leading to the explosion, that's fine. I still suggest that it's clearly trying to demonstrate and explain where we come from and why we're here.

I think the whole idea was sort of born at the same time as nuclear science was created. Split an atom, you get a huge amount of energy. Now, the idea that expansion wouldn't be 'perfectly uniform' contradicts one of the assumptions upon which the big bang is formed: isotropy (uniformity in all directions).

Would you care to include some sources to help validate your parking? I thought isotropy was commonly known as being an assumption of the big bang theory. Perhaps there's something I'm missing that you can link me to.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/6/2008 7:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "If you want to split hairs and say it didn't describe the moments leading to the explosion, that's fine"

It's not splitting hairs; it's a crucial distinction. The big bang tells us how the universe evolved after it came into existence. It does not attempt to explain that genesis itself.

> "Now, the idea that expansion wouldn't be 'perfectly uniform' contradicts one of the assumptions upon which the big bang is formed: isotropy (uniformity in all directions)."

No, this isn't correct. Early quantum fluctuations should have resulted in a universe that is very nearly -- but not quite -- homogenous. The so-called "horizon problem" is a thorny problem for orthodox Big Bang theory.


By wordsworm on 7/7/2008 4:56:58 AM , Rating: 2
When I was quoting the thing about isotropy, it came from fairly solid sources. Isotropy, by its definition, is uniformity in all directions. At least this is one of the assumptions upon which the big bang is formed. Otherwise, we'd call it 'anisotropy,' which would go altogether against the theory.

I don't buy into the big bang theory at all, so I'm all for describing the universe as anisotropic instead of isotropic. Anyways, which of the the black hole variants are you into?

A rather rudimentary read on isotropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropy
Another on the big bang and isotropy as an assumption upon which the theory is based: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/B...

Describing the universe as nearly homogeneous and nearly isotropic doesn't quite fit in with the classical theory of the big bang. Or else, shouldn't it say 'nearly isotropic' and 'nearly homogeneous'? Then, shouldn't it be a 'nearly big bang' or something to that effect? In any case, there's a lot more going against the big bang theory than going for it. The universe is clearly anisotropic, which flies in the face of the big bang theory.

In any case, for all those watchful eyes, we are also now becoming aware of dark matter. In fact, there are some estimates that put dark matter at up to 63% http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html . Now, we can't really see dark matter. On the contrary. We can guess based on vortexes of energy being funneled into what we guess are black holes. Now, we won't be able to see that sort of thing very well 10-50 billion light years away. How do we determine the age of that matter?

Big bang has a lot of holes in it. Its underlying principles aren't entirely correct - those faithful to it have had to stretch the notion of isotropy and homogeneity.

The idea of a finite universe is a strange one, and it doesn't make sense. How does a finite universe end? Do we hit a wall or something? Is there a big god with a "You've reached the end of the universe, please turn around and go back" sign?

Anyways, we're still infants in our exploration of the universe. To try to come to any conclusions based on our skimpy knowledge should be considered for entertainment purposes only. In, and of itself, the quest for this knowledge is important. However, the confidence with which people suggest the big bang occurred is what I find irrational, and the way that scientific explanations maneuver to allow new discoveries (such as the fact that the universe is now seen as anisotropic as opposed to isotropic).

Dark matter is something that is a big mystery to science as well. How are we to know that this dark matter didn't already exist? We can't really see it. We only see its effect on matter which surrounds it. If we could test it to find its age, what would we discover? I don't even really want to speculate - I'm clueless.

Now, I saw some interesting experiments on meteorites. When a meteorite hits a surface, it creates an isotropic effect on the surface of the body which it hits. Old matter will quickly cover the newer matter. The force of the impact basically causes an inversion of sorts. The purpose of the experiments was to figure out if moon rocks could have found their way on earth as a result of large scale meteorites impacting on the moon. But, it makes me wonder what would happen if dark matter collided with dark matter. Would it cause an explosion of material in the same or a similar way? Surely this could be as good an explanation to how our universe was formed as any.

I'm not really trying to suggest an alternative to the big bang. I don't know what happened. I'm only saying that it seems that there is a lot of faith required in order to believe in it.


By michael2k on 7/2/2008 4:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
Re: Big Bang
The Big Bang is a theory proposed to explain the evidence we have already collected. It is not "faith". That people believe the theory without doing their own private research, that is faith, but that there are researchers actively trying to fit the theory to reality, that is not faith.

So there ARE scientists that can tell you a lot about the Big Bang by looking at the cosmic background radiation, by the distribution of matter throughout the universe, by the high energy particle collisions happening in colliders and atmospheres, and by the speed at which the universe is expanding.

Other scientists are working on quantum gravity, on quantum computing, on evolution, disease resistance, cloning, regeneration, etc.

So believing in the Big Bang is not a crutch, it is a tool, a simplification, to allow us to continue working on other problems. Think of it as a placeholder we use until something better comes along. As of yet, nothing better has come along, so some of us "take it on faith" and continue on doing other things.


By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 10:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
some of us "take it on faith"


Which is precisely what I was getting at in my original response - both science and religion work on faith. 2 groups look at the same occurrence and come up with 2 different interpretations. Creationists would say 'God did it' and probably the scientists who put forth the big bang theory would say the same. I'm an atheist, and find both ideas remarkably similar, and our acceptance of them a show of faith.


By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 6:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
I guess ultimately it depends on which definition of the word faith you want to run with.

Comparing the "faith" that 2 + 2 = 4 because your primary school teacher tells you that it is with religious faith is probably where the arguments are coming from.

You can always have difference in opinion of what something is, how it happened etc etc...

I could show a number of people a contemporary photograph of the Queen Elizabeth II;

Some people would say it is a photo of a Monarch/head of state,

Some would say that it's a photo of an old woman,

And David Iyke would say it's a photo of a ancient reptilian alien who is part of the secret order controlling man's destiny.

Ultimately any of them can be right (even dear old David), It's up to the individual to make their own choice.

However, the type of "faith" that religion offers you is the shut up I'm right brand, where as Science gives you many options and freedom to explore for yourself.

Comparing those sorts of "faith" directly isn't really useful.

Especially as the "faith" in the work that another scientists has done in the past is not always blindly accepted as the truth and taken on "faith" as they are constantly being questioned, which then isn't really a faith at all?

Or maybe we are at the level of "faith" along the lines of "there is no spoon"?


By wordsworm on 7/4/2008 11:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Comparing the "faith" that 2 + 2 = 4 because your primary school teacher tells you that it is with religious faith is probably where the arguments are coming from.


This is essential a concrete example. Let's say that the big bang doesn't quite add up as easily and that it's an abstraction loosely based on evidence. Your illustration of Elizabeth II is more abstract, but it's also pretty concrete as well. That is to say, head of state is a title given by the state, and that many states have her as their symbolic head.

Faith in science is the act of starting from a presumption. As much as we like to think of it as pure, it's not. An awful lot of guesswork is included with it. Again, I'm more familiar with Einstein's Relativity and their version of metaphysics than with anything else in science.

I believe that photons tell a story in just the same way as sound does. It's just faster, and impossible for me to prove. Listen to the Doppler effect and note how time gets compressed and elongated according to the relative motion of the, ie, siren. It doesn't really change time though, merely the perception of time. I simply carried that logic to light. Everything that he, Einstein, refers to, everything that has been proven, seems to be directly related to the effects of mass and relative motion. However, what science seems to see with its telescope it seems to believe.

Compare some ideas of mine with Einstein's:
quote:
What was general relativity? Einstein's earlier theory of time and space, special relativity, proposed that distance and time are not absolute. The ticking rate of a clock depends on the motion of the observer of that clock; likewise for the length of a "yardstick."


(me) If a ladder travels at 1/10 the speed of light towards your relative position, the light waves will compress as you observe it, causing it to seem 10% shorter. The actual ladder itself, however, will remain unaffected.

This is no different than if a siren approaches you at 1/10 the speed of sound. Time will dilate and it will appear to pulse 10% faster than it is in actuality.

(Einstein) the gravity of any mass, such as our sun, has the effect of warping the space and time around it.

(me) the gravity of any mass, such as our sun, has the effect of warping light and thereby distorting the perception of time. Time, itself, has not been distorted (or dilated as they like to put it.)

Now, I could go on, but I don't think it's really necessary or effective to do so. I said that Einstein read a fiction written by photons and gave it to the world. I cannot but be in awe of the fact that he did that. It's kind of obvious if you really think about it. However, he really made some marvelous science around it that has given modern man the science it needed to really accelerate in terms of communication, electronics, etc. Also, to know where things are, as opposed to where they appear to be, is really important. If you see a body approaching you at 1/10 the speed of light, it's going to seem to be moving faster than it is in reality. It's also going to be a lot closer than it appears to be (the 10% doesn't kick in as soon as the movement begins, but rather after it's traveled 10% of the distance. So, if something is 1 light year away, and it starts moving at you at 1/10 the speed of light, it will have to travel 1/10 of a light year before you will see what appears to be a dilation in time.)

Another way to look at it, and it's essentially the way I figured it out myself, is if you had a friend 1 light holding a clock that you could somehow see despite the distance, it would seem to be 1 year behind. So, it's July 2008 by your clock, but by his clock, it seems to be July 2007. This is because it has taken 1 year for the light to get to you. If he moves towards you at 10% the speed of light, in 1 year, his clock will appear to tick just better than 10% faster than yours until he gets to you. He, conversely, would see your clock ticking 10% faster, immediately. As he got to you, both of your clocks would be synced. As I said, if I was better at math, I'd probably be able to figure out those numbers more precisely.

It could be that I am wrong in all that and Einstein was right. However, I'm pretty confident in myself. It really simplifies an awful lot when it comes to black holes (which Einstein didn't believe in). In order for there to be movement of some kind, time must pass. In a black hole, no time should pass at all. Yet, it orbits/hurtles (depending on whether or not you believe in the big bang - in which case you're into choice B). In my belief system, it's only light that's trapped, and time itself isn't affected.

Time itself is probably the greatest mystery. I don't have it figured out. I always figured that Kronos was the most interesting of the Greeks' pantheon. Time is what makes things dynamic rather than static. It's a great mystery for which I have heard no plausible explanations. Nonetheless, I believe it's a constant. I have also come to believe that gravity is constant and it travels instantaneously. But that requires a much more complex explanation with graphs and diagrams.

In any case, chew on that, Al, for awhile. As to faith, it is something people believe and then use to interpret the rest of reality with. All faith, it has seemed to me, scientific or religious, are equally ethereal. I prefer science for the simple fact that I'm an atheist. But for the same reason, I reject the big bang theory.


By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 11:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're on the wrong board.

I'm sorry that I have upset you, I really am.

Congratulations on getting married by the way.

You seem to be missing the major point that I'm making which is, nothing is taken as "gospel" so there is nothing really to have faith in.

Everything is up for debate and constantly questioned.

You're doing it right now in your posts, questioning Einstein's theories, because that's just what they are, theories.

And it mite surprise you but other people all over the world are doing it too.

You prove my point as you ignore it, because it suits your cause, and lets you ramble on, and on, and on, trying to prove to everyone how clever you are.

You can chew on whatever you like, and I will too, but please, grow up before responding again by quoting what I say, essentially agreeing and then moving onto your own agenda.


By wordsworm on 7/4/2008 12:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You prove my point as you ignore it, because it suits your cause, and lets you ramble on, and on, and on, trying to prove to everyone how clever you are.


Not exactly. Clearly you're not interested in figuring it out.


By Aloonatic on 7/4/2008 12:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
1st, I don't have to figure it out, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

2nd, I'm sure I couldn't and nor could anyone else as you are clearly the only person that has ever existed capable of understanding it.

3rd, What you quoted is exactly right, but you are blind to it in a Kirk like haze of your own awesomeness.

/interest in this, it's the weekend :D I hope you have a good one.


RE: nit pick - incredibly power quantum computers
By mmc4587 on 7/2/2008 12:21:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The difference between belief and science is that science can make predictions which can be tested. Einstein's theory made many predictions which were later confirmed by measurement. Belief in God or any other supernatural phenomenon, doesn't make predictions and can't be tested. That's why it's much weaker.


WRONG

The difference is this..

Religion (belief) deals with WHY (what is the purpose).
Modern science deals with HOW (what is the means).

Both are testable, albeit not in the same fashion, because they pose different questions.

Here is where the problem comes in: Modern science poses that purpose is void (WHICH IS A BELEIF). We discover patterns, chaos, laws, evolution, ..but not purpose. Consider the following radical assumption (belief) which is almost universally accepted by the 'scientific' community: "evolution is not a progression towards a higher end, but a process of random events and natural selection"

To put it bluntly, the situation is that modern science has become UNREASONING (unreasoning: to be lacking reason: a rational motive or purpose)

Declaring that there is no purpose does not make it true. Science is well equipped to ask HOW and test MEANS. Science is not equipped to ask WHY or to test PURPOSE.

When modern science dogmatically asserts a beleif, it itself becomes a religion. Saying that one is weaker than the other is comparing apples to oranges. The fact is, you believe answering HOW is more important and discovering MEANS stronger because modern science is your religion and your god. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.


By wordsworm on 7/2/2008 2:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To put it bluntly, the situation is that modern science has become UNREASONING (unreasoning: to be lacking reason: a rational motive or purpose)


I find science to have a hard time in believing what it cannot see. Religion believes in a deity for what it cannot understand.

I'm an atheist. Recently I met someone who said to me that I was the first true atheist he'd met. So, I lean far closer to a scientific interpretation of the universe. Where science might get a little silly (like saying nothing can go faster than _____), religion is simply absurd, albeit interesting in a literary perspective. But in terms of religion, we've become far less interesting than are far more imaginative ancestors (Greeks, Romans, etc).

Purpose is something we invent to help us deal with our certain knowledge of death. If things have a purpose, death becomes easier to accept. If there's a deity that loves you, then immortality in a paradise will follow - again, making death easier. I'm not going to make believe I have an answer for something to comfort myself at night. Maybe I will when I get older and death becomes obviously imminent, but for now I'm content in thinking that President Bush or whomsoever is ultimately considered the most powerful man on earth is really no different from the most insignificant organism on earth. He'll step into the grave, one leg at a time, as inevitably as anyone or anything else. Even the Sun has a life span. I'm not going to try to create a fiction to try to ease my fears.


RE: nit pick - incredibly power quantum computers
By sld on 7/2/2008 2:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
I assure you that you are not dealing with fiction. A few well-intentioned lawyers have applied their brilliant logical minds to disproving the Bible, and failed spectacularly.


By wordsworm on 7/2/2008 9:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A few well-intentioned lawyers


I can see where the problem may lie.

Seeing that Christianity is a continuation of pagan religion rather than Judaism is pretty easy to see.

The Bible is just a collection of old stories. Somehow, though, it lacks the finesse of the pagan religion it replaced.

The problem that science has, and perhaps mankind itself is its inability to say, "I don't know." I guess if we were content with the absence of an answer, perhaps we'd stop looking, which would be terrible.


By BruceLeet on 7/5/2008 7:42:15 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the Bible is a law book, it has chapters;verses, says what you cannot and shouldnt do, and talks alot about punishment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ

lol


By Lawsy on 7/2/2008 11:33:56 PM , Rating: 3
Possibly the most well thought out post in this thread, good job.

To everyone else, I highly suggest you read this man's post with a very open mind; that for just a moment there is no right, thus no wrong in this arguement. This eliminates the arguement and leaves you with a train of thought. Just read his post independantly of any previous assertions and you just might gain some wisdom...

The articles, and the comments have been a rather interesting read.

Might I quickly add.
Has anyone else actually tried reading the full Big Bang Theory? There are more theories within theories to explain how it happened than anything else I've read (around a million words of text, infact a little more), and only after around 5-10 different law breaking events occur do our current laws of physics start applying. Which is rather strange because time doesn't change physics, only our understanding of it.

Food for thought.


By Diesel Donkey on 7/2/2008 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
Of course your logic is based 100% on what you already know or believe. I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me that logic is fairly short-sighted in that it does not allow for interpretations that incorporate potential future knowledge. For example, suppose I don't have a telescope, and I look up and see the sun rising and setting throughout the day. Suppose I use my logic to determine that, well, I'm standing on something stationary, and I see this bright thing moving across the sky. It must be rotating around this thing I'm standing on, along with all these other heavenly bodies I see above. Later I obtain a telescope, make some observations, and realize that my earlier conclusions were incorrect. Thus, my logic was quite limited before I obtained the telescope.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that humans seem to think that they're awfully smart, but in truth, as a species, we probably have a fairly limited view of how things actually work. Logic is nice and generally quite useful, but it's based on a very limited view of reality when it comes to looking at "the big picture".


By wordsworm on 7/2/2008 2:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Logic is nice and generally quite useful, but it's based on a very limited view of reality when it comes to looking at "the big picture".


You'd be surprised what logic has done. Look at Hippocrates used logic to determine that illness was caused by something other than religion. Eratosthenes was able to observe the sun and conduct an experiment that allowed him to determine a nearly precise measurement of the earth's circumference. The great philosophers - Plato/Socrates and Aristotle - were superstars of logic - look at the sciences they came up with. Democritus is yet another who used logic to try to understand the makeup of his universe. It wasn't logic that created the deities, but rather it was the human need to believe that life has meaning.

However, as you say and I agree, my logic is based on my human perception and prejudices.


By Aloonatic on 7/2/2008 4:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not really sure why I got rated down?

Any who, you seem to be confusing faith with a lack of knowledge and understanding.

Just because you are not bright enough (and nor am I) to understand what only the very brightest people can understand and prove, in ways that are beyond us, does not mean that they have to have "faith" that they are right.

You and I mite I suppose, as we have to take their word for it, but they use what others have theorised and attempted to prove in order to progress further, or even disprove what has gone before, but do not blindly follow and force results to fit their own beliefs as to what should happen just to make them right.

Or is it that we all have to have faith that we aren't all in the matrix or something? Is that what you're getting at?


By michael2k on 7/2/2008 4:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Except you are wrong. Just because you are incapable of seeing you are wrong doesn't make you less wrong, just ignorant.

Einstein's theory that mass bends space and time and that the speed of light is an absolute limit has been tested and found correct. That you cannot prove it yourself only says you are incapable of proving it. If you want to prove Einstein incorrect, you have to come up with an alternative explanation for Mercury's orbit around the sun and the photo-electric effect (which explains solar panels!), because his theories do both.

And the reason this is not faith is because:
1) We can test it
2) We can discard it if it is wrong

Every time you use a CD player, a calculator, or anything powered by electrons, you are validating Einstein's theories. Every time we look at the sky, the stars, and send satellites into space, we are validating Einstein's theories.


By wordsworm on 7/2/2008 9:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every time you use a CD player, a calculator, or anything powered by electrons, you are validating Einstein's theories. Every time we look at the sky, the stars, and send satellites into space, we are validating Einstein's theories.


This is where you, and many folks out there, get confused. His predictions about light are fairly solid. His predictions about time are based on it, though. That's what makes his ideas surrounding time flawed, since light itself is flawed. Even looking at the sun is 8 minute old news. That wouldn't be such an issue if it wasn't moving so fast. So, for instance, it seems that the earth changes velocity around the sun depending on where it is in orbit. The truth is that it doesn't change at all. It's just that light distorts time (Doppler effect).

Anyways, I'm not wrong. In terms of light itself, it isn't much of a problem whether or not he's right. It's when I started testing for the speed of gravitons at the speed of light that I discovered that it must travel at instantaneous speeds rather than what the profs at school suggested (they said same speed as light).

Well, there's no point in prolonging an argument when educating ignorant people is impossible as they're incapable of seeing what I mean.

Einstein's work with light isn't invalidated by my discoveries. As far as time bending, as far as light shows, that too is correct. However, light isn't a good medium for describing reality - it's just the best we have at the moment. When we have something better, it'll be easy for me to prove the fact. It's known that light is flawed. To base physics around it is the mistake scientists have made.


By Aloonatic on 7/3/2008 3:03:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, there's no point in prolonging an argument when educating ignorant people is impossible as they're incapable of seeing what I mean.

quote:
Anyways, I'm not wrong. In terms of light itself, it isn't much of a problem whether or not he's right.

Wow, you're crazy brand of self assured arrogance is amusing if nothing else. It's great that you know more than Einstein too.

The point is, scientific theories are just that, theories.

There's nothing to "believe" in as all scientists are sceptical of everything.

A belief in a theory which is wrong would just lead you down a blind alley way and we would be getting nowhere.

Each step is compared and current knowledge is tested with every discovery.

In this case, they could have simply observed something happening which they didn't understand and make up some new rules on the spot and go down the pub early, telling the scientific community, not to worry, just "believe me" that they're right.

As it was, they new certain theories had worked in the past and that it is worth their time investigating further to see why they appear not to in this instance, as something different was happening, which then led to a new discovery.


By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 8:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, you're crazy brand of self assured arrogance is amusing if nothing else. It's great that you know more than Einstein too.


I never said I was smarter than Einstein.

quote:
In this case, they could have simply observed something happening which they didn't understand and make up some new rules on the spot and go down the pub early, telling the scientific community, not to worry, just "believe me" that they're right.


It's not a pub so much as a scientific convention or school.

Again, and for the last time, people draw different conclusions from the same evidence. My conclusions are really simple. Light distorts the perception of time, and it's light that science currently uses as a measure of it. What Einstein did was far more important in terms of learning how to communicate, and how to understand where things really are in the universe.

What I discovered is really of no importance. If I'm right, it makes no difference than if I'm wrong since communication engineers use light and electricity, which does move at 300 Mega Meters/second, rather than the actual time frame in which the photon was released. By understanding how light bends and fluctuates and communicates the passage of time when under the influence of mass/relative motion, we're able to predict where things are precisely.

You know, if a scientist discovers something and he says "I don't know" or "I don't understand," he or she will be quickly disregarded in favor of those who claim to know or who have an explanation, regardless of whether or not that explanation is correct. That's human nature.

Call me arrogant, I'll accept that as the consequence of being in possession of wisdom that you don't have.


By Aloonatic on 7/3/2008 9:13:30 AM , Rating: 2
Did you make this discovery before or after you discovered the question mark and the banana?

There's no argument that 2 people can see something happen and come up with 2 explanations. But in science you have to try to prove them, not just sit back and say it's so and if anyone disagrees it's because they aren't as smart as you and must be wrong.

You seem to be confusing how you think and behave with how the rest of the world and scientific community behaves.

You are the one coming up with half baked ideas based on little explanation, relying heavily on convenience, not knowledge.

Assuming that everyone else does the same is your mistake.

If you want to sit on your high chair twiddling your thumbs laughing at everyone because you are the only one who knows the answer to life, the universe and everything then that's fine.

Good for you.


By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 9:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are the one coming up with half baked ideas based on little explanation, relying heavily on convenience, not knowledge.


You're relying on the opinions of famous people rather than actually thinking things through.

As far as my ideas being half baked - I got interested in Einstein when I was in grade 6 and read what my dad had in his library. The basic principles of what Einstein thought up aren't all that complicated.

I don't laugh at people because I'm the only one who knows this one piece of information while most don't seem to understand it (they, and yes I include you in this, live with faith of wiser men than they). I just get childish with folks who insult me without considering my position (again, I include you in this) and sling back the mud.

I never claimed to know the answers to life or the universe - I only suppose that no one knows and that all theories on such should be listened to for entertainment purposes only. My only claim is that light gets bent, not time. I'm sure I could have proven it to a great intellect like Einstein, though I don't doubt that I lack the persuasive powers required to convince you.


By Aloonatic on 7/3/2008 10:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
I've not been slinging mud, just explaining what I said much earlier on about scientific method and trying to be light hearted about it.

You are the one talking down to and patronising people all the time, not I.

I've never stated what I believe in by the way, just how the scientific method works.

Most notably that the whole point of science is to question and not simply relying on the opinions of famous people rather than actually thinking things through if you bother to take the time to read my posts.

Maybe you will get the time one day when the haze of your own self importance clears?


By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 11:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've not been slinging mud, just explaining what I said much earlier on about scientific method and trying to be light hearted about it.


Really?

quote:
Wow, you're crazy brand of self assured arrogance is amusing if nothing else.
quote:
Did you make this discovery before or after you discovered the question mark and the banana?


What you're doing, since you seem to be unaware of what you're doing, is making fun of my discovery without really trying to understand my position on light and time. If you can have fun making fun of me, than surely you have opened the gates to a return of abasement.

I'm under no illusions of grandeur. I'll never say that my discovery is more important than Einstein's, or even difficult to grasp by anyone with six bits worth of wits to rub together. Einstein was the greater man than I will ever be. He was more intelligent, more important, and better looking. The guy's name is itself a word in the dictionary, meaning someone of incredible intelligence. But he and a large community which follows his preachings still made a mistake, and I don't feel shy about saying it in the least. Even if you do come to believe me, it won't make a difference since your intellect is no more famous than mine.


By Aloonatic on 7/3/2008 11:30:02 AM , Rating: 2
If I'm making fun of anything it is you and your arrogance and condescending attitude, which you seem blissfully unaware of.

It is amusing, that's not mud, just what it is, sorry.

The banana/question mark comment was meant to lighten the mood a little, I'm sorry if you misinterpreted.

You insult people and say that they are stupid or unable to understand you just because they don't agree with everything that you say.

You have no idea of who I am or my level of intellect, you just make assumptions and continue to talk down to me.

The mud is all coming from your direction friend.

The thing is, I hope your discovery is true, I really do, I've never said otherwise. If you have a "position" on light and time that turns out to be correct and it furthers the scientific communities knowledge than that would be truly marvellous.

I hope you manage to remove the chip you have on your shoulder about not being a famous scientist and that you go on to great things, just please stop and take the time to work on your people skills a little, ok?


RE: nit pick - incredibly power quantum computers
By eldon111 on 7/2/2008 9:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...something can be traveling faster than light (instantaneous) without going faster than light.

From the article:
quote:
entanglement...allows two atoms at a distance to instantly communicate.

I don't know a lot about physics, but entanglement, as is made clear by the article, allows two atoms to communicate with each other. Neither one is traveling anywhere. Entanglement links the quantum states of the atoms so that changing one immediately changes the other also regardless of the distance between them.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/2/2008 10:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
Relativity doesn't specifically bar faster-than-light travel. What it does is tell is that FTL communication (of which travel is obviously a subclass) would violate causality.

In short, if you can send a message faster than light -- or carry it yourself -- then you can send a message into your own past, possibly preventing yourself from doing something you've already done. For that reason we believe FTL communication (and travel) are almost certainly impossible.


By sgw2n5 on 7/2/2008 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
If anything (including bits of information) could travel faster than the speed of light, you wouldn't necessarily be sending a message into your own past, that's not quite how relativity works. Relative to the sender, the information would be precisely the age of the time it took to get to the recipient. If the recipient were light years away, the message would be newer than things they are currently observing, but not a message from the future.


By mmc4587 on 7/2/2008 2:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Relativity doesn't specifically bar faster-than-light travel. What it does is tell is that FTL communication (of which travel is obviously a subclass) would violate causality.


I think it gets deeper than that...

Matter can not occupy more than one space in any given time, and two particles can not occupy the same space. But energy can..

One might reason that a quasar (or whatever the smallest sub-atomic particle is) is merely a self contained ball, or 'forcefield' of energy. HOWEVER given this 'linkage' or 'entanglement,' it is more likely that the quasars, and thus the electrons, are not self-contained!

Free Energy has no mass and is not bound by dimensions or frames.
Energy can manifest mass (which we call matter) which is bound by dimensions and frames.
When matter is interacted with, we are really manipulating energy.
If the matter we interact with is self-contained energy, then the energy we manipulate is entirely bound by mass.
However, if matter is not self-contained energy then the matter we interact with is bound in free energy which is not bound by dimensions or frames! Meaning that our actions can have effects which span dimensions.
If this were the case then it would be perfectly reasonable to find one defined amount of energy manifesting 2 or more instances of mass OR one manifestation of mass existing in different dimensions, equally affected by any external manipulation we apply.

So here would be the skivy on entanglement: Paired electrons would simply be manifestations of energy that span dimensions.

Probably sounds confusing. Wish I had a white-board for diagrams and equations... ah well


By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 9:02:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
we believe
Are there two of you who use the same account, hence 'masher 2 '? Or are you using the

The absurdity of the belief is that you can actually do that demonstrably with sound. You can have a clock tick, travel faster than sound and hear that tick again. It doesn't mean that time was bent. So, if you waved your hand at someone 3 light minutes away, then traveled 1 light minute ahead, you could wave back at yourself, and 2 minutes later, that person would see you wave at yourself.


By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 9:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
erm

quote:
Or are you using the
Pluralis Majestatis?


By ET on 7/2/2008 9:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
As Aloonatic says, that's how science works. If you dispute an old theory, you have to come up with a new theory which explains not only the new fact but everything that the old theory explained. Until you have that, there's not much point in abandoning the old theory, since it still explains a whole lot more than anything else you have.


By RealFiend on 7/2/2008 5:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
You talk as though you know science in the back of your head sort-of-speaking. Faster-than-light travel does not necessarily mean that a substance moves at a greater velocity than light itself. There are many theories as to why this is such as one that says that the distortion of spacetime around an object can grant the object "faster-than-light travel" with respect to the spacetime frame outside of the distortion; in this case the object can actually achieve "FTL" travel without violating Einstein's theory of special relativity. Do note however, that theories are tentative and may involve uncertainties. Science involves uncertainty in many cases, but the key difference between scientific uncertainty and faith is that science tries to explain through the use of observation, experimentation, repetition and impartial speculation(s) whereas religious faith tries to explain without the aforementioned scientific method and with the inclination of bias(whether that range from mild to heavy does not matter; the bias still pertains). From an observable perspective, people have created religions to deal with their insecurities and social problems, giving rise to the term faith. Frankly, religious zealots incorporate science into their faith just because they can't come up with viable explanations for the observable universe themselves. Science does not deal with metaphysics(not a science) like religion does. Do not confuse science with faith again!


By RealFiend on 7/2/2008 5:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
For clarification purposes, the above comment was directed at user wormsworm.


By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 10:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
It's nice to see a philologist at DT rather than the abuse I got. Not sure why I respond to those. However, I failed to grasp what you meant by
quote:
back of your head sort-of-speaking
. I don't know a lot about science. It's just gravity and time that take my interest. About 5 years or so ago I asked myself the question of whether or not we revolve around the sun, or the image of the sun. A professor I asked this of, not mine but a physics professor nonetheless. He said that he didn't know, and no one knew how fast gravitons traveled. He said the best guess was that it went at the speed of light, but that there was no known way to test for it.

For years I thought about that question until finally I decided to 'test it.' By figuring that a central mass, such as that of a galaxy, was moving at a certain speed, and that the star we're 'on' was going around it at a certain speed, I conjectured that there would be a dilation between the appearance of the center depending on where you were in the orbit, for the simple fact that the distance between the real and image would actually be reduced when reaching the summit of the orbit. At 1/1,000-1/3,000 the speed of light, I had a hard time figuring out if this would really be significant. It seemed to me at the time that it would have to be significant, but I wasn't sure. It wasn't until I started thinking about quickly moving particles (1/2 light+) that I came to the realization that those particles couldn't be revolving around an image, but rather the actual object that I came to the realization that we're not attracted to what we see, but rather the actual object.

Once I figured that out, it was simple deduction to figure out why Einstein believed what he did and to 'debunk' it as a fiction written by photons. Einstein, in reading this fiction, made some discoveries that are essential to modern science. What I have come to realize has absolutely no purpose other than to change my perception of time/space/gravity. I don't think it would serve any practical purposes, nor do I think it's possible for me to prove. I lack credentials to be taken seriously.

This whole process of questioning and thinking didn't happen overnight. It took many years of thought. It wasn't until I was locked up with an air conditioner for about 2 months with little to do that I finally came up with a resolution to my question.

Now, on to your contention about how religion and science are different. I realize that science is usually one step ahead of religion. It's often the scientist that sits up late at night to gaze at the stars and record events and his/her perception. Whereas the religious zealot is content with the 'knowledge' that it's God's doing and that there's no need to find a reasonable explanation. However, once science has discovered something, usually there is someone who is trying to explain an idea and use that something as a fact to make the supposition seem relevant/true. Scientists try to make believe that they know something more than they do. They actually have the same questions in their minds as the creationists do. They also cling to silly ideas until something better comes along. Creationists and scientists alike once believed the world to be flat. When it was discovered that it was spherical, both of them changed their perception and changed their beliefs to incorporate the new information - and to later declare - that it has the final proof it needed to be validated beyond questioning. If there was irrefutable proof that man indeed came from a common ancestor as the mosquito and monkey, surely the religions would find a new way to explain how God fits into the picture as the designer - after all, He was the one who sent the asteroid to earth to destroy the dinosaurs who would've made becoming the dominant species much more difficult.

As far as scientists not being involved in metaphysics, the big bang theory is in fact a metaphysical theory. It tries to answer that great burning question - that even children spontaneously ask - both scientists and churches alike try to answer: where do we come from?

I guess it's fun to think about that question. But I feel it's futile. There's no way to know, so I don't spend much time thinking about it. I spend more time reading others' ideas. I really think the whole Gaea/Uranus/Greek mythological story to be the most interesting than the Christian/Muslim/etc version. Certainly the ideas in science fiction that came after Einstein's speculations is top shelf - I'm a huge Star Trek fan.


By michael2k on 7/3/2008 7:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
I picked up on one comment: Big Bang theory does not ask nor answer where we came from. Big Bang theory explains AFTER we are born, what happened.

Big Bang tries to explain why there are atoms and quarks, why there is physics and photons, why the speed of light is C and why the electro-weak forces uses photons.

It never once tries to explain why we are here. If that is what you think, that probably explains half of why you seem to make no sense.


By wordsworm on 7/3/2008 10:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It never once tries to explain why we are here.


Ah, well let me try to help. They say that the big bang created the universe. We are in the universe. We are created in the universe. Therefore, the reason why we're here is because billions of years ago a primeval atom that exploded. The reason you're here is because of nucleosynthesis. For a good read on metaphysics, might I suggest "The First 3 Minutes"? From Weinberg's book: "Universe is mostly light (photons ) "...it was light that then formed the dominant constituent of the universe, and ordinary matter played only the role of a negligible contaminant." Reminiscent of "Let there be light..."."

Maybe Weinberg's book won't make sense to you either. Metaphysics isn't for everyone. The big bang theory isn't something I buy into, though it makes for an interesting read.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki