Starship Asterisk*

MiniBooNE Results from Fermilab;

Science Daily — Scientists of the MiniBooNE1 experiment at the Department of Energy's Fermilab2 have announced their first findings. The MiniBooNE results resolve questions raised by observations of the LSND3 experiment in the 1990s that appeared to contradict findings of other neutrino experiments worldwide. MiniBooNE researchers showed conclusively that the LSND results could not be due to simple neutrino oscillation, a phenomenon in which one type of neutrino transforms into another type and back again.

The MiniBooNE collaboration ruled out the simple LSND oscillation interpretation by looking for signs of muon neutrinos oscillating into electron neutrinos in the region indicated by the LSND observations. The collaboration found no appearance of electron neutrinos as predicted by a simple two-neutrino oscillation scenario.

"It was very important to verify or refute the surprising LSND result," said Robin Staffin, DOE Associate Director of Science for High Energy Physics. "We never know what nature has in store for us. The MiniBooNE experiment was an important one to do and is to be complimented for a job well done."

"Our results are the culmination of many years of very careful and thorough analysis. This was really an extraordinary team effort," said MiniBooNE cospokesperson Janet Conrad of Columbia University. "We know that scientists everywhere have been eagerly waiting for our results."

The MiniBooNE collaboration used a blind-experiment technique to ensure the credibility of their analysis and results. While collecting their neutrino data, the MiniBooNE collaboration did not permit themselves access to data in the region, or "box," where they would expect to see the same signature of oscillations as LSND. When the MiniBooNE collaboration opened the box and "unblinded" its data less than three weeks ago, the telltale oscillation signature was absent.

- - - -

<< While collecting their neutrino data, the MiniBooNE collaboration did not permit themselves access to data in the region, or "box," where they would expect to see the same signature of oscillations as LSND. >>

So as not to influence the data the observers sequestered themselves from the results until completion so as not to 'collapse' the effects being observed by the instruments, which theoretically do not have 'consciousness' to collapse the proceedings! LOL

NoelC wrote:Hell, for all we know we really COULD be in a hyper complex computer simulation, and the laws of physics as we observe them are just manifestations of the implementation and processor speed.

-Noel

perhaps Saturn's north polar hexagon is due to the planet's poly count having been capped to speed up the rendering process!

Of course, the designers of such a detector would have to get around the fact that observing the earthbound entangled particle would constitute measurement and would collapse the entanglement state, so they'd only get one shot at detection! They'd have to synchronize replacement of the entangled detector near the star with a fresh detector after every measurement.

The way it could work for information transmission is if the state of an incoming entangled photo could be known ahead of time, lets say all advancing photons had left spin and retreating photons had a right spin, the time, placement and any spin not being equal to left spin could be interpreted as transmitted information.

Code:

if (speculation != science)
{
human = overly_arrogant; /* because everything we think
we "know" is really just an
approximation of reality */
}

Cute!

Dr. Skeptic wrote: Application:

Imagine a super massive star 20 light years away that has a high probability of going hyper-nova. An entanglement source is place 10 light years out directly between the solar system and the star, if/when the star goes hyper-nova, the detector could give 20 years of advanced warning before a visual warning could take place.

Of course, the designers of such a detector would have to get around the fact that observing the earthbound entangled particle would constitute measurement and would collapse the entanglement state, so they'd only get one shot at detection! They'd have to synchronize replacement of the entangled detector near the star with a fresh detector after every measurement.

Actually, there should be nonzero probability of measuring both the 'nothing's happening' state (call it 0) and the 'gone hypernova' state (call it 1), because the detector state is necessarily in a superposition of 0 and 1. Measuring 1 on Earth could mean either that the observer has just collapsed the detector wavefunction, forcing the detector at the star into a particular state, or that the star detector has tripped at some point since arriving at the star, and forced the earthbound detector state to 1 at that time. How would one know for sure whether a measurement simply collapsed the wavefunction or revealed the result of wavefunction collapse initiated from the other end?

It's my understanding that external influences are not acting on these entangled photons; instead that they're making their own quantum choices simultaneously, and those choices happen to be the same, so the "dent the car" analogy is flawed. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Noel
________________ Sorry, couldn't resist.

Entangled photons can be of any frequency, if we use the analogy of the cars that simultaneously dent when either is struck, the frequency would be the same as the size/speed of the car.

linx wrote:Hi,
i think that its important to remember that cars are man-made & their dynamics totally understood

EXACTLY. Well, "totally" is a strong word, but you've got the concept of my example right.

We don't really know squat about what's in a photon, or even what IS a photon. It's an abstract concept we've chosen to represent observed phenomenon that's at times wave-like and particle-like. Personally I envision them as little nanoscopic brilliant spinning balls of energy, but I'll bet they don't *really* look like that. I'd guess my imagination's been influenced by Star Trek.

These entangled photons exhibit interesting properties, there's no question. However, when I see actual information being transferred at faster than light speeds, rather than just research projects being funded, I'll believe.

Hell, for all we know we really COULD be in a hyper complex computer simulation, and the laws of physics as we observe them are just manifestations of the implementation and processor speed.

-Noel

Hi,
i think that its important to remember that cars are man-made & their dynamics totally understood ..altho the Sat-Nav system could possibly lead to an automobilic on-car chat facitlity

i wondered if as BMAONe23 says there is a resonate frequency ..& this a unique frequecy to the specific entangled proton whether this would produce a kind of echo that caused an effect, rather than a transmission of information

there are no doubt whole area yet to be discovered & thats exciting, isnt it

Linx

You might have a good example of this if one were to get into an accident and the other simultaneously dented for no reason.

I would think that if you could get these entangled photons to resonate at alternating frequencies you could use them to transmit information by using an alternating frequency modulation process.

I've just been thinking on entangled photons a bit more...

Suppose Detroit builds two identical cars. Say they are driven equally far, and finally they both stop running at the same moment after, say, 120,000 miles.

Are they in instantaneous communication with one another? Has information traveled from one car to the other at faster than light speed?

Or were they just so much the same as one another to start with as to have exhibited uncannily similar characteristics?

-Noel

Hello Neried

Thats a good idea.

Sorry for putting you out.

Give me a few years.

Harry:
- Check the credentials of the authors
- Compare data to multiple sources
- Check obsolescence of data
- Check objectivity of the author

Many of the web pages you refer to are written by authors without doctrines in the field of studies that they are commenting on. Philosophic writings do not make for good science; the level of difficulty is much less when writing to criticize an abridged and tainted interpretation of a complex data set or theory.

An example: Gravity lensing of BCR from super clusters. Saying it hasn’t been observed is not the same as stating “Gravity lensing cannot take place because … and that supports … ”, then commit the finding for a scrutinized review but the scientific community where the data set can be incorporated into other facets of a “Grand Theory”.

Once again, there are reasons why these sub theories are not accepted into the mainstream scientific community; they break more than they fix.

A simple exercise in logic:

- A steady state universe is true
- Quantum mechanics cannot be true
- Entanglement cannot be true
- Entanglement is true
- A steady state universe cannot be true

Exception: If you can prove time is also recycled.

I await your proof.

I've split posts from this thread that are waaay off-topic, into another thread, in the Asterisk Cafe: Discussion of alternatives to concordance cosmology.

There are some good questions on this thread , some good answers , and some not so good answers

First, as has already been noted, what you regard as simultaneous may not be what someone else, somewhere else, regards as simultaneous. That's one of the counter-intuitive results from (special) relativity.

And as simultaneity is inextricably tied to most of the good questions in this thread, the answer to them is "it depends on where you are and when you are ... and each observer will give perfectly valid, but different, answers".

Next, the speed of gravity hasn't been experimentally measured, as far as I know.

However, the theory of (general) relativity (GR) has been tested, and has passed every test so far, with flying colours. In GR, the speed of gravity is c, so as GR has passed every test (so far), the "speed of gravity is c" is certainly fully consistent with all experimental and observational results to date.

Then there's entangled photons. As was noted, entangled photons do not create an inconsistency with SR, as there is no transfer of information.

On philosophy, one of the nice things about good theories in physics is that you are free to choose any interpretation (mind picture) you wish ... just so long as there is no experimental difference (even in principle). One mind-bending example: with the appropriate care, you can imagine the universe to be contracting, not expanding.

On alternatives: a good many astronomers would love to have a decent alternative to the concordance model of cosmology (a.k.a. the big bang theory), but, sadly, none of ones what you will find in the many websites purporting to be such pass even the most simple of (observational) tests.

Hello toejam

I have been asked to make a 007 movie.

SMILE AND LIVE ANOTHER DAY.

====================================

IF YOU FEEL PAIN IN THE HEAD, RELAX AND HAVE WATER.

======================================

Position of the super galaxies.

I do not know if this link is crank pot or not.
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~mjhudson/research/threed/

And btw if you see harry or Harry of "smile & live another day", run!!!!

he'll get you all tied up with Plasma Cosmology:-

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

Sorry harry, just smile & live another day.

And headaches cured by coffee are a sign of caffeine withdrawal & so of addiction. But there are worse things than coffee, I guess......

Hawkgirl wrote:

nw42jx wrote:Today's APOD shows a brilliant and beautifil galaxy 60 million light years away. How do we know it, or indeed any other of these galaxies and far off objects, are still there?

Actually I would guess that it's not at the location we see it at... It's moved considerably in the last 60 million years so by now it could be at a neighbors house sipping coffee for all we know...

Which makes me ask the question: What does the universe actually look like right at this second? All those far off galaxies and stuff are not anywhere near where we see them because they've been moving for millions and billions of years...and how if a galaxy shed light 13 billion years ago is it now just getting to us? I mean shouldn't it have passed us by a long time ago because we're moving so slow compared to the speed of light because 13 billion years ago we were much closer to it than we are now because the universe is expanding right? Trying to wrap my brain around this gives me a headache...now I need some coffee...

As you will see from my post above, I'm pretty simple-minded (perhaps because I don't drink coffee, only tea). But being so, I found this Atlas helpful:-

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/index.html

also this about the BBT:-

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

kovil wrote:Hawkgirl,

Nice analogy ! It carries the details well.

OK, so everything is moving, and it's not where we see it in our present time.
The further away the larger the error a-la intrinsic vectors.

That's just how the universe is. If gravity travels at the speed of light, then our locale won't be sensing influences inexplicable from the visible.

Try this mind-wrap, all speed of light events are not a 'speed'. They simply propagate at the 'Ratio of Space to Time'. The reason it takes light one year to get that far is because we see it when it happened, for It; but as It is a light year away, we see It one year ago from when it happened for It, but for us it is in real time. In this way we see it when it happened for It, but one year later. Unlike watching a man chopping wood across a small valley. The ax splits the wood, he bends to pick up another piece of wood and we then hear the sound of the wood splitting. Light speed events arrive all together and we receive a complete picture in all (sol)spectrums of the event when it happened.

Thinking of light traveling at the 'ratio of space to time' simplifies the subjective nature of perception, and removes the inclination to compete with nature and try and go faster. It also makes the Theory of Relativity more accessible in conceptualization, for me anyway.

To go another step, if gravity is a faster than light speed event, and there is some considerable thought that it must be so; then like the woodchopper, light would be like sound, and gravity like light. The search is on for a clear simple demonstration of this.

As we look further away, we see things equally back in time. It must be this way, because Space-Time is constructed in this fashion, and its qualities operate under those parameters.

So sad, I wanted to go to the Pillars of Creation for this summer's vacation.

ps. I have a photograph of NYC and the WTC is standing there in all its glory, but by the time the photographer walked to LA it's today and NYC is not the same. Same for M87, or SN1987a.
Def Leopard's 'Photograph' will never sound the same!

Two questions.

1. Has gravity a speed or is it instantaneous?

2. One way or another, if gravity is faster than light, will the Universe still have the remains of light "flying around" after the mythical Biblical "end of Time", when gravity "stops" & slowcoach light is not told about it? I suspect two answers are popular:- a/Who cares? b/Pray you miserable sinner. Is there a rational answer?I mean if Time stops everything stops? The other seven dimensions, or is it seventeen, can't help us?

Third question (sorry about that)

3. If the end of time is not instantaneous everywhere, but starts "at the other end" of infinity will the Milky Way galaxy continue to exist when half the universe is gone?

In thinking this morning about your posting,

<<Which makes me ask the question: What does the universe actually look like right at this second? All those far off galaxies and stuff are not anywhere near where we see them because they've been moving for millions and billions of years. . .Yes. I mean that a galaxy we see 5 billion light years away obviously has moved. So where is everything right this second...those things are not where we see them obviously so where are they and what does the overall picture of the universe look like right now?>>

Ahh, the pureness of Idealism, unmuddied by the compromises which Space-Time imposes upon perceptions. Are you looking for instantaneous star charts, updated in realtime, with calculated vector analysis of personal intrinsics vs external intrinsics to show interception/collision-avoidance/arrival possibilities for navigational purposes, and, a need-to-know desirability arising from the curiosity of 'how does everything fit together in this universe'. I too would like to know where everything is. One solution in a psychological sense is to 'surrender' to allowing everything to be where it is and be warmly OK with things as they are, and trust like Dr Pangloss, that all will be well in this best of all possible worlds. This allows the freedom to do things, without worrying about things which are beyond my lifetime possibility of interacting with, or, over which I have no influence. Part of me wants to reach very far, much beyond the pragmatic sphere of influence I actually have. Thus is the 'human condition'. As I move thru this world and discover 'my power' (a-la Carlos Casteneda and the 'Don Juan' series of books) and how that relates to reality, a confidence and acceptance builds with discovery, that reaches from the inner mind to the outer limits.
The next step is, through surrender, the intelligence which pervades the universe can be listened to and heard and conversed with. Where else do those inspirations of great depth come from out of the blue?

It must have been another poster, Hawkgirl, who was asking about 'How can we measure motion', is there something against which we can make an absolute reference to measure motion or acceleration. The universe answered yes, the border of our awareable universe; but the next response was to use what that 'border' manifests, Inertia ! If a gyroscope of sorts was made and connected with a computer memory to track its path on a galactic GPS for example, then by 'history' one would have a reference base to construct a 'baseline' for future reference.
Inertia is oriented to the shell of our awareable universe, as a Foucault Pendulum does its best to remain undisturbed in its relationship with that 'sphere'. Using Inertia/Momentum as the 'anchor' in the sea of space-time will create the universal reference grid to plot absolute motion against for all components within the system of perception.

A further thought was, we need more women in science. Your 'whole brain' approach to subjects is needed more than ever. One Googleing session discovered Amara Graps' website, she got involved in Helioseismology and participated in that effort some years ago. Next she was working on 'wavelets', which is a 'hologramatic approach' to problem solving. As each small element in a hologram contains a complete dataset of the entire hologram, beit a small scale representation of the whole, a wavelet likewise contains a dataset for the entire largescale structure. The widespread applications for wavelets is astounding.
Instead of getting caught up in fighting in the trenches of BBT vs Dobsonian Cosmology or the Standard Solar Model (SSM) vs the Electric Sun Model (ESM) for example, she went further and worked on leading edge investigations which would look directly into the heart of the matter, whatever that would turn out to be. Last I checked I do not know what she is doing now, besides teaching at the American University in Rome. She is someone I would do well to emulate.

Hello BMAONE23

Read this link, not that I agree with it.

RUFUS'S GALAXY WEB PAGE
The Steady State Galaxy Theory
An Alternative To
The Big Bang Theory
http://www.galaxytheory.com/#SHA

I disagree with many parts, but it is a better option than the BiG Bang theory with all its ad hoc ideas.

If you get a chance read Prof Neil Turok, CambridgeUniversity, science journal on recyclic universe.

I guess I should have said "Earlier Universe" so I sit corrected.

But I don't think that we can use the argument that an ancient or steady state universe model would necessarily require it be a brighter universe. The argument "Where is all that light?" doesn't hold water in either model. If it did, then we would be able to detect and measure the expansion of light in the present visible universe. If Light were to be able to fill the void and brighten it, it would be doing so and be measurably growing brighter now. But light can not be seen directly. Only its source and reflection can be detected.
If you go to the dark side of the moon while it is on the far side, the only visible light would be star light. Once your eyes were allowed to adjust to the darkness you would see that you could see the landscape from the reflected starlight. That is because the photons are everywhere, light is everywhere right now, it just needs something to reflect it to show its presence if the source isn't local.

Hello All

BMaone23 said

As far as a grand scale goes; I believe that the galactic clusters and superclusters, when viewed from afar, resemble neurons in a vast brain.
http://www.psc.edu/science/2006/blackho ... pdated.jpg in this graphic, noting the approx locations of superclusters of galaxies an of some known larger galaxies (suspected black holes circled)

This animated GIF file shows the suspected early universe as it cools and forms larger scale structures http://www.psc.edu/science/2006/blackho ... s/anim.gif note that near the end it does indeed resemble brain cells.

Very nice images.

People add Early Universe by assuming early universe without reason.

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... cience.htm

NoelC wrote:Have you or someone thought of a way entangled photons can be used to transmit information?

Whatever the nature of the connection between entangled particles may be, nearly all physicists agree that it cannot be used to transmit messages faster than the speed of light. All it can do is assure that a random choice by one entangled particle is instantly echoed by its distant partner. This is not the same thing as transmitting information, the experts say, and therefore it does not violate relativity theory.

The above is from this somewhat older article: http://www.cebaf.gov/news/internet/1997/spooky.html

-Noel

Quantum computing.

http://qubit.nist.gov/

Hawkgirl,

Nice analogy ! It carries the details well.

OK, so everything is moving, and it's not where we see it in our present time.
The further away the larger the error a-la intrinsic vectors.

That's just how the universe is. If gravity travels at the speed of light, then our locale won't be sensing influences inexplicable from the visible.

Try this mind-wrap, all speed of light events are not a 'speed'. They simply propagate at the 'Ratio of Space to Time'. The reason it takes light one year to get that far is because we see it when it happened, for It; but as It is a light year away, we see It one year ago from when it happened for It, but for us it is in real time. In this way we see it when it happened for It, but one year later. Unlike watching a man chopping wood across a small valley. The ax splits the wood, he bends to pick up another piece of wood and we then hear the sound of the wood splitting. Light speed events arrive all together and we receive a complete picture in all (sol)spectrums of the event when it happened.

Thinking of light traveling at the 'ratio of space to time' simplifies the subjective nature of perception, and removes the inclination to compete with nature and try and go faster. It also makes the Theory of Relativity more accessible in conceptualization, for me anyway.

To go another step, if gravity is a faster than light speed event, and there is some considerable thought that it must be so; then like the woodchopper, light would be like sound, and gravity like light. The search is on for a clear simple demonstration of this.

As we look further away, we see things equally back in time. It must be this way, because Space-Time is constructed in this fashion, and its qualities operate under those parameters.

So sad, I wanted to go to the Pillars of Creation for this summer's vacation.

ps. I have a photograph of NYC and the WTC is standing there in all its glory, but by the time the photographer walked to LA it's today and NYC is not the same. Same for M87, or SN1987a.
Def Leopard's 'Photograph' will never sound the same!