Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result (Faster than Light)

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result (Faster than Light)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

 

Quote:

Share this page

44K

Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

Gran Sasso headquarters Neutrinos travel through 700km of rock before reaching Gran Sasso's underground laboratories

Related Stories

The team which found that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and confirmed the result.

If confirmed by other experiments, the find could undermine one of the basic principles of modern physics.

Critics of the first report in September had said that the long bunches of neutrinos (tiny particles) used could introduce an error into the test.

The new work used much shorter bunches.

It has been posted to the Arxiv repository and submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics, but has not yet been reviewed by the scientific community.

The experiments have been carried out by the Opera collaboration - short for Oscillation Project with Emulsion (T)racking Apparatus.

It hinges on sending bunches of neutrinos created at the Cern facility (actually produced as decays within a long bunch of protons produced at Cern) through 730km (454 miles) of rock to a giant detector at the INFN-Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy.

The initial series of experiments, comprising 15,000 separate measurements spread out over three years, found that the neutrinos arrived 60 billionths of a second faster than light would have, travelling unimpeded over the same distance.

The idea that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum forms a cornerstone in physics - first laid out by James Clerk Maxwell and later incorporated into Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Timing is everything

Initial analysis of the work by the wider scientific community argued that the relatively long-lasting bunches of neutrinos could introduce a significant error into the measurement.

Those bunches lasted 10 millionths of a second - 160 times longer than the discrepancy the team initially reported in the neutrinos' travel time.

To address that, scientists at Cern adjusted the way in which the proton beams were produced, resulting in bunches just three billionths of a second long.

When the Opera team ran the improved experiment 20 times, they found almost exactly the same result.

Neutrino experiments in bubble chamber

"This is reinforcing the previous finding and ruling out some possible systematic errors which could have in principle been affecting it," said Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration.

"We didn't think they were, and now we have the proof," he told BBC News. "This is reassuring that it's not the end of the story."

The first announcement of evidently faster-than-light neutrinos caused a stir worldwide; the Opera collaboration is very aware of its implications if eventually proved correct.

The error in the length of the bunches, however, is just the largest among several potential sources of uncertainty in the measurement, which must all now be addressed in turn; these mostly centre on the precise departure and arrival times of the bunches.

"So far no arguments have been put forward that rule out our effect," Dr Ereditato said.

"This additional test we made is confirming our original finding, but still we have to be very prudent, still we have to look forward to independent confirmation. But this is a positive result."

That confirmation may be much longer in coming, as only a few facilities worldwide have the detectors needed to catch the notoriously flighty neutrinos - which interact with matter so rarely as to have earned the nickname "ghost particles".

Next year, teams working on two other experiments at Gran Sasso experiments - Borexino and Icarus - will begin independent cross-checks of Opera's results.

The US Minos experiment and Japan's T2K experiment will also test the observations. It is likely to be several months before they report back.

Graphic of the Opera experiment

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ah, physics... the ultimate

Ah, physics... the ultimate mathematical House of Cards. Pull one card (or "rule&quotEye-wink out, and the entire thing collapses and must be rewritten. This is where I believe one of Einstein's philosophical quotes "Imagination is more important than knowledge!" comes handy.  Not so handy for QM, but handy for everything else physical.

 

Superluminal motion... there are at least two types of phenomena that I know of being described as superluminal before the recent cern experiments. One were the polar jets found to be moving at a biased angle towards Earth, and the other experiment was a beam of light moving 300 times the speed of light through a really cold vacuum.

I know not what challenges the scientists and eggheads reading about CERN will face, only that they will face such challenges. If the evidence withstands those challenges, they have a new 'piece of the puzzle', or a new 'card' to place at the base of physics; that superluminal motion is indeed probable.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


NiccoloM
atheist
NiccoloM's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2011-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh my Neutrino, I hope it is true

I am obsessed with time travel and hope it is possible. I don't think we can know anything about paradoxes yet and I reject Kaku's possibility that it might not be possible in our own universe. Yes, I am concerned with butterfly effects but I really want to see dinosaurs and maybe bring Jesus and Allah back to prove once and for all to creationists it is not true. Of course it is highly improbably any of this, if feasible, would be invented in my lifetime, but I can hope, can't I? After all, the faithful do it!


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
NiccoloM wrote:I am obsessed

NiccoloM wrote:
I am obsessed with time travel and hope it is possible. I don't think we can know anything about paradoxes yet and I reject Kaku's possibility that it might not be possible in our own universe. Yes, I am concerned with butterfly effects but I really want to see dinosaurs and maybe bring Jesus and Allah back to prove once and for all to creationists it is not true. Of course it is highly improbably any of this, if feasible, would be invented in my lifetime, but I can hope, can't I? After all, the faithful do it!

Muhammed.  You'd want to bring Muhammed back, because even he'd tell you that you can't bring Allah anywhere.

There's nothing preventing time travel in the forward direction, you just have to find a way to make time FOR YOU stop, or greatly slow, while time at your destination continues.  Doing that is trivial, provided you have a large enough pile of money, or you want to live at the bottom of a deep enough mine ...

I do have an argument against =backward= time travel based on Thermodynamics, but it's one of those "trick" arguments that I'm sure can be smooshed by someone better educated than I.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
How does Heisenberg's

How does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle play into all this?

This sounds like the same kind of phenomena that occurs in quantum tunnelling. An electron or hole appears to cross a junction barrier faster than light. But actually because of uncertainty, only the probability of where the particle is located travels faster than light. The consequence of this is that information is not transmitted faster than light. This would seem to lend credence to the idea that discrete bits of information and not strings or particles are the fundamental building block of the universe.

http://critical-path.itgo.com/Articlesanscover.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

I actually think this is bad reporting on the part of Cern and the media. They sensationalize and dumb it down for the public just to get headlines.

It is possible to understand and not understand quantum physics at the same time. So how can we ever be certain?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
uncertainty principlen.A

uncertainty principle
n.
A principle in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty with which another conjugate quantity may be known.

EXC wrote:

How does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle play into all this?

This sounds like the same kind of phenomena that occurs in quantum tunnelling. An electron or hole appears to cross a junction barrier faster than light. But actually because of uncertainty, only the probability of where the particle is located travels faster than light. The consequence of this is that information is not transmitted faster than light. This would seem to lend credence to the idea that discrete bits of information and not strings or particles are the fundamental building block of the universe.

http://critical-path.itgo.com/Articlesanscover.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

I actually think this is bad reporting on the part of Cern and the media. They sensationalize and dumb it down for the public just to get headlines.

It is possible to understand and not understand quantum physics at the same time. So how can we ever be certain?

How does it? Well it's an experiment, but it is an experiment done with actual particles inside a collider. We can be certain of one property while another physical property remains completely unknown.

Some problems with QM-related Uncertainty;

It has critics, many of whom are scientists. One such scientist was Einstein, and he was dead wrong about QM. These critics and scientists believe in a very deterministic nature of physics and the universe. (Very generic, hastily made assertion here) As it is a purely philosophical position, it is poo regarding current knowledge of physics.

The Copehagen understanding of QM and Einstein's understanding of gravity do NOT currently mix. They try, and it doesn't quite match up. One is good for understanding two or three types of forces (good strong, electromagnetic -or electroweak-, and weak) vs the other (good for gravity). So QM is terrible for gravity, and Relativity is bad for elecromagnetism, weak and strong forces. Finding where these two theories overlap is insanely difficult. When we find it, Hawking will be the first person told.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
While interesting, I don't

While interesting, I don't see all that much significance. Just because a neutrino can go marginally faster than light does not mean there is an applicable way to travel back in time or faster than light for other particles at similar or larger scales. Nor does it mean that physics has been turned on its head. We don't even know how much mass is in a neutrino.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: 60 billionth of a second !

  Well, as Steven Weinberg said  " I don't think that 60 Billionth of a second will hold up " 

Signature ? How ?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:While

Vastet wrote:
While interesting, I don't see all that much significance. Just because a neutrino can go marginally faster than light does not mean there is an applicable way to travel back in time or faster than light for other particles at similar or larger scales. Nor does it mean that physics has been turned on its head. We don't even know how much mass is in a neutrino.

The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a law of physics as one could hope for. It, too, was formulated by Einstein as well. That there is going to be many other theories and hypotheses dependent on this one fundamental theory is a given. Yes, there are also details and kinks to iron out of this finding.

Some physics help/challenges from AIgS or another physics inclined mod might be handy, unfortunately I think they are busy with something atm.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13594
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I hate the word "undermine",

I hate the word "undermine", because believers will jump on that.

Scientific method does not seek to "undermine" anything. It is merely a tool scientists use as quality control of data. If proven true, it will not "undermine" the past, it will simply act as a self correction by giving scientists a better perspective.

Good scientific ethics don't seek to justify or undermine anything. It only seeks to verify and update and discard bad data.

It is no different than at one point in astronomy we thought that the galaxy was the extent of the universe. We were going with the best data we had at the time. But, when that was busted, it didn't change the astrophysics science of the time. Galaxies still exist, stars still exist, and celestial bodies still behave within the natural range we observe today. We just merely found out that the universe was bigger than we had originally thought.

This will not undermine prior science. It will only update it and give us better insight.

If this goes beyond a mere study, and continues to get confirmed after independently getting thrashed, it will not make gods real or magic real. It will merely mean science has given scientists the opportunity to learn something new.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:The speed of

Kapkao wrote:
The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a...

I don't see the light barrier being broken by a neutrally charged weakly interacting sub atomic particle which flies through matter having a significant effect on the understanding of physics. Now if it were an atom, or a molecule, I'd not argue the point. But it's a sub atomic particle of unknown mass which has little, if any, influence on matter. It really doesn't change much. It's not like a ship can be accelerated by them to equal speeds or anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Kapkao

Vastet wrote:
Kapkao wrote:
The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a...
I don't see the light barrier being broken by a neutrally charged weakly interacting sub atomic particle which flies through matter having a significant effect on the understanding of physics. Now if it were an atom, or a molecule, I'd not argue the point. But it's a sub atomic particle of unknown mass which has little, if any, influence on matter. It really doesn't change much. It's not like a ship can be accelerated by them to equal speeds or anything.

Two words:

Quantum Entanglement.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:How does

EXC wrote:

How does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle play into all this?

This sounds like the same kind of phenomena that occurs in quantum tunnelling. An electron or hole appears to cross a junction barrier faster than light. But actually because of uncertainty, only the probability of where the particle is located travels faster than light. The consequence of this is that information is not transmitted faster than light.

Quantum Tunneling =has= been used to transmit information FTL, and across larger distances than a junction barrier.  However, that's not the same as a particle moving FTL.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Vastet

Kapkao wrote:

Vastet wrote:
While interesting, I don't see all that much significance. Just because a neutrino can go marginally faster than light does not mean there is an applicable way to travel back in time or faster than light for other particles at similar or larger scales. Nor does it mean that physics has been turned on its head. We don't even know how much mass is in a neutrino.

The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a law of physics as one could hope for.  

I can't agree with your statement as it stands. The speed of light in a vacuum (at say ambient temperature, or whatever) being constant shouldn't give us any proper reason to speculate that the speed limit couldn't change as temperature increases towards 'singularity' levels, AFAIK.

These kinds of assumptions were what made early 'aerodynamicists' like blind men fumbling around in the dark looking for their slide rule.

 

I also agree with the statements about how these findings are played up in the media. I could personally do without the rhetoric and hyperbole, TYVM.

But, it might just be a better overall strategy to influence finances being channeled towards more CERN experiments, and science in general.

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Kapkao

redneF wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Vastet wrote:
While interesting, I don't see all that much signifhttp://www.rationalresponders.com/comment/reply/30616/363732?quote=1#comment-formicance. Just because a neutrino can go marginally faster than light does not mean there is an applicable way to travel back in time or faster than light for other particles at similar or larger scales. Nor does it mean that physics has been turned on its head. We don't even know how much mass is in a neutrino.

The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a law of physics as one could hope for.  

I can't agree with your statement as it stands. The speed of light in a vacuum (at say ambient temperature, or whatever) being constant shouldn't give us any proper reason to speculate that the speed limit couldn't change as temperature increases towards 'singularity' levels, AFAIK.

There is no temperature in a vacuum, and so far as I know, the the speed of light through any medium which could have a temperature is less than the speed of light, for all possible media.

I asked a friend about this the other night -- he is ABD in Physics (optics was his specialization) -- and the question I asked him had to do with Inflation and the Pauli Exclusion Principle.  Short answer -- he said "no".

The corollary to "temperature in a vacuum" for photons is energy, and at high =energies= photons don't stay photons if they have any interactions with matter -- above 1,022kEV, pair production occurs producing an electron and a positron, both having rest masses of 511kEV.  At higher energies, different pairs having rest masses equal to the photons occurs.

In the standard models for the Big Bang, various particles "condensed" at various "temperature" or energy levels, with higher rest-mass particles condensing at higher energy levels.  My assumption would be that any photon with energy in the GEV or TEV range would be a "something else", not a superluminal photon, if it had any interaction with another "something else".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Vastet

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Kapkao wrote:
The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a...
I don't see the light barrier being broken by a neutrally charged weakly interacting sub atomic particle which flies through matter having a significant effect on the understanding of physics. Now if it were an atom, or a molecule, I'd not argue the point. But it's a sub atomic particle of unknown mass which has little, if any, influence on matter. It really doesn't change much. It's not like a ship can be accelerated by them to equal speeds or anything.

Two words:

Quantum Entanglement.

Relevance?

Also, temperature is universal. A vacuum does have a temperature. Usually near 0 Kelvin.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao behaves like a Big Cat again

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Kapkao wrote:
The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a...
I don't see the light barrier being broken by a neutrally charged weakly interacting sub atomic particle which flies through matter having a significant effect on the understanding of physics. Now if it were an atom, or a molecule, I'd not argue the point. But it's a sub atomic particle of unknown mass which has little, if any, influence on matter. It really doesn't change much. It's not like a ship can be accelerated by them to equal speeds or anything.

Two words:

Quantum Entanglement.

Relevance? Also, temperature is universal. A vacuum does have a temperature. Usually near 0 Kelvin.

(heh)

Having fun? I imagine I'm going to have fun with CatHerder in the coming weeks. Most likely as a new Kap toy. (pun!)

Cat Herder wrote:

Two words:

Quantum Entanglement.

Two more words:

Funny guy.

F-U-N-N. WHY?! Cuz I LOL'ed. How loud did I lol? Well... not enough to break the sound of physics.... physics of sound... (excuse me)  LAWS OF PHYSICS.  But enough to get playful.

Back to the subject matter: Quantum Entanglement doesn't work in your post. Because it doesn't work. Because I say it doesn't, for that matter. Matter also doesn't work. It kinda sucks.

 

(With apologies to pineapple)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:FurryCatHerder

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Kapkao wrote:
The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a...
I don't see the light barrier being broken by a neutrally charged weakly interacting sub atomic particle which flies through matter having a significant effect on the understanding of physics. Now if it were an atom, or a molecule, I'd not argue the point. But it's a sub atomic particle of unknown mass which has little, if any, influence on matter. It really doesn't change much. It's not like a ship can be accelerated by them to equal speeds or anything.

Two words:

Quantum Entanglement.

Relevance? Also, temperature is universal. A vacuum does have a temperature. Usually near 0 Kelvin.

The temperature of something is determined by the square of the (average) velocity of the particles of that "something".  A vacuum has no "something".  Saying it has a temperature of 0K is as wrong as saying it has a temperature of 273.15K.  Or 298.15K.  Or 310.15K.  Or any other "K".

'K?

Now toddle off to a forum where you can speak intelligibly.  Which isn't the Science forum.

Sort of like how Southern Baptists often can't speak intelligibly about Science!!!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The temperature of

Quote:
The temperature of something is determined by the square of the (average) velocity of the particles of that "something".

Yes.

Quote:
A vacuum has no "something".

There has never been observed a condition of "no something." A vacuum is merely a region with very little "something". Not nothing.

Saying nothing exists is a self defeating and nonsensical argument.

Since there is always "something" in a vacuum, it always has a measurable temperature.

You're effectively trying to argue that a sound doesn't exist unless there is someone to hear it, which is philosophical claptrap.

Not that I'm surprised at your incapacity to understand something as simple as reality when you spend all your efforts on ridiculous notions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Vastet

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Kapkao wrote:
The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a...
I don't see the light barrier being broken by a neutrally charged weakly interacting sub atomic particle which flies through matter having a significant effect on the understanding of physics. Now if it were an atom, or a molecule, I'd not argue the point. But it's a sub atomic particle of unknown mass which has little, if any, influence on matter. It really doesn't change much. It's not like a ship can be accelerated by them to equal speeds or anything.

Two words:

Quantum Entanglement.

Relevance? Also, temperature is universal. A vacuum does have a temperature. Usually near 0 Kelvin.

The temperature of something is determined by the square of the (average) velocity of the particles of that "something".  A vacuum has no "something".  Saying it has a temperature of 0K is as wrong as saying it has a temperature of 273.15K.  Or 298.15K.  Or 310.15K.  Or any other "K".

'K?

Now toddle off to a forum where you can speak intelligibly.  Which isn't the Science forum.

Sort of like how Southern Baptists often can't speak intelligibly about Science!!!

Backseat moderation + mocking others for traits one already has: TROLLOL HARDER. We certainly need more trolls.

 

(with even higher apologies to pineapple)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:The

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
The temperature of something is determined by the square of the (average) velocity of the particles of that "something".
Yes.
Quote:
A vacuum has no "something".
There has never been observed a condition of "no something." A vacuum is merely a region with very little "something". Not nothing. Saying nothing exists is a self defeating and nonsensical argument. Since there is always "something" in a vacuum, it always has a measurable temperature. You're effectively trying to argue that a sound doesn't exist unless there is someone to hear it, which is philosophical claptrap. Not that I'm surprised at your incapacity to understand something as simple as reality when you spend all your efforts on ridiculous notions.

 

 

Temperature in a vacuum ( check out second paragraph ) ....      http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1046

 

also scroll down in same article to see  "Follow-Up#5: temperature of vacuum"

  "It's fair to say, however, that as the density of thermal radiation approaches zero the temperature ( assuming the radiation can be described by a thermal spectrum ) approaches 0 K."

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Thanks. Makes it easier to

Thanks. Makes it easier to articulate my argument.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:redneF

FurryCatHerder wrote:

redneF wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Vastet wrote:
While interesting, I don't see all that much signifhttp://www.rationalresponders.com/comment/reply/30616/363732?quote=1#comment-formicance. Just because a neutrino can go marginally faster than light does not mean there is an applicable way to travel back in time or faster than light for other particles at similar or larger scales. Nor does it mean that physics has been turned on its head. We don't even know how much mass is in a neutrino.

The speed of light in a vacuum being absolute is about as fundamental a law of physics as one could hope for.  

I can't agree with your statement as it stands. The speed of light in a vacuum (at say ambient temperature, or whatever) being constant shouldn't give us any proper reason to speculate that the speed limit couldn't change as temperature increases towards 'singularity' levels, AFAIK.

There is no temperature in a vacuum, and so far as I know, the the speed of light through any medium which could have a temperature is less than the speed of light, for all possible media.

I asked a friend about this the other night -- he is ABD in Physics (optics was his specialization) -- and the question I asked him had to do with Inflation and the Pauli Exclusion Principle.  Short answer -- he said "no".

The corollary to "temperature in a vacuum" for photons is energy, and at high =energies= photons don't stay photons if they have any interactions with matter -- above 1,022kEV, pair production occurs producing an electron and a positron, both having rest masses of 511kEV.  At higher energies, different pairs having rest masses equal to the photons occurs.

In the standard models for the Big Bang, various particles "condensed" at various "temperature" or energy levels, with higher rest-mass particles condensing at higher energy levels.  My assumption would be that any photon with energy in the GEV or TEV range would be a "something else", not a superluminal photon, if it had any interaction with another "something else".

I appreciate that you have a much more comprehensive and extensive understanding of physics overall.

But are you asserting that a photon (as we are discussing) is not the same thing at the >>>>>>extreme opposite end of the temperature scale of a vacuum?

I've read quite a bit about the E8 model, for instance, and based on that and other theories, it appears that some of the largest problems in finding a unified theory are related to missing particles to fill in the gaps apparently existing in the geometry, and questions as to what and how the 'forces' were at the high temperatures in and around the Singularity.

I've heard some theorists suspect that the 4 forces were actually part of 1 force at those high temperatures.

Just for the record, I don't pretend for a second to be anything but a layman when it comes to particle physics and quantum mechanics, but I have a much better than average grasp on some, if not most of the main areas.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Thanks. Makes

Vastet wrote:
Thanks. Makes it easier to articulate my argument.

So'kay, you haven't the slightest idea what that LAY-PERSON description of temperature was all about, or what the various assumptions were all about, so I'm comfortable accepting that in your complete ignorance you really think there is a temperature in a vacuum ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Vastet

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Thanks. Makes it easier to articulate my argument.

So'kay, you haven't the slightest idea what that LAY-PERSON description of temperature was all about, or what the various assumptions were all about, so I'm comfortable accepting that in your complete ignorance you really think there is a temperature in a vacuum ...

Hi. I'm self-obsessed, too.

Read my new blog entry!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Vastet

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Thanks. Makes it easier to articulate my argument.

So'kay, you haven't the slightest idea what that LAY-PERSON description of temperature was all about, or what the various assumptions were all about, so I'm comfortable accepting that in your complete ignorance you really think there is a temperature in a vacuum ...

That's funny since nothing I said has been contradicted, but supported.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There has never

Vastet wrote:
There has never been observed a condition of "no something."

Vastet wrote:
A vacuum is merely a region with very little "something". Not nothing.

Source wrote:
We don't know of any examples of a perfect vacuum, but know some bits of space that get pretty close.

Vastet wrote:
Also, temperature is universal. A vacuum does have a temperature. Usually near 0 Kelvin.

Source wrote:
So the answer really depends on what you mean by vacuum. If you mean what's left when all the atoms etc. are pumped out, yes it still has a temperature of electromagnetic radiation. If you want, though, you could choose to only call that a vacuum if the temperature is zero. By the way, the third law of thermodynamics says nothing can ever get to zero temperature, so by that definition there wouldn't be any vacuums.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Vastet

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

So'kay, you haven't the slightest idea what that LAY-PERSON description of temperature was all about, or what the various assumptions were all about, so I'm comfortable accepting that in your complete ignorance you really think there is a temperature in a vacuum ...

   

 

                                                      How can she find the time to worship G-d when she so clearly worships herself, instead ? 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: How

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
How can she find the time to worship G-d when she so clearly worships herself, instead ? 

It must get crowded in that 'heart' of hers...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I appreciate

redneF wrote:

I appreciate that you have a much more comprehensive and extensive understanding of physics overall.

But are you asserting that a photon (as we are discussing) is not the same thing at the >>>>>>extreme opposite end of the temperature scale of a vacuum?

Hmmm.

I'm trying to get you away from "temperature" because the velocity of =matter= increases with temperature, but photons change their wavelength as their energy increases or decreases.  So, IR has a relatively long wavelength, and gamma rays relatively short, but they both have the same speed in a vacuum, rather than the relative change in velocity that you'd see with a corresponding change in temperature.  If some of the energy of a photon is absorbed by an electron (light striking some object), whatever energy wasn't absorbed changing the energy of the electron is "returned" as a photon with a lower energy level / longer wavelength.  But the resulting photon is still moving at "c".

Energies do have temperatures, but for a photon it's not about velocity, and that's the take-away.

Quote:
I've read quite a bit about the E8 model, for instance, and based on that and other theories, it appears that some of the largest problems in finding a unified theory are related to missing particles to fill in the gaps apparently existing in the geometry, and questions as to what and how the 'forces' were at the high temperatures in and around the Singularity.

Keep in mind -- very early in the age of the universe, there were no photons.  Like the bible says -- "There was evening, there was morning, Day One".  From this we learn there were no photons until the morning of the first day Eye-wink

Quote:
I've heard some theorists suspect that the 4 forces were actually part of 1 force at those high temperatures.

That's the hope -- that Theoretical Physicists can come up with some way to make the four forces we know today into one common force early in the Universe's existence.  There is no guarantee that will happen, though I feel it's likely.  And not because I'm a monotheist Eye-wink

Quote:
Just for the record, I don't pretend for a second to be anything but a layman when it comes to particle physics and quantum mechanics, but I have a much better than average grasp on some, if not most of the main areas.

Most of what I formally learned was back in the day when software engineers were expected to know more about electrical engineering and physics than they are taught today.  That I started a BSEE after my BSCS helped, and having an ME minor didn't hurt either, but I'm no expert either.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So'kay, you haven't the slightest idea what that LAY-PERSON description of temperature was all about, or what the various assumptions were all about, so I'm comfortable accepting that in your complete ignorance you really think there is a temperature in a vacuum ...

How can she find the time to worship G-d when she so clearly worships herself, instead ?

If Vastet can ever stop thinking of himself as some "gamer god" whose knowledge of button pushing on a Nintendo game pad means he knows jack shit about anything, I'm sure he and I can get along just fine.

You, on the other hand, really need to just pull that trigger.  Really.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:FurryCatHerder

Vastet wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Thanks. Makes it easier to articulate my argument.

So'kay, you haven't the slightest idea what that LAY-PERSON description of temperature was all about, or what the various assumptions were all about, so I'm comfortable accepting that in your complete ignorance you really think there is a temperature in a vacuum ...

That's funny since nothing I said has been contradicted, but supported.

NOTHING you've said has been supported.

EM radiation has a temperature related to the wavelength of any radiation within that otherwise empty space.   A perfect, complete, total, absolute vacuum, with no EM radiation of any sort, period, cannot exist.  The more of "nothing at all" there is, the more likely SOMETHING is to spontaneously appear.  Like magic!

For all you know, all manner of things are happening in that space, and very likely are happening because ... Nature abhors a vacuum.  And so does Quantum Mechanics.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote: You,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

You, on the other hand, really need to just pull that trigger.  Really.

 

       Lol, your inflated ego must really be offended to say something like that.  But then your ego is such a huge target how could anyone miss ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:ProzacDeathWish

redneF wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
How can she find the time to worship G-d when she so clearly worships herself, instead ? 

It must get crowded in that 'heart' of hers...

I'm nice to people who are nice to me.  Be a dick, and I'll gladly give as good as I get.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So'kay, you haven't the slightest idea what that LAY-PERSON description of temperature was all about, or what the various assumptions were all about, so I'm comfortable accepting that in your complete ignorance you really think there is a temperature in a vacuum ...

                                                      How can she find the time to worship G-d when she so clearly worships herself, instead ?  

 

...........she? Well... my "fursuit" comment would have probably been sexual harassment anyways.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You, on the other hand, really need to just pull that trigger.  Really.

Lol, your inflated ego must really be offended to say something like that.  But then your ego is such a huge target how could anyone miss ?

You're a fine one to talk -- you insult and attack me every chance you get.  My suggestion would be putting yourself out of your own apparent misery.

You don't like people who believe in G-d?  Fine.  But don't pretend that gives you some kind of moral superiority you can use to insult people with impunity.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:redneF

FurryCatHerder wrote:

redneF wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
How can she find the time to worship G-d when she so clearly worships herself, instead ? 

It must get crowded in that 'heart' of hers...

I'm nice to people who are nice to me.  Be a dick, and I'll gladly give as good as I get.

I mostly just get ignored.

Why can't I get as good as I give, ma'am?

 

(with apologies to pineapple not having much meaning at this point, but I'll give them anyways: sincerest apologies, pineapple)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I'm

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm nice to people who are nice to me.  Be a dick, and I'll gladly give as good as I get.

                                       

  You've already stated in the Jesus Was A Great Moral Teacher thread that you would have no moral compunctions about lining me "up against the wall with all the other people 'who really deserve it'"  

        ...is that something I should be concerned about ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:  My

FurryCatHerder wrote:

  My suggestion would be putting yourself out of your own apparent misery.

 

 Really, Furry ?   Are you really that threatened by me ?   Me simply reciprocating your own crass sarcasm causes you to spew homicidal fantasies about me killing myself or ( even better ) you killing me ?    Lol, you're waaaaay more disturbed than I am.

 

 

 

 

                                                     

  ( PS, you're living proof that high intelligence and emotional stability don't necessarily go hand in hand, for example       ..... http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/method_madness_JTsu2G5Oct3L6ASvYXhL6I

               It's like looking at yourself in the mirror, isn't it ?

                                                       

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:You, on

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You, on the other hand, really need to just pull that trigger.  Really.

 

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
My suggestion would be putting yourself out of your own apparent misery.

 

  Actually, I'm beginning to feel threatened by your obsession with my death.

 

 

 

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
  But don't pretend that gives you some kind of moral superiority you can use to insult people with impunity.

                                           

                     Is that another implied threat ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:  Be a

FurryCatHerder wrote:
  Be a dick, and I'll gladly give as good as I get.

 

      Still more  threats against me ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
  Be a dick, and I'll gladly give as good as I get.

      Still more  threats against me ?

No, it's a statement.  Your destiny is 100% in your control.

You can choose to be treated well, or you can choose to be treated however poorly you choose to treat me.  I will occasionally be nice to you just to make sure we're not stuck in some mutual state of loathing, but in my experience of you, that won't change your behavior.  But I'll keep doing it, just to make sure.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Really, Furry ?   Are you really that threatened by me ?   Me simply reciprocating your own crass sarcasm causes you to spew homicidal fantasies about me killing myself or ( even better ) you killing me ?    Lol, you're waaaaay more disturbed than I am.

No, I'm not =actually= threatened by you.  But sociopaths such as yourself need to know that you can't attack people and expect that it will go unnoticed.  In my experience, letting a sociopath know that violence will be repaid in kind is the best way to stay safe.

Be nice to me, I'll be nice to you.  Attack me, I will respond in kind.  It's called "self-defense", which means the only way it's a "threat" is if you have the intention already in your mind to do me harm.  So ... you might want to examine your own thoughts and figure out why a person who is telling you she'd defend herself if attacked makes you feel threatened.  In my experience, people who have no expectation of harming others aren't worried about people who'll defend themselves if attacked.

Not a difficult concept to grasp.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:No,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

No, it's a statement. 

  

 

Statements can easily cross a legal threshold and then be construed as terroristc threats.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Your destiny is 100% in your control.

 

  What, are you allowing me that privilege ?

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
You can choose to be treated well, or you can choose to be treated however poorly you choose to treat me.
 

 

  Ah, an ultimatum !

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
I will occasionally be nice to you just to make sure we're not stuck in some mutual state of loathing,...
  

 

   Your offer contains a strong element of condescension.  That tends to put me on the defensive.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
but in my experience of you, that won't change your behavior.
  

 

 Wow, so you went to the academy at Quantico ?  Well let me assure you that I've never wet the bed past infancy, I have never set fires as an act of vandalism,  and I absolutely never engage in acts of animal cruelty.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
But I'll keep doing it, just to make sure.

 

  Only time will tell.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Really, Furry ?   Are you really that threatened by me ?   Me simply reciprocating your own crass sarcasm causes you to spew homicidal fantasies about me killing myself or ( even better ) you killing me ?    Lol, you're waaaaay more disturbed than I am.

No, I'm not =actually= threatened by you.  But sociopaths such as yourself need to know that you can't attack people and expect that it will go unnoticed.  In my experience, letting a sociopath know that violence will be repaid in kind is the best way to stay safe.

Be nice to me, I'll be nice to you.  Attack me, I will respond in kind.  It's called "self-defense", which means the only way it's a "threat" is if you have the intention already in your mind to do me harm.  So ... you might want to examine your own thoughts and figure out why a person who is telling you she'd defend herself if attacked makes you feel threatened.  In my experience, people who have no expectation of harming others aren't worried about people who'll defend themselves if attacked.

Not a difficult concept to grasp.

  OMFG !  are you for real ?  Have you even been paying attention to which one of us has been flinging around those blood drenched scenarios ?  Jesus Christ, you need to be medicated . Get a fucking grip.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
One more thing, since we

   If I were actually a high functioning sociopath I could quickly assess what your emotional / psychological weaknesses were and then proceed to dismantle you on this forum, in view of everyone.   Despite your intelligence you are obviously highly emotional which would be your Achilles Heel if you were to actually face one of nature's anomalies.  I wouldn't envy you.

 

As for myself, despite your ludicrous assertion I am the complete opposite of a sociopath....I am an empath.  I have no desire to destroy you, but I am disgusted by your incessant narcissism, your double standards when it comes to your behaviour when compared to those you dump on ( ie, you're a hypocrite ), you refusal to even consider that you may be in error,  etc.    In other words, you're just a conceited jerk.  Is that clear enough for you ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I love it when interesting

I love it when interesting scientific discussions turn into second grade sandbox name calling.  It's such an intellectual stimulating activity, much like chimp poo flinging.  And a theoretical vacuum has no temperature just like it has no sexual preference or political inclination.  It is absolute nothingness, to insist that it has any properties other then the complete lack of properties is really childish.  The fact that a theoretical vacuum is practically impossible is a different story and irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3632
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I love it when

Ktulu wrote:

I love it when interesting scientific discussions turn into second grade sandbox name calling.  It's such an intellectual stimulating activity, much like chimp poo flinging.  And a theoretical vacuum has no temperature just like it has no sexual preference or political inclination.  It is absolute nothingness, to insist that it has any properties other then the complete lack of properties is really childish.  The fact that a theoretical vacuum is practically impossible is a different story and irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

 

  Such emotional cross talk is not a rarity on this forum and even RRS's best and brightest members will engage in such acrimonious dialogue if it suits them.  Please, delve right in....

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:redneF

FurryCatHerder wrote:

redneF wrote:

I appreciate that you have a much more comprehensive and extensive understanding of physics overall.

But are you asserting that a photon (as we are discussing) is not the same thing at the >>>>>>extreme opposite end of the temperature scale of a vacuum?

Hmmm.

I'm trying to get you away from "temperature"

I'm trying to understand why..

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm trying to get you away from "temperature" because the velocity of =matter= increases with temperature, but photons change their wavelength as their energy increases or decreases.  So, IR has a relatively long wavelength, and gamma rays relatively short, but they both have the same speed in a vacuum, rather than the relative change in velocity that you'd see with a corresponding change in temperature.  If some of the energy of a photon is absorbed by an electron (light striking some object), whatever energy wasn't absorbed changing the energy of the electron is "returned" as a photon with a lower energy level / longer wavelength.  But the resulting photon is still moving at "c".

Energies do have temperatures, but for a photon it's not about velocity, and that's the take-away.

You lost me. I'm not saying that's hard to do when it comes to particle physics, but, I was under the impression that velocity of matter had to do with increasing the amount of total energy acting upon it.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

redneF wrote:

I've read quite a bit about the E8 model, for instance, and based on that and other theories, it appears that some of the largest problems in finding a unified theory are related to missing particles to fill in the gaps apparently existing in the geometry, and questions as to what and how the 'forces' were at the high temperatures in and around the Singularity.

Keep in mind -- very early in the age of the universe, there were no photons.

But we're splitting pico seconds here.

The question still remains, IMHO, that a large part of the mystery seems to be centered around how particles and energy behaved in the instances prior to, and immediately after the rapid inflation of the Singularity, and a large part of why the LHC was built in the first place; to simulate what occurs at maximum energy levels. 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Like the bible says -- "There was evening, there was morning, Day One".  From this we learn there were no photons until the morning of the first day Eye-wink

And it happened in 'no time' right?

The bible left out the explanation of how things could possible happen when there's no time for them to happen in.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

redneF wrote:

I've heard some theorists suspect that the 4 forces were actually part of 1 force at those high temperatures.

That's the hope -- that Theoretical Physicists can come up with some way to make the four forces we know today into one common force early in the Universe's existence.  There is no guarantee that will happen, though I feel it's likely.  And not because I'm a monotheist Eye-wink

I'm kinda sure it is likely to happen, as well. But, even if it doesn't, I think there are quite a few evidences we can uncover with the LHC that will fuel some incredible new theories on quantum mechanics.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

redneF wrote:

Just for the record, I don't pretend for a second to be anything but a layman when it comes to particle physics and quantum mechanics, but I have a much better than average grasp on some, if not most of the main areas.

Most of what I formally learned was back in the day when software engineers were expected to know more about electrical engineering and physics than they are taught today.  That I started a BSEE after my BSCS helped, and having an ME minor didn't hurt either, but I'm no expert either.

I have partners who are very advanced in electrical engineering. Guys who are leaders in transmission line theory and the like. You don't want to get them started on EE, and what most 'textbook' electrical engineers think and some of their quantum 'claims' of circuits and devices they claim to have designed. Things like 'annihilation' devices. Real 'woo' stuff.

Of course they won't 'disclose' how the mechanics works, so they expect their claims to be taken on 'faith'.

Physics? Not so much debate about that, IME.

Just throwing around ideas, mainly.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

redneF wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
How can she find the time to worship G-d when she so clearly worships herself, instead ? 

It must get crowded in that 'heart' of hers...

I'm nice to people who are nice to me.  Be a dick, and I'll gladly give as good as I get.

Ditto

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:NOTHING

FurryCatHerder wrote:
NOTHING you've said has been supported.

And once again the furbrain fails both English and science at the same time. A wonder she never gets tired of making a total asshat of herself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10604
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Really odd being told I'm

Really odd being told I'm wrong then given evidence I'm right, repeatedly in a single topic. I've reread the thread a few times now and can only shake my head at Furry's breakdown into an absolutely irrational argument in this thread. The worst part is that most of her science is right, until she suggests I was wrong when I said temperature was everywhere then writes paragraphs proving it IS everywhere.

Lol is the only appropriate response.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.