View allAll Photos Tagged quantummechanics
Quantum effects, the smoke and mirrors trick ā¦.
Atheists would dearly love to debunk the Law of Cause and Effect, and all the other natural laws that are fatal to their ideology of naturalism.
(The atheist 'religion' of naturalism requires a NATURAL, first cause of the universe, which the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws definitively rule out as impossible).
Of course, they know they can never succeed, because by undermining the Law of Cause and Effect, they effectively undermine science itself. The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of scientific research. The scientific method relies on seeking and discovering causes for EVERY natural event. The concept of an uncaused, natural event or entity is an anathema to genuine science.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws".
Although intelligent atheists are well aware that they can never debunk laws, which definitively rule out a natural origin of the universe as impossible - nevertheless, they attempt to give the impression, to the public, that a natural, first cause of everything is scientifically feasible, and that laws of nature are not a serious obstacle.
One way atheists try to convince the public to accept their naturalist ideology, is by proposing that the quantum world is very different from the world we see around us. And in that mysterious, quantum world virtually anything can occur, regardless of natural laws which generally describe what is possible in the universe.
This apparent air of mystery gives atheists carte blanche to propose various, bizarre, origin scenarios, which would normally be ruled out as impossible or as just crackpot fantasies.
If challenged, to scientifically justify such imaginative scenarios, they usually reply; āwith quantum effects, no one knows what is possibleā. In this way, opposition to any extraordinary hypothesis can be effectlively silenced. And to dispute, whatever origin scenario they choose to invent, may seem pointless.
However, it would be entirely wrong to accept this.
Science does not progress in a straightjacket, especially one imposed for ideological reasons. We are perfectly justified in rigorously challenging the idea that quantum mechanics or effects are a possible, natural answer to the origin of the universe. And that quantum effects can give credence to the belief that everything naturally arose from nothing, without an adequate cause, or purpose.
So, what is the truth?
We can state quite categorically that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.
Why?
It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing, and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause. Micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception. There are NO exceptions.
Atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something'.
The atheist mentality seems to be that, if something is deemed impossible, just propose it could happen; little-by-little, and it becomes plausible, especially to a credulous public.
Presumably, if you make it as small, make it sound as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
This is a similar, little-by-little approach that atheists have applied to the origin of life, and it is precisely how they have managed to get most people to accept microbes-to-human evolution, through beneficial mutations.
However, we need to ask ...
What makes atheists think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Would it be easier, or more credible, for a grain of sand to come from nothing than for a boulder?
Of course, it wouldnāt - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size, or lack of complexity, doesnāt alter that.
It seems that atheist thinking is something like the following:
Although people may realise that you couldnāt get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?
What about the quantum world ā how about a sub-atomic particle?
That could seem much more plausible.
What if we could even find such a particle - a sort of āgodā particle?
We could claim a supernatural, first cause (God) has been made redundant.
The first cause problem would be solved - apparently!
At least, people would believe that; even if the problem of everything coming from nothing, without a cause, hasnāt been solved completely, 'science' is well on the way to solving it.
If anyone suggests this is nonsense; that the first cause must an infinite Creator. We can accuse them of trying to fill gaps in 'scientific' knowledge with a god. The good old, the god-of-the-gaps argument.
Finally, if anyone is stubborn enough to insist that even a simple, sub-atomic particle canāt come from absolutely nothing, we can retort that the ānothing, we are referring to, is not the same ānothingā that the scientifically illiterate think of as nothing, but āsomethingā which only appears to be nothing, i.e. space/time.
Physicist Michio Kaku wrote:
"In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion [the Big Bang]. In other words, everything we see around us, including galaxies, stars, planets and us, owes its existence to the Higgs boson."
Kaku, M. The Spark That Caused the Big Bang. The Wall Street Journal. Posted on online.wsj.com July 5, 2012.
However, a so-called āGodā particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved the idea, and predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that, not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
Why?
A simple, sub-atomic particle simply CANNOT be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is simple and microscopic, have shot themselves in the foot....
The little-by-little approach, which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution, also doesnāt work for the origin of the universe.
FACT!
An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause (the Law of Cause and Effect).
The very first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means EVERY property and quality it contains, including: information, life, intelligence, consciousness, design, love, justice, etc. etc.
Always remember this very important, and common sense, fact:
Something cannot give what it doesn't possess.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, they are definitely NOT an adequate cause of the universe. And, neither are any of the other natural, origin scenarios proposed by atheists. They all fail in this regard.
What about the atheist claim that, because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused?
Quantum effects, may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous.
As for a direct cause of quantum effects, it can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isnāt. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved ā such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance. So just because, in some instances, causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesnāt mean there are ever no causes.
So, atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
To give the impression to the public that they could be, is just a smoke and mirrors trick deliberately intended to deceive.
The 'God particle', Wikipedia ā¦
āAnd since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term āGod particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers, the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe."
Why are laws of nature so important in this debate?
Laws of nature are both descriptive and prescriptive.
Laws of nature describe the behaviour, operation, potential and LIMITATIONS of natural things based on their inherent properties. They enable us to make predictions based on those properties. The only way that laws of nature could ever be invalid is, if the inherent properties of natural things they apply to, are changed.
The insurmountable problem for atheists is that, although they might try to invent fantasy scenarios where the properties of nature are different, and therefore not subject to most established laws. There is no possible, fantasy scenario which can negate the law of cause and effect. The law which is most fatal to atheist naturalism is the very law that cannot possibly be negated, under any circumstances.
Why?
Because the law of cause and effect is in a unique category, different from all other laws of nature. It is not just a fundamental principle of science, it can also be regarded as the premier law of the universe and creation, because it applies to ALL temporal things, not just nature or natural entities. It doesnāt matter what different properties natural things may have, they can never evade the law of cause and effect. It isn't based on the properties of things, it doesn't depend on any particular properties, only on a temporal character, nothing more.
And that is a FACT, which cannot be denied.
The ONLY exception to the first part of this law ā every effect must have a cause ā is that which is not temporal (that which has no beginning), i.e. INFINITE, not subject to time (time is a chronology of temporal/temporary events).
The second part of this law ā an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s ā applies to everything that exists, even to an infinite entity. An infinite entity cannot cause an effect greater than itself.
Thus, the law of cause and effect definitively rules out ALL natural or temporal entities as a possible, first cause.
The first cause of everything natural/temporal, MUST BE a single, infinite (uncaused, eternally self-existent and omnipresent), entirely autonomous, supernatural cause which is greater, in every respect, than everything else that exists (which it has caused).
That is the first cause we call the Creator or God.
What about a singularity?
Is a 'Singularity' the first cause of everything, as some atheists maintain?
A singularity (meaning single event) is described by atheists as a one-off event where the laws of nature didn't apply.
A natural event, not subject to laws of nature, used to be called ā magic! Until, atheists started calling it āscienceā.
Quote:
"This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there." Stephen Hawking, The Beginning of Time.
However, even if you want to believe in the fantasy of a 'singularity', it makes no difference to the fact that a natural cause of the universe is impossible.
A singularity doesn't negate the law of cause and effect, because, as I have already explained, that law pertains to ALL temporal entities. And it always applies, even if the laws of physics don't apply.
Conclusion:
It doesn't matter what natural, origin scenarios are proposed, none of them can ever qualify as the first cause of the universe. An origin of the universe by purely, natural processes is ruled out as IMPOSSIBLE.
The Bible rightly tells us to worship and honour the Creator, and not to worship the created.
Pagans honour and worship the created by crediting nature/material entities with godlike powers.
Atheists honour the created, rather than the Creator, because they elevate the effects (nature, matter/energy) to a godlike status and deny their cause.
The new, atheist naturalism nonsense is simply the old, pagan naturalism nonsense re-invented.
____________________________________________
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
Seek Truth @ www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.wordpress.com
šš Follow for more!!! The great awakening begin from within!! š£ššāļøšššÆšØ=======================================
Seek Truth @ Facebook.com/wonderlandb3 ššššš-ā®šāÆ- š ššššš
=======================================
Seek Truth @ www.wonderlandbyrussellstrand.wordpress.com
A quick little story about Alice in Quantumland.
I was serving jury duty a few years ago, and I was reading that book while I waited to be given a case. I had a bit of a shock one morning as I was making my way through the courthouse security.
I had set down my jacket, purse, and book on the scanning machine and had successfully stepped through the metal detecting doorway, when a severe voice commanded me to step aside. My mind was racing. Had I forgotten to leave my fingernail clippers at home? Were they upset about the half eaten doughnut in my purse?
I made my way over to the security guard with the resonant voice, and very humbly asked what was wrong. She reached over to the scanner and slowly picked up my book. She looked at it. Turned it over. Read the back. Turned it over again (tapping it against her hand repeatedly). Finally she looked at me.
"Is this your book?" she asked.
"Yes." I stammered.
"Is it any good?"
My heart was racing by this time. I felt like I was arriving in some sort of weird quantumland of my own. I managed to finally get a grip on my heaving thoughts and whispered out a hoarse little "What?"
"The book," she says "Alice in Quantumland, is it interesting? Is it any good?"
"Oh." says I, "Yes! The book is great!"
"Uh-huh." She says. "I was just wondering because I'm only working this job to pay my way through college. I'm taking Quantum Mechanics." . . .
Details of water cooled copper coils as part of the MOLLER Experiment is seen inside the SRF Test Lab at Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Va., on Wednesday, May 9, 2024. (Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
The Measurement of a Lepton-Lepton Electroweak Reaction (MOLLER) experiment proposes to measure the parity-violating asymmetry in electron-electron (MĆøller) scattering. The measurement will be carried out at Jefferson Laboratory's state-of-the-art accelerator by rapidly flipping the longitudinal polarization of electrons that have been accelerated to 11 GeV and observing the resulting fractional difference in the probability of these electrons scattering off atomic electrons in a liquid hydrogen target. This asymmetry is proportional to the weak charge of the electron, which in turn is a function of the electroweak mixing angle, a fundamental parameter of the electroweak theory. The accuracy of the proposed measurement allows for a low energy determination of the mixing angle with precision on par with the two best measurements at electron-positron colliders.
Details of water cooled copper coils as part of the MOLLER Experiment is seen inside the SRF Test Lab at Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Va., on Wednesday, May 9, 2024. (Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
The Measurement of a Lepton-Lepton Electroweak Reaction (MOLLER) experiment proposes to measure the parity-violating asymmetry in electron-electron (MĆøller) scattering. The measurement will be carried out at Jefferson Laboratory's state-of-the-art accelerator by rapidly flipping the longitudinal polarization of electrons that have been accelerated to 11 GeV and observing the resulting fractional difference in the probability of these electrons scattering off atomic electrons in a liquid hydrogen target. This asymmetry is proportional to the weak charge of the electron, which in turn is a function of the electroweak mixing angle, a fundamental parameter of the electroweak theory. The accuracy of the proposed measurement allows for a low energy determination of the mixing angle with precision on par with the two best measurements at electron-positron colliders.
In Memory of "Shrƶdinger's Cat"
A fractal distortion of Chic's Flickr photos containing the Quantum Mechanical Physics Phase Space Tag "Miss Schroedinger"
For Macro Mondays theme "The Periodic Table".
What could be more macro than a close-up of an atomic nucleus? Boron is an extremely rare element, but essential for life in minute quantities. This image shows the nucleus with its five protons and six neutrons surrounded by five electrons in the probability clouds of their orbitals, momentarily all very close to the nucleus. The greenish glow is the Strong Nuclear Force that holds the nucleus together. Sadly, my macro lens was unable to resolve the protons and neutrons into their more elementary particles.
āFirst I shake the whole tree, that the ripest might fall. Then I climb the tree and shake each limb, and then each branch and then each twig, and then I look under each leaf.ā
~ Martin Luther (German Priest and Scholar whose questioning of certain church practices led to the Protestant Reformation. 1483-1546) ~
Details of the calorimeter modules after being removed from the detector and placed aside for restoration inside Experimental Hall D at Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Va., on Wednesday, May 24, 2023. (Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
Members of the Hampton University Proton Therapy Institute (HUPTI) and the Leo Cancer Center walk through the SRF Test Lab during a tour of Jefferson Lab on Thursday, Mar. 2, 2023. (Photo by Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
Today, Hampton University Proton Therapy Institute - HUPTI announced a partnership with Leo Cancer Care to develop an upright proton arc therapy treatment technique for cancer.
The technique will allow patients to stand or sit upright and, combined with an additional CT system, may better target tumors in patients.
Jefferson Lab is proud to contribute to these efforts by applying its nuclear physics and technology expertise to help pave the way for improvements in patient care.
Review members take a tour of the SRF Test Lab at Jefferson Lab during the EIC OPA Review on Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2023. (Photo by Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
Closing reception on day four of the Computing in High Energy & Nuclear Physics (CHEP) conference held at the Waterside District in downtown Norfolk, Va., on Tuesday, May 11, 2023. (Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
Large dipole magnets are seen inside the North Linac tunnel during a tour on Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2023. (Photo by Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html
Humans were sure they understood their universe, but this thing, the Bell or EPR paradox, demonstrates it is far more subtle.... www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/EPR_paradox
We are now approximately here in the knowledges www.decoherence.de/
our beliefs in locality of space and even, of time, are obviously wrong
Details of T-mapping equipment used for testing niobium cavities temperatures is seen inside the Vertical Test Area (VTA) in Jefferson Labās SRF Test Lab in Newport News, Va., on Wednesday, May 9, 2024. (Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
Ā© All Rights Reserved: Do not use this image for personal, commercial purposes or in Anyway without my written permission! Doing so is a violation of federal law and violators Will be Prosecuted.
Do not post/promote your Flickr River, or photos on my stream!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry everyone as I will be adding several photos to my stream from my archives that are some of my favorites
~~~
This was one of the first of a handful of my photos that went to Explore way back when, I believe in it was in the early in the year of 2007. However, I had no idea what Explore was then so I didn't realize it until about a year later- Lol
emulsion lift, shot with sx-70 px-70 cool,
my first emulsion lift artwork
I'm still in need of perfecting the lift technique so there aren't any creases
Unassembled cryomodules wait for further work inside the SRF Test Lab at Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Va., on Thursday, June 22, 2023. (Photo by Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
[*] It hums...
[#] It buzzes...
[&] It suddenly just shuts up, so you realize
it was there
to begin with...
This is a VERY Weird photo.~ btw, no this is not a good photo, it is a really horrible photo. What showed up in it, is what I felt was worth saving. ....
_________________________________________
COPYRIGHT- Skyelyte Photography
None of my images may be downloaded, copied, reproduced, manipulated or used on websites, blogs or other media or used in any way without my explicit written permission. THANK YOU!
_________________________________________
I so swear, there is a train that displays in the center of this photo and there was absolutely No Train on these tracks. Further, I did not add this in any way to this photo to make this happen, it occurred naturally from mirroring the original image.
scroll down to view the cropped and enlarged version of the center of this photo
(as well as the photo of how it was originally taken).
I took this photo of 'half' of this tunnel. After I sent this photo to a friend, he told me to hold on while he tried something. He doubled (mirrored) this photo and I couldn't believe what displayed on this photo. In fact, I thought he was pulling my leg and this 'train' couldn't be in the original photo. I was so new to photoshop then that he had to explain to me how to mirror the original image like he did. And indeed, that 'train' is in the original photo because I got the same results by simply mirroring the image then lining them up.
Note: "The train' that displays in the enlarged version of this photo below is located directly in line and beyond the merging train track. Interestingly as well, the foliage on the track took on a bridge appearance. So the 'train' in this photo is located in the center of this photo beyond where the tracks seem to disappear and the trees formed a type of bridge over it. (Not sure if my explanation is clear. let me know.)
I will show the 'ghost train?' in an enlarged cropped version of this photo where a train appeared on the tracks that flat out wasn't there.
Note: This photo is one of the very first photos I ever took when I wanted to try to learn my then new hobby of photography. It shows with the bad lighting in the photo that my skills were not so hot then. However, what I also did not know is how to manipulate photos at all. So, this photo is absolutely not manipulated. This is what came out of the camera. At the time, I had Kodak software that came with the camera. The program enhanced the greens and yellows (it added a bit of saturation) Nothing more has been added to this photo.
~~~~~~~~~~
Note 2- I will try to dig down to my very first archives of photos to find the original of this photo as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On another note: This tunnel was nearly in the back yard of my home for several years (The Horseshoe waterfall that is found on my stream was as well). When I was a kid I used to go through this tunnel nearly everyday with my friend, The tracks were not used even as far back as then well over 20 years ago. Though, my friend and I used to get completely creeped out in this tunnel, especially when we would approach the middle and it is blacker then pitch. Even more fun, bats had dove at us more then once. This tunnel was along our daily track where we started by hopping on the tracks where an old abandoned coal mine was located in Pequabuck CT at the time. We crossed a bridge over the Pequabuck river. I so clearly remember the first time I did it trying to keep my feet solidly on the wood planks of the railroad track that made up this bridge, and being petrified that I would fall through and plummet into the river lol. Later, I became more skilled and I would balance on the narrow track to cross the bridge. To continue our daily hike my friend and I hopped off the bridge on the opposing side of the river and we wandered through the woods that line the railroad tracks, until the woods ended at the Horseshoe (water) Falls. I remember too my favorite part of the woods that were next to the waterfall. It was an area of very tall pine trees. The needles from the trees that scattered below glistened a pure glorious golden carpet under our feet. (Before this area it was always a challenge to get through all the thick over growth of the forest. I loved the pine trees as I only understand now that the needles a natural treasure to provide clearing in the woods.) Just beyond the pine trees that lined the falls, we would then hop back on the track to reach the mile long tunnel. On the other side of the tunnel my friend and I would climb up a steep bank to reach the rural road and walk several miles back home. Those were the good old days when kids could roam freely in this way and no one would think a thing of it. Today, if parents let their kids do this, cops would haul the kids down to the police station after neighbors called them with complaints of 'gangs' loitering in the area. Then, today our parents would be reported to child services for letting us.....???? Be free? It is indeed illegal today to be a free child. In hindsight the tunnel was never all that scary. A world where it is illegal for children to roam beautiful woods and explore like I did, and their parents getting threats of loosing their kids if they let children explore like I did, now that is SCARY to me!!
Rebuilt quadrupole magnets are ready for shipment at Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Va. These rebuilt magnets will be shipped to Brookhaven National Lab to be a part of the Electron Storage Ring for the Electron-Ion Collider. Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2024.
(Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
These magnets came from Argonne National Laboratory, which shipped the 30-year-old Advanced Photon Source (APS) magnets to Brookhaven and Jefferson Lab, where they will be re-purposed for use as part of the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC), a state-of-the-art particle collider being led by those other two labs and that will be built at Brookhaven.
The famous "Schrƶdinger's Cat" thought experiment has a cat placed in a box with a device that has a 50/50 chance of killing the cat, suggesting that after a while the cat would simultaneously be in both possible states: alive and dead, until the box is opened to actually observe the outcome, where it will only be one state or the other. It was not meant to be taken seriously, Schrƶdinger meant it to be an absurd example illustrating the problem he saw with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
If you like this design and would like to see it as a T-shirt, it would be much appreciated if you score it on Threadless. Many Thanks!
---------
ATOMIC COOKIES!
(Yes, they're really made of atoms.)
These are spritz cookies made with custom DIY spritz cookie plates, to show the shapes of the electron probability distributions of hydrogenic atoms in low-lying quantum states. :D
Read more about this project here.
Bonnie and Cloud are drifting across, robbing banks and stealing cars during the Great Depression. They are always in motion through space, burning the candle at both ends. Their exploits always become more violent. They are killers. When they collide with other meteoroids in the zodiacal Cloud, they are finally lost.
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
āāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāāā
Quantum Mechanics redux: "Everything that can happen does."
Like a branching coral, each quantum event spawns a parallel universeā¦. As described in David Deutchās Fabric of Realityā¦ and exploited by a quantum computer... Why compute with just one universe? =)
Garrett Lisi's TED talk just went online.
āThe animated visual poetry of what he is showing in conjunction with what he describes is awesome. Apparently, all of physics is resolved in wild images straight off a spirograph.ā (from ouroboros blog)
Lisi lives and works in a surf van on Maui... see below
Atheist myths debunked.
The development of order.
One of many questionsā atheists are unable to answer is:
Why is there order in the universe?
Order denotes purpose. Purpose requires a purposeful creation, which atheists deny.
There are several laws of nature and principles of science that atheists dearly wish would not exist.
Among these are:
The Law of Cause and Effect, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis.
These laws frustrate all attempts by atheists to replace God with ānaturalismā - their extraordinary belief that everything arose from nothing of its own volition, progressively increasing in order and potential, by entirely, natural processes.
Every natural, origin scenario (naturalism) defies explanation of the existence of order in the universe.
The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the building blocks of the universe, matter and energy, cannot be created by natural means.
The Second Law tells us matter/energy does not increase in order and potential. It tells us that, over time, the natural tendency is towards disorder and decreasing potential, from an obvious, original peak. There cannot be any natural, ongoing, development of order. This is an inconvenient fact for all atheist, natural, origin scenarios, which require the exact opposite; a simple, natural origin of matter/energy from nothing, progressively increasing in order and potential.
In addition to this inconvenient truth is the fact that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A simple, random, chaotic, or disordered origin cannot naturally lead to a complex, ordered result. This causality principle endorses the Second Law.
The Second Law tells us order/complexity/potential does not increase naturally, but tends to decrease, and the Law of Cause and Effect tells us the result of a process cannot be superior to the totality of its original cause or causes. There cannot subsequently be more potential or order in an effect/entity than that which was intrinsic to its origin. Furthermore, the tendency, over time, is for this potential to decrease.
The absolute killer for atheist, origins mythology is that: even if progressively increasing order/potential in the universe was possible, it would still denote purpose.
What inherent principle could support increasing order/improvement as a likely outcome of purely, natural processes?
For example: If, as atheists are compelled to believe, matter/energy automatically progressed, of its own volition, from its origin, to acquire an inherent predisposition for the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis), which (incidentally) violates the Law of Biogenesis, they have to explain how such a predisposition/blueprint for life originated in an unconscious, unplanned, purposeless universe?
They may argue that the origin of life is a just a chance event, but the mechanism/constituents of any chance event must have the intrinsic capacity or capability to produce the chance outcome. A random, number generator may generate an unlikely combination of numbers by chance, but it cannot generate any numbers at all unless it is devised/constructed with the ability to do so. An unlikely event may happen by chance, but only if such an event is intrinsically possible. The atheist ploy, of just ignoring laws of nature, spectacularly fails.
How could the potential for constructive improvement develop autonomously in unplanned, unconscious, purposeless, dumb matter, which originated from nothing? The obvious, rational answer is that it couldnāt.
Atheists often employ bizarre arguments to justify their denial of the universality of laws which refute their beliefs. One of these, which has attained common currency among atheists, is the idea that snowflakes and crystals are examples of natural development of order. And that they somehow contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Here is an exchange I had with an atheist which illustrates this:
An atheist (Aimless Alliterations) in answer to part of my original post where I cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics, wrote this:
āOh, goodness gracious. You tied yourself up in all sorts of knots a while back with this one . You really need to read the science and understand it before making statements like this.
Quoting me:
"The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. "
āReally? Where does it state this?ā
Quoting me again:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered."
āOkay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river systemā.
My reply:
You wrote:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered." Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system."
I am afraid it is you who doesnāt understand the Second Law. What I said is perfectly correct.
There are only 2 ways the effects of entropy can be temporarily decreased, halted or reversed by an input of energy. Either by a directive means or agent guiding the energy input, OR a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way.
Raw (unguided) energy (such as random heat) tends to increase entropy and time makes it worse.
Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings, rather than the opposite, which evolutionists require for abiogenesis.
Regarding the grading of sediment, I am surprised you mention that, because we know that is how most strata are formed, which effectively demolishes the uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record. In this case, the grading is guided by the physical properties of the particles (size, shape, weight etc.) obeying physical laws. And, it will in time, be eroded and disorganised by the same forces that created it.
Abiogenesis (life arising of its own accord by natural processes from sterile matter) certainly does violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it requires a reversal of the effects of entropy.
Atheists and evolutionists often argue that abiogenesis doesnāt violate the Second Law because the Earth is an āopen systemā which allows an input of energy from outside itself, namely the Sun.
They claim that the law of entropy only applies to āclosed systems. This claim is obviously spurious, because firstly, we can observe entropy happening all around us. We are in the open system of the Earth, and yet we are well aware of entropy. We see that the Sun does not halt or reverse entropy, in fact we see the opposite. The raw energy and heat from the Sun, unless harnessed, does damage, things all around us obey the law - they deteriorate, rot, erode and decay, they do not naturally improve. If you paint your house, the Sun, and the weather effects caused by the Sun, will eventually damage the paintwork, it will crack and peel after a few years. The hotter the Sun (the greater the energy input) the quicker it will happen.
Secondly, even if it were true that in an open system, things can defy the law of entropy, natural laws are laws for the whole universe, and the universe, as a whole, is a closed system.
So, what can we deduce from this?
Can the effects of entropy ever be reversed of halted?
Obviously, when you paint your house, you are reversing the bad effects of entropy for a short period, but you have to keep doing it, it is not permanent. Moreover, the energy you are using to repair and temporarily reverse the effects of entropy, is directed and guided by your skill and intelligence.
So, the atheist argument about the Earth being an open system is clearly not a valid one.
To conclude: We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life.
Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?
We certainly don't see abiogenesis happening naturally today, it doesn't even happen artificially in contrived experiments. To claim it happened long ago as a one-off phenomenon in some imagined scenario is not science, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.
Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
āSnowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings...ā
āSo in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?ā
My reply:
āYou wrote:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?"
Oh, for goodness sake! I warned you about scouring the internet searching for answers from quack, atheist websites. They are presented by people as clueless and gullible as the people they are trying to convince, or by people who are deliberately trying to deceive the public for ideological reasons.
Atheists should know that snowflakes, crystals etc. are not examples of the development of order. By regularly presenting them as such, they reveal either their deceitfulness or their complete misunderstanding of science.
There is NO reduction in entropy, the Second Law is NOT, and CANNOT be, violated, as you claim. If you knew even the basics of the Second Law, you would not make a fool of yourself by saying it is.
Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the increase in complexity/order required for the origin of life.
Snowflakes, crystals etc. are simply reverting to the natural state dictated by their atomic structure as they cool. If you knew anything about the Second Law you would know that the natural, intrinsic order of matter is highest at lower temperatures. You would know that the application of raw (undirected) heat/energy increases entropy.
The natural, intrinsic order of substances is greatest at absolute zero.
That does not mean cooling causes a decrease in entropy overall, the heat/energy is transferred from one substance to its surroundings and the entropy is increased in the surroundings.
Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance to abiogenesis, because there is no increase in order above or beyond that which is intrinsic to the inherent, atomic properties of water. By lowering the temperature, the apparent increase in order is not an actual increase in, or the development of order, but simply a restoration at the atomic level to the original, natural, ordered state of water at the lower temperature.
If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed, and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?
According to the ridiculous, atheist analogy of snowflakes and crystals it would be. It only goes to show that atheists will clutch at any straw, however silly, to justify their ideology. They have the audacity to challenge and attempt to undermine natural laws with their nonsense and then accuse those who uphold them of being unscientific and ignorant. Their barefaced cheek never ceases to amaze me.
I repeat my question, which you have failed to answer:
We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life. Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?
The basic, inherent, atomic structure of water, and of all matter, along with natural law, is part of the initial order of the universe which became present at the moment of its creation. It is not developing order, such as that which would be required for abiogenesis or cosmic and biological evolution.ā
Atheist reply:
āYou really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.
Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance.
But I'll tell you what .........rather than carry on with this nonsense I'll refer you to a very useful site that you (and anyone else) can access and it'll tell you what entropy is and how it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't talk about origin of life or anything like that. It uses quite simple language and you need to read it and UNDERSTAND it.
entropysimple.oxy.edu/ā
My reply:
You wrote:
"You asked for references to self-replicating information. There are many to choose from but here you go. Enjoy the bed-time reading."
There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun. So please stop insulting my intelligence, I have seen all this stuff before. I asked you to give me examples yourself, a simple enough request. I don't want links to internet sites (or long copy and pasted tracts) which can be found on the internet to justify virtually anything. What is your problem with actually answering questions yourself?
You wrote:
"You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.
Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance."
You accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law, after your astonishing, earlier statement:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible."
You, who wants to claim that (what Einstein called the premier law in science) can be violated have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law. Unbelievable!
The reason I used the word 'chance' is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject, which obviously doesn't include you.
Only DIRECTED energy can enable a temporary decrease in entropy, it does NOT HAPPEN by CHANCE. There has to be a guiding principle or agent either: 1) acting directly on the energy source - or: 2) a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy. A decrease in entropy doesn't happen randomly or as a 'chance' event.
You believe the atheist nonsense that snowflakes/crystals are an example of an increase in order, which demonstrates your dire knowledge of the subject.
If you knew anything about the Second Law you would not have cited such a spurious example, apparently you are willing to believe anything you read on atheist/evolutionist websites as though it is gospel.
Perhaps you can address the question I asked in my last post: If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape? But I doubt it, answering questions is not exactly your forte. You would rather nit pick about the qualifications of anyone who disagrees with atheist pseudoscience.
Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
āThere you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun."
āWell you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself.
If you were aware of such research would you have written the nonsense you pour forth? ............Probably.
You also appear to have some sort of cognitive dissonance as far as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy. I provide you with an excellent resource and you fail to take advantage of it to understand the subject matter properly.
That really is astonishing!
All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy.ā
My reply:
You wrote:
"Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself."
No! You are either too lazy to answer any questions yourself, or you are unable to. I suspect it is the latter, because you have already demonstrated from previous remarks that your knowledge of the subject is absolutely dire. Yet you insist on continuing to try to bluff it out, by either copying or pasting other people's work or posting links to anything you think supports your argument.
I'm afraid you have been sussed.
You have already put your foot in it - big time, by citing snowflakes and crystals as an example of developing order.
You mistakenly thought all you had to do to win an argument was to parrot stuff direct from an atheist/evolutionist website. When, in fact, parroting the sort of pseudoscientific rubbish that atheist/evolutionist websites are filled with, is a sure way of making yourself look extremely foolish.
You wrote:
"All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy"
What sort of damn-fool answer is that?
I asked: "If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?"
IS IT AN INCREASE IN ORDER OR NOT?
Please answer the question.
Because if it isn't an increase in order, it completely demolishes both your snowflake/crystal argument and the credibility of atheist/evolutionist so-called 'science'.
No wonder you don't want to answer.
**************************************************
Four and a half years later.
I am still waiting for any atheist to answer the rubber ball question?
The full debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/16208667768
___________________________________
Another argument employed by atheists to justify their denial of the Law of Cause and Effect is āquantum mechanicsā.
Their claim being; because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused.
This is complete nonsense, quantum effects may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED, physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous, because whatever caused the whole universe, is the original cause of everything within it.
Furthermore, just because directly traceable causes cannot be determined, doesnāt mean a direct cause doesnāt exist.
For example:
It can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isnāt. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved ā such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance.
So, just because, in some instances, direct causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesnāt mean there is no cause.
Quantum effects - The smoke and mirrors trick.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35908166441
Evolution, multi-million year timescale refured.
Rapid strata formation - field evidence.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/albums/72157635944...
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
Artificial light shines along an eight-celled niobium cavity photographed at the Low Energy Recirculator Facility (LERF) at Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Va., on Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2024. (Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
This particulate cavity is created at Jefferson Lab out of a metal called Niobium.
Niobium, at room temperature, has electrical resistance and behaves just like copper. If, however, niobium is cooled to very low temperatures, it loses all electrical resistance and becomes what scientists call a superconductor. Since superconductors have no electrical resistance, electrical currents flowing through them do not lose any energy and do not produce any waste heat. If no heat is created, the cavities can not heat up and the accelerator does not need to shut down to allow them to cool. The use of superconductive niobium cavities allows the accelerator to provide a continuous beam of electrons to the experiments.
320/365
Forget about keeping up with the Jones'! Its hard enough to keep up with my own head! So much to do within the day. Two wrong things have happened since I've grown up to be an adult. One, the sky seems closer and two, time seems to go faster and faster!! Not right, just not right!!
A set of beer labels I made for a fictitious company (the Third Eye Brewery) as part of a SCAD student design project. It was a lot of fun. The label art/names were nods to those ideas and individuals who have challenged historical paradigms.
THE CELESTIAL ZOO is a tour of 210 places of interest in our Universe, describing each landscape with curious facts that are a must-know when planning our trips through the Cosmos. Featuring the most bizarre galaxies, stars, planets, and other weirdos of all colors and shapes. The information contained is updated as of July 2020.
The circular view of the universe in the middle was assembled by Pablo Carlos Budassi by combining logarithmic astronomical maps from Princeton University and images from NASA.
Using this image as a map and the accumulated knowledge of 400 years of modern astronomy, we will spend a couple of minutes in each known world and if we come out alive, we will have the most up-to-date knowledge about the celestial wildlife and maybe, in the next trip, we can be the tour guides ourselves.
Last chance: Take flight or go extinct! āØāØāØš
š GET THE CELESTIAL ZOO HD Poster š bit.ly/thecelestialzooposter
GET a Photographic Print š bit.ly/thecelestialzooprint
DOWNLOAD in HD to print yourself or to remix š payhip.com/b/QE8F
Rebuilt quadrupole magnets are ready for shipment at Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Va. These rebuilt magnets will be shipped to Brookhaven National Lab to be a part of the Electron Storage Ring for the Electron-Ion Collider. Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2024.
(Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
These magnets came from Argonne National Laboratory, which shipped the 30-year-old Advanced Photon Source (APS) magnets to Brookhaven and Jefferson Lab, where they will be re-purposed for use as part of the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC), a state-of-the-art particle collider being led by those other two labs and that will be built at Brookhaven.
Taken for the Active Assignment Weekly! group. This week's assignment: Artistic Motion Blur.
I was really thinking hard about where the intentional use of blur could make sense in a picture. Eventually I remembered the "Uncertainty Principle" of Heisenberg that states "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa". This indeterminableness of an object I used on an imagined self-portrait of W. Heisenberg (he was such a show-off). Only few people know that he used to have such a beard for a short period of time ;-).
Probably you need to be a terminal stage nerd to laugh about this. I did.
What it took: Used the multistrobe on my flash for the first time. Set the power to 1/8th, and shot into the ceiling with 20 Hz for 1/5th of a second (ergo 4 flashes) resulting in those four "quantum states"...
In post-processing I converted to sepia, replaced the body with a sharp version, added the formula on the tie as well as a free frame from the net.
Yes, this is pretty large.
Members of the Virginia Tech Board of Visitors take a tour of the Department of Energy's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab) on Monday, Aug. 22, 2022. Before the tour, Jefferson Lab Deputy Director David Dean gives the visiting members an overview of the lab discussing research, facilities, and general knowldge at the Virginia Tech Newport News Center. (Photo by Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
inside Hall D at Jefferson Lab in Newport News, Va., on Jun. 7, 2024. (Photo by Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) Physics Professor Liping Gan
Hall D is dedicated to the operation of a large-acceptance detector for experiments with a broad-band, linearly-polarized photon beam produced by ~12 GeV electrons from CEBAF.
Components are placed within the braising furnace inside the Furnace Room at the SRF Test Lab at Jefferson Lab on Thursday, Dec. 1, 2022. (Photo by Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
Cryomodules line the north linac section of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at Jefferson Lab in Newport News Va., on May 4, 2023. (Aileen Devlin | Jefferson Lab)
Stephen Hawking's Quantum Perambulator has made pan-dimesional travel child's play ....
Collage
Photoshop CS3
Copyright Ā© 2013 by Ian J MacDonald. Permission required for any use. All rights reserved
Tellus (latin) "Goddess of the Earth"
The entire set: www.flickr.com/photos/ianmacdonald/sets/72157636356726526/
These illustrations are meant to represent the elements of the periodic table. The drawings are influenced by the Art Deco friezes seen on buildings of the 1920s and 30s - deities were used to represent the essence of the ideas being represented; such as industries, scientific ideas, civic ideals etc...
While the Art Deco style is an influence I did not want to directly copy what has been already been done or hang slavishly onto examples of Art Deco. I am endeavoring to work in the style, imagining creating something new in that moment when Art Deco was current.
Each element is represented by a goddess embedded in a representational background. The deities are purposely done in a sketchy manner - opposite to the solid background - to represent the quantum mechanical nature of atoms and particles. In quantum mechanics particles have no meaning as solid defined units of matter but are statistical entities described by complex (literally and mathematically) wave functions that provide us with the probable positions and energies of particles and systems of particles - an unsettling prospect for many people.
I represent the essence of the elements by goddesses for several reasons. One, they are more interesting, complex, beautiful to draw than males. Secondly it is more challenging to represent the essence of the elements in a feminine rather than a male manner. Unfortunately, science and chemistry has been male dominated and as such so has the naming and descriptions of the elements. These are meant to somewhat challenge the viewer by juxtaposing the female essence with male dominance in science. It would be too simple and cliche to represent iron, for example, as a Mars-like God. Some of the elements are quite dangerous to living creatures and it is far more challenging to express that in a feminine manner.
I was asked if people would get past the nudity. The answer is "No". But that is OK. I want the beauty and vulnerability to attract attention. Science is after all quite beautiful if one takes the time to stop fighting the math and difficulties in understanding, and immerse themselves in it to appreciate just how weird and strange nature really is be - far beyond anything humans could come up with. The nudity somewhat represents the primal, elemental nature of the different atoms. Clothing, such as suit of armor for iron, is a distraction and again too simple and cliche.
But all in all the representation is not direct. Some influence comes from the elements' names - often from properties of the elements, literary references, where they were isolated, political rivalries, honors for discoverers etc... Some influence comes from the bulk properties of the elements such as harness, conductivity, toxicity, density, etc.... Some of the pieces are inspired by the major uses for the element - in industrial processes, in natural biological processes, nuclear reactions, nucleosynthesis, in everyday objects, and so on.
This is a work in progress and my second go at it. I have been tinkering at this for some time and I think these are closer to the vision in my head than what I have done earlier. Enjoy.