A Big Prick in the Balloon of the Big Bang
Posted: 28 August 2007 01:35 AM   [ Ignore ]
Old Timer
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2006-08-29

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/08/24/universe.hole.ap/index.html

“Astronomers have stumbled upon a tremendous hole in the universe. That’s got them scratching their heads about what’s just not there.”

Apparently, they have found a void in space that is 1 BILLION light-years wide. Takes a lot of time for a void that large to get emptied, when you consider that matter can’t go lightspeed, and the universe is supposed to have begun with a large, relatively smooth explosion. Perhaps its longer than the predicted age of the Universe using the Big Bang/Inflation model. I don’t think dark matter and dark energy is gonna help the Big-Bangers this time.

Money quote: “This is 1,000 times the volume of what we sort of expected to see in terms of a typical void,” said Minnesota astronomy professor Lawrence Rudnick, author of the paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal. “It’s not clear that we have the right word yet ... This is too much of a surprise.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2007 07:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Old Timer
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-03-15

Hello All

Why do people waste their time even discussing the Big Bang Theory?. It has become the crank pot theory in the last 8 decades.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2007 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
New Friend
RankRank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2007-03-24

Dear Glenn,

Your net link is a very happy one, given that this large void cannot be explained by Big Bang theory. This note however is just to point out that when you speak of “speed of light” considerations what you are really referring to is the fact that electromagnetic interactions between particles keep them at mutual speeds below that of the velocity of light. When cosmological questions are considered however, there is no inherent limit to the speed of motion or information. The issue of electromagnetic mass that increases with velocity over and above ordinary momentum and kinetic energy should NOT be generalized to non-electromagnetic - or perhaps more correctly - sub-electromagnetic phenomena.

Non-electromagnetic phenomena, notably quantum nonlocality, essentially move with infinite speed. See US Patent #6,057,541 by Richard Steenblik who has demonstrated how the polarization of light is entangled so can travel at an essentially infinite speed. See also my profile for another independent patent as proof. Better still, find the internet sites relevant to Gunther Nimtz in Germany who has once again demonstrated that quantum tunneling transmits information faster than light.

The point of course is that Einstein’s relativity has just about run its course. It is an integral part of belief in the Big Bang, the demise of the former ensuring the fall of the latter - at least if we can get away from the static thinking of Arp & Hoyle and the all-pervasive mathematical ‘phenomena’ that actually arise from belief in relativity theory e.g. black holes, axions, magnetic monopoles, sterile neutrinos etc. etc.

Yours faithfully

Mark Lofts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2007 11:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Old Timer
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2006-08-29

I was under the impression that entanglement could not transmit information, aka two photons could be entangled, but any attempt to manipulate one to send information to the other would break the entanglement. Am I wrong here? (I am not a physicist, just an admirer of physicists.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 August 2007 11:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Old Timer
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2006-08-29
pluto - 28 August 2007 11:18 AM

Hello All

Why do people waste their time even discussing the Big Bang Theory?. It has become the crank pot theory in the last 8 decades.

Because most people believe it, and have no idea what the word plasma means (except in reference to blood).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2007 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
New Friend
RankRank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2007-03-24

Dear Glenn,

Unfortunately, the view you mention in your email is still the commonly held one. That quantum entanglement cannot transmit information is still a sacred cow - its sacredness enshrined by special relativity (SR) which claims that nothing, not even information, can travel faster than light.

This view is totally wrong - and not merely because Steenblik’s or my patent say so. Rather, the physicists have proved this themselves - but only as a side effect from other experiments.

As you will see with my patent, my initial application was rejected because I could “show no evidence for the phenomenon.” That I resubmitted and succeeded was especially because of an excellent patent attorney at Merchant & Gould in Minneapolis - but even he needed evidence to go on! The evidence that I uncovered to clinch it was an article that showed that the orbital angular momentum (OAM) of light was a quantum phenomenon. This article is “Entanglement of the Orbital Angular Momentum States of Photons” by Alois Mair, Alipasha Vaziri, Gregor Weihs & Anton Zeilinger, Nature 412 (19th July 2001) 313-316. Comparing figure 4 with figure 1 there you will see how OAM, transmitted by quantum entanglement, alters the position of reception of the ‘receiver’ detector. The deduced two dimensional pattern is shown adjacent in figure 4.

This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that information has been transmitted through quantum entanglement. That it might not appear so, given that they used coincidence detectors, is only because these latter were needed to weed out the signal which comprised only 2% of the photons overall. More importantly, it would seem that the researchers themselves have not yet realized the implications of their discovery.

Please accept my apology for pushing this hard science on you, Glenn, but as you are among knowledgeable colleagues you have nothing to fear from me!

Yours faithfully

Mark Lofts

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2007 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
New Friend
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  21
Joined  2006-10-11

Mark Lofts, So the second photon is observed to have been changed in less time after the decision to manipulate the first than it would take light to travel from the point at which the decision is made to where the second photon is observed to have been changed?

If not, one cannot say the information travelled faster than light, because one cannot say that the information travelled from the first photon to the second - all that can be said is that when a process modifies the first photon, the system as a whole (including the modification mechanism) demonstrates a modification of the second photon at the same time as the modification of the first photon.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 September 2007 03:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Old Timer
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  107
Joined  2006-10-01
Glenn Millam - 28 August 2007 05:35 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/08/24/universe.hole.ap/index.html

Here is another version of basically the same story.

http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/astronomers-find-huge-hole-in-universe/20070825162909990001

 Signature 

Jolly Roger winkX

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 01:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Old Timer
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2006-08-29

“A method and apparatus are disclosed for controlling the quantum state probability distribution of one quantum object of a pair of correlated quantum objects, which include providing a pair of correlated quantum objects, each of said objects having a uniform quantum state probability distribution, providing a system for controlling the quantum state probability distribution of the one quantum object by using said controlling system to choose the probability distribution of the observable quantum states of the other quantum object of the pair of correlated quantum objects, using said controlling system to choose the probability distribution of the quantum states of the other quantum particle, choosing whether to observe the quantum state of the other quantum object, and subsequently observing the quantum state of the one quantum object of said pair of correlated quantum objects to determine if said prepared quantum state probability distribution of said one quantum object has been altered by an observation of the quantum state of the other quantum object.”

That, sir, is one serious run-on sentence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 01:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Old Timer
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2006-08-29

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6057541-description.html

This is the page on Patent storm for Mark Loft’s invention, where you can also read that amazing sentence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 01:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Old Timer
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2006-08-29

Not to go on about that sentence, but it is pretty interesting. It is a perfect example of patent legalese, where legibility is thrown to the wind for the sake of legal exactness.

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/Resources/la/Shorter sentences for better writing/Good sentence length.htm

This link states that average sentences should be around 15-20 words. That sentence has the word “quantum” in it 21 times. That is almost as interesting, to me, as the amazing thing the patent describes.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 01:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Old Timer
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2006-08-29
MARK LOFTS - 30 August 2007 03:57 PM

This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that information has been transmitted through quantum entanglement. That it might not appear so, given that they used coincidence detectors, is only because these latter were needed to weed out the signal which comprised only 2% of the photons overall. More importantly, it would seem that the researchers themselves have not yet realized the implications of their discovery.

That is just stunning. If this is true, it undoes about a centuries’ work in physics. So, when do you get this in Scientific American or on Nova?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 November 2009 04:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Old Timer
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  110
Joined  2007-03-15

G’day

Information trasmitted

TOPICAL REVIEW: The gravitational-wave signature of core-collapse supernovae  
Mar-09  
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CQGra..26f3001O 
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2009CQGra..26f3001O&link_type=PREPRINT&db_key=AST

We review the ensemble of anticipated gravitational-wave (GW) emission processes in stellar core collapse and postbounce core-collapse supernova evolution. We discuss recent progress in the modeling of these processes and summarize most recent GW signal estimates. In addition, we present new results on the GW emission from postbounce convective overturn and protoneutron star g-mode pulsations based on axisymmetric radiation-hydrodynamic calculations. Galactic core-collapse supernovae are very rare events, but within 3 5 Mpc from Earth, the rate jumps to 1 in ~2 years. Using the set of currently available theoretical gravitational waveforms, we compute upper-limit optimal signal-to-noise ratios based on current and advanced LIGO/GEO600/VIRGO noise curves for the recent SN 2008bk which exploded at ~3.9 Mpc. While initial LIGOs cannot detect GWs emitted by core-collapse events at such a distance, we find that advanced LIGO-class detectors could put significant upper limits on the GW emission strength for such events. We study the potential occurrence of the various GW emission processes in particular supernova explosion scenarios and argue that the GW signatures of neutrino-driven, magneto-rotational, and acoustically-driven core-collapse SNe may be mutually exclusive. We suggest that even initial LIGOs could distinguish these explosion mechanisms based on the detection (or non-detection) of GWs from a galactic core-collapse supernova.

Profile