The answer to Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: BadgersHat
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 22:38
VIEWED: 15240
PAGE 10 of 11
Actually, I had thought the same thing - that so-called "paired" quarks could (theoretically) be separated by large distances, yet when the spin of one of the quarks is altered, the other switches instantaneously. Of course, it's been 5+ years since I've read any QM, and I could be a bit fuzzy.
"Be ashamed to die before you have scored some victory for humanity." -- Horace Mann
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Entangled pairs can know about each others states instantaneously irrespective of distance. This has been proven in the lab.
You can't send meaningful data, as far as I know, but it does open interesting questions as to the nature of this link, and whether it could be harnessed in some way?
Or you could get in to some more bizarre stuff like the EPR bridge (wormholes)...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And the sum is this: 'Intelligent design' is not the issue. It's merely one tool - a wedge - the religious right has selected for their war on civil society.
Wow... That's just the perfect way of putting it! You do definitely have a way with words
Onto the religion thing.
I think that when I look at religion, I must always draw a line between the religion and its implementation.
I noticed something about religions while I studied a number of them. They all have basically the same moral/ethical standards (ie indiscriminant killing is wrong, etc), but they go about getting people to behave "properly" differently.
For instance, using the killing issue above, Christanity puts fear into you by saying, if you do it then you'll burn forever in eternal damnation. The Wiccan rede on the other hand states, "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will" coupled with the law of three. Both don't want you to kill, but one uses fear and the other just states the consequences of the actions and you make the choice.
Now as for implementation, Wicca is rather the same as its religion as it is mostly solitary practitioners or small groups.
Christanity is in large groups with a definite figure head that yearns for more and more control.
For these reasons, I don't take issue with religion. I take issue with organized religion.
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree entirely Sigma...
Our views on religion are almost identical 
.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I've missed any point you've made, let me know.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Sorry about the poor grammer, my Brain tends to work quicker than my typing and I'm dyslexic, so things can get a little, *ahem* hard for people to understand sometimes.
I do it to sometimes (though the wife thinks it more than I do).
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
My point was:
If there is a mechanism for our brains to exploit them QM allows the possibllity for farseeing and telepathy.
If/then. You can't just state an if/then, without some sort of evidence/proof. Just because you say it's true, doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
"""
QM has shown that information can be transmitted between particles with no 'physical' link faster than the speed of light, for instance.
"""
And this is just plain wrong. QM says that information can not travel faster than the speed of light. If you want to get into details, I can post an excerpt from a QM book I have (if you understand LaTeX that is).
Nope, your thinking of special relativity. Special relativity says that the speed of light is the 'speed limit' to the universe. QM as far as I know says nothing about maximum speeds of information, at least
As a side not General Relativity does allow something to travel between two points in less time than a ray of light would take.
Now as for information traveling faster than the speed of light in QM, I refer you to entanglement. Information about the particle states is being transmitted, although 'classical' infomation can't be transmitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Sorry dude, it's time to bring out the wife (Theoretical Physicist in Quantum Information Theory).
"""
You're right that the 'speed limit' comes from SR and not QM. Note, though, that the speed of light is not a universial speed limit. It just means that you cannot accelerate something beyond the speed of light. In principle, things can move beyond the speed of light.
But, new research in QM confirms that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. If you think of the experiments called teleportation, there's always a classical information channel included which requires information transfer at sub-luminal velocity.
Now for entanglement. This is quite tricky and any attempt to describe it in plain english will probably lead to misunderstandings. If you read the wikipedia entry carefully though, you will not find the statement that "Information about the particle states is being transmitted" since this is exactly not what is happening. Entanglement tells you something about the information you can extract from a system by measurement on one of its parts. But, to assume that, triggered by the measurement, information is transmitted to another part of the system is not justified. This is usually caused by thinking classically about a quantum system.
Concerning your "my point was...", QM does not exclude farseeing and telepathy. But, it does not predict them either. And there are other parts of our physical/scientific worldview that do not exactly support these things. However, it's a valid wild speculation. It reminds me of Penrose who thinks that since we don't understand the brain, and Quantum Gravity, both must be somehow connected. Interesting, but a little far fetched.
"""
I add: Just because two things aren't understood, doesn't mean they are correlated.
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I agree entirely Sigma...
Our views on religion are almost identical
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
At least we agree on something
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
If/then. You can't just state an if/then, without some sort of evidence/proof. Just because you say it's true, doesn't make it so.
Okay, I see what your saying, but your taking my statement out of context. It was a rebuke to the assumption that these things cannot possibly happen because science says so. QM says no such thing, as is stated later in your post, and to my knowledge neither does any other current theory. I go on to say:
"Once even the rising and the setting of the Sun was a supernatural event, the changing of the seasons were controlled by gods, but now they are simply scientifically explained natural phenomena."
Which puts my point a little better no?
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You're right that the 'speed limit' comes from SR and not QM. Note, though, that the speed of light is not a universial speed limit. It just means that you cannot accelerate something beyond the speed of light. In principle, things can move beyond the speed of light.
Yep thats why I put speed limit in quote
. You probably know this already but I'll state it for others:You can't accelerate anything with a finite rest mass beyond the speed of light because of the mass/energy coefficent. When a body accelerates to relatavistic speeds its mass increases, requiring more and more energy to continue accelerating it, and at some point this energy becomes infinte.
In order for a body to travel FTL wouldn't it require that body to have a negative rest mass? Isn't that the basis for the theoretical Tachyon?
As I said General Relativity allows for FTL, as it does not prevent objects from moving between two points in space in less time than it would take a ray of light. The Alcubierre warp takes adavantage of this for instance.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
But, new research in QM confirms that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. If you think of the experiments called teleportation, there's always a classical information channel included which requires information transfer at sub-luminal velocity.
Yep I know about Quantum Teleportation, and I noted in my post classical information cannot be sent.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Now for entanglement. This is quite tricky and any attempt to describe it in plain english will probably lead to misunderstandings. If you read the wikipedia entry carefully though, you will not find the statement that "Information about the particle states is being transmitted" since this is exactly not what is happening. Entanglement tells you something about the information you can extract from a system by measurement on one of its parts. But, to assume that, triggered by the measurement, information is transmitted to another part of the system is not justified. This is usually caused by thinking classically about a quantum system.
As I understood it the Bell Lab had distingiushed that it was not a 'local variable' that allowed the correlations to exist. This led me to believe that there must be some form of information sharing existing between entangled pairs about each others states. If this is wrong I stand corrected, my knowledge of QM is far more 'in passing'.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Concerning your "my point was...", QM does not exclude farseeing and telepathy. But, it does not predict them either. And there are other parts of our physical/scientific worldview that do not exactly support these things. However, it's a valid wild speculation. It reminds me of Penrose who thinks that since we don't understand the brain, and Quantum Gravity, both must be somehow connected. Interesting, but a little far fetched.
I see the point on farseeing, but not necessarilly telepathy. If I may digress for a moment:
The brain kicks out EM radiation, we can pick it up on ECG, so its scientifically proven that it exists, no? Why couldn't someone elses brain pickup the EM signals from anothers brain, and whats to say th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wish the whole discussion would be left out of public schools, I don't see it having any real bearing on a students career life outside of being a handy icebreaker topic at the water cooler.
Let parents teach creation if they choose and let professors or someone teach the evolution.
Aux
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HOW DARE YOU BRING US BACK ON TOPIC!
only joking... yeah, not sure you'll find much opposition to that, how could anyone see ID as a science that should be taught?
But then I'm biased...
Really I see our present understanding as a step... the thing is 'most' religous people see their opinion as absolute...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406231032.htm
Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.
How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems -- those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.
"Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism," said Thornton. "New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation -- old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions."
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME