The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[charter.rights]

Clearly you have not, because tunneling and how neutrinos seem to pass through normal matter have nothing in common with each other.

Please save me the post hoc rationalizations.

I'm sorry. From a guy who has shown near total ignorance on the topics of quantum mechanics and elementary particles, this criticism doesn't exactly seem very biting.

As Carl Sagan once said:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Why would you even want to use neutrinos to communicate over large distances, when you have photons, which are far easier to discriminate and manipulate?

Because neutrinos go faster.

[GostHacked]

Because neutrinos go faster.

???????? So, faster than light?

[ToadBrother]

Because neutrinos go faster.

No, they go slower. Because there appears to be a slight rest mass, their velocity is slightly under c (the speed of light) in a vacuum, whereas photons move at the speed of light.

Come on, this is basic particle physics here, the kind of thing you read in a first year college textbook or in an article of Scientific American.

[Oleg Bach]

It's great to see that you two are making a connection between the spiritual realm and that of science - Not many are bright enough to explore that far.

[ToadBrother]

It's great to see that you two are making a connection between the spiritual realm and that of science - Not many are bright enough to explore that far.

When you aren't constrained by evidence, it's all sunshine and flowers.

[charter.rights]

No, they go slower. Because there appears to be a slight rest mass, their velocity is slightly under c (the speed of light) in a vacuum, whereas photons move at the speed of light.

Come on, this is basic particle physics here, the kind of thing you read in a first year college textbook or in an article of Scientific American.

Sure they do go slower in a head to head..... But they do not seem to have opaque mass as obstructions and tend to go right through them, while photons bounce off of the smallest of masses. They could be a faster form of communication than photons for that reason.

Edited February 12, 2010 by charter.rights

[jbg]

There are a lot of questions about Creationism in the other co-related evolution threads, so this thread was created to avoid too much clutters, for easy follow-ups, references....and because it deserves to have its own thread.

Be forewarned: most, if not all of the sources will come from Scientists-Christian Apologetics. I, myself, am learning about them as I go along with this.

We'll begin from the BEGINNING.

The following are excerpts from Richard L. Deem:

An excerpt from the opening post. How far we've degenerated.

[cybercoma]

I especially like it when people who know nothing about a particular area carry on as though they do.

[GostHacked]

Sure they do go slower in a head to head..... But they do not seem to have opaque mass as obstructions and tend to go right through them, while photons bounce off of the smallest of masses. They could be a faster form of communication than photons for that reason.

But Neutrinos pass through everything. How you propose we harness them with a communication device when there is essentially nothing out there that can detect (aside from the SNO) let alone stop a neutrino in order to harness any communications on it. Also, how do you do that with a particle that has no charge and essentially no mass?

The SNO can detect neutrinos but it can't stop them.

[Shwa]

Nice try Bozo!

Clearly you have not, because tunneling and how neutrinos seem to pass through normal matter have nothing in common with each other...

Please save me the post hoc rationalizations.

Now you are just being unreasonable and looking for a pissing match. OK, it's Friday, I am game. So let's review shall we?

From Feb 02:

TB says:

The probability of an electron tunneling through an extraordinarily small surface is very high, the probability of it tunneling through, say, a three foot brick wall, is all but impossible.

Then CR says:

Neutrinos as an example have very little trouble traveling (or tunneling as you say) through 3 foot brick walls, even a mile of rock or even 1000 tons of heavy water.

(emphasis is mine)

Merriam-Webster say:

Main Entry: 2tunnel

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): tunneled or tunnelled; tunnel·ing or tunnel·ling\ˈtən-liŋ, ˈtə-nəl-iŋ\

Date: 1795

intransitive verb

1 : to make or use a tunnel

2 physics : to pass through a potential barrier <electrons tunneling through an insulator between semiconductors>

So TB is what sense were you using the word "tunneling" to describe the possibility of an electron passing through a 3-foot brick wall? Were you strictly referring to the quantum tunneling affect or were you referring to something passing through a potential barrier? Because I believe CR was referring to the latter by the use of his language, especially the part "...or tunnelling as you say." Nevermind the current research into the quantum tunneling affect with regard to other particles, let's stick to your usage pertaining to electrons. So please, enlighten...

I'm sorry. From a guy who has shown near total ignorance on the topics of quantum mechanics and elementary particles, this criticism doesn't exactly seem very biting.

Let's go back a few pages:

TB says:

Quantum mechanics is about the behavior of subatomic particles, it's not about the "connection between all things".

Yikes! How many pages ago was that? It is nice to know that a wiley supergenius like you has the awesome power to dismiss grand unified theory or the theory of everything just like that. I suppose that the leading physics theorists are not to touch QM unless they have your permission? Or is it that you cannot abstract topical inferences from complex discussions?

Face it sonny, you've shown yourself to be a high functioning tautologist with a little bit of knowledge and even less substance.

Why would you even want to use neutrinos to communicate over large distances, when you have photons, which are far easier to discriminate and manipulate?

LOFL! "whoosh!"

[M.Dancer]

The SNO can detect neutrinos but it can't stop them.

Send them in morse code...?

1 short neutrinos, 1 long ....

-.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. .. --. . - ..-. .-. .. . ... .-- .. - .... - .... .- - ..--..

[GostHacked]

Send them in morse code...?

1 short neutrinos, 1 long ....

-.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. .. --. . - ..-. .-. .. . ... .-- .. - .... - .... .- - ..--..

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

Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the Sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms. There are three types, or "flavors", of neutrinos: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos and tauon neutrinos (or tau neutrino); each type also has a corresponding antiparticle, called antineutrinos. Electron neutrinos (or antineutrinos) are generated whenever neutrons change into protons (or protons into neutrons), the two forms of beta decay. Interactions involving neutrinos are mediated by the weak interaction.

Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun, and more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second.[1]

If you were to send neutrinos one at a time or in Morse code. you'd need something like the Sun or a nuclear reactor to generate neutrinos. But then how do you harness them to send along a certain path? No charge, and very very little mass.

Shwa

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

Tautology may refer to:

* Tautology (rhetoric), repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words to say the same thing twice, especially where the additional words fail to provide additional clarity and meaning.

* Tautology (logic), a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid

Which kind are you talking about?

[Shwa]

Which kind are you talking about?

Both!

[ToadBrother]

Send them in morse code...?

1 short neutrinos, 1 long ....

-.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. .. --. . - ..-. .-. .. . ... .-- .. - .... - .... .- - ..--..

Great, now considering that you'd probably be capturing far less than 1% of the neutrinos in a collector, statistically, even with constant rebroadcast, you might catch one out of every billion.

[ToadBrother]

Sure they do go slower in a head to head..... But they do not seem to have opaque mass as obstructions and tend to go right through them, while photons bounce off of the smallest of masses. They could be a faster form of communication than photons for that reason.

The problem being that they are exceedingly difficult to capture. You'd probably need a detector the size of star, and even then it would be extraordinarily spotty. For a particle to be used for communication, there has to be a way to intercept it with reasonable consistency and accuracy. In every possible way neutrinos do not fit the bill.

[ToadBrother]

Yikes! How many pages ago was that? It is nice to know that a wiley supergenius like you has the awesome power to dismiss grand unified theory or the theory of everything just like that. I suppose that the leading physics theorists are not to touch QM unless they have your permission? Or is it that you cannot abstract topical inferences from complex discussions?

They don't need my permission, they, unlike you, know what they're talking about. You're not going to get me to validate your ignorance, no matter how much you insult me. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[M.Dancer]

Great, now considering that you'd probably be capturing far less than 1% of the neutrinos in a collector, statistically, even with constant rebroadcast, you might catch one out of every billion.

I hope you don't think I was being serious....

I can see it know, Captain Kirk tells Uhura to send out a subspace signal asking for french fries.....and tells her to send it is morse code...

[charter.rights]

But Neutrinos pass through everything. How you propose we harness them with a communication device when there is essentially nothing out there that can detect (aside from the SNO) let alone stop a neutrino in order to harness any communications on it. Also, how do you do that with a particle that has no charge and essentially no mass?

The SNO can detect neutrinos but it can't stop them.

Bits make bytes.

The science is certainly still out there. However, since you have just offered me the opportunity to postulate an answer to your question, perhaps we don't "capture them" but find a way to "read them" as they fly by us. This could be done theoretically, by expanding the particle collider function (once they get working) to bombard a space with radioactive gases, and then measuring the resulting decay rates; or perhaps if tritiated heavy water was used in the SNO, we'll find that the neutrinos can be read through different intensities of resulting light. There ARE possibilities that would need to be examined if it was determined that neutrinos could be used in this way.

But it does open new possibilities.

[GostHacked]

Bits make bytes.

The science is certainly still out there. However, since you have just offered me the opportunity to postulate an answer to your question, perhaps we don't "capture them" but find a way to "read them" as they fly by us. This could be done theoretically, by expanding the particle collider function (once they get working) to bombard a space with radioactive gases, and then measuring the resulting decay rates; or perhaps if tritiated heavy water was used in the SNO, we'll find that the neutrinos can be read through different intensities of resulting light. There ARE possibilities that would need to be examined if it was determined that neutrinos could be used in this way.

But it does open new possibilities.

If you can't harness them, you can't send information along them. Even if you passively receive neutrinos in a detector of some kind, that does not solve the ability to send information using neutrinos. Communications are controlled, neutrinos can't be controlled the way our technology is now.

Even if you piggy back on the neutrino, you are at the will of the neutrino and just there along for the ride.

Sure in the future we might be able to (key word is 'might') but how do you control a neutrally charged particle with the tiniest mass. Unless you can impose a charge on them, or some way to control them through gravity, you'd have some luck. But since they are able to escape the Sun's gravitational pull and fly through us and the earth with ease. I'd say the neutrino is a dud for any kind of communications.

[M.Dancer]

Don't radio waves travel at the speed of light?

It seems that the effort to find another medium to send messages that would travel no faster would be an exercise worthy of any civil servant.

[charter.rights]

If you can't harness them, you can't send information along them. Even if you passively receive neutrinos in a detector of some kind, that does not solve the ability to send information using neutrinos. Communications are controlled, neutrinos can't be controlled the way our technology is now.

Even if you piggy back on the neutrino, you are at the will of the neutrino and just there along for the ride.

Sure in the future we might be able to (key word is 'might') but how do you control a neutrally charged particle with the tiniest mass. Unless you can impose a charge on them, or some way to control them through gravity, you'd have some luck. But since they are able to escape the Sun's gravitational pull and fly through us and the earth with ease. I'd say the neutrino is a dud for any kind of communications.

You answer to your own problem:

"....neutrinos can't be controlled the way our technology is now."

The SNO was built to investigate neutrinos, and determine it they are worthwhile in aiding "future" technology.

The key (in my mind) to determine their communication abilities is to look not for neutrinos, because that would be impossible, but to look for what happens to other materials as neutrinos pass through them. That is the thinking at SNO as the neutrinos collide with atoms in the heavy water and produce an infinitesimal amount of light in the electromagnetic spectrum. Since the experiments at SNO confirmed that neutrinos oscillate, and as well that neutrinos continue on with less energy than they entered the collision with, perhaps it would be possible to increase or decrease the number of electrons they interact with, creating an interval result...in much the way M.Dancer suggested as a type of Morse code. After all, that is what binary is all about and look at the potential it has reached.

However, the limits of light communication (infrared, fibre optics etc.) - at least in digital form as a binary conveyor has limitations of the medium in which it is being used such that it bounces off of and is obstructed by static objects, and even in air densities in free air. Conversely neutrinos are not even affected by Toadbrother's hypothetical 3 foot thick brick wall, or the 2000m of solid rock above the SNO. Yet neutrinos have been detected and sampled in their 3 principle forms.

So perhaps it IS POSSIBLE that instead of a binary base of communication, neutrinos could be used in their ternary system as a form of communication, with the neutrino states of electron, muon and tauon each producing various electromagnetic charges. Simply stated because the reaction produced various micro-electric results, it may be possible to sequence the results and produce a ternary code for communication purposes.

....hypothetically speaking.....

[charter.rights]

Don't radio waves travel at the speed of light?

It seems that the effort to find another medium to send messages that would travel no faster would be an exercise worthy of any civil servant.

Radio waves like infrared communication systems are affected by obstacles that neutrinos are not. Thus in a distance competition, the radio and infrared communication system is slower than a hypothetical neutrino one.

[eyeball]

But Neutrinos pass through everything. How you propose we harness them with a communication device when there is essentially nothing out there that can detect (aside from the SNO) let alone stop a neutrino in order to harness any communications on it. Also, how do you do that with a particle that has no charge and essentially no mass?

The SNO can detect neutrinos but it can't stop them.

Given how difficult they are to intercept it occurs to me that if you wanted to limit the number of potential receivers of a signal or message to only a few receivers that neutrinos would make a good candidate for a carrier.

I wonder if SETI has explored the possibility that advanced civilizations might not want to communicate with or to photon-level civilizations? SETI hasn't found a single thing looking amongst photons.

Perhaps only neutrino level civilizations can expect to survive the shock of talking to an advanced species or even a god (he said with a nod to the OP).

Edited February 12, 2010 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

Given how difficult they are to intercept it occurs to me that if you wanted to limit the number of potential receivers of a signal or message to only a few receivers that neutrinos would make a good candidate for a carrier.

I wonder if SETI has explored the possibility that advanced civilizations might not want to communicate with or to photon-level civilizations? SETI hasn't found a single thing looking amongst photons.

Perhaps only neutrino level civilizations can expect to survive the shock of talking to an advanced species or even a god (he said with a nod to the OP).

It's impracticle. I mean we can use nuclear energy for power generation, but to use a byproduct of a nuclear or fusion or fission, like a neutrino which radiates in a spherical pattern, you really have no control over how they are dispersed.

Not only that, it makes for a completely open and unsecure way of communication. Meaning, once you send out the signal, anyone with the equipment can intercept it, because, really... what can stop it? It would be used more as a general broadcast than anything else.

Photons are just as quick, and we have been using the tech for 30+ years, and photons are easily controlled. Hell, a good section of my network of my network's data is carried by photons. Ottawa to T.O. and and back. 2ms. Fiber right into your switch rack is so damn hot.

I'll be in my bunk.

[Oleg Bach]

Nice try Bozo!

Now you are just being unreasonable and looking for a pissing match. OK, it's Friday, I am game. So let's review shall we?

From Feb 02:

TB says:

Then CR says:

(emphasis is mine)

Merriam-Webster say:

So TB is what sense were you using the word "tunneling" to describe the possibility of an electron passing through a 3-foot brick wall? Were you strictly referring to the quantum tunneling affect or were you referring to something passing through a potential barrier? Because I believe CR was referring to the latter by the use of his language, especially the part "...or tunnelling as you say." Nevermind the current research into the quantum tunneling affect with regard to other particles, let's stick to your usage pertaining to electrons. So please, enlighten...

Let's go back a few pages:

TB says:

Yikes! How many pages ago was that? It is nice to know that a wiley supergenius like you has the awesome power to dismiss grand unified theory or the theory of everything just like that. I suppose that the leading physics theorists are not to touch QM unless they have your permission? Or is it that you cannot abstract topical inferences from complex discussions?

Face it sonny, you've shown yourself to be a high functioning tautologist with a little bit of knowledge and even less substance.

LOFL! "whoosh!"

If you go to the most massive height of smallness you enter a pin hole and come out the other side.... Like a pyramid - it goes to a point - then an inverted structure forms. This structure widens creating an upside down pyramid..which contracts going back to a right side up one - It's a vibration - Big bang big crunch big bang big crunch - I swear it's just one huge brain wave in the mind of God..