Does antimatter weigh more than matter? Lab experiment to find out the answer

Does antimatter weigh more than matter? Lab experiment to find out the answer
This photo shows Allen Mills, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Riverside, in the lab. Credit: Mills lab, UC Riverside.

Does antimatter behave differently in gravity than matter? Physicists at the University of California, Riverside have set out to determine the answer. Should they find it, it could explain why the universe seems to have no antimatter and why it is expanding at an ever increasing rate.

In the lab, the researchers took the first step towards measuring the free fall of "positronium" – a bound state between a positron and an electron. The positron is the antimatter version of the electron. It has identical mass to the electron, but a positive charge. If a positron and electron encounter each other, they annihilate to produce two gamma rays.

Physicists David Cassidy and Allen Mills first separated the positron from the electron in positronium so that this unstable system would resist annihilation long enough for the physicists to measure the effect of on it.

"Using lasers we excited positronium to what is called a Rydberg state, which renders the atom very weakly bound, with the electron and positron being far away from each other," said Cassidy, an assistant project scientist in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, who works in Mills's lab. "This stops them from destroying each other for a while, which means you can do experiments with them."

Rydberg are highly excited atoms. They are interesting to physicists because many of the atoms' properties become exaggerated.

In the case of positronium, Cassidy and Mills, a professor of physics and astronomy, were interested in achieving a long lifetime for the atom in their experiment. At the Rydberg level, positronium's lifetime increases by a factor of 10 to 100.

"But that's not enough for what we're trying to do," Cassidy said. "In the near future we will use a technique that imparts a high angular momentum to Rydberg atoms," Cassidy said. "This makes it more difficult for the atoms to decay, and they might live for up to 10 milliseconds – an increase by a factor of 10,000 – and offer themselves up for closer study."

Cassidy and Mills already have made Rydberg positronium in large numbers in the lab. Next, they will excite them further to achieve lifetimes of a few milliseconds. They will then make a beam of these super-excited atoms to study its deflection due to gravity.

"We will look at the deflection of the beam as a function of flight time to see if gravity is bending it," Cassidy explained. "If we find that antimatter and matter don't behave in the same way, it would be very shocking to the physics world. Currently there is an assumption that matter and antimatter are exactly the same – other than a few properties like charge. This assumption leads to the expectation that they should both have been created in equal amounts in the Big Bang. But we do not see much antimatter in the , so physicists are searching for differences between matter and to explain this."

Study results appear in the Jan. 27 issue of Physical Review Letters.

Cassidy and Mills expect to attempt the next step in their gravity experiments this summer.


Explore further

New way to produce antimatter-containing atom discovered

Citation: Does antimatter weigh more than matter? Lab experiment to find out the answer (2012, January 26) retrieved 21 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-01-antimatter-lab.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 26, 2012
It had never occurred to me that a positron might behave differently in a gravitational field than an electron.

Jan 26, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 26, 2012
Henrik what are you doing in a science site? don't you have to go the church or something?

Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
And you have a compulsion to post religionist crap which means your brain has a chemical imbalance of some sort. See how these things all tie together?

Religion = pathology = defective brains = you.

-There I did some word calculating for you. This may be validated in a laboratory and also a court of law. Care to submit?

We will do a monkey trial with you and a real monkey. Would you be offended? Would god be offended? After all he created you in a monkeys image so maybe not.

Jan 26, 2012
Hey henrik

"18 I also said to myself, As for human beings, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; henrik has no advantage over animals. Everything henrik says is meaningless." ecc3

-Buy it. Read it. Use it.

Jan 26, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


There is no substance in hope, as it is an illusionary emotional state created by the mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.

Jan 26, 2012
CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge. It is possible that gravity changes, making matter and anti-matter gravitationally repulsive.

http://www.physor...ion.html

Jan 26, 2012
CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge. It is possible that gravity changes, making matter and anti-matter gravitationally repulsive.

http://www.physor...ion.html


Speculative, but interesting. (Why did you rate me a 1, dschlink ?)

Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


Silly wabbit, theism is for kids (sorta like Santa claus)...

Why would one idea have any different "weight" than another? Is gravity differentiating between the amount of charge? If that's the case, then theism weighs less than atheism due to the fact that there is less actual thought involved...
Agnosticism might even weigh more than BOTH of them together, now that I think about it... (At least, I'm DOING some thinking..)

Jan 26, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


There is no substance in hope, as it is an illusionary emotional state created by the mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.
No, hope is a survival mechanism based on an organisms self-perception of its ability to cope with its environment. In humans it is a process of synthesizing possible futures based on this perception, and acting to facilitate the most favorable of them.

We hope that good things will happen because we can imagine what those good things might be; and we can then choose to work toward making those good things happen.

Jan 26, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


There is no substance in hope, as it is an illusionary emotional state created by the mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.


No, hope is a survival mechanism based on an organisms self-perception of its ability to cope with its environment.


Why are you arguing about this, when I was making a point against theism.

Self-perception of ones ability, is KNOWLEDGE of ones ability to effect their environment. Hope is merely a WISH for good things to occur, without knowledge of how such good things can be made to come about, and thus not requiring hope. That is the definition.

The above context is about theism vrs atheism, not the practically of the use of "hope", i.e Henrik "hopes" for God's salvation.

GDM
Jan 26, 2012
People, stop with the religious posts - it is contrary to the PhysOrg rules and only serves to feed the Henrik troll. This is an article about matter and antimatter, please try to stick to the subject.

Jan 26, 2012
"Should they find it, it could explain why the universe seems to have no antimatter and why it is expanding at an ever increasing rate."- Lead-in to the article
" But we do not see much antimatter in the universe, so physicists are searching for differences between matter and antimatter to explain this."- Physicist Cassidy from article.
I'm a bit confused that the lead-in states no antimatter in the universe and the researcher says not much antimatter, and I've read you get plenty of antimatter shooting into space during a good old lightning storm. What's the matter here?

Jan 26, 2012
IMO the difference between gravitational weight of matter and antimatter would strongly depend on the rest mass of particles involved in it - for tiny neutrinos this symmetry would be broken a much more, than for leptons and hadrons. If AWT model is correct, then the CPT symmetry of all particles will be broken in the ratio, in which their rest mass differs from the rest mass of gravitons, i.e. from the energy of CMBR photons. For example the mass of neutrino is roughly 10.000x higher than the mass of CMBR photons, so that the mass of neutrinos will differ from antineutrinos with only 0.01%. It's still relatively large difference though, at the case of electrons and positrons this difference will be lower than 10-7 percent, i.e. barely detectable.

Jan 26, 2012
Why are you arguing about this, when I was making a point against theism.
Because I felt like it? Because you gave a lyrical interpretation of something biological?
Hope is merely a WISH for good things to occur, without knowledge of how such good things can be made to come about
Here we go. Define 'wish'. Is this a prayer, a missive, an entreaty, a petition? Is it something you do upon a star perhaps?

In order to hope for something we must have a inkling what that something might be. We want better conditions; comfort, security, resources. We have a picture in mind of what these things are, and so we can conceive of ways to get them ourselves.
i.e Henrik "hopes" for God's salvation.
Henrik believes in a higher power who will magically give him what he wants if he just asks in the right manner; rather than making the effort to get these things for himself.

Relying on magic is not a viable survival strategy and so is non-biological except in a pathological sense.

Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


Mods, do your damn job and ban this idiot. He's trying to troll yet another science article. Get him out of here or I will stop visiting your website.

Jan 26, 2012
There have been some interesting theories about anti-matter recently including, I recall, one requiring anti-matter to be self-attracting but repelling to ordinary matter. Another suggested that the spinning of galaxies and maybe the universe at large or parts of it, cause the probabilities of certain forms of particle decay to be altered which would, according to the theorist, explain the excess of matter in the early universe. Hopefully, experiments like these will help clear up some things.

Jan 26, 2012
"Atheism weighs less than theism"

How much does polytheism weigh? Does a Hindu's head weigh more than a skeptic's skull.

Jan 26, 2012
There is no substance in hope

mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.
That sounds profound. For just a moment. The people in this article HOPE to measure how gravity effects positrons. You are using a specious definition to make a point while ignoring an article that implies an entirely different one.

Why are you arguing about this, when I was making a point against theism.
Does that mean you should get free pass?

That is the definition.
That is YOUR definition. No one else is beholden to it nor is it used by many.

I HOPE Henrik starts thinking. That is something I understand, am willing to understand and principle isn't involved since I clearly understand it is unlikely that he will do so.

I really find argument by definition silly. Try using facts instead of dubious definitions.

Ethelred

Jan 26, 2012
Get him out of here or I will stop visiting your website.
I quake in terror at you rage. I am sure the imoderators are shaking with fear. Or is it laughter? Sometimes its hard to tell.

Ethelred

Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist.
Why do you need to lie so much? And such petty stupid lie at that.

Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
Since it usually entails greater knowledge and thought than simply saying goddit, and an increase in information is an increase in energy, wrong or not, it must weigh slightly more.

Even more so for us Agnostics who do not simply say goddin't.

Ethelred

Jan 26, 2012
"Does a Hindu's head weigh more than a skeptic's skull?"-Sean W

I thought I was reading Shakespeare for a second.

Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away. So I guess that just leaves only us agnostics to hang around.

Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away. So I guess that just leaves only us agnostics to hang around.

Agnostics are just hedging their bets.

Jan 26, 2012
CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge.
Yes. I believe that would be the energy density (but same energy). Ergo spacetime volume is conserved on pair creation, and spacetime remains flat.

It is possible that gravity changes, making matter and anti-matter gravitationally repulsive.
I think matter sinks and antimatter floats away, something like the parable about theists and atheists above.

Jan 26, 2012
There is no substance in hope,...
Hope you're right (just kidding of course).

Jan 26, 2012
We hope that good things will happen because we can imagine what those good things might be; and we can then choose to work toward making those good things happen.
So maybe there is hope afterall.

Jan 26, 2012
you get plenty of antimatter shooting into space during a good old lightning storm. What's the matter here?
I never thought about lightning. Very good. In fact it doesn't always float away like I said because some of it apparently gets trapped by the magnetic field in the inner Van Allen belt.

Jan 26, 2012
Relying on magic is not a viable survival strategy and so is non-biological except in a pathological sense.
Yes but there may be some biological relevance here. My guess is that during eclipses of the sun our ancestors were split into two groups - ones who looked up and saw something of religious significance and the rest. This caused dissension in the tribes (still does) and the tribes split up into believers and non-believers. Through inbreeding this distinction became stronger and stronger until you eventually had separate species, affecting evolution. So the root cause of man's evolution may be the unique ratio of the sun-moon-earth orbit geometry, allowing the corona to be viewed and causing much consternation among the tribes. So we continue to look up and ask deeper and deeper questions.

Jan 26, 2012
There have been some interesting theories about anti-matter recently including, I recall, one requiring anti-matter to be self-attracting but repelling to ordinary matter.
Until we have more evidence, I would say antimatter repels antimatter as long as its energy density is less than that of spacetime. However in the latter days as space expands the energy density of antimatter may be greater than that of spacetime, in which case it begins to be attractive. In the meantime I think matter and antimatter are gravitationally neutral.

Jan 27, 2012
Agnostics are just hedging their bets.
Nonsense. It is the most rational position. Many Christians say we SHOULD hedge our bets. I don't. If I was I would go to church and try to real hard to believe the unbelievable. Go with Pascal's Fraud um Wager which isn't a wager and has bad logic.

Ethelred

Jan 27, 2012
Nonsense. It is the most rational position.

Are you agnostic on rainbow colored unicorns, then? Or the flying spaghetti monster?

What's so fifferent that one then should be agnotic on the (non)issue of god(s)?

Jan 27, 2012
Are you agnostic on rainbow colored unicorns, then?
I find them highly unlikely since there is scant evidence for unicorns of any sort and rainbow colored strains credulity due to unicorns allegedly being mammalian and thus somewhat constrained in color.

Are you agnostic on rainbow colored unicorns, then?
A pernicious upstart. The Giant Invisible Orbiting Aadvark preceeded it by several years.

What's so fifferent that one then should be agnotic on the (non)issue of god(s)?
That is an assumption that is not based on anything I have written.

Now if you actually have evidence that ALL possible gods cannot exist or evidence that some sort of god actually exists then I am willing to take that evidence into account.

If you find your possibly unwarranted beliefs to be disturbed by this I do apologise but I must be true to myself

Oh yes. Antimatter has positive energy and thus should behave much like matter in a gravity field

Orac has a religious belief

Ethelred

Jan 27, 2012
Now if you actually have evidence that ALL possible gods cannot exist or evidence that some sort of god actually exists then I am willing to take that evidence into account.

Just saying: Since the the christian (or hebrew, or msulim, or ... ) god is based on the exact same premise as the IPU* or the FSM** (hear-say) I find no difference in being atheist and a-FSM or a-IPU.

Just because the notion of godS is a bag of such entities doesn't up the probability. A million times zero is still zero.

* IPU = Invisible Pink Unicorn (MHHNBS)
** FSN = Flying Spaghetti monster

Jan 27, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism.. Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away.
What I don't understand is, why the only comment which deals with subject seriously (Callippo above) is downvoted heavily - whereas the other senile off topic blurbs are upvoted here? Are the readers here really so imbecile, they cannot recognize, what belongs into discussion here and what not? How do you want to understand something, if you cannot think coherently and concentrate to subject? The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself. But unfortunately it's just a stupidity of readers, what becomes apparent and public.

Jan 27, 2012
IMO ...

who cares?
the difference ... If AWT model is correct ... differs from the rest mass of gravitons ... neutrino is roughly 10.000x higher than the mass of CMBR photons ... neutrinos will differ from antineutrinos with only 0.01% ... at the case of electrons and positrons this difference will be lower ... barely detectable.


Alot of big words with no background, tell me the restmass of a Graviton. :) or even better the restmass of a CMBR Photon. make me roll on the floor.

If positrons weight the same like electrons would you mind leaving this site forever or at least stop posting crap?
the sooner the better.


Jan 27, 2012
Heinrik is clearly trolling and his idiotic off topic comments have derailed another thread. He also breaches all the first 5 comment guidelines, so I suggest we all report his comment as abuse and get back on topic.

Jan 27, 2012
RAWA
Atheism weighs less than theism.. Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away.
What I don't understand is, why the only comment which deals with subject seriously (Callippo above) is downvoted heavily


Because Callippo aka YOU spams every thread with AWT.
Not enough? Because you state nonesense to be a fact.

Oh and maybe because of this guideline:
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted


Or thisone:
Do not 'crosspost': Do not keep posting the same message, or very similar messages.


I for one, would also delete all theism vs atheism vs agnostic discussion, but iam not the mod so a lean back and watch the show. :)


Jan 27, 2012
tell me the restmass of a Graviton. :) or even better the restmass of a CMBR Photon.
In AWT the rest mass of graviton is energy dependent and its upper bound is the same, like lower bound of mass of the photons, i.e. the mass of CMBR photons which can be computed easily E=mc2=hn. I didn't talk about rest mass of CMBR photons, which is just zero in AWT (with compare to rest mass of photons of shorter wavelengths). In AWT everything is distance scale/wavelength/energy density dependent.

Jan 27, 2012
Because you state nonsense to be a fact.
You didn't prove it's a nonsense - with compare to the demonstrative off-topicity of the posts about religion here. It would be so easy to refuse everything just with remark, it's a nonsense. But such remark doesn't mean nothing less or nothing more, you just didn't understand the subject. You should prove logical inconsistency of nonsense to be able to tell, it's a nonsense. For example silly dogs everything what we are doing is just a nonsense.

Jan 27, 2012
It was my feeling, seeker2 pointed here to some analogy of believers and rationalists as an analogy of gravitational attraction of matter and antimatter. IMO this analogy has a good meaning in dense aether model (which is why he probably deleted his comment during the three minute timespan), but he didn't interpreted correctly. As Henrik proved with his first dull OT post in this thread, the rationalists are actually attracted to believers from distance in an effort to fight with them. Their repulsive nature manifests just at short distance. The people, who prefer the rational thinking can serve as a model of particles, composed of deterministic transverse waves, whereas the instinctive behaviour of believers is driven with indeterministic longitudinal waves. And this model describes the real interactions inside of particle-antiparticle system more exactly. We could say, they're behaving like antiparticles inside rationalistic human society, being stuffed with their emotions.

Jan 27, 2012
Just my two cents on the agnosticism/atheism debate.
The two views are not incompatible, agnosticism is a knowledge claim, atheism is a belief claim. I am an agnostic atheist. I cannot prove there are no gods (one cannot prove a negative) I can only say that it is highly improbable. It's not a 50/50 pascals wager kind of agnosticism, more a 6-sigma figure on the spectrum of theistic probability. Its the only intellectually honest position to have from a rational scientific perspective. To paraphrase Dawkins, I am agnostic about god in the same way I am agnostic about santa claus.

Jan 27, 2012
So does this mean that most black holes are made of anti-matter ?

And what happens when matter falls into a black hole thats already chock full of anti-matter stuffed into a singularity ? Or does matter transform into something else when it falls into a black hole ?

Jan 27, 2012
Just my two cents on the agnosticism/atheism debate.
As famous conservative physicist (and an active aetherist and Christian, btw) Robert Millikan once said, "were confronted with a choice between these two types of dogmatic religion, fundamentalism, and atheism I should choose fundamentalism as the less irrational of the two and the more desirable, for atheism is essentially the philosophy of pessimism, denying, as it does, that there is any purpose or trend in nature, or any reason for our trying to fit into and advance a scheme of development"

Jan 27, 2012
Just saying: Since the the christian (or hebrew, or msulim, or ... ) god is based on the exact same premise as the IPU* or the FSM**
What does those have to do with a generic god. Deism is completely within the bound of experimental evidence. Quite unlike the Abrahamic religions which are saddled with an impossible universe. The GIOA and upstart FSM are not actual gods, they are intended to show how silly some attempts to prove the existence of Jehovah really are. Which is why I sometimes bring up the Giant Cow and block ice because that is a real myth not an artificial one.

Just because the notion of godS is a bag of such entities doesn't up the probability. A million times zero is still zero.
Sorry but you can't asign a probability to the god of Deists. Not honestly anyway. Heck our universe could be the result of a quantum experiment in another universe. That would have a creator that isn't a god of any sort.

Ethelred

Jan 27, 2012
So does this mean that most black holes are made of anti-matter ?
This idea is not bad, because black holes are something, which actually shouldn't belong into our universe, they're an extensions of observable reality in the same way, like the sparse clouds of dark matter. For example, most of objects will evaporate in contact with black holes in the similar way, like after contact with antimatter. I don't think, the black holes are made of anti-matter, but they're probably richer of antimatter more, than the other massive bodies.

Jan 27, 2012
Sorry to see Ethelred and Otto over analyze the use of the word Hope in the context in which I used it against Henrik,.. .

Roboferret & Ethelred are correct wrt to atheism vrs agnosticism. Atheism, as defined by saying "god does not exist" is as irrational as theism because it purports to make statements about metaphysics which has been shown (Kant) cannot be a source of knowledge.

Jan 27, 2012
And what happens when matter falls into a black hole thats already chock full of anti-matter stuffed into a singularity ?
I don't think anti-matter is going to hang around black holes for very long. As matter is split up into its constituents on entry to the BH, anti-matter likely gets ejected.

Jan 27, 2012
seeker2 pointed here to some analogy of believers and rationalists as an analogy of gravitational attraction of matter and antimatter.
Please don't associate me with gravitational attraction of matter and antimatter, as I think spacetime causes anti-matter to float away.

Jan 27, 2012
I think matter sinks and antimatter floats away, something like the parable about theists and atheists above... I think spacetime causes anti-matter to float away..
How it differs from gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter? It doesn't matter, how you interpret it, the observable result is what matters in physics.
As matter is split up into its constituents on entry to the BH, anti-matter likely gets ejected.
IMO it remains attracted to them at distance, to the gravity field of negative space-time curvature in particular.

http://orbitingfr...xplained

http://www.aether...ion3.gif

Jan 27, 2012
I didn't talk about rest mass of CMBR photons, which is just zero in AWT (with compare to rest mass of photons of shorter wavelengths).
Like gamma rays I presume. I didn't know they were at rest though.

Jan 27, 2012
Like gamma rays I presume. I didn't know they were at rest though.
The rest mass of photons has its physical meaning in mutual coalescing of gamma ray photons due their own gravity, which manifest during their travel at cosmological distances. I do believe, such photons travel like dense swarm similar to vortex ring. because they attract mutually. It explains, why distant gamma bursts are so "intensive", despite of distance of their origin.

http://aetherwave...rsy.html

http://en.wikiped...ophysics

We should realize, during gamma ray burst the matter corresponding of whole mass of Sun is radiated during brief moment in form of gamma ray photons. These photons therefore are massive and they interact gravitationally during their flight like every other massive bodies.

Jan 27, 2012
The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself.
aka AWT theory?

Jan 27, 2012
The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself.
AKA AWT theory?
I'm promoting here the AWT, i.e. the particular system of coherent thinking about observable reality - not mine. But the people, who are initiating neverending religious flamewars here again and again have no such motivation - they don't spread any deductive ideas here, but their personal subjective stance only. The validity of AWT is independent of mine and my person will become quite insignificant at the moment, when someone will understand it.

You should always use the inductive reasoning in your posts, i.e. implications. The assumptions and interpretation of deductions aren't important - the logics of deduction itself is, because it can be reproduced independently. Don't spread religion - spread the way of deductions.

Jan 27, 2012
Antimatter has positive energy and thus should behave much like matter in a gravity field
Watch out for conventional wisdom masquerading as logic.

Jan 27, 2012
Photons don't have rest mass. They only interact gravitationally due to mass-energy equivalence.

Jan 27, 2012
Photons don't have rest mass. They only interact gravitationally due to mass-energy equivalence.
Intuitively it's evident, the more lightweight the photons will be, the lower gravity they will exhibit at distance. The lower limit of this dependency is the wavelength/frequency/energy density of CMBR photons, because every photon of this wavelength will become indistinguishable from CMBR field. The photons of lower energy/longer wavelength will be dispersed in this field, in this sense they're of negative rest mass, like the tachyons. And they should move faster than the CMBR photons. It means, the wavelength dependence of speed of photons in AWT is linear and it intersects the axis at the CMBR wavelength with speed of light c. Just at this wavelength the light follows the special relativity, the photons of all other wavelengths are violating it in smaller or greater extent.

Jan 27, 2012
You should always use the inductive reasoning in your posts,...Don't spread religion - spread the way of deductions.
I think I got lost somewhere here between inductive and deductions. And BTW where does intuition fit in here?

Jan 27, 2012
The lower limit of this dependency is the wavelength/frequency/energy density of CMBR photons, because every photon of this wavelength...
I've been asking for I can't remember how long what is the wavelength of a CMBR photon? And still no answer.

Jan 27, 2012
You should always use the inductive reasoning in your posts,...Don't spread religion - spread the way of deductions.
I think I got lost somewhere here between inductive and deductions.
In AWT we are living in gradient driven reality. Both induction both deductions define the causality time arrow and as such they're atemporal and they can survive the ages. The facts itself are temporal and destined to change. So that the people should not remember the facts, but the logical connections between the facts. You're not required to know individual trees for being able to navigate trough large forest of facts - you should understand the routes between the facts. Such knowledge will help you with this navigation anytime later.

Jan 27, 2012
I've been asking for I can't remember how long what is the wavelength of a CMBR photon?
You should know it quite well, because the age of observable Universe (13.7 GYrs) is derived from it in straightforward way. We know the age of Universe just as exactly, as we can measure the wavelength of these photons (1,873 mm). In AWT this distance is very important, as it defines the middle of dimensional scale for human observers. Bellow this wavelength we are observing the Universe from inside with perspective of general relativity, above this scale we are observing it from outside with perspective of quantum mechanics.

Jan 27, 2012
Photons don't have rest mass. They only interact gravitationally due to mass-energy equivalence.
This is semantically equivalent. How can we recognize, something has a mass without gravitational interaction? Of course, such massive photons have inertia too. For example, for being able to follow the cluster of gamma ray photons, they should exhibit the Kepler's law, while revolving the center of cluster. This behaviour fooled the physicists, LQG theorists in particular, who just believed, if the gamma ray photons are moving slower (being massive), they should exhibit some time difference (i.e. delay) during distant gamma ray flares behind the photons of visible light. But none such a significant delay has been found. It can be explained paradoxically just with their massive behaviour: the heavier photons are forming the core of the cluster, so they move along shorter paths across cosmic space, than the lightweight visible light photons.

Jan 27, 2012
Of course, because all photons arrived at Earth at the single moment, for relativists such result simply means, all photons are moving with the same speed from macroscopic perspective and the special relativity, the Lorentz symmetry postulate in particular remains valid. Although these photons are probably moving with very different speed, which just depends on their wavelength. Such dual behaviour indeed fooled both the physicists, who are looking for violations of Lorentz symmetry (Kostelecky, LQG theorists), both the physicists, who do want to keep the Lorentz symmetry as intact as possible (string theorists in particular, because the (derivation of) string theory relies on the validity of Lorentz symmetry. As usually in AWT, both sides of this controversy have their own piece of truth.

Jan 27, 2012
spacetime causes anti-matter to float away..

How it differs from gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter?
Only when spacetime is there to mediate the repulsion. I realize this idea may be a bit unfamiliar.
It doesn't matter, how you interpret it, the observable result is what matters in physics.
Bingo. Until such results materialize go with what you think makes the most sense. Intuition, deduction, induction, the golden half-bearded unicorn, or whatever. Actually I just made that up so you should probably also include imagination.

Jan 27, 2012
spacetime causes anti-matter to float away
But this is just a conjecture of yours. How did you get into it? Why the space-time should ignore the normal particles and the antimatter particles not? Why it should cause to blow them away instead of attract them? Many people here (including you) are saying essentially correct things, but they're using very shallow deductions for it. They merely guessing what should happen there. This is what I'm calling the fuzzy incoherent thinking. Like I've said, what you think is irrelevant in matter of fact discussion, because it cannot be reproduced it. How did you got into such thinking is what matters here.

Jan 27, 2012
Although these photons are probably moving with very different speed, which just depends on their wavelength.
Aha. The speed of light depends on its wavelength. I should have guessed.
Such dual behaviour indeed fooled both the physicists, ..
Sure fooled me anyway.

Jan 27, 2012
Sorry to see Ethelred and Otto over analyze the use of the word Hope in the context in which I used it against Henrik,..
Sorry to see you use philobabble for anything whatsoever...

Jan 27, 2012
spacetime causes anti-matter to float away
But this is just a conjecture of yours. How did you get into it?
Connect the dots. We're working on it.

Why the space-time should ignore the normal particles and the antimatter particles not? Why it should cause to blow them away instead of attract them? Many people here (including you) are saying essentially correct things, but they're using very shallow deductions for it. They merely guessing what should happen there. This is what I'm calling the fuzzy incoherent thinking. Like I've said, what you think is irrelevant in matter of fact discussion, because it cannot be reproduced it. How did you got into such thinking is what matters here.
It's all connected to the energy density and flatness of spacetime. Matter and its antimatter counterpart have equal energy but unequal energy density. The total volume of spacetime is conserved on pair production. Ergo spacetime is flat.

Jan 27, 2012
In AWT the gravity field arises from shielding of gravitational waves with massive objects. These waves are longitudinal, so this shielding increasing the density of matter of vacuum around massive objects into account of energy density. From this model follows, the gravity field should cease to zero exponentially around massive objects and no place for negative curvature of space-time exists here.

The above assumption is valid only when the gravity field of isolated object is considered. But the the neighbouring material objects are shielding the gravitational waves too, so that they're effectively shielding the shielding of the gravitational waves each other. This leads into negative curvature of space-time around massive objects, which gets a bell shape profile here.

http://www.aether...nses.gif

The particles of antimatter are naturally attracted to such a places, because they're of negative curvature of space too.

Jan 27, 2012
Heinrik is clearly trolling and his idiotic off topic comments have derailed another thread
Perhaps you have not met the enemy?

"The Discovery Institute...aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories...the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community...the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"."

Religionists pose a clear and present danger to science and the world. WHEN they appear they must be addressed. This is a fine place to do it.

The thread seems to be doing ok otherwise?

Jan 27, 2012
The speed of light depends on its wavelength. I should have guessed.
The speed of light doesn't correspond the speed of photons in similar way, like the speed of (Russel's) solitons at the water surface is not directly related to the speed of surface waves. Intutivelly speaking, these two concepts are different, so they're not guaranteed to share the same properties.
http://www.aether...tons.gif
These solitons are usually slower than the speed of surface waves, so that the positive rest mass of every photon must be balanced with negative space-time curvature somewhere else.

Jan 27, 2012
I've been asking for I can't remember how long what is the wavelength of a CMBR photon?
we can measure the wavelength of these photons (1,873 mm).
AHA! I finally got an answer. But I thought the CMBR was blackbody radiation. Where did I go wrong? Maybe this is just the wavelength of blackbody radiation.

Jan 27, 2012
Religionists pose a clear and present danger to science and the world.
Nope, the fundamentalists do. Atheists can behave in the same fundamentalist way, like the people who can see the God everywhere. So far we have no physical evidence of God absence and mainstream physics tend to ignore most of phenomena mediated with longitudinal waves, i.e. in indeterministic way, because it cannot derive math based deterministic description for it so easily.

Jan 27, 2012
But I thought the CMBR was blackbody radiation. Where did I go wrong? Maybe this is just the wavelength of blackbody radiation.
Why not, if you can derive something useful from it. Why yes, if you cannot. As I said already, it doesn't matter, what we think about it, but which induction/deduction we can construct with it. AWT thinking is oriented to logical connections, i.e. the causal gradients between facts, not to the facts itself. We cannot see the individual particles of the gas, we can see only the density gradients of this gas.

Jan 27, 2012
photons are forming the core of the cluster, so they move along shorter paths across cosmic space, than the lightweight visible light photons.
So gravitational lensing depends on the wavelength of light. I never thought about that.

Jan 27, 2012
Get him out of here or I will stop visiting your website.
LOL, he is probably enjoying the way, in which you cannot resist his provocations. Why not to simply ignore the posts, which are OT? Their authors just wait for you reactions, nothing else. The incoherence of this thread is the failure of all posters here.

Jan 27, 2012
AWT thinking is oriented to logical connections, i.e. the causal gradients between facts, not to the facts itself.
Yes. Don't let those nasty facts get in the way of a good theory.

Jan 27, 2012
we can measure the wavelength of these photons (1,873 mm).

AHA! I finally got an answer
That is given as a single wavelength which is wrong. It is a range of of wavelengths.

You really need to learn how to use Google. It only took a moment to look it up.

http://en.wikiped...adiation
The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K,[3] which peaks at the microwave range frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a 1.873 mm wavelength.


But I thought the CMBR was blackbody radiation. Where did I go wrong?
You mean besides listening to Zephir? You didn't. Its blackbody for a bit below 3K,

Maybe this is just the wavelength of blackbody radiation.
It was the peak wavelength only and the notation was European so to many here it would look like it was nearly two meters long.

Ethelred

Jan 27, 2012
So gravitational lensing depends on the wavelength of light. I never thought about that.
The microwave light is not refracted and deflected with gradient of vacuum density, so it can escape from event horizon of black holes in form of Hawking radiation, whereas the visible light is blocked instead. The rotating black holes are behaving like prism: the short wavelength light is emanated from their poles only, because the gradient of space-time density is more subtle here.

http://www.aether...refl.gif

Jan 27, 2012
That is given as a single wavelength which is wrong. It is a range of of wavelengths.
But the age of Universe in the Big Bang theory is computed just from this mean value - nothing else. It would mean (between others), that the age of Universe is not universal at all - it exhibits whole range of ages, which would make the notion of initial singularity pretty fuzzy. As you may guess it, I'm even convenient with this view. So if you provide some objection, you should be prepared, I've always application for this objection from perspective of AWT.
It only took a moment to look it up.
The only question is, why seeker2 begged for such answer so long.

Jan 27, 2012
The real problem that I see is that the anti-matter collected for experiements is invariably manufactured for the purpose. To explain, the annihilation of an up quark and an up antiquark produces a very energetic gluon, which is transformed into a top quark and a top antiquark. Now, do these particles represent their exact counterparts precisely? If so, then the experiment isn't worth doing. One could argue against it on the basis that some energy losses are expected in the process, since a gluon needs to mediate the transformation. I have always found it too convenient to simply subtract kinetic losses from the W boson to come up wth the difference. Those losses could be accounted for when comparing the product to their naturally occuring state.

Jan 27, 2012
Deism is completely within the bound of experimental evidence.

It is? I was not aware that there is a possible, unambiguous test for the existence of a god or gods (or any one particular god). Could you provide one? if not then deism isn't within the bounds of exprimental evidence.

How would we even test for omniscience or omnipotence if a 'godlike' creature appeared?

Jan 27, 2012
To explain, the annihilation of an up quark and an up antiquark produces a very energetic gluon, which is transformed into a top quark and a top antiquark. Now, do these particles represent their exact counterparts precisely?
Yes and it is irrelevant in any case. They are using positrons and electrons.

No quarks were harmed in this experiment. Only vile and pernicious leptons that deserve whatever they get.

Ethelred

Jan 27, 2012
Annihilation of an up quark and an up antiquark produces a very energetic gluon (for about a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second), which is transformed into a top quark and a top antiquark. Are the top quark and the top antiquark products of the reaction similar in every respect to their naturally occurring counterparts? In my opinion, the manufactured product never resembles exactly the naturally occurring one. That is the case with antimatter particles used for research. Are naturally occurring antimatter particles used for the experiment? After all, fresh particles might have more mass. Studies have shown that the hydrogen atom has shrunk somewhat over the history of the Universe.

On the other hand, there may be a net loss of energy, however miniscule, which could be rationalized as the losses incurred during the transformation of the quarks for the work done in producing them.

Jan 27, 2012
It is?
Yes.

I was not aware that there is a possible, unambiguous test for the existence of a god or gods
Where did I claim there was such a thing. I said it fit the evidence. Any evidence you care to use. It isn't exactly a well defined god. Barely even a concept.

Could you provide one?
Sure. For a specific god. IF the world is 6000 years old, there was a Great Flood, and we all descended from one man 4400 years ago AND all life that was on the Ark has only either 2 ancestors or 7 ancestors, except humans with 8 ancestors THEN it is highly likely that Jehovah exists.

However that is not the case so that particular god does not exist.

if not then deism isn't within the bounds of exprimental evidence.
Certainly is. Isn't in bound of falsifiability. Don't mistake the two. The Deist fits all known evidence. ALL. It would even fit the evidence for Jehovah as there is no way to prove that the Deist god didn't create the psycho god.>>

Jan 27, 2012
How would we even test for omniscience or omnipotence if a 'godlike' creature appeared?
Type Google onto its forehead. Everything will appear. Even a clay golem.

The deist god need not be either of those.

And Orac is a illiterate Atheist sockpuppet that became an Atheist to piss off his parents rather than because he can think and hasn't a clue about Agnostics so I will respond as I do with other such ranking sockpuppets.

Ethelred

Jan 27, 2012
The only question is, why seeker2 begged for such answer so long.
Also why it took so long to get the answer.

Jan 27, 2012
Nope, the fundamentalists do. Atheists can behave in the same fundamentalist way, like the people who can see the God everywhere.
Nope, ANYONE who ascribes to a religionist explanation of the world enables others to take this belief to whatever extremes they feel necessary. We are well aware what those extremes can entail.

Religionists support the belief that a superbeing can give them eternal life and grant all their wishes; atheists do not. To religionists these are things worth killing and dying for, not to mention denying reality and seeking to halt scientific research.

Many people thought a little bigotry was a good thing and fashionable as well. This enabled others to construct death camps. Sunday schools and church suppers DO enable groups like FLDS and boko haram and the lords resistance army to exist. There IS no dividing line, no threshold.

Jan 27, 2012
I said it fit the evidence.

So does the IPU and the FSM. Where exactly is the difference?

Evidence is only worth anything if it can delineate between two competing theories. But all the evidence fits "gods are there" AND "gods are not there". So it's not 'evidence', now, is it? (i.e.: it makes nothing evident)

Don't confuse 'observation' with 'evidence'

While god(s) fit all observations none of that lends the god(s) hypothesis any credence.

Jan 27, 2012
Also why it took so long to get the answer.


That one is easy. You didn't look. You made no effort.

All you needed to do was go a decent search engine and type in

Wavelength Cosmic Background Radiation or maybe even just

Wavelength CMBR

Ethelred

Jan 27, 2012
So does the IPU
No. There is only so much land surface on Earth. In principle the IPU must be observable, somewhere.

the FSM
Yes.

Evidence is only worth anything if it can delineate between two competing theories.
Nonsense. False dichotomy.

But all the evidence fits "gods are there" AND "gods are not there".
Nonsense. SOME gods.

I never claimed you would like it. Some people just don't like reality. It matters not whether you think the evidence is useful. The Deist god fits all evidence. That it is not falsifiable does not change that.

So it's not 'evidence', now, is it? (i.e.: it makes nothing evident)
Evidence does not always do that for the items you are interested in. That is your problem.

Don't confuse 'observation' with 'evidence'
Don't' confuse your desires for what evidence can do with what it can actually do.

While god(s) fit all observations none of that lends the god(s) hypothesis any credence.
Nor does it remove any.>>

Jan 27, 2012
Also why it took so long to get the answer.
I just missed previous alleged questions. I don't read everything here - if nothing else, it would be a sign of mental pathology.

Jan 27, 2012
You seem to be having difficulty with the concept that not everything is amenable to testing. Like or not that is the case.

And no I am not claiming this is science. I am pointing out that there is nothing that is going to prove things one way or the other about sufficiently un-defined deities. I am not going to take a stand on the existence of things that can't be proven. I am willing to discuss them up to a point. If you insist on acting as if something is proven when it isn't that is your problem. I like the idea of multiple universes but I don't insist on it being true just a useful concept for dealing with the question of fine tuning that is compatible with the actual math of present theory even if some people don't want to accept its mathematical validity.

Ethelred

Jan 27, 2012
Evidence is only worth anything if it can delineate between two competing theories.
Evidence is used to CREATE theories not the other way around. It can fit both or either or neither. Yes?

-And the surefire way of finding out whether a god is omniscient or not, is by asking him. With all your soul and all your heart and all your everything. You will be sure to get the right answer.

Jan 27, 2012
Also why it took so long to get the answer.

That one is easy. You didn't look. You made no effort.
Right. I've known about blackbody radiation since before Wiki came along. So why did I raise the issue? Thought is was relevant. Wondered how long it would take to get there. Devious as charged. Guilty as usual.

Jan 27, 2012
Also why it took so long to get the answer.

That one is easy. You didn't look. You made no effort.
Right. I've known about blackbody radiation since before Wiki came along. So why did I raise the issue? Thought is was relevant. Wondered how long it would take to get there. Devious as charged. Guilty as usual.
Maybe thought it was relevent. Also devious might not be the word. Maybe manipulative. Even dangerous? Maybe in certain circles.

Jan 27, 2012
But all the evidence fits "gods are there" AND "gods are not there".
Nonsense. SOME gods.
For example the golf gods. The more improbable golf shots I make the more I'm beginning to become a believer. Unfortunatly however it seems the clubs I use to make the shots mysteriously disappear, at least out of my bag. Friends everywhere I guess.

Jan 27, 2012
The pathetically infantilistic and regressive minds (excuses for minds) of religionists could not possibly have evolved - they had to have been "created" - it's the only empirically observable evidence for the existence of a classically defined "god." Religionism is a dangerous and pandemic mental virus that has catalysed more death and destruction of individuals, tribes and nations, of cultural heritage and suppression of evolutionary innovation, has caused more disenfranchisement and unrestrained cruelty, than pandemic disease. It's time for its severely retardative anchoring in obsolete paradigm to come to a definitive end. And that end, too, can be created.

Jan 27, 2012
Nonsense. It is the most rational position.


Agreed, agnostic atheism is the most rational position concerning god, and skepticism in general is the most rational position concerning anything.

Jan 27, 2012
It's time for its severely retardative anchoring in obsolete paradigm to come to a definitive end. And that end, too, can be created.
You've got my attention, at least. Now how might that definitive end come to pass?

Jan 27, 2012
An hypothesis "fitting the evidence" does not necessarily mean that the evidence confirms the hypothesis, or indeed has anything at all to say about the hypothesis. Logically, either there is a deist-type god or not. Thus, the a priori probability that a deist-type of god exists is 1:2 or 50%. No evidence or observation can occur in a universe where a deist-type god exists that can not also occur at the same rate in a universe where no deist-type of god exists, therefore, no evidence or observation can affect the a priori probability that a deist-type god exists. In short, there is, and can be, no evidence either for or against the existence of a deist-type god.

And because concept of a deist-type god is not obviously self-contradictory, as it does not necessarily contain the omni-properties that typically generate defeating absurdities surrounding the idea of a god, logic cannot tell us that this type of god cannot exist, as it does with the omnipotent, omniscient varieties.

Jan 27, 2012
With that said, as there can be no evidence or observation that can either increase or decrease the probability that a deist-type god exists, there is no practical meaning to the statement that a deist-type of god exists. The concept will never help you design an experiment, or construct a new and useful technology. Therefore, about gods in general, we can say that there are three possibilities: 1.)The existence of a god is logically impossible (the omniscient, omnipotent varieties). 2.)The existence of a god is definitely false (the Greek/Hindi gods, Allah, Jehovah, etc.), or 3.)The existence of a god is irrelevant. It makes no difference to anybody or anything whether such a god exists. (the deist variety of god)

Jan 27, 2012
Is it correct to refer to a positron-electron pair as an "atom?"

Color me mystified.

Wouldn't the experiment be more useful - with respect to measuring gravitational effects on antimatter - if actual antimatter atoms were used (antiproton plus positron), instead of matter-antimatter hybrids lacking a nucleus and possessing only low-mass electrons and positrons?

Not to say that something interesting might not be learned. It's just a strange way to look for the effects of gravity on antimatter - and a hard place, since there's so little mass in a positron-electron pair, implying a tougher measurement challenge.

Jan 27, 2012
They seem to think they can do something with a Rydberg positronium. I don't get it either, since they will still have an electron involved. Somehow it makes sense to them and they may actually have a clue.

Then again, they may have gotten interested in playing with the toys and getting them to do what they want and lost site of the target. Sometimes people have a project with multiple steps and, while working on a step, forget that they once had an actual goal in mind.

Ethelred

Jan 27, 2012
Thus, the a priori probability that a deist-type of god exists is 1:2 or 50%.
Uh I think you are using a philo term wrong? Unless you used it in a wholly pretentious way, then I guess it would be correct.

"A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience"

A priori knowledge of the existence of something is possible; a thing called 'A priori probability' is not.

Jan 27, 2012
Science is a human invention. Before humans, there was no science. Science is based on the belief that human observation and reasoning is both reliable enough and sufficient to understand the universe.

But that is self-defeating, because humans are also part of the universe, and a system cannot explain itself.

To answer the fundamental questions, one must step outside the system and follow the evidence. Only theism can explain the system by following the evidence based on a belief in God. Even an atheist will affirm that God could exist without humans, but science cannot.

Ultimately, truth can only be discovered through faith, both in science and in God. Like Einstein said, science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind.

Jan 27, 2012
Like Einstein said, science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind.
You (and Einstein) are right and local voting trolls recognized it immediately. Actually, even in science the ratio of belief and logics remains balanced, because the more rational theory is, the more abstract and difficult to imagine postulates it assumes as a subject of belief (extradimensions of string theory or Big Bang theory with its mysterious formation of the whole Universe from nothingness - this is really something).

Jan 27, 2012
Perhaps, otto, you would care to study up on Bayesian reasoning. http://yudkowsky....al/bayes

The a priori probability of a thing is the initial probability of an observation or object's occurrence. It is determined either by determining the rate at which the observation has occurred in previous experience, or by counting the logical alternatives to its existence. For example, if no one had ever seen a 6-sided dice before, I could define the concept as a cube, one who's faces are inscribed the numerals 1-6, and who's center of mass is equidistant from the vertices of the cube, and which has a mass of 5 grams. I can then ask what the probability is that if I throw that dice with a random speed, angle, and angular momentum, that it will land showing the face with the numeral 6. A priori, that probability is 1:6, by definition of the object in question. "A priori" does not mean what you think it means. It just means "before."

Jan 27, 2012
But that is self-defeating, because humans are also part of the universe, and a system cannot explain itself.


Put you propose an object that does just that? Your god is an object that justifies (i.e. explains) itself. It is its own cause. You complain that, because we are "inside" the universe, we can't fully explain it, so in order to explain it, you propose something else we can't explain?

Jan 27, 2012
you propose something else we can't explain?


A good explanation for something does not stop being an explanation because it also can be explained. A suburn can be explained by sunrays damaging the skin. But does the fact that the sun itself needs an explanation negate its explanatory power for sunburn?

Besides that, the human mind can understand God through faith, but this understanding works on a spiritual level rather than an intellectual. Just like humans experience love, music, beauty etc. on a spiritual level rather than by science.

Jan 27, 2012
Even an atheist will affirm that God could exist without humans, but science cannot.
To what end would God exist without humans? It would be interesting to watch dinos, but their world was rather limited. So God said enough of this - let's make some creature to look out to the U. So how did He get this creature to look up? He created a sun god - the observable corona. Now I realize I may have the timeline sort of screwed up here but I think you get what I mean.

Ultimately, truth can only be discovered through faith, both in science and in God.
Yes well sometimes it can come down suddenly crashing on your head when you least expect it. Or something like that. I don't think we're here so much to discover the truth as just sit back and enjoy the show. A great show it is, but without an audience to what end?

Jan 27, 2012
BTW watch out for the god of the underground! http://www.facebo...;theater

Jan 27, 2012
Actually coming up for a breath of fresh air, I suppose.

Jan 27, 2012
We'll wait for the results of this interesting experiment to learn more, as always.
In the meantime all I can say is that Henrik' theism sinks as well as Calippo's_Rawa1's aether...

Jan 27, 2012
@Henrik
To answer the fundamental questions, one must step outside the system and follow the evidence. Only theism can explain the system by following the evidence based on a belief in God. Even an atheist will affirm that God could exist without humans, but science cannot.


All I can say is this argument leaves me completely cold.
Step outside the system and follow the evidence
for example:

If you are inside the system then you will have to just follow the evidence the best you can. Stepping outside the system implies an inside and an outside that may not exist.

Only theism can explain...
I bite by saying I cannot see how theism can explain anything at all.
Even an atheist ...
What has this got to do with anything? I think that science can exist without humans. All tool using animals have used reason and some could have used science to work out which tools to use for which purpose. All that without humans.

Jan 28, 2012
lets just face it everyone the universe is just one big bar magnet called god and all the anti matter is heading to the end called hell and all the matter is going to heaven. I think that covers everyone`s comments lol

Jan 28, 2012
There is only so much land surface on Earth. In principle the IPU must be observable, somewhere.

The 'I' in IPU stands for 'invisible'. (and we know she's godlike because she can be invisible AND pink at the same time)

Nonsense. False dichotomy

Proof: If we observed the universe till the end of time then the probability of gods/no-gods would not have changed (unless a god came along and made himself...evident)
EVIDENCE changes probability of a theory (it makes it more likely in the case of positive evidence or less likley in the case of conflicting evidence...as in your 6000 year-old-Earth example)
OBSERVATION alone without any delineation power does not change probabilities.

Nor does it remove any.

It does not need to. When starting a hypothesis (like the god hypothesis) the probability is zero until evidence (not observation - EVIDENCE) is presented. It doesn't jump to 50/50 just because someone states an unsupported premise.

Jan 28, 2012
To illustrate the difference between observation and evidence:
Hypothesis: Stars are mainly made up of chocolate (or: there are god(s))
Antithesis: Stars are not mainly mad up of chocolate (or: there are no god(s))

Observation: My car is red.

This observation fits with both the thesis and the antithesis - but it is not evidence of either.

Jan 28, 2012
This observation fits with both the thesis and the antithesis - but it is not evidence of either.
The similar logics is relevant for alleged disapproval of dense aether model with Michellson-Morley experiment. This experiment is not relevant for luminiferous aether drag model, because the light is spreading in transverse waves and the sparse aether model is using the longitudinal waves. In this way the M-M experiment cannot disprove the sparse aether model and it serves as a confirmation for dense aether model instead.

Jan 28, 2012
When starting a hypothesis (like the god hypothesis) the probability is zero until evidence (not observation - EVIDENCE) is presented.


This is false. A probability of zero by definition means 'not possible'. So you would be making a statement about something you haven't observed. Statistics is not applicable to ontological questions. Probability is a measure, therefore it is not applicable wrt metaphysics (god stuff), so it would be undefined in this case.

Even with things that obviously could exist in principal but otherwise has not been observed yet, it is meaningless to assign a probability to its ontological existence. Once something is known to exist, you can assign probabilities such as, what is the likelyhood of finding 100 such things in a square mile, etc.

Jan 28, 2012
It doesn't jump to 50/50 just because someone states an unsupported premise.

Nor does it default to zero for the same reason. The probability of gods existence is undefined because metaphysical things can't be a source of positive knowledge, and therefore are not statistically measurable.

You can not make rational statements about the non-existence of something, including 'it does not exist'. Even wrt scientific method of induction, at best one can only ascertain knowledge to a high degree of probability, and not absolute certainty.

Jan 28, 2012
I like the idea of multiple universes but I don't insist on it being true just a useful concept for dealing with the question of fine tuning that is compatible with the actual math of present theory even if some people don't want to accept its mathematical validity

This is reasonable. Ascribing a reality to the 'wavefunction' describing a system is not IMO rational as it is not observable in such form. We've discussed this before though.

The point is, for quite similar reasons wrt agnosticism being the more rational stance to atheism, ... scientific positivism is the more rational stance to scientific realism.

Jan 28, 2012
One further comment, the whole spaghetti monster non-sense (Russell), was latched onto by rather immature atheist imo. It attempts to equate, basically word-salad, to the notion of a god. The idea of a god is not arbitrary word-salad, so the logical is weak. The notion of a god apparently manifested independently in different areas of the earth in different forms. But the central idea is, 'things exist-> humans can make things-> who made natural things (arranged for them to come about)?'. This is not word-salad, this is a reasonable question.

Jan 28, 2012
Ascribing a reality to the 'wavefunction' describing a system is not IMO rational as it is not observable in such form.
It can be measured http://www.nature...120.html

Jan 28, 2012
Ascribing a reality to the 'wavefunction' describing a system is not IMO rational as it is not observable in such form.
It can be measured http://www.nature...120.html


No it can't. They use 'quantum tomography' which requires a multitude of measurements to reconstruct a probability distribution. This in no way invalidates the projection postulate, nor validates the realism of the wave-function representing a system.

Jan 28, 2012
No it can't. They use 'quantum tomography' which requires a multitude of measurements to reconstruct a probability distribution.
After then we should deny the existence of electron, photons and many other stuffs, which cannot be observed directly - just reconstructed from sequences of measurements. And there is a falsifiability and predictability question too - what we could get, if we would accept the nonexistence of wave function? Will it help us with some new testable predictions?

Jan 28, 2012
The electron is represented as a zero volume entity that imparts momentum, and then can be refracted as a wave depending on experimental arrangement. Of course no one knows what an electron really 'is' apart from observation. It is meaningless to ascribe an independent reality to entities who known attributes are dependant on observation. Where does the wave-function go after a measurement? With many-worlds, we see how far one has to sink into metaphysics to maintain realism if the wave-function is thought of as a thing,... and yet still cannot escape the requirement of a conscious observer in defining a particular 'world'.

Jan 28, 2012
Where does the wave-function go after a measurement?
It gets synchronized with observer, so it "collapses" from perspective of observer. And it's not wave INSIDE OF electron, but the wake wave of vacuum density, which is created AROUND IT with its motion. The internal electron geometry is irrelevant with respect to such a measurement and it exists under much higher energy density, which cannot be affected with normal observation at all. http://aetherwave...-of.html

Jan 28, 2012
Thank you, anitalias, you're quite right in pointing out that the a priori probability I assigned for the existence of a deistic type of god is the weakest point. However, you are wrong to assign the a priori probability of an hypothesis to 0. For one thing, it violates the principle of charity, which is to start with the assumption that the idea under analysis is at least a meaningful possibility, P(x)>0, unless it can be shown to be logically impossible. For another thing, it mucks up the bayesian formula that decides whether something (the existence of the universe, y) is evidence for something else (the existence of a deistic type of god, x). If you start with P(x)=0, then P(x|y)= P(y|x)* P(x)/(P(y|x)*P(x) plus P(y|~x) * P(~x)) will always be 0, regardless of the rate of y. This is arguably not problematic when talking of gods and universes, but becomes so when talking of other things, like a theory of gravity and positions of particles.

Jan 28, 2012
As for the determination of the a priori probability of the existence of a deistic-type of god, I don't think anyone has established the logical impossibility of such a god, since a deist conception does not require the god to possess omniscience, omnipotence nor omnibenevolence, and it is these qualities that are typically responsible for the absurdities that postulating their existence generates. Since a deist conception is not obviously logically contradictory, then by the principle of charity I agree to assign the a priori probability of the truth of the claim to be greater than 0. I assigned it an a priori probability of 1:2 simply because there is no way to otherwise determine its a priori probability. And it really doesn't matter because the whole point was that "evidence" one way or another doesn't change that a priori probability, so doesn't count as evidence. Believing in a deistic god is pointless because it literally doesn't matter, whatever its likelihood.

Jan 28, 2012
I agree to assign the a priori probability of the truth of the claim to be greater than 0. I assigned it an a priori probability of 1:2

That's just not how probabilities work in math. There's a whole science behind it (stochastics and information theory)

To assign a priori probabilities you have to have the following prerequisite:
A KNOWN alphabet of POSSIBLE outcomes. (Like in a coin flip. You KNOW that there are two sides the coin can come up so you can assign an apriori possibility to the next coin flip. KNOW is in this context the same as "you cab test that the coin has two sides a priori (before) you make an experiment")

Just postulating that "there MAY be gods" is not enough to elevate this to the status of a KNOWN outcome (whereas "there may be no gods" is - since we observe that state constantly. No gods have so far been forthcoming with their credentials.)

Jan 28, 2012
Perhaps, otto, you would care to study up on Bayesian reasoning.
No thanks I just ate. I will cede the rare lapse:

"The a priori definition of probability allows probabilities to be computed in special cases without experimentation. Most notably, probabilities can be computed in games of chance."

-So you are playing a game of chance here? A little slight of hand? Stacking the deck?

-I will raise you one philo who further discredits the field of philosophy:
http://www.youtub...pp_video

-Your word calcs are worthless. They are allowing theologians to sustain their intellectual support for religion. The discipline ASSISTS with superstitious deception.

So obviously it can be used to prove anything whatsoever either true or false depending on whichever wizard or cardshark is dealing.

Jan 28, 2012
Let me try a little ottonian a priori probability word calculating...

I know you are rehashing the word calcs of some long-dead philo here. What is the probability of me finding another equally astute (and also thoroughly dead) philo who convincingly refutes your (I mean your dead philos) arguments? Somewhere near 100 pct?

See I dont have to be familiar with your bayesian spaghettispeak to know that this is a pretty good bet. Yes?

Jan 29, 2012
Even though it is unlikely, I really hope it turns out antimatter is repulsed by gravity. How awesome would that be to be able to make things that float on gravity... besides the unfortunate side effect of being able to obliterate whole countries at a time if an accident mixes a large amount of it with regular matter.

Jan 29, 2012
CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge.
Yes. I believe that would be the energy density (but same energy). Ergo spacetime volume is conserved on pair creation, and spacetime remains flat.
That leaves space flat, but we need to leave spacetime flat. So in pair creation whatever travels forward in spacetime has to have a counterpart travelling in reverse spacetime. Looking at it from our perspective negative charge moving away looks like positive charge. Also matter moving away looks like antigravity. Seems like the same effect though.


Jan 29, 2012
Even though it is unlikely, I really hope it turns out antimatter is repulsed by gravity. How awesome would that be to be able to make things that float on gravity... besides the unfortunate side effect of being able to obliterate whole countries at a time if an accident mixes a large amount of it with regular matter.
Maybe we could build something like that on the backside of the moon? Or maybe on another planet.

Jan 29, 2012
The a priori definition of probability allows probabilities to be computed in special cases without experimentation. Most notably, probabilities can be computed in games of chance

Yes. The differnce is that in games of chance you know (a priori) all the possible outcomes. This is aa prerequisite. You must know which cards are in the deck to make a prediction.

With the god hypothesis we don't know whether the "there is a god" card is even in the deck. So no a priori possibility can be assigned. Simply stating that it might be in the deck is not enough.

Otherwise you would have to concede that in a game of 52 card rummy the a priori probability is 1/52 you draw a green card - just because I said one was in the deck without showing you that there is and with you only ever haveing seen red and black cards being played in previously observed games.
See how this doesn't follow?

Jan 29, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism.. Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away.
What I don't understand is, why the only comment which deals with subject seriously (Callippo above) is downvoted heavily - whereas the other senile off topic blurbs are upvoted here? Are the readers here really so imbecile, they cannot recognize, what belongs into discussion here and what not? How do you want to understand something, if you cannot think coherently and concentrate to subject? The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself. But unfortunately it's just a stupidity of readers, what becomes apparent and public.


It's because many of them don't know much science, or need a sliderule to project what little knowledge they have of it. It's about the same as the mental giantism of the rantings one reads about in all those holy books that make no sense.

Jan 29, 2012
In brief: "If you don't know, what to say, don't say it here."

Jan 29, 2012
of surface waves, so that the positive rest mass of every photon must be balanced with negative space-time curvature somewhere else.


Photons don't have "rest mass", they can only exist at lightspeed where nothing can have "rest mass". I learned this in 2nd semester college physics class.

Jan 29, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away. So I guess that just leaves only us agnostics to hang around.


Agnosticism is merely the lack of courage to commit to one's beliefs or lack thereof... an agnostic is still a theist or an atheist, just a cowardly one. Belief or disbelief has never been a matter of choice.

Jan 29, 2012
Agnosticism is merely the lack of courage to commit to one's beliefs or lack thereof... an agnostic is still a theist or an atheist, just a cowardly one.
Your stance considers, we always have sufficient amount of information for qualified decision of problem. The dual and probably more realistic stance could be, the agnostic is brave enough to admit, he is still not qualified to decide, whether the existence or nonexistence of God is more correct. My experience is, many people do occupy the ultimate stances just from fear, they could be accused of incompetence.

Jan 29, 2012
Another motivation for well decided stance can be simply gregarious instinct, i.e. the fear from excommunication. For example, I'm pretty sure, many opponents of dense aether model tend to oppose it just because the refusal of aether model currently belongs into intersubjectivelly accepted opinions of physical authorities from historical reasons. It manifests with many subtle ways - for example, the people are asking me for my name and/or qualification often. Their decisions are apparently driven with intersubjectively accepted authorities, not by individual rational stance - which is what the meritocracy is called.

Jan 29, 2012
I'm pretty sure, many opponents of dense aether model tend to oppose it just because the refusal of aether model currently belongs into intersubjectivelly accepted opinions of physical authorities from historical reasons. It manifests with many subtle ways - for example, the people are asking me for my name and/or qualification often. Their decisions are apparently driven with intersubjectively accepted authorities, not by individual rational stance - which is what the meritocracy is called.


No Cal, it's because of AWT references to "infinite densities" & other "infinite" things which can only exist in a "perpetual motion universe". Those of us who do the real world math for a living, realize "infinity" exists only in the eschalogical universe of theism.

Jan 29, 2012
Your stance considers, we always have sufficient amount of information for qualified decision of problem. The dual and probably more realistic stance could be, the agnostic is brave enough to admit, he is still not qualified to decide, whether the existence or nonexistence of God is more correct.


I don't think the matter is one of "decision". One is wise to be informed, yet belief will not be a decision, it will emerge or not emerge from the information we possess.

As per Merriam Webster:
"1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

In my view, based on these definitions, the issue is always commitment, not "knowability".

Jan 29, 2012
..realize "infinity" exists only in the eschalogical universe of theism...
Interestingly enough the Big Bang cosmology and whole the idea of the finite age Universe had been opposed by Fred Hoyle and other "materialistic" scientists as an invention of Catholic priest Lamaitre, just because of its apparent notion of creation. We are apparently living in dual epoch, where former conservative ideas are considered liberal and vice-versa.

Jan 29, 2012
See how this doesn't follow?
No. The thing that to me 'doesn't follow' is insisting on using WORDS to try to ascertain whether fantasy exists or not. And if I employ sarcasm in order to press that point then you should at least be entertained.

I spent some hours yesterday roaming around YouTube listening to Dawkins, hitchens, dennett and others arguing the case against god. None of them evoked Kant or Hume or Russell or any philosophy whatsoever except to deride it in the same context.

Had philosophy EVER been able to generate a useful argument for or against the existence of god, I would think they would all have been citing it. I would have read about it in the news. But it never has, nor has it ever generated meaningful insight into the existance of ANYTHING. It only SAYS it does in authoritative but indecipherable ...crap. Which rarely ever survives the next generation of shovelers.

Word calcs only ever produce more word calcs. Never anything useful.

Jan 29, 2012
Had philosophy EVER been able to generate a useful argument for or against the existence of god

Philosophy isn't a rigorous science for the most part.

[]nor has it ever generated meaningful insight into the existance of ANYTHING
I wouldn't go that far. In the beginning all sciences were unified in the field of philosophy (yes: maths, biology, chemistry, physics, ... are all subsets of philosophy as the greeks understood it). But after all the 'useful' sciences had split off into their own special niches there wasn't much left to 'pure' philosophy except to round in circles and missing the point.

Jan 29, 2012
No. The thing that to me 'doesn't follow' is insisting on using WORDS to try to ascertain whether fantasy exists or not. And if I employ sarcasm in order to press that point then you should at least be entertained.


By definition, fantasy doesn't exist. No more words are required. There is, however, something to be argued about when it is said something is NOT fantasy, when a myriad similar concepts are adamantly deemed as such.

I spent some hours yesterday roaming around YouTube listening to Dawkins, hitchens, dennett and others arguing the case against god.


I'm reasonably sure they focus on arguing that belief in gods is unreasonable, and they are not simply "making a case against god" as you would make that sound. They don't set out to prove gods don't exist, just as they don't set out to prove unicorns don't exist. These people aren't anti-theists, they are atheists. They know the difference.

Jan 29, 2012
I'm Young Earth Creationist. So I believe, that the Big Bang did not happen in reality. But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C. And as that it can be studied by Young Earth Creationists. The AEGIS-kind experiments want to get antigravity for explaining the matter domination over antimatter in Virtual Big Bang. But why must there be antimatter at all? I red in Wiki, that there was hot plasma of all kinds of fundamental particles. The sum of all electrical charges can be zero without need of antimatter.

Jan 29, 2012
Philosophy isn't a rigorous science for the most part.

Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions; deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions, etc. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, which concerns knowledge itself. Interpretations of qm are philosophical. There are entire branches of philosophy that deal with physics and mathematics.

@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it. Your immaturity causes you to imagine a competition between mathematics and philosophy where none exists. Mathematics by itself is not the entirety of science. Mathematics is deductive and doesn't in itself discover anything new that isn't already based on axiomatic definitions. If you truely understood what philosophy IS you would see it all over the place in science.

Jan 29, 2012
But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C.
Such plan would seriously limit the size of observable part of Milky Way galaxy, which has a diameter 70000 to 100000 light-years (20 to 30 kpc).

Jan 29, 2012
.. Dawkins, hitchens, dennett and others arguing the case against god. None of them evoked Kant or Hume or Russell or any philosophy whatsoever except to deride it in the same context.

It could be that they are ignorant of Kant, or obviously don't find him useful in support of their intellectually underdeveloped atheism. Kant showed conclusively imo, that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge, which means you can't prove nor disprove existence of god.

Had philosophy EVER been able to generate a useful argument for or against the existence of god, I would think they would all have been citing it.


Kant isolated himself for over a decade to write the above referenced book that rationally shows that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. This means that no one can prove the non-existence of God. This means science cannot disprove the existence of God either. This is why such thoughts are a matter of faith.

Jan 29, 2012
Yes. The differnce is that in games of chance you know (a priori) all the possible outcomes. This is aa prerequisite. You must know which cards are in the deck to make a prediction.

With the god hypothesis we don't know whether the "there is a god" card is even in the deck. So no a priori possibility can be assigned. Simply stating that it might be in the deck is not enough.

It certainly is enough, providing we are extending the principle of charity to the hypothesis that a deistic god exists. If you tell me you put a green card in the deck, then I can either give you the benefit of the doubt, which will allow me to address your hypothesis with experiment, or I can deny you that benefit, in which case the investigation is over, and if you continue to assert the existence of the green card, we will be at an impasse, we would be unable to agree to what constitutes evidence. In any event, it is irrelevant. (cont.)

Jan 29, 2012
It is irrelevant because the existence of the universe or anything in the universe does not alter the posterior probability from the a priori probability that a deistic god exists, whatever the a priori probability that such an entity exists. No observation or measurement would be different in the case of a deistic god's existence than would occur in the case of a deistic god's absence. Because we cannot know whether such a god exists to any degree of certainty, it won't make any bit of difference to us whether such a god exists. The only choices for a hopeful deist is to believe in something that is logically impossible, something that is as certainly false as anything can be that's empirically known, or something that's completely irrelevant and absolutely useless as an idea or aid to anything human beings can possibly do.

Jan 29, 2012
intellectually underdeveloped atheism.
AHhaahaahha. Dont you think if some suitably overdeveloped intellectual had discovered a useful and convincing argument then then the 4 Horsemen would have been more than happy to use it? Or even Nightline?
does not alter the posterior probability
AHhaahaaahaa you said posterior.
Kant isolated himself for over a decade to write the above referenced book that rationally shows that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. This means that no one can prove the non-existence of God.
What do you mean that BECAUSE kant isolated himself or BECAUSE he wrote a book which YOU seem to think was the ultimate textbook on the subject? I reject either such posterior conclusivisms.

Jan 29, 2012
-And so does the currently living and breathing philo who I am very surprised you are not familiar with:

"My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless--a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors trapped in the seductively lucid amber of tradition: "obvious truths" that are simply false, broken-backed distinctions, and other cognitive illusions."
http://en.wikiped..._Dennett

-And so, with Dr Dennetts learned perspective in mind we can look at the word calc

P(x)=0, then P(x|y)= P(y|x)* P(x)/(P(y|x)*P(x) plus P(y|~x) * P(~x)) will always be 0

-And further figurate, that if any of the terms P, y, or x happen to be WORDS, especially official philo-approved terms, then said word calc is rendered Unsinn and void.

Jan 29, 2012
The sum of all electrical charges can be zero without need of antimatter.
So where do you get your positive charges?

Jan 29, 2012
But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C.
Such plan would seriously limit the size of observable part of Milky Way galaxy, which has a diameter 70000 to 100000 light-years (20 to 30 kpc).
Well yes assuming creation started from one point. However maybe it was all created from everywhere all at once. Including fossils, of course, only put here to test our faith in creationism.

Jan 29, 2012
@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it.
Why should I do that? I only have to read Dennett once to know that "the standard philosophical terminology [is] worse than useless--a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors trapped in the seductively lucid amber of tradition: "obvious truths" that are simply false, broken-backed distinctions, and other cognitive illusions."

-Or hawking, or dawkins, or krause, or Harris, or sagan et cetera et cetera and save some time. Because I know that ALL these gentlemen know far more about these things than you dear sir, and that they have no peculiar infatuation with rotting dusty philos to cloud their judgment.

Jan 29, 2012
Well yes assuming creation started from one point. However maybe it was all created from everywhere all at once. Including fossils, of course, only put here to test our faith in creationism.
Right. God put every photon and cosmic ray and gravity wave in its place and sent them all on their way to make it all look thus and so.

God could do this. And he would do so in order to test our faith of course.

Jan 29, 2012
No observation or measurement would be different in the case of a deistic god's existence than would occur in the case of a deistic god's absence.

Not quite. A deistic god could manifest himeself (presumably unambiguously). That (and only that) would be a conclusive measurement.

It certainly is enough, providing we are extending the principle of charity to the hypothesis that a deistic god exists.
It still doesn't allow you to assign a probability (much less a 50/50 one).
Making a statement does not increase the probabilty of that statement being true UNTIL evidence of that statement comes rolling in. Simply stating that there may be gods does not increse the probability from zero to 50%.

Jan 29, 2012
Kant the physicist:
"Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding."

-Enrich our understanding... I thought you said that "metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge" -so 'enriching' is not sourcing exactly, but 'enhancing' or 'colorizing' in some fashion without actually 'adding' anything that wasnt already there to begin with?

Oh I get it. 8-P

Jan 29, 2012
A deistic god that could manifest itself would not be a deistic god. That's sort of the definition of a deistic god. If a god were capable of manifesting itself, or some aspect of itself, and it still lacked the omniscient, omnipotent properties that would make it a logical impossibility, then it would be the same kind of god as the members of the Greek or Hindi pantheon, Yahweh/Jehovah, etc. In other words, it would be the kind of god we know empirically does not exist with the same level of certainty that we can know anything empirically.

My point, and I will repeat it again, is that there are only three kinds of deity the faithful can appeal to: a logically impossible god, a certainly false god, or a completely irrelevant and useless god.

Jan 29, 2012
When you make a statement, and you don't know whether or not that statement is true, then when you go looking for evidence of whether or not that statement is true, you must assign the a priori probability that the statement is true to be greater than zero. If you don't, then you will have already determined that nothing can count as evidence for or against the truth of that statement. The posterior probability, that is, the adjusted probability that the statement is true in light of any other observation or true proposition, will remain zero, because when you multiply by zero, you get zero.

Jan 29, 2012
But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C.
Such plan would seriously limit the size of observable part of Milky Way galaxy, which has a diameter 70000 to 100000 light-years (20 to 30 kpc).
Well yes assuming creation started from one point.
Nope, we would live inside of sphere of 11016 light-years diameter even if the Universe would appear homogeneously.

Jan 29, 2012

Kant isolated himself for over a decade to write the above referenced book that rationally shows that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. This means that no one can prove the non-existence of God.

What do you mean that BECAUSE kant isolated himself or BECAUSE he wrote a book which YOU seem to think was the ultimate textbook on the subject? I reject either such posterior conclusivisms.


You may reject it, but you don't based on reasoned argument, that is certain.

Jan 29, 2012
Kant the physicist:
"Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding."

-Enrich our understanding... I thought you said that "metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge" -so 'enriching' is not sourcing exactly, but 'enhancing' or 'colorizing' in some fashion without actually 'adding' anything that wasnt already there to begin with?

Oh I get it. 8-P


Um, no, you don't. intuitional understanding can be synthetc a-priori, as distinct from knowledge gained through experience.

Jan 29, 2012
However maybe it was all created from everywhere all at once.
I forgot it took 6 days. Maybe they were paying double overtime.

Jan 29, 2012
In brief: "If you don't know, what to say, don't say it here."
Say what? If you don't know what to say use your imagination.

Jan 29, 2012
@GhostofOtto, I'm not going to argue with random quotes you pick off the Internet, because I don't know the context. I tried to engage you about physics in the quantum thread but you were stuck on 'I hate philo'. You seem to get distracted and end up not discussing the actually subject,.. i.e. the reasonableness of atheism as compared to agnosticism.

In order to demonstrat that God does not exist, YOU have to engage on metaphysical discussions,.. while I put forth that such speculations can not be a source of knowledge , thus YOU cannot have knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.

Probability is inapplicable here.

Jan 29, 2012
Henrik what are you doing in a science site? don't you have to go the church or something?
I guess he did. I can't find him anywhere now.

Jan 29, 2012
@GhostofOtto,

In order to demonstrat that God does not exist, YOU have to engage on metaphysical discussions,.. while I put forth that such speculations can not be a source of knowledge , thus YOU cannot have knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.

Probability is inapplicable here.


Great post: Einstein's writings about GR & QM is a far different issue than Kant's writings about meta-physics, etc. Einstein's writings QM & GR can be proven (or disproven)by a mathematical model. The writings of Kant is more like trying to prove a negative.

I still remember the morning summer session I took that philosophy course, I walked into the mostly filled classroom muttering; "I can't (kant), I can't (kant), I kant take it anymore", all the while not realizing my professor was already in the classroom. Everybody but the prof laughed, he was known for not liking engineering majors very much, the grade he gave me proved it.

Jan 29, 2012

Great post: Einstein's writings about GR & QM is a far different issue than Kant's writings about meta-physics, etc. Einstein's writings QM & GR can be proven (or disproven)by a mathematical model. The writings of Kant is more like trying to prove a negative.


Philosophy can not replace science, and I have never claimed such a thing. However, when physics establishes a theory, like QM, which is proven accurate, yet is intuitively incomprehensible, it is entirely rational to philosophize about interpretations of what that theory is saying in terms of our knowledge of reality and how our a-priori concepts are effecting that knowledge. This is epistemology which Kant wrote about.

I posted about my use of Kant's epistemology and QM here.

http://www.physor...ard.html

Jan 29, 2012
Bravo @GhostOfOtto, your feeding the trolls has trashed this comment thread. People are allowed to be wrong, please afford them this right in silence.

Jan 29, 2012
Noumenon: At the risk of becomming what I beheld...
Science is a subset of philosophy, so clearly just as calculus cant replace mathemactics, neither can science replace philosophy as the highest order phenomenon. Specifically science is a belief forming mechanism. The application of the scientific method combined with the principle of falsification is what differentiates scientific beliefs from other types of beliefs. And generally as long as falsification and observations hypothesis experiment have been maintained the results are useful.

Jan 29, 2012
The primary difference between religous thought and scientific thought is falsification. Religous people observe the world, and then hypothesise that 'God Did it' but provide no ability to falsify this hypothesis, quite the opposite, they purposefully construct un-falsifiable theories (similarly to Post Normalism).
The abandonment of falsification is the abandoment of exactly that which separated scientific beliefs from religious beliefs and other catagories of 'just so stories'.

Jan 29, 2012
you must assign the a priori probability that the statement is true to be greater than zero.
Uh unless youre pretty sure its false and are trying to confirm this?
you don't based on reasoned argument, that is certain.
I MOST CERTAINLY do. Ive given you links to those arguments, posted excerpts from them, and identified the authors of them. I rely on experts such as Dr Dennett, currently the Co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University.
@GhostofOtto, I'm not going to argue with random quotes you pick off the Internet, because I don't know the context.
I reference what I post. And you SHOULD know the context as they are directly relevent to your misperceptions.
I tried to engage you about physics in the quantum thread
Because you tend to invoke "obvious truths" that are simply false, broken-backed distinctions, and other cognitive illusions."

-What can I say?

Jan 29, 2012
Noumenon: At the risk of becomming what I beheld...
Science is a subset of philosophy, so clearly just as calculus cant replace mathemactics, neither can science replace philosophy as the highest order phenomenon. Specifically science is a belief forming mechanism. The application of the scientific method combined with the principle of falsification is what differentiates scientific beliefs from other types of beliefs. And generally as long as falsification and observations hypothesis experiment have been maintained the results are useful.


Correct, Good luck explaining that to GhostOfOtto.

Jan 29, 2012
Bravo @GhostOfOtto, your feeding the trolls has trashed this comment thread. People are allowed to be wrong, please afford them this right in silence.
And I am allowed to dispute them and revel in their wrongness. Oh, and bite me.
Science is a subset of philosophy
Philosophy may have been the egg from which science emerged. It now lies broken and useless and stinky.
neither can science replace philosophy
According to leading scientists, IT ALREADY HAS. Long ago.

"philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." -Hawking

-And you must realize that this is a consensus within the scientific community. Philosophy is not MERELY irrelevant. It is a bother and a nuisance to scientists whenever they stumble over it.
http://www.youtub...hf1Olnj0

-A standard gagline. Re Krause, Feynman, etc.

Jan 29, 2012
Philosophy is integral to science despite your ignorance. The philosophy of physics is a major field of study.

http://en.wikiped..._Physics

And as I mentioned to you, Penrose uses the phrase "philosophy of" many times in his "Road to Reality" tomb.

Abraham Pais, a well known physicist, speaks of Kant when discussing physics.

I already named many mathematicians and physicists that are also known as philosophers proper, in the quantum thread referenced above.

Jan 29, 2012
Another excellent book, of many, on 'philosophy of physics', with many equations;

http://www.amazon...p;sr=8-4

Here is another statement by a scientist in a recent book;

"[regarding inequality tests devised by A. Leggett and performed by A. Zeilinger] These experiments tells us rather emphatically that we can never perceive reality 'as it really is'. We can only reveal aspects of an empirical reality that depend on the nature of the instruments we use and the questions we ask. Quantum Physics, it seems, has completed it's transformation into experimental philosophy. . . . Quantum theory pushed us to the edge of an epistemological precipice " - J. Baggott (2011)

You quote a few opinions, but ignore the fact that not all physicists feel that way, thus invalidating your rediculous claim.

Again you side step the present discussion.

Jan 29, 2012
science is a belief forming mechanism.
No its not.
The application of the scientific method combined with the principle of falsification is what differentiates scientific beliefs from other types of beliefs.
When the people who called themselves philosophers at the time devised or discovered these concepts, they were doing science and not philosophy.

When the Power of the scientific method was realized, experiment began to replace speculation. Numbers began to replace words. Scientists found they could explain things like morality, pathology, cognition; and further, those explanations differed completely from what people like schopenhauer and hegel and kant had tried to sell.

Scientists slowly began to realize that philos were Novelists and sociopolitical propagandists, not truth-seekers. Most were merely exploiting a vacuum. This becomes more obvious with every new discovery.

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" Kant

Jan 29, 2012
Bravo @GhostOfOtto, your feeding the trolls has trashed this comment thread. People are allowed to be wrong, please afford them this right in silence.


A troll is one who goes after who they perceive as an easy target, over and over again.

Jan 29, 2012
You quote a few opinions, but ignore the fact that not all physicists feel that way, thus invalidating your rediculous claim.
Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?
http://whyscience...ott.html

"These experiments tells us rather emphatically that we can never perceive reality 'as it really is'."

-And you do know that this is standard philo/religionist pap for "I want you to listen and buy my book/god so I will evoke the 'mystery and grandeur of the universe' for after all I have a family to support"

Feynman on philosophy
http://www.youtub...WBcPVPMo

Jan 29, 2012
Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?


Your opinion based on zero. He is a scientist and wrote a good history of quantum theory.

Jan 29, 2012
Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?


Your opinion based on zero. He is a scientist and wrote a good history of quantum theory.
Well actually my opinion is based in part on your excerpt in which he says "These experiments tells us rather emphatically that we can never perceive reality 'as it really is'." -thereby convincingly simulating a hack.

Jan 29, 2012
Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?


Your opinion based on zero. He is a scientist and wrote a good history of quantum theory.
Well actually my opinion is based in part on your excerpt in which he says "These experiments tells us rather emphatically that we can never perceive reality 'as it really is'." -thereby convincingly simulating a hack.


That is an absolute true statement. As I mention above (you seem to skip over posts), an electron is observed as a wave or as a particle depending on experimental arrangement. This of course means that our knowledge of reality is coloured as it were, by our concepts and experimental apparatus.

Jan 29, 2012
We cannot know reality, as it is in itself, that is, apart from observation. Our conceptualization of reality differs from Reality as it is in itself, because it was subjected to a-priori concepts that are dependent on mind.

What is an "electron" as it is apart from conceptualization as such and observation? It is a "something" to be sure, but without adding some concepts it is unknowable. To have knowledge of some aspect of reality, we must disturbed it by conforming it within concepts we supply.

Jan 29, 2012
Why don't you look up the Leggett/Zeilinger experiment?

Jan 30, 2012
Philosophy may have been the egg from which science emerged. It now lies broken and useless and stinky.
Strange. I took two phil courses taught by a former president of Union Theological Seminary. The first semester was logic and the second was ethics. Probably obsolete in modern science though.

Jan 30, 2012
I remember Kant - something about a moral imperative. There was also a book by Rheinhold Niebuhr, I think it was. Moral Man and Immoral Society or something like that. All obsolete now, I suppose.

Jan 30, 2012
Also I remember missing one point in the logic course. I guess we're all human.

Jan 30, 2012
That is an absolute true statement. As I mention above (you seem to skip over posts), an electron is observed as a wave or as a particle depending on experimental arrangement. This of course means that our knowledge of reality is coloured as it were, by our concepts and experimental apparatus.
...and so -? The dual nature of an electron is reality is it not? Your attempts at coloring it with unnecessary metaphysical philo terms is not.
We cannot know reality, as it is in itself, that is, apart from observation. Our conceptualization of reality differs from Reality as it is in itself, because it was subjected to a-priori concepts that are dependent on mind.
Pure, utter, absolute, worthless, tripe. Feynman said as much in the vid I posted. He should know, he and his collegues were more successful at defining reality than any philo ever was. Nor will ever be.

This babble never got anyone anywhere, except into cushy university jobs. You all slow reality down.

Jan 30, 2012
You guys are just as bad as Religionists in this respect.
We cannot know reality, as it is in itself, that is, apart from observation. Our conceptualization of reality differs from Reality as it is in itself
Ding an sich oh christ. 'We can never know everything about a thing and so this means that it must contain metaphysical things best explored by philos who are experts in such non-things and pseudo-things etc.'

-You even promise an afterlife of sorts. 'Since everything contains non-things and pseudo-things and unknowable things this must mean there IS a metaphysical realm to which our intellects, if not a thing called a spirit as such, can retire to intact and functional after our corporeal containers have failed us.'

Your insistence that unknowable things exist and that somehow they can influence the real world is pure religionism. Intellectual superstition. And dangerous because it involves immortality and cushy university jobs.

Jan 30, 2012
The dual nature of an electron is reality is it not? Your attempts at coloring it with unnecessary metaphysical philo terms is not.

The dual wave-particle nature of the electron is phenomenal reality, yet, but there is a component of 'phenomenal reality' that is subject dependent. What the 'electron' IS apart from such conceptualizations is entirely unknowable.

Jan 30, 2012
We can never know everything about a thing and so this means that it must contain metaphysical things best explored by philos who are experts in such non-things and pseudo-things etc.


I've never said that. Of course QM is the most accurate physical theory every devised. I've only pointed out, as of now, undeniable facts about the nature of QM,.. that is that it is not a classical theory, that it is not intuitively consistent,.. and offered an explanation as to why at some level of reality, it cannot be.

Again, i'm a positivist (please look this up), as opposed to a realist. Scientific realism purports to say things about unobservable, while positivist (me), say this is metaphysical speculation and one should only stick with observables and theory as providing knowledge.

Jan 30, 2012
Your insistence that unknowable things exist and that somehow they can influence the real world is pure religionism. Intellectual superstition. And dangerous because it involves immortality and cushy university jobs.


It's not that I'm saying 'unknowable things exist', rather, what I am saying is that reality cannot be intuitively understood except by introducing concepts, that is, subjecting reality to forms dependent on mind. We are in our own way, in terms of acquiring knowledge of reality, 'as it is in itself'.

This does not conger-up 'things that are unobservable',.. it merely says that the true nature of reality cannot be conceptualized intuitively and remain consistent. This is a fact as revealed by qm. I'm only stating this fact and rationalizing as to why by invoking epistemology. This is rational, and is not anti-science, not 'religionists' in any way.

Jan 30, 2012
You even promise an afterlife of sorts. 'Since everything contains non-things and pseudo-things and unknowable things this must mean there IS a metaphysical realm to which our intellects, if not a thing called a spirit as such, can retire to intact and functional after our corporeal containers have failed us.'


What you need to understand is that Kant was a believer, and I am not. I probably reject more 'Kant' than accept. I only make use one aspect of his epistemology.

Please do not quote anyone (it appears you are quoting an unknown person with use of '..'), because someone who is anti-philosophy, is not going to reproduce context properly. Speak in your own words. I get bored of quote contests.

Jan 30, 2012
I've never said that.
What do you think THIS is?
What the 'electron' IS apart from such conceptualizations is entirely unknowable.
-Besides being utter bullshit? What is 'that which is forever unknowable' that is NOT metaphysical? What exactly IS it about an electron that metaphysicians think they can address, that physicists cannot?

Whatever we know about electrons was discovered by physicists. Whatever we WILL know about electrons, will be discovered by physicists. NOTHING of what we know about particle physics was ever discovered by philosophers.

There is nothing that philos can ever teach us about the physical world. Indeed, like religionists, they misrepresent reality for their own selfish ends, thereby retarding ongoing efforts to understand it.

Jan 30, 2012
Please do not quote anyone (it appears you are quoting an unknown person with use of '..'), because someone who is anti-philosophy, is not going to reproduce context properly. Speak in your own words. I get bored of quote contests.
This is called 'paraphrasing'. When you see '___' simply preface the enclosed content with 'in other words...'

Jan 30, 2012
Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions; deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions, etc.
No, any logic of any use whatsoever is a branch of mathematics and can be reduced to calculations using exclusively numbers. Further your 'notions'(?)- deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions can all be reduced to numbers for the purpose to doing science and mathematics.

The philos who were devising useful logic were doing math at the time, not philosophy. They were able to suspend their typical illogic just long enough to admit that numbers were much better at describing the world than words.

Conversely,

"the rational being, as by its nature an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends"

-Cannot be reduced to numbers as it is composed entirely of fuzzy and inexplicit words without useful content or value.

Jan 30, 2012
-Cannot be reduced to numbers as it is composed entirely of fuzzy and inexplicit words without useful content or value.
Forgive me. '...without value or useful content.' There, that phrasing has a better cadence and is thus more meaningful in a wholly philosophical and/or lyrical and/or poetic, uh, way.
@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it.
Jeez I would think that after the 3rd or 4th time you would have realized that there was NOTHING in THERE.

Jan 30, 2012
As pointed out by StarGazer (though I don't know why he was telling me),.. 'Science is a subset of philosophy'. Logic is also philosophy.

"In philosophy, Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. - Wiki"

You're misunderstanding of what philosophy IS is causing you problems.

Jan 30, 2012
I've never said that.
What do you think THIS is?
What the 'electron' IS apart from such conceptualizations is entirely unknowable.
-Besides being utter bullshit? What is 'that which is forever unknowable' that is NOT metaphysical? What exactly IS it about an electron that metaphysicians think they can address, that physicists cannot?


I never said that anyone can 'address aspects of the electron that physicists cannot'. In fact, I said no one else can. That is the point that continues to escape you. Physicists can only observe the electron as a particle Or as a wave, so how the electron is perceived is dependent on experimental arrangement and conceptual form. It's true nature, independent of experimental observation and conceptual form, is unknowable by anyone, simply by factual definition.

Now back to the atheism vrs agnosticism. If you think you can demonstrate the non-existence of a metaphysical entity, it is YOU that must partake of metaphysics.

Jan 30, 2012
@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it.

Jeez I would think that after the 3rd or 4th time you would have realized that there was NOTHING in THERE.


Cute, but it would take you that many times.

Jan 30, 2012
It's true nature, independent of experimental observation and conceptual form, is unknowable by anyone, simply by factual definition.
What does this mean? It MEANS nothing. What is it about 'true nature' that is in the least unknowable?? You want to grok things? 'See' things as casteneda did on peyote??

Youre saying that there is something left of a car after you have disassembled it down to its smallest disassemblable parts. Farvergnugen I suppose? THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. Your claiming that there is, is pure religionism. It is an attempt to preserve a discipline which is not worth preserving because it doesnt WORK and never DID.

Scientists will one day know everything there is to know about the electron. Because everything which composes an electron is knowable. Because it is a wholly physical THING. IRRESPECTIVE of whatever metaphysical crap metaphysicians or theologians want to try to squeeze out of QM or out of that which is not yet known.

Jan 30, 2012
Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions; deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions, etc.
No, any logic of any use whatsoever is a branch of mathematics and can be reduced to calculations using exclusively numbers.


Mathematical Logic:
http://en.wikiped...al_logic

Philosophical Logic:
http://en.wikiped...al_logic

We distinguish between the two today, we didn't always but we do today. Philosophy has largely been consumed by science. Many questions that were once impossible to answer through the scientific method are now within our ability to investigate empirically.

Jan 30, 2012
Now back to the atheism vs. agnosticism. If you think you can demonstrate the non-existence of a metaphysical entity, it is YOU that must partake of metaphysics


What? What do you mean "Atheism vs. Agnosticism"? These two stances are not contradictory, they do not oppose each other...

"I do not believe in god" -Atheism.
"I have no knowledge of god" -Agnosticism.
"I believe in god" -Theism.
"I have knowledge of god" -Gnosticism.

Atheism and Theism are opposed, Gnosticism and Agnosticism are opposed... but Atheism and Agnosticism are not opposed, and an individual can claim both.

Jan 30, 2012
For example, I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist, in that I do not believe in God but I do not claim to have any knowledge about God (for or against his/her/its existence).

The "Agnostic" part leads me to accept the possibility of any God that is not defined to be self-contradictory.

Jan 30, 2012
Then we hold the same position. But there are different levels of atheism.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" - WIKI

So, some atheists claim there are no gods. This is a positive assertion. Agnostics like me, say it is not possible to make such assertions about metaphysics as metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge either way, and so is unknowable.

Jan 30, 2012
There are different scopes of atheism.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" - WIKI

So, some atheists claim there are no gods. This is a positive assertion. Agnostics like me, say it is not possible to make such assertions about metaphysics as metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge either way.


Oh okay, it seems we believe the same thing then we just define it using different words. That's fine, labels are arbitrary, and what matters is that we can express what we are in more words, if not in fewer.

Jan 30, 2012
Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions....
No, any logic of any use whatsoever is a branch of mathematics and can be reduced to calculations using exclusively numbers.


Mathematical Logic:
http://en.wikiped...al_logic

Philosophical Logic: