# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  New research of oldest light confirms age of the universe

## Oceander

New research of oldest light confirms age of the universe

Stony Brook University
July 15, 2020


Just how old is the universe? Astrophysicists have been debating this question for decades. In recent years, new scientific measurements have suggested the universe may be hundreds of millions of years younger than its previously estimated age of approximately 13.8 billions of years.

Now new research published in a series of papers by an international team of astrophysicists, including Neelima Sehgal, PhD, from Stony Brook University, suggest the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. By using observations from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) in Chile, their findings match the measurements of the Planck satellite data of the same ancient light.

The ACT research team is an international collaboration of scientists from 41 institutions in seven countries. The Stony Brook team from the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the College of Arts and Sciences, led by Professor Sehgal, plays an essential role in analyzing the cosmic microwave background (CMB) -- the afterglow light from the Big Bang.

"In Stony Brook-led work we are restoring the 'baby photo' of the universe to its original condition, eliminating the wear and tear of time and space that distorted the image," explains Professor Sehgal, a co-author on the papers. "Only by seeing this sharper baby photo or image of the universe, can we more fully understand how our universe was born."

Obtaining the best image of the infant universe, explains Professor Sehgal, helps scientists better understand the origins of the universe, how we got to where we are on Earth, the galaxies, where we are going, how the universe may end, and when that ending may occur.

The ACT team estimates the age of the universe by measuring its oldest light. Other scientific groups take measurements of galaxies to make universe age estimates.

The new ACT estimate on the age of the universe matches the one provided by the standard model of the universe and measurements of the same light made by the Planck satellite. This adds a fresh twist to an ongoing debate in the astrophysics community, says Simone Aiola, first author of one of the new papers on the findings posted to arXiv.org.

"Now we've come up with an answer where Planck and ACT agree," says Aiola, a researcher at the Flatiron Institute's Center for Computational Astrophysics in New York City. "It speaks to the fact that these difficult measurements are reliable."

In 2019, a research team measuring the movements of galaxies calculated that the universe is hundreds of millions of years younger than the Planck team predicted. That discrepancy suggested that a new model for the universe might be needed and sparked concerns that one of the sets of measurements might be incorrect.

*  *  *

Source:  New research of oldest light confirms age of the universe -- ScienceDaily

----------

Fall River (07-20-2020),Foghorn (07-20-2020),OldSchool (07-18-2020),UKSmartypants (07-18-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

Yea but thats the easy bit.  Its what happened in the previous 10^-35 of second  thats causes all the arguments, especially between me and @nonsqrt   :Sofa:

----------

Fall River (07-20-2020),Foghorn (07-20-2020),JMWinPR (07-18-2020),Oceander (07-18-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

BTW, heres a bizarre concept to consider.


Only objects that travel at the speed of light are massless
But objects that travel at the speed of light suffer time dilaltion and distance dilation

So, from the point of  view of a photon of light, the universe is only slightly larger than it is, and time has in effect stopped.

So, its perfectly feasible theres only one photon of light, which exists at all points in spacetime. Every photon of  light is the same photon. Because its relativistic time allows to to exist forever, at all points simultaneously.

Theres no proof this is true, but theres nothing in the equations says its impossible.

----------

Foghorn (07-20-2020),Oceander (07-18-2020)

----------


## Fall River

It's easy to identify the oldest light by the amount of mildew it has accumulated.  And it has a musty smell to it.

----------

Foghorn (07-20-2020),JMWinPR (07-18-2020),Oceander (07-18-2020),UKSmartypants (07-18-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> It's easy to identify the oldest light by the amount of mildew it has accumulated.  And it has a musty smell to it, it's antique light.


Plus ofc  its measured in Cubits and Denari, and not cm.  And it contains lead and arsenic. All pre war light was made with lead and arsenic.

----------

Fall River (07-18-2020)

----------


## Fall River

Lead and arsenic?  In that case I will stick with 100% organic light.  It costs a little more but it's worth it.

----------


## Frankenvoter

> Now new research published in a series of papers by an international team of astrophysicists, including Neelima Sehgal, PhD, from Stony Brook University, suggest the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.



New studies indicate the word "about", means they still dont know for sure.

We think, could be, aproximatly, signs point to, etc etc etc, all says "they dont know for sure".

The only thing they DO know for SURE, is that they want treated by the general population as the gods they like to think they are, while they continue to deny the God that actually IS.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Lead and arsenic?  In that case I will stick with 100% organic light.  It costs a little more but it's worth it.


Yes, thats why victorian houses  had small windows and it was dark and dingy inside ,  big  well lit  rooms were lethal.

----------

Fall River (07-20-2020),Oceander (07-18-2020)

----------


## Ragot the Gerbil

But they're measuring the universe in our time scale, 
Our time scale only exists on this planet, 
AND.....
their working it out only using 3 dimensions, 
AND......
Their only using normal eyesight, 
You see a lot more of the multiverse, 
If you use X-ray, ultraviolet, radio, and other ones
I don't know of.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> New studies indicate the word "about", means they still dont know for sure.
> 
> We think, could be, aproximatly, signs point to, etc etc etc, all says "they dont know for sure".
> 
> The only thing they DO know for SURE, is that they want treated by the general population as the gods they like to think they are, while they continue to deny the God that actually IS.


well the uncertainty is about about 13,800,000,000  or 13,800,000,001 . The point is its calculated on the red shift of the light from a known type of source. And measuring the red shift on a spectrogram  machines or by measuring the color temperature of the shifted light, and its only accurate to a few decimal places. So its not about 10 or 12  or 13 billion, its 13.8 billion and  a couple of hundred thousand or not.

The real issue is the first 10^-35.   We pretty well know what happened after that.

----------

Oceander (07-18-2020)

----------


## Frankenvoter

> well the uncertainty is about about 13,800,000,000  or 13,800,000,001 . The point is its calculated on the red shift of the light from a known type of source. And measuring the red shift on a spectrogram  machines or by measuring the color temperature of the shifted light, and its only accurate to a few decimal places. So its not about 10 or 12  or 13 billion, its 13.8 billion and  a couple of hundred thousand or not.
> 
> The real issue is the first 10^-35.   We pretty well know what happened after that.


Possibly, I just get about tired of scientists who "we think" and "could be" us allinto policy changes and tax increases to fulfill their current theories that will most likely be disproven down the road.

Bloodletting was "settled science" at one time. No one could have envisioned antibiotics or penicillin back in the day of leeches and yet people underwent the procedures because the scientists were "so much smarter" than everyone else and knew "what was best for them".

Over time I've developed a general dislike for scientists especially when thier own arrogance wont allow them to entertain other viewpoints, as soon as "9 out of 10 scientists agree", well its settled science bud, even when is proven to be false down the road.

They were sure right about the whole margarine vs. butter thing regarding heart health a while back, right on the money on that one, same as when a "new ice age" was on the way back in the 70's only to become a "ooops, forgot to carry the one, it's actually global warming, not global cooling".

Fuck it, let's just call it "climate change" that way we're right no matter which way the numbers go..................

----------


## UKSmartypants

> But they're measuring the universe in our time scale, 
> Our time scale only exists on this planet, 
> AND.....
> their working it out only using 3 dimensions, 
> AND......
> Their only using normal eyesight, 
> You see a lot more of the multiverse, 
> If you use X-ray, ultraviolet, radio, and other ones
> I don't know of.


1.  the reference scale is irrelevant, it doesnt matter if you are using Earth minutes Mars days, Moon years or Venusian Squrg periods.  We are defining in a scale related to our planets orbital characteristics. Its as good as any other yardstick.  The pub is two miles down the road. or 5000 paces. or 1 min in a light aircraft. Doesnt matrter what units you use.
2, The number of dimensions is irrelevant in determining the age of the light. The photons you are measuring are the same. The speed of light is the same.
3. There no such thing as 'normal eyesight', they are measuring electromagnetic radiation of a known frequency. Ouy eyes are tuned to register EMR in the range 400 - 800 nm. Thers nothing special about that raneg as such.. The issue in determining age is the  wavelength of the original EMR and how much its red shifted.
4.  They use the light from the big bang because that was the principle EMR that flooded the universe after 10^-44 of a second and terminated with the Era of the Last Scattering, and is now detectable as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. 

What they are looking at isnt visible light. If you look up into the sky, even with the most powerful eyes in the universe, you cant see what they are measuring, because its red shift riiiiiiight down to a colour temperature below infrared at about 2.4 Kelvin.  The furthest galaxy observed has a redshift of 11.1 which corresponds to 13.7 b years old, The CMBR is shift further than that at about 11.3. which corresponds to 13.8 b years old. 

So if you are saying they should look for x-rays or ultraviolet from 13.8 b years ago, there isnt any. It was all absorbed a long time ago during the Epoch of the Last Scattering. There may be X-rays from Black Hole collapses, but that wont have occurred until much later, and they will also be redshifted down. Same with any ultraviolet, its all been absorbed or redshifted  The CMBR is the 'smoking gun ' of the big bang. There is no other better indicator.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Possibly, I just get about tired of scientists who "we think" and "could be" us allinto policy changes and tax increases to fulfill their current theories that will most likely be disproven down the road.
> 
> Bloodletting was "settled science" at one time. No one could have envisioned antibiotics or penicillin back in the day of leeches and yet people underwent the procedures because the scientists were "so much smarter" than everyone else and knew "what was best for them".
> 
> Over time I've developed a general dislike for scientists especially when thier own arrogance wont allow them to entertain other viewpoints, as soon as "9 out of 10 scientists agree", well its settled science bud, even when is proven to be false down the road.
> 
> They were sure right about the whole margarine vs. butter thing regarding heart health a while back, right on the money on that one, same as when a "new ice age" was on the way back in the 70's only to become a "ooops, forgot to carry the one, it's actually global warming, not global cooling".
> 
> Fuck it, let's just call it "climate change" that way we're right no matter which way the numbers go..................


Thats the scientific process. You prove your theory based on the available evidence you collected via repeatable experiment, then that idea becomes the accepted wisdom till someone proves it wrong and has a better theory with better proof.

Galileo was famous cos he proved Copernicus wrong
Flamsteed  was famous cos he proved Galileo wrong
Brahe proved Flamsteed wrong
Kepler proved Brahe wrong
Newton proved Kepler wrong
Einstien proved Newton wrong
Hawking might have proved Einstein wrong, jury still out

Thats how science progresses. It has to work like that. You couldn't have written Einsteins Special Relativity  In Galileo's day, they simply didnt have the equipment or knowledge to formulate it. As knowledge unfolds before us, as time passes, we refine our theories.  And its happening now at an exponential rate.



(Climate change is the exception. Its not a science, its pseudoscience riddled  with fakery fraud and dishonesty)

----------

Frankenvoter (07-18-2020),Oceander (07-18-2020)

----------


## JMWinPR

> Plus ofc  its measured in Cubits and Denari, and not cm.  And it contains lead and arsenic. All pre war light was made with lead and arsenic.


Wrong, it is not measured in cubits. It's measured in RBG's. As in Ginsburg.

----------


## Fall River

Religion vs. science:  Near the end of World War II when it became obvious that the Japanese intended to keep fighting to the last man,  our military knew that an atomic bomb was needed to convince them to surrender.  

So who did we seek out to develop such a bomb?   Theoretical physicists.

Having said this, I question the validity of the universe being 13.8 billion years old.

It assumes the "big bang" theory is correct.

----------


## Fall River

Here's a theory:  *If* the universe goes through expansions and contractions, they might only be seeing the light from the latest expansion, though there could have been an infinite number of expansions.


In other words, the universe may have always existed.

----------

Oceander (07-20-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Here's a theory:  *If* the universe goes through expansions and contractions, they might only be seeing the light from the latest expansion, though there could have been an infinite number of expansions.
> 
> 
> In other words, the universe may have always existed.


The Big Crunch Theory.


Not impressed. Works on the theory the energy in the crunch causes a bounce. But if the original inflation into 3D was a quantum fluctuation, then it wouldnt because it would simply return back to the brane the fluctuation occured on, so all the energy balanced out to nett zero. Quantum fluctuations  last longer the bigger, but always sum to zero overall.  THis is why the 2nd Law  might be wrong, the nett energy of the universe might be zero.

So THIS universe is a one off, but that doesnt preclude there being BILLIONS of similar universes in parallel to this, or there might be billions of other universes budding from the same brane, or there might be billiosn of universes budding from this one from black holes here.

Either way, we definitely arent the only one.

----------

Foghorn (07-20-2020),Oceander (07-20-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> The Big Crunch Theory.
> 
> 
> Not impressed. Works on the theory the energy in the crunch causes a bounce. But if the original inflation into 3D was a quantum fluctuation, then it wouldnt because it would simply return back to the brane the fluctuation occured on, so all the energy balanced out to nett zero. Quantum fluctuations  last longer the bigger, but always sum to zero overall.  THis is why the 2nd Law  might be wrong, the nett energy of the universe might be zero.


Doesn't a quantum fluctuation always occur, effectively, in a particle/anti-particle fashion so that the books always technically balance?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Doesn't a quantum fluctuation always occur, effectively, in a particle/anti-particle fashion so that the books always technically balance?


in this 4D universe thats how it works. What about in a compactified 11D Brane? Maybe it causes a universes to pop out, expand, stop, then crunch back down into the Brane. Nett energy used - zero.

----------


## Oceander

> in this 4D universe thats how it works. What about in a compactified 11D Brane? Maybe it causes a universes to pop out, expand, stop, then crunch back down into the Brane. Nett energy used - zero.


And maybe there is a counterbalancing anti-universe to keep the books balanced?

----------


## Fall River

> The Big Crunch Theory.
> 
> 
> Not impressed. Works on the theory the energy in the crunch causes a bounce. But if the original inflation into 3D was a quantum fluctuation, then it wouldnt because it would simply return back to the brane the fluctuation occured on, so all the energy balanced out to nett zero. Quantum fluctuations  last longer the bigger, but always sum to zero overall.  THis is why the 2nd Law  might be wrong, the nett energy of the universe might be zero.
> 
> So THIS universe is a one off, but that doesnt preclude there being BILLIONS of similar universes in parallel to this, or there might be billions of other universes budding from the same brane, or there might be billiosn of universes budding from this one from black holes here.
> 
> Either way, we definitely arent the only one.


I don't believe in the "big bang" or "big crunch" theory.  That's why I put the word *IF* in bold type.  My belief is that the universe always existed, whether it's called one universe or billions of universes.  To me it's all one universe.

----------


## Fall River

Here's a question about light: 

In Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History Of Time" he says that according to quantum mechanics, all particles are waves.  

So I suppose that be turned around to say that all waves contain particles.  And if light waves contain particles then light waves contain mass?  

Quantum Theory of Waves and Particles:  https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teach...ves/index.html

----------


## Canadianeye

> New studies indicate the word "about", means they still dont know for sure.
> 
> We think, could be, aproximatly, signs point to, etc etc etc, all says "they dont know for sure".
> 
> The only thing they DO know for SURE, is that they want treated by the general population as the gods they like to think they are, while they continue to deny the God that actually IS.


The same applies though, from a religious fundamentalists position. Do you recall when the time frame of the earth was set at by religious fundamentalists at 6,000 years old?

Then, new age creationists expanded the date, because older civilizations were discovered than the standard Mesopotamia et al. 10,000 - 12,000 year old places in Turkey, and there might be even older ones.

Miraculously, the earth according to them is no longer 6,000 years old. They adjusted to the discoveries. Settled religious fundamentalist facts, are ever changing, and are fraught with error and discovery.

----------

Fall River (07-20-2020),Frankenvoter (07-20-2020),Oceander (07-20-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The same applies though, from a religious fundamentalists position. Do you recall when the time frame of the earth was set at by religious fundamentalists at 6,000 years old?
> 
> Then, new age creationists expanded the date, because older civilizations were discovered than the standard Mesopotamia et al. 10,000 - 12,000 year old places in Turkey, and there might be even older ones.
> 
> Miraculously, the earth according to them is no longer 6,000 years old. They adjusted to the discoveries. Settled religious fundamentalist facts, are ever changing, and are fraught with error and discovery.


One of my fun pastimes when I was a teenager was arguing with Jehovas Witnesses.  They are quite easy to destabilize when you grasp the Achilles heel of the religion. One of the main problems they have is The Watch Tower, this magazine they dole out.  According to the Watch Tower, the world  was going to end and the Rapture was going to occur in

1879
1898
1904
1914
1918
1925
1929
1972

and I believe they gave up at that point.


1929 was a particularly fun one. They built a 20 bedroom mansion in  San Diego called Beth Sarim  for all the risen Prophets  to live in. They never turned up.....

----------

Foghorn (07-20-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Here's a question about light: 
> 
> In Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History Of Time" he says that according to quantum mechanics, all particles are waves.  
> 
> So I suppose that be turned around to say that all waves contain particles.  And if light waves contain particles then light waves contain mass?  
> 
> Quantum Theory of Waves and Particles:  https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teach...ves/index.html


yes this another of the  weird bits of quantum theory, particles and waves are interchangeable. however, classical physics comes to the rescue.....light waves do contain particles, they are called photons.  except photons are massless , otherwise they wouldnt be able to travel at the speed of light. Instead  they have energy, because mass, energy and information are interchangeable.  And in the Standard Model, photons are a special class of Bosons called Guage Bosons.  Theres four kinds of gauge bosons: photons, which carry the electromagnetic interaction; W and Z bosons, which carry the weak interaction; and gluons, which carry the strong interaction. The jury is still out on the Higgs Boson (mass) and Gravitons

----------

Fall River (07-21-2020),Foghorn (07-20-2020)

----------


## Foghorn

I really don't understand the first thing about quantum theory, more of a time travel guy myself.  Here's the steps to follow:

[1] Say goodbye to family and friends

[2] Drink a bottle of tequila

[3] Wake up some day in the future

----------


## nonsqtr

> Yea but thats the easy bit.  Its what happened in the previous 10^-35 of second  thats causes all the arguments, especially between me and @nonsqrt


Well... what evidence is there that the MBR is "afterglow light from the big bang", as stated in the OP?

----------


## nonsqtr

> Here's a question about light: 
> 
> In Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History Of Time" he says that according to quantum mechanics, all particles are waves.  
> 
> So I suppose that be turned around to say that all waves contain particles.  And if light waves contain particles then light waves contain mass?  
> 
> Quantum Theory of Waves and Particles:  https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teach...ves/index.html


The answer is, there is "rest mass", and relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is the kind (more or less) directly convertible to energy, like e=mc^2, and some might think zero mass equates with zero energy, but no. There is kinetic energy both linear and angular. For a photon the "rest mass" is zero, as near as we can measure.

----------

Fall River (07-21-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

Oh - this is interesting....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Well... what evidence is there that the MBR is "afterglow light from the big bang", as stated in the OP?


its visible all over the sky and its redshift is 11.3 . So what else can it  be...... What else was  as big as the universe 13.8 B years ago with a temperature of 3000C (The Epoch of the Last Scattering)

----------


## nonsqtr

> its visible all over the sky and its redshift is 11.3 . So what else can it  be...... What else was  as big as the universe 13.8 B years ago with a temperature of 3000C (The Epoch of the Last Scattering)


Okay. We need to know why we care.  :Wink: 

This is interesting - Physicists Just Built The First Working Prototype Of A 'Quantum Radar'

----------


## nonsqtr

> its visible all over the sky and its redshift is 11.3 . So what else can it  be...... What else was  as big as the universe 13.8 B years ago with a temperature of 3000C (The Epoch of the Last Scattering)


So lemme see - we see gravitational lensing?

We should "in theory" get entanglement from nearby... I dunno... quasars? Black holes?

And then there should be measurable non-zero correlation of MBR at different locations.

----------


## nonsqtr

> its visible all over the sky and its redshift is 11.3 . So what else can it  be...... What else was  as big as the universe 13.8 B years ago with a temperature of 3000C (The Epoch of the Last Scattering)


Y'know... we should point out, that the first light from the alleged Big Bang would have happened at about age 385,000 years. Before that there was no "light" per se, only some wierd gluon-quark mess.

The universe, we surmise, is much larger than we can "see". The diameter of the visible part is some 8*10^26 meters and there is no ascertainable "center".

Context is good in these discussions.

----------

Fall River (07-21-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Y'know... we should point out, that the first light from the alleged Big Bang would have happened at about age 385,000 years. Before that there was no "light" per se, only some wierd gluon-quark mess.
> 
> The universe, we surmise, is much larger than we can "see". The diameter of the visible part is some 8*10^26 meters and there is no ascertainable "center".
> 
> Context is good in these discussions.


Ofc it is. You can only 'see' to the point of the end of the Epoch of the Last Scattering, which is the point particles cooled down enough (3000C) to stop absorbing and re-emitting photons. That was the point the Universe became transparent. Before that the Universe was opaque, thats why you can 'see' the CMBR.  There was 385k years of opaqueness before that.

And it was light, ie photons, just a photon flux  so dense it was like soup, and every photon was being constantly absorbed and re-emitted

----------

Fall River (07-21-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> So lemme see - we see gravitational lensing?
> 
> We should "in theory" get entanglement from nearby... I dunno... quasars? Black holes?
> 
> And then there should be measurable non-zero correlation of MBR at different locations.


look this is 2.4K radiation we are talking about, corresponding to a wavelength of 2mm, redshifted 11.3. The radiation is anisotriopic anyway. and there were no dense objects to create gravitational lenses. even  if there were primordial black holes, of which theres no evidence.

And anyway, the Quark Epoch was long over by then (1 second after bang), and we had had Baryogenisis, the formation of atomic particles.   The we had the Hadron Epoch, then Neutriono Decoupling,  and then the Lepton Epoch at about 10 secs, which then gave spawn to the Photon Era, and finally the Epoch of last Scattering at 370k years

You're just nit pcking  :Cool20:

----------

Oceander (07-21-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> look this is 2.4K radiation we are talking about, corresponding to a wavelength of 2mm, redshifted 11.3. The radiation is anisotriopic anyway. and there were no dense objects to create gravitational lenses. even  if there were primordial black holes, of which theres no evidence.
> 
> And anyway, the Quark Epoch was long over by then (1 second after bang), and we had had Baryogenisis, the formation of atomic particles.   The we had the Hadron Epoch, then Neutriono Decoupling,  and then the Lepton Epoch at about 10 secs, which then gave spawn to the Photon Era, and finally the Epoch of last Scattering at 370k years
> 
> You're just nit pcking


"Baryogenesis" - was that just before, or just after, the era of Barry-White-genesis:

----------


## Canadianeye

And on a generalized note, for everyone (especially me) generally trying to get the gist of what it being discussed...here's a general video - to be picked apart.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Oceander (07-21-2020)

----------


## Canadianeye

Please sir...may I have another? Why not. This seems pertinent to the discussion wafting above my head.

----------

Oceander (07-21-2020)

----------


## Fall River

> The universe, we surmise, is much larger than we can "see".


Great! There's something I understand and agree with.   :Smiley20:

----------

nonsqtr (07-21-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

It only gets complicated when certain people butt in........      :Sofa:

----------


## Canadianeye

> One of my fun pastimes when I was a teenager was arguing with Jehovas Witnesses.  They are quite easy to destabilize when you grasp the Achilles heel of the religion. One of the main problems they have is The Watch Tower, this magazine they dole out.  According to the Watch Tower, the world  was going to end and the Rapture was going to occur in
> 
> 1879
> 1898
> 1904
> 1914
> 1918
> 1925
> 1929
> ...


The first couple of times is sort of fun, then eventually they start calling you a reprobate...and stop the visits.  :Smiley20:  Been there, done that.

----------

Oceander (07-21-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The first couple of times is sort of fun, then eventually they start calling you a reprobate...and stop the visits.  Been there, done that.


The trick, i found, is to shake their faith in the Watch Tower, that and their Bible are the only two source sof information the believe.  So you point out in their own Bible it states that you know a false prophet because his prophecies never come true. then you point out the failed predictions of the end times  by the Watch Tower.  They are forced to conclude the Watch Tower is nonsense.  Game set and match. Takes a good hour of arguing though, to win, and you need copies of old Watch Towers at hand to prove your  points.

----------

Fall River (07-22-2020),Oceander (07-21-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

Oh - on topic, I meant to post this:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...9/84/04/045014

The claim here is exactly what I suggested a few posts ago, we should see non-local correlations in the microwave background radiation.

They take it a step further, though. They suggest that unrelated events can be mutually entangled "via" the MBR.

----------


## nonsqtr

> look this is 2.4K radiation we are talking about, corresponding to a wavelength of 2mm, redshifted 11.3. The radiation is anisotriopic anyway. and there were no dense objects to create gravitational lenses. even  if there were primordial black holes, of which theres no evidence.
> 
> And anyway, the Quark Epoch was long over by then (1 second after bang), and we had had Baryogenisis, the formation of atomic particles.   The we had the Hadron Epoch, then Neutriono Decoupling,  and then the Lepton Epoch at about 10 secs, which then gave spawn to the Photon Era, and finally the Epoch of last Scattering at 370k years
> 
> You're just nit pcking


Google "quantum metamaterials"

----------

UKSmartypants (07-22-2020)

----------


## Physics Hunter

> Google "quantum metamaterials"



Why would anyone that is Conservative EVER "goog13" anything?

Never feed the beast.

----------

UKSmartypants (07-22-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Why would anyone that is Conservative EVER "goog13" anything?
> 
> Never feed the beast.


It's just a figure of speech. You can go to the library if you want.  :Wink:

----------

Physics Hunter (07-22-2020),UKSmartypants (07-22-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> Google "quantum metamaterials"


Or wiki it:  Quantum metamaterial - Wikipedia

----------

nonsqtr (07-22-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Oh - on topic, I meant to post this:
> 
> https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...9/84/04/045014
> 
> The claim here is exactly what I suggested a few posts ago, we should see non-local correlations in the microwave background radiation.
> 
> They take it a step further, though. They suggest that unrelated events can be mutually entangled "via" the MBR.


And... this should be possible "against a distribution" as well.

In other words, you don't need MBR, you just need shared non-local information, which is already there in the form of the distribution.

See... most people when the envision "distribution", they automatically think of space, like in the hydrogen orbital example I mentioned.

But the math says, there must be distribution in TIME also! And this idea is fully supported by recent discoveries like "time crystals" and so on.

The key question is how a dimension achieves it's continuity.

The concept of minimal Planck-like "quanta" must be reconciled with the concept of dimensional continuity - and the only way I can see of doing that is more-or-less the same way a neural network does it, by "unfolding" an additional dimension by making use of the shared non local information.

----------

