The Outer Limits.

Continuing the theme of ‘Life – what’s it all about then, eh?’

I’m staying pretty quiet in comments because I don’t want to get too far off track. This stuff has been bubbling around in my mind for a long time now. I’m sure it’s all connected but have not yet seen all the links. It’s certainly not a linear thought process but a dose of whisky helps send the mind into non-linear tracks, I find. Unfortunately it also makes it harder to type, which might be why I’ve never made a serious effort to write it down.

There was a night in Newton-on-Ayr many years ago, a night that began in a pub in Prestwick and continued through many more pubs, during which a drunken companion and myself solved the mystery of life, the universe and everything. We knew what The Answer was (it wasn’t 42) and it was so absolutely clear. Unfortunately neither of us could remember it the next day. I doubt a dictaphone would have helped either, it would just have contained ‘graaah feckit oooh (belch) fagglebats hur hur hur’ or some such. Since then, rediscovering that answer has been a sort of quest. I am certain it was right, I just don’t remember what it was.

Tonight I am trying the red wine alternative. Not as effective but my typing fingers won’t say ‘Get stuffed’ quite so soon. Here goes.

Loads of stuff came up in comments on the last post, all of it absorbed into the Collective that is this current Theory of Everything. I have no idea which parts are right and which are wrong so I discard nothing yet.

One thing that came up was the limits of our vision. Distant stars are not as they appear. If a star is a million light years away then what we see is the light that left that star a million years ago. That star is not now in the place we see it. It might by now have exploded or burned out, collided with another star or turned into a gigantic Edam cheese. Hey, take a look at quantum theory, especially the idea of Boltzmann brains. In this universe it is not safe to dismiss anything at all.

The moon was once made of cheese. To be correct, it was simultaneously made of cheese and of rock and only collapsed into one state or the other when humans landed on it. As luck would have it, it turned into rock. If we had sent Wallace and Gromit out there first we would now have an endless supply of cheese.

This light-speed limit even applies to our own sun. It’s roughly nine light minutes away so the rays that scorched my face took nine minutes to get here. If the sun vanished we would not know for nine minutes. Where we see it in the sky is not where it is – it’s where it was nine minutes ago.

In short, nothing of what we see in the sky is where we think it is. Except maybe the moon, that’s not very far away so it actually is very close to where it seems.

Oh. And birds.

There is a serious scientific theory that suggests the entire universe is a hologram projected from its outer skin. I really don’t like that theory because if it is so, then what is happening now actually happened millions of years ago on the outer skin of the universe, as did what happens next. It means there can be no free will.

It also means we will pop out of existence at some point. The universe is expanding and the most distant stars will disappear when they are travelling away from us too fast for their light to ever reach us. If they recede at just over half light speed and we travel in the opposite direction at just over half light speed, then our relative velocities become faster than the speed of light (note that neither is actually travelling faster than light) so light from that star will no longer arrive here, ever.

The stars will blink out, one by one. If the hologram theory is true then the projection from the outer skin of the universe will eventually fail to arrive. We would simply blink out of existence. A nasty thought.

That hologram theory has to be wrong. Science, real science, did not discount it and brush it aside. Science considered it and most scientists thought ‘nah’ but it’s still out there as a possibility. The reason it’s still a possibility is that science has no idea where we came from or why, or even if there is a ‘why’. Maybe there is no meaning to life. Maybe life just ‘is’.

Science also posits the possibility of vibrating strings creating the illusion of matter, of energetic vibrations giving rise to the subatomic particles everything is made of and the likelihood of a reality of eleven dimensions containing a potentially infinite number of universes. Pretty wild stuff.

Science has demonstrated – proven beyond doubt – that a single photon can pass through two slits simultaneously and produce an interference pattern with itself, and that subatomic particles can be ‘entangled’ in such a way that, even when widely separated, what is done to one particle simultaneously happens to the other. Even wilder stuff.

That the universe exists requires no proof. It’s night here. If I go outside and look up, there it is. It is there every night, sometimes obscured by clouds, and it is no transient phenomenon. It is as real as reality allows and as stable as a table with one of my books under the wonky leg.

That the universe emerged from a point source is also pretty certain. There is always room for doubt in science but the evidence that it all came from one little dot labelled ‘Instant Universe, just add water’ is compelling. Nothing so far has seriously challenged that theory.

What science does not, and (real scientists will admit) cannot know, is why. Why did that dot of concentrated mush suddenly decide to become a universe with stars and planets and people and mushrooms and duck-billed platypuses? The duck-billed platypus is a great big ‘why’ all of its own. A thing made of leftover parts like some of my own teenage constructions from the spare bits of model kits. If I remember I’ll get back to that one later – but look up its reproductive genetics. I defy you to not respond to its X-Y chromosome shambles with ‘WTF?’

There is no way to ever know why it happened. The concentrated mass had no structure and therefore contained no information until it exploded and started to form particles. There is no information available in this universe from any time before the start of it all. Even Time did not exist before then since time is intrinsic to our universe. Outside the universe, time might be a whole different game with more than one time dimension to move around in. Maybe all that dark matter in our universe operates a different version of time. Until we find a way to measure it we cannot know.

Incidentally, I find it amusing when scientists refer to ‘the’ dark matter particle. Our visible universe has lots of different subatomic particles and that’s, what, fifteen percent of the whole thing? There could be hundreds of different dark matter particles and entire galaxies made of stuff we have no idea about.

Science considers some really wild ideas and has proven the reality of some really wild stuff but still there are things science dismisses out of hand. Ghosts. Demons. Telepathy.


Well no. Science does not dismiss these things. Scientists do. Any scientist who looks into such things is immediately labelled a crank and ostracised, while the guys who think we are a reality TV show beamed from the edge of space are given at least a hearing. Science does not dismiss God. Science merely accepts that, for now, it has no means to test for God so cannot engage with the subject.

In another incarnation I have railed against those who sell EMF meters and especially tri-field meters to amateur ghosthunters. There is no such thing as a ghost detector. Science cannot make one because science has no idea what ghosts are made of, therefore it is impossible to devise a detection machine. These things are just preying on the gullible. Likewise the IR-based motion detectors. If they work, why don’t ghosts set off burglar alarms all the time? These devices give the illusion of science to people who are just playing scary night games. They don’t even know that EMF fields have to be measured in three dimensions, that a fridge turning on in another part of the house will give them a spike and they never write a damn thing down.

As for tri-field meters, these are expensive pieces of kit that have no place outside a laboratory. They will detect your pocket change moving around.

Let’s get back to God. If, as my theory holds, he is outside the Universe then he can see all of it and go into any part of it at will. Science cannot prove or disprove God or study the possiblity in any way since if he does exist he is outside our observable universe. Science also has no idea what he is made of so cannot devise any machine capable of measuring him.

It is an uncomfortable thing to realise that we might be no more than the bacteria in my test tubes, who go about their lives unaware that I have made their environment for them, am directing their development and might decide to autoclave the lot at any moment. Even if they became aware of my existence, I am outside the test tube. They cannot see, detect or measure me. Some would believe I am out here based on the gradual addition of nutrients to their world. Others would argue that sugars spontaneously appear due to the theory of quantum calories, and that those who believe in the Microbiologist are deluded.

Did the Big Bang just happen or did God say ‘Let there be light’? In the beginning there was only the timeless void. That is true whether you follow science or religion. Then there was the big bang. Did it just happen or did someone light the fuse? There is no way to ever know. So why argue about it? The argument can never be resolved either way.

This is not what science and religion are arguing about. What they are arguing about are two different arguments, one on each side, and the religious side has one important detail wrong. As does the science side.

To be continued -and may I say I am enjoying this departure from the bad-news media for a few days. Not reading the Daily Mail should be a prescription for anyone with dodgy blood pressure or depression.

Afternote – So far I remain an apathist. I believe nothing but also dismiss nothing. I am not going to label myself ‘atheist’ since I do not deny the existence of God but cannot simply believe without evidence. So there might or might not be a God. I don’t care.



38 thoughts on “The Outer Limits.

  1. XX The universe is expanding and the most distant stars will disappear when they are travelling away from us too fast for their light to ever reach us.XX

    So, the universe could be a billion times larger than we think, because the rest of it has pissed off quick style.

    Anyway, I still think the universe is inside out.

    If the oldest stars we see are the furthest away, then it means we are seeing them where they were. In that case, they should be closer together. NOT further apart.

    Or am I missing something?

    I am also dissapointed to find that the universe is only 15 billion years old! (accepting modern thought on the subject, put see my comment about pissing off PDQ. THAT would make it MUCH older.)

    Before you ask, oak matured bicarddi. 😀 😀

    Bacardi, biccardhi, oh fuck. SOMETHING like that.


      • Its still inside out.

        A Taxi rank. Full of taxis, then the train comes and all the taxis are taking fares in different directions.

        Half an hour later they are spread all over Berlin, and the rank is empty.

        If we look at the taxis half an hour ago, which, according to astronormers we are doing with the universe, on a larger scale, then the taxi rank is still full of cars waiting for the train.


          • I forget the science fiction story. Was it one by Clarke? Asimov? It featured a Jesuit priest who discovered that the Star Over Bethlehem had indeed been real, and came from a supernova.

            His faith was shaken though, because in discovering that, the Jesuit had also found the remnants of a wonderful, beautiful, compassionate, and extremely advanced civilization — whose population had been fried into a boiling hell during that supernova.

            – MJM


  2. Some wonderful universal theibalistical ruminations the last couple of days Leg! :> I prefer yesterday’s to today’s (maybe because I saw a lot of similarity to some of my own ruminations in yesterday’s. After they did that whole “We see the Big Bang in the leftover waves so therefore we’ve proved the Big Bang” thing I realized just how little the physics theories of cosmology differ from the theistic theories: they both rest upon there being “something” back there that just doesn’t fit with any normal physical laws.

    I *do* have a bone to pick with you this evening though. I don’t think Mr. Einstein would agree with you on this: “If they recede at just over half light speed and we travel in the opposite direction at just over half light speed, then our relative velocities become faster than the speed of light (note that neither is actually travelling faster than light) so light from that star will no longer arrive here, ever.” The whole idea of relativity is that there IS NO “absolute” speed of light. If I remember my Special Relativity kerrecktly if star A is traveling at .9c going east of me, and star B is traveling at .9c going west of me, well…. they’re STILL not going 1.8c relative to each other (even though it might seem that they are.) The only relevant measure is what the fellow on A or B measures when they look at each other and they’ll both see something like “Hey! He’s going at .999c! Wowzer!”

    I used to puzzle over the concept of Mr. Mikey standing here on earth looking up at two stars that are many light years apart, and Mr. Mikey whips out his SooperDooperLazer Pointer, points it at star A and then sweeps it over to star B! Doesn’t it seem like the end of that laser beam must have traveled from A to B during that one second when I swept the laser? Heh… I never got into your Scotches Leg, but back when I was doing Physics and Vodka I played with similar sorts of puzzles on some evenings!



    • I did no physics after school – university was microbiology with chemistry and biochemistry in the first year. So I have no real grasp of Einstein’s theories beyond what I picked up in the simplified versions in the science comics.

      It’s interesting, but I can’t get that deep into mathematics without swearing a lot.


      • MJM is correct. That’s what is really, really hard to get your head around.

        The example I remember is of a car travelling away from you at 100 MPH. From behind it you fire a bullet from a rifle at it at 1000 MPH. So the bullet hits the car at 900 MPH (OK so far).

        If you substitute light for the bullet, IT HITS THE CAR AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Not Speed_of_light minus 100 MPH.

        So light is “special” or its particular speed. Hence “Special theory of relativity” – light or LightSpeed is different/special (it is NOT relative).

        Weird. Weird to: I don’t comment for months then comment with an example of one of Einstein’s theories!


        • Heh. That’s even more weird than quantum entanglement. Light travels at the same speed relative to an observer no matter how fast the observer is going.

          And Einstein thought quantum mechanics was crazy!


  3. Occam’s razor dismisses the God thing, for me.
    And I’m glad MJM took on the relativity thing. It’s to early in the morning for me, and I’m gonna be late for work.

    However ridiculous Relativity seems, it bloody works!
    Quantum Mechanics, equally so.
    And they contradict each other. 🙂

    Inflation is suspect. It has become a bit of a religion, because they daren’t try to manage without it.
    Dark matter and Dark energy? Papering over the cracks.
    The Higgs Bozo? They pretended to have found it, to satisfy CERN’s press people.
    It might exist (?) nevertheless.
    Keep trying, lads. It’s good entertainment.


    • Occam’s razor doesn’t actually dismiss God, it merely comes back with ‘on the balance of current probability, most likely ‘not”.

      If a skeletal rider on a pale horse appeared, Occam might revise his opinion 😉

      So might I.

      There is a lot of papering over cracks in science because there are a hell of a lot of huge cracks in what we know. Real science is quite open about that. But not in public – if the public ever found out that scientists are dabbling with forces we simply don’t understand, they’d have a hairy fit. We live in the ‘Oh but this might happen’ culture now, so if science admits that it is just fucking about with the fabric of reality to see what pops out, there would be uproar.

      That’s probably why the boffins keep quiet.


  4. I don’t have enough time to do your piece justice after waffling on about Alex Jones so much in the following post.

    You always say that, “So there might or might not be a God. I don’t care.” I think you do or you wouldn’t be writing this stuff. You’re obviously smart, so you must realise how hugely important the difference is.

    “It is an uncomfortable thing to realise that we might be no more than the bacteria in my test tubes…”

    It would be if t’were true. Human beings are clearly special. We have purpose. We do far more than expected by the Theory of Evolution.

    I mean, I have written at length on previous posts, about the complexity of life and dearth of transitional forms in the fossil record thus ruling out the Theory of Evolution as a viable explanation for life on earth, which only leaves a Creator.

    I have offered quotes, like Max Planck’s (seeing as you mention quantum theory):

    “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

    Starlight is a problem for some Creationists, but it needn’t be. As has been explained re. the Theory of Relativity, weird things can happen. Weird to us, that is. There are models to help explain how it is possible. I don’t really buy them. I just think that after the Almighty created the earth he set the stars in their place and the light streamed to us instantaneously. God can do that. He knows everything.

    It’s like the law set out in Leviticus. They didn’t always apply. In the beginning the laws of physics as we know them now need not have applied.

    As for God being outside the Universe and seeing us and us not seeing Him, well, it’s easily explained by using the old two dimensional model. If we were to find a bunch of “Flatlanders” and put a finger down on their world they would see something appearing from nowhere. In four spacial dimensions, the same could be done by God and His angels on earth. We call these ‘miracles’.

    The hologram theory is espoused by David Icke, but he also thinks the moon is full of aliens controlling us with mind rays.


    • I certainly agree that the difference between God and no-God is important, but only if there is a God. If there isn’t then it doesn’t matter what anyone believes. If there is then it matters enormously.

      I remain in a state of unbelief. I cannot simply ‘believe’ and never could. But I remain open to all possibilities.

      Edwin Abbott’s (I think that was the name) ‘Flatland’ was a short and excellent book, now out of copyright and available free on the web. It makes clear what a two-dimensional creature will see of a three-dimensional creature poking through its world. What would we three-dimensional creatures see of a four-dimensional creature poking through ours, I wonder?

      As for Icke, he is far from alone in thinking the moon is an alien spaceship. I remember reading a book on that subject back when Von Daniken was still to be exposed as an idiot. There was even one that claimed the earth was hollow, based on the silliest premise ever.

      I’ve always liked the silly side of life. The truth is probably secreted away in there somewhere.


  5. To be honest on the subject of ghosts, I believe this is a topic which requires much more investigation, simply for the commercial and military possibilities. The Catholic Church are the acknowledged experts in ghostly phenomena, as they are the people most often called upon to give an unwanted spectre the bum’s rush out of a property.

    According to them, self-aware entities are vanishingly rare, almost nonexistant. To all intents and purposes, self-aware ghosts can be dismissed as not existing. The most prevalent ghost-form that isn’t the viewer deluding themselves (caffeine, often used to maintain wakefulness in night vigils, causes mild hallucinations in some people) is what the priests term a place-memory. This is not self-aware, not capable of interacting with the viewer, and does not alter its behaviour. Essentially when someone blunders into one of these, a short film sequence plays out and that’s it.

    This is the commonest ghost. This is the mysterious figure bumbling across a road and getting hit by a car. This is the person on the stairs who wasn’t there. This is the ghostly, mysterious horse that wasn’t in a field when it was properly searched next morning. This is the interesting form of ghost.

    Imagine if you’re a burglar. The night is dark, and quiet. The house before you is silent, empty. You creep closer, and all of a sudden a policeman out on the beat walks right past you, away and into the house! Sod going into that one tonight!

    Similarly to this, once again our burglar is eyeing up a property, when he gets a slight feeling something’s watching him. A low growl sounds, and red eyes dimly glow in the darkness, seeming to say “I can cross this yard in ten seconds; are you feeling lucky? I am.”

    Artificial hauntings definitely have potential. We ought to be investigating this seriously.


    • Always thought a system would be good, whereby you used a projector of some sort, that can put a gang of old grannys, or schoolage bastards RIGHT in the middle of the road, 10 feet in fromnt of some speeding cunt in his Lambourghini. (It’s a moggy minor really, but HE likes to think it is a Lambo.)


    • “You creep closer, and all of a sudden a policeman out on the beat walks right past you,”

      Imagining such a scene is all we have these days or if one is over a certain age, remembering the old days.


    • The ‘recording’ phenomena have been of great interest to me for quite some time. There is one nearby that is only triggered one hour after sunset on Christmas Eve. I have missed the last two years because of weather – all I would have got last year was a soaked camera.

      If I can work out why these things are triggered and how they are imprinted on the environment, I would be rich enough to buy Bill Gates and staple him to the sharp end of a rhinocerous in vengeance for Windows. There are several Windows users who I am sure would give me an alibi and attest that I have never owned a live-round stapler and could not possiby have fired one.

      Speaking scientifically, I have to state that I have no clue other than ‘moving water’. There is always moving water nearby. This has become more interesting since the Hessdalen lights (also near a river) have been theorised to be caused by a big natural battery – with the river as electrolyte.

      This is not something for a scientific paper. This is something that should end uyp at the patent office.

      One day…


  6. Cannot recall where I read the article… will keep tapping the failing memory bank in my head though… but it was asking questions about the moon such as why it is where it is, why is it perfectly sized to create solar eclipses (why the sun is the perfect distance and perfect size to work with the moon was also mentioned), why it is the perfect distance from the earth and the sun to produce the solar eclipses, what it might be made of etc, etc but for me the best bit was the argument that the moon and the earth actually share an axis and this axis is ‘the rod’ which hold both together.
    Probably a tad off topic but what the hell.

    On topic.
    The religion that dominates those that live on these islands is the religion of authority. No matter what the label people give themselves the overwhelming majority believe authority is their saviour.


  7. Here’s a quick u-tube on that Universe expanding faster than light stuff. Bottom line; space can expand fast enough to catch up with light coming from a star that’s moving faster than light away from us relatively speaking. It’s all about the Hubble limit.

    As for science v religion; They are attempting to describe two different things, and trying to prove or disprove one using the other may be a good pub game – if you want to start a never ending feud – but otherwise it is fruitless.


  8. LI’s example of two objects moving in opposite directions at just over half the speed of light, each emitting light, so that these two objects would not be able to ‘see’ each other is (I think!) correct.

    (I’m struggling to remember relativity theory even though I studied it for many years not many years ago. I was sidetracked by the smoking ban seven years ago)

    As I recall, it was that sort of (correct) theory which led Einstein to the solutions which he expounded. The problem with LI’s example is that, according the Einstein, the proposal of two objects moving apart at half the speed of light is not physically possible. That is why the proposal is intellectually correct but physically wrong.
    The problem I am having is remembering why it is physically wrong.

    One of the problems is, “What force caused the object to to achieve a speed of half c?” As the object increased in speed, so also would it’s mass. The greater the acceleration, the greater the force required to move the object. Does a force exist which could accelerate such a mass?

    Another problem is ‘Time’. Time is a measurement of ‘change’. At such high speeds, changes being measured would happen more slowly, therefore Time would slow down. (The next bit is where it gets tricky) However, a person travelling with the object, and measuring the passage of time with a clock would not notice any difference, because the working of his clock would also be affected. His clock would also slow down. Only a clock being held by an external person at rest would be able to detect the change in the passage of time.

    Another problem is ‘shrinkage’. An object travelling at such a speed would shrink in its length. If it was a spaceship for example, which was, say,100 metres long, it would become substantially shorter, and so would everything inside it. (But note that it would not become wider to compensate). Thus, a person lying down and aligned in the direction of movement, would become substantially shorter without becoming ‘fatter’. What would happen to his organs? What would happen to the machinery of the spaceship? Ultimately, if the spaceship reached the speed of light, it would be absolutely flat (and so would the person inside it)! If you think of the spaceship as a cylinder, it would still have a diameter and a circumference, but it would have no length.

    CONCLUSION: No physical object could ever achieve the speed of light or any speed even remotely near the speed of light.Even half the speed of light would require forces which do not exist, and cannot exist.


    • The time dilation and the length contraction are not intrinsic properties of the moving object. They arise through measuring lengths and time intervals as though they were proper time and length measurements in the observer’s relatively-moving inertial frame. No-one on the space-ship feels squashed or slowed down or in any way different. The light-speed barrier does not occur because of any physical impossibilities, it occurs because the equations of the Theory of Relativity break down when the relative speed between two material objects is the speed of light.


    • Quasars are getting close to very high speeds. The mass in a large black hole might throw an orbiting something out at enormous speeds. Can it happen? Well let’s ask the physicists here – is it impossible?

      I don’t know.


  9. There’s a u-tube on that Universe expanding faster than light stuff called Misconceptions about the Universe. Bottom line; space can expand fast enough to catch up with light coming from a star that’s moving faster than light away from us relatively speaking. It’s all about the Hubble limit.

    As for science v religion; They are attempting to describe two different things, and trying to prove or disprove one using the other may be a good pub game – if you want to start a never ending feud – but otherwise it is fruitless.

    WordPress doesn’t like me so sorry if this keeps landing in you’re spam filter.


    • XX As for science v religion; They are attempting to describe two different things XX

      Not neccessarily.

      O.K, in Germanic heathenism (My “religion” in so much as I have one.) take Thorrs hammer.

      Flies from Thorrs hand, causes a lightning bolt, and returns to Thorrs hand.

      If that is not a description of an electric circuit, what IS?

      Grottas mill.

      All useless, and dead matter falls into the mill, to be broken up into its basic components, and is then thrown out to form new matter.

      Black holes, any one?

      IF black holes are “tunnels” into other universes, as predicted by many, including Lisa Randall in her book “Warped passages,” then there MUST be an outlet. “White holes?” Quasars?

      Predicted first by the Wikings/Germannen!

      So, in effect, the Norse/Germanic beliefs are actualy scientific explanations of the workings of the universe in words and ideas of the day that the people could understand.

      Here one may say science IS the religion.


  10. I’m sure Einstien spoke about time not long before he died. He suggested that the universe was too big for time to truly work. Time, as we know it is a human construct? That’s sounds fairly ominous. How do we know if time is linear or not?

    Time being linear falls into the human domain. It’s neat, tidy and suits us. But… What’s the alternative? Non-linear. So instead of waking up and getting through a day form 12:00 midnight on day one to 12:00 midnight on day two, perhaps time is just a jumble of seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years etc which we inhabit either simaltainously or randomly? It might look like a tin of beads with no structure or a necklace where all the beads lins up in order. Maybe our brains make random seem organised. How do you know that you went to bed last night? We don’t. You think you did because we need to fit within the reality that our brain has developed to provide.

    If we could time travel a la Dr Who we could go back to say 1314. Would it be empty of people or would it be full of people doing their stuff as we all do? It’s bound to be the later. Does that mean we are immortal within our own time line randomly bouncing back and forwards in our lives? That kind of mucks up religion does it not? Be good during your life and you will get your rewards. Kind of goes out the window really. Why bother? Either nothing changes within your timeline or you experience every possibility that can be imagined and more forever and ever and ever amen.

    I’m no scientist. The biggest bit of science I was involved in at school was dropping some acid on my green Levi cords and being disappointed when holes appeared a few days later.

    At the same time the best people who could write from the English Higher class were asked to write a religious article. The School minister would read them and a prize would be given. I wrote mine about time as above. I dearly wish I could have been a fly on the wall when he read mines. But then I’d needed to have been a buhdists to be a fly on the wall… Or would I?


  11. Fascinating stuff. I don’t buy the hologram idea, either. The following statement: “Science has demonstrated – proven beyond doubt – that a single photon can pass through two slits simultaneously and produce an interference pattern with itself, …” is one that (I think) most physicists would disagree with. The photon is a particle: you either have one or you don’t. It does not split up and pass through both slits, or weave backward and forward to pass through them. What is considered to pass through the slits is the photon’s wavefunction: it is this which generates the probabilities of the photon’s being detected at various points on the screen. When you perform a large number of experiments, detecting single photons, the distribution of places where photons were detected looks like an interference pattern. There is absolutely no interference pattern generated from a single photon. Indeed, if you tried to demonstrate that a photon passes through a slit at all, the interference pattern vanishes and you get the distribution you would expect from single-shot projectiles.


  12. Since we’re getting all philosophicalistical here, let me pose a question to any who are interested. If you knew you were going to die within the next few days anyway and were offered the opportunity to go zipping off to a local black hole in a handy-dandy little spaceship so you could try to fly into it…. would you?

    – MJM


    • Ähhhh…. Why bother? You are 100% going to snuff it, so “scientists” and the media would just use it as proof that black holes kill you.

      HEJ! It works for TC, why not take the slippery slope?


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s