Monday, May 2, 2016

U.S. Society - Why Such A Toxic Effect On Families, Workers?

Yesterday, 'May Day' or International Workers Day in much of the rest of the world, is often called the "Socialist's Labor Day". It is a day for many in socialist nations to reflect on the meaning of work, and whether it is still possible to have purposeful paid work in globalized, capitalist mercantile societies that often value profits over people.

As author Michael Parenti has noted ('America Besieged'), at its best work is ennobling and also humane, allowing families and individuals to live in some degree of relative comfort - as oppose to depredation and deprivation. That doesn't mean living the life of Riley but it does mean being able to afford the basic necessities:  sufficient food, adequate clothing, housing and health care. The problem is that outside the socialist nations, citizens are too often either not able to earn the living wages needed for life's necessities or - if they do - these are only attained at enormous social and psychological cost. This dual deficit has led to stupendous suicides rates, mental illness, startling homicide frequency,  as well as other manifestations of a toxic social fabric. One is thus led to inquire into the factors giving rise to such societal toxicity

As we near the end of the political primary season, faced with two of the worst presidential candidates ever- in terms of their negatives - one must ask if either of them can convert the U.S. into a less toxic society. The answers, alas, are not designed to inspire confidence, and the choice between a bombastic proto-fascist billionaire and a war hawk Neoliberal who fetishizes Netanyahu and Israel, may well turn into what might be called a "Hobson's choice".  Point being, either one of these two as President has the potential to render this nation even less hospitable for many, and intolerable for more than a few. See, for example, William Rivers Pitt's take here:

Quoting blogger David Swanson:

"If you've just seen Michael Moore's movie and are wondering how in the world the United States got diverted into the slow lane to hell, go watch Noam Chomsky's movie. If you've just seen Noam Chomsky's movie and are wondering whether the human species is really worth saving, go see Michael Moore's movie. If you haven't seen either of these movies, please tell me that you haven't been watching presidential debates. As either of these movies would be glad to point out to you, that's NOT HOW YOU CHANGE ANYTHING"

This elicits the question of what exactly needs to be changed. For a frame of reference see the Wall Street Journal piece from 6 weeks, ago, 'Populists Reject Economic Orthodoxy'. You will agree it is the economic orthodoxy inherent in Neoliberal capitalist dogma. As author Greg Ip notes, for most election cycles Wall Street and the economic elites don't worry because "once in office presidents of both parties tend to hew to economic orthodoxy".

So to the economic orthodoxy bunch,  a choice between Hillary and the Donald is really between Tweedledee and Tweedledum given both are in the pockets of Wall Street.

True, for a time these wizards of Wall Street and highbrow media overlords were terrified because well, Bernie Sanders appeared quite serious in his determination to break up the big banks, assure free public college and establish a universal health care standard like many civilized nations of Europe. And he was, despite the skinny circulated by the MSM that he "lived in fantasy land'  and "didn't know what he was talking about". The fact is he DID know, and THAT is what terrified the living fuck out of them. This had all of them (especially the Neolibs ensconced at the WaPo)  grabbing their balls because Bernie's prescriptions threatened the speculator-debt model of Neoliberalism. As Ip quoted one analyst at Cornerstone Marco:

"A President Sanders could 'beat the tar' out of banks" i.e. using everything from regulatory executive orders to the bully pulpit.

Well, that's because the Neoliberal order needs to be changed. Because unless it is, Americans and their nation will be hurled pell mell into an economic shit pit. This is no lie.  Working parents now more than ever say they feel stressed, tired, rushed and short on quality time with their children, friends, partners or hobbies, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

That tension is negatively affecting American family life, Pew found. Fifty-six percent of all working parents say the balancing act is difficult, and those who do are more likely to say that parenting is tiring and stressful, and less likely to find it always enjoyable and rewarding. For example, half of those who said the work-family balance was not difficult said parenting was enjoyable all the time, compared with 36 percent of those who said balance was difficult.

In a 1989 book called “The Second Shift,” the sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild described the double burden employed mothers face because they are also responsible for housework and child care. Last year she said that despite some changes in society, the workplace had not changed enough to alleviate the problems. In a book last year, “All Joy and No Fun,” the journalist Jennifer Senior described how little had improved: Working parents face similar stresses, but they are now exacerbated by inordinate tensions affecting American family life, Pew found.

Fifty-six percent of all working parents say the balancing act is difficult, and those who do are more likely to say that parenting is tiring and stressful, and less likely to find it always enjoyable and rewarding. For example, half of those who said the work-family balance was not difficult said parenting was enjoyable all the time, compared with 36 percent of those who said balance was difficult.

Of full-time working parents, 39 percent of mothers and 50 percent of fathers say they feel as if they spend too little time with their children. Fifty-nine percent of full-time working mothers say they don’t have enough leisure time, and more than half of working fathers say the same. Of parents with college degrees, 65 percent said they found it difficult to balance job and family; 49 percent of nongraduates said the same. Pew did not investigate why, but one reason might be that professional workers are more likely than hourly workers to be expected to work even after they leave the office. However, they also tend to have more flexibility during the day.

The survey also found that white parents were more than 10 percentage points more likely to express stress than nonwhite parents. Historically, white and black mothers have been more likely to work outside the home than Asian and Latina mothers, and foreign-born mothers have been particularly likely to stay home, Pew has found.

In 46 percent of all two-parent households, both parents work full-time, according to Pew, up from 31 percent in 1970. The share of households with a mother who stays home has declined to 26 percent from 46 percent. Pew surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,807 parents in every state on both landlines and cellphones.

Other data also show that working parents are the new norm. Sixty percent of children now live in households where all the parents at home work at least part time, up from 40 percent in 1965, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
The shift has economic implications. The median household income for a family in which both parents work full time is $102,400, according to Pew, compared with $84,000 when mothers work part time and $55,000 when they stay home. The data highlight the complicated trade-offs that working families make.

Forty-one percent of working mothers said being a parent made it harder to advance in their careers, compared with 20 percent of fathers. Men’s careers took priority more often than women’s did, though the majority said they were equal. Fathers earned more than mothers in half of full-time working families, the same as mothers in about a quarter and less than mothers in a quarter.

Add to that the new evidence that the quantity and quality of sleep one gets is directly dependent on one's income level, and you have the basis for why many of the middle and working class are fed up, and gravitate to Sanders and Trump. They understand the whole system is rigged against them and on their daily "gerbil wheel" they are likely to have more health problems - including mental - and also more likely to lose it. See more on this aspect here:

Michael Parenti in his book, America Besieged, highlighted the origin of many of these toxic elements more than 20 years ago. He showed the country's social welfare and economic indicators disclose it's not the "land of opportunity" portrayed by the Neoliberal elites and political class.   In his chapter 'Hidden Holocaust, USA' ,  Parenti demolishes the myth that the country is on an ever upward path - and instead we have an insidious, media-inserted embolism of false consciousness and delusion mind-fucking the majority. He cites a typical year’s statistics to start, showing how these vary little year to year in the US of A:

Amongst the items noted then (ibid., pp. 3-6):

- 27,000 commit suicide each year

-23,000 murdered each year

-5.5 million arrested each year

- 25 million seek mental health assistance

-6.5 million use crack, speed, heroin, PCP or some other hard drug on a regular basis each year

- 37 million use emotion-controlling or numbing drugs, to face reality. Their own false optimism and delusions aren't enough to get them through the day

- 1.3 million suffer permanent kidney damage from treatments received at hospitals each year

-80 million go to some type of psychological counselor each year

- Up to 4 million women are beaten, battered

- More than 30,000 children are left permanently disabled each year from neglect and battering

- One woman is raped every 45 seconds throughout the year (700,000 in all a year)

-14,000 are killed on the job each year

- 60,000 are killed directly by toxic, environmental pollutants each year, 300,000 more get cancer from environmental toxins each year and die

- 5 million workers injured seriously on the job each year

Is this a country on a path of enhanced social advancement or improved national integrity? Hardly!  Now, the SPI stats confirm it.  The results also confirm eco-economist Herman Daly's assertion that GDP is a poor barometer to measure national health.    Thus, while the U.S. sports the second highest per capita GDP of $45,336, it ranks in an underperforming 16th place overall. It gets worse. The U.S. ranks 70th in health, 69th in ecosystem sustainability, 39th in basic education, 34th in access to water and sanitation and 31st in personal safety.

In other words, we're bordering on the conditions of a third world country. Allow a few more years of mass fracking to continue, despoiling our water sources (especially out here in the drought prone West) and we will likely join the likes of Malawi and Mauritania.   Allow the intolerable existing economic inequality to metastasize and we will - as a nation - soon sport a murder rate higher than Jamaica's.

Will either a President Hillary Clinton or a President Donald Trump reverse the destructive trends and provide the hard solutions needed to become a more humane and responsible society and nation? The indicators all show this is about as likely as an advanced race of aliens landing from the 3rd planet of Tau Ceti and taking over, since we've made such a mess of this planet.

Evidently neither the Hillary Cult or the Donald Cult see this and care. They'd rather retain the status quo with all that implies: More 'Holocaust USA'.   They'd also rather make sundry specious excuses for not acting and simply doing the same things we have been over and over again: keeping a minimum wage below survival levels when it ought to be at least $22/ hr (taking into account the rate of inflation since 1960), disallowing paid leave for illness or sick family members, and dispatching all the best paying jobs and benefits to foreign lands where cheap labor reigns - as Carrier recently announced (sending 1,400 jobs from Indiana to Mexico where the pay rate is $6/hr instead of $34/hr).

Fulfilling the very definition of insanity given by Einstein "doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result". In this case, a better, more improved America. Sorry, not going to happen!

See also:

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Trump Has "Zero Chance" Vs. Hillary In November? Think Again!

Two days ago I read a piece at  by Walker Bragman I thought I'd never see, ever:

That the "lesser of two evils" paradigm also dominating this election (at least for progressives) may not be an HRC choice at all, but a Trump choice was unthinkable back in February.Bragman actually went through point by point - including Supreme Court picks - showing why (especially if the Dems managed to snatch back the Senate) a Trump presidency might not be as apocalyptic as made out by many on the Left. That includes  scolders like Patton Oswalt, Bill Maher and George Takei - warning "do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, dumpkopfs!"

But is Hillary really that "good"? After her AIPAC speech and a recent NY Times write up on her war hawk nature, e.g.

Many inquiring minds are wondering.

Probably most of Bragman's article would have been unthinkable even a few days before the New York Times posted its lengthy magazine article on Hillary's evolution as an unreconstructed war hawk - prepared to back Netanyahu to the hilt, as well as go after Iran or Russia. I read the piece too and it sent chills down my spine. I made the mistake of reading the Times' piece after re-reading the spell -binding 1959 novel of thermonuclear war, 'Alas, Babylon', by Pat Frank.  The scenes described of an accidental U.S. strike on Latakia - the Russian Naval base - could occur even today and ok, start the real thing - if cooler heads don't prevail.

Anyway, to counter a recurring anti-Russia U.S. narrative we recently beheld Trump saying we needed to work with Russia instead of making war on her, including setting up 'no fly' zones. He has a good point, but is that enough to throw caution to the winds and dispense with a lesser of two evils approach? I don't know.

But what ought to be alarming to many on the left, especially the pundit class,  is the many still dismissing Trump as a "clown". They might want to think again. People some months ago dismissed him as a Bozo but look where he is now. On the cusp of getting to the magic number of 1237 Reepo delegates. If one compares his odds at any Vegas' bookmaker's they are far more in his favor, than they are in Ted Cruz' (especially after Johnny Boehner dinged Cruz with the "Lucifer in the flesh" epithet - probably referencing that video where Cruz is reaching out to hug his daughter and the poor girl recoils in disgust.)

Former Loyola University PolySci and Philosophy lecturer Sean Illing in his own ;piece has been among the first to confess he was all wrong. As he writes:

"Pundits are paid to pretend they know things. But we have no special insight, no higher claims to truth. We’re wrong as much as we’re right, if not more so. Sometimes it’s clear what will happen, often it’s not. In the case of Trump, everyone – myself included – got it wrong.
When Trump descended preposterously from that escalator and announced he was running for president, we all giggled. Trump? President? Seriously? And yet all the polls suggested that he had real traction. But we assumed his star would fade. Then he started winning primaries – by massive margins. We downplayed it. Then he made one gaffe after another – insulting John McCain’s military service, hurling a menstruation jab at Megyn Kelly, calling Mexicans “rapists” and “criminals,” promising to ban all Muslims from entering the country. He even vicariously called Ted Cruz a “pussy.”

None of it mattered. Trump is now on track to receive the most primary votes in the history of the Republican Party. Let that sink in for a moment."

In fact, little of it has sunk in, as the political chattering class continues to give Trump no hope at all vs. Hillary. In only one memorable televised instance in the past two months did I see and hear a different take - from a Hillary female supporter from Emily's List. She told Chris Hayes on his 'All In' show that she viscerally feared a one on one debate between Hillary and Trump. In her own words, and I quote:

"It would kind of be like facing a mad monkey with a gun. And you just don't know what that monkey might do so there's no way to really prepare."

Indeed. But far more ominous is that if this election is close, it might be another GOP steal especially in states like Ohio using electronic voting machines. See e.g.:

Greg Palast in an RT segment recently noted that the only reason Obama didn't lose the 2008 election is because his "numbers were way too big to enable a steal".  It may not be so this time, given Hillary's high negatives and also if she can't secure Bernie's people. Up to now, according to recent reports, she has indicated zero inclination to incorporate any of Sanders's' proposals into her platform. This is precisely the error that could conceivably render this general election close enough to steal. (Say by tossing OH to the  GOP by dumping a quarter million provisional ballots as in 2004)

Illing again:

"The political class is experiencing a collective cognitive dissonance: We just can’t quite believe this is happening. And yet it is happening – right now, in front of our faces. Barring something extraordinary, Trump will be the Republican nominee. Will he win the general election? Probably not. But he absolutely could win, and willing ourselves to ignorance won’t make it any less likely.
To read the latest “Insiders” report at Politico, however, is to discover how little pundits – on both sides – have learned. "

Will they learn enough before the November showdown? Who knows?  Who will be the most likely- Clinton or Trump -  to avoid a nuclear showdown with the Russians? That may be the true litmus test for determining the lesser of two evils.

See also:

Friday, April 29, 2016

Max Tegmark's Multiverse Types - And "Alternate" Universes (Tegmark's Type 3)

One idealized model of a Type II Multiverse with two localization angles defined.

Much of the discussion concerning the Multiverse has been muddied because of lack of clarity about what it means. Let us concede that for many years humans conceived of only one manifestation of the whole or 'universe' (the Milky Way galaxy itself was at one time conflated with 'universe' ) and it has taken the push of modern physics to acknowledge this grand assembly may not be the final statement of physical reality. Thus, by way of several theories - which we will get into. - one comes into the conceptual purview of the Multiverse - composed of perhaps an infinity of universes with differing properties, cosmological constants etc.

One person who has tried to provide categories and clarity is Max Tegmark of M.I.T. He has suggested a fourfold classification scheme, but only three of them are relatively comprehensible to most ordinary folk without advanced physics backgrounds. (It is those I will deal with in this post.)

Type 1:

The simplest or Type 1 Multiverse is essentially an infinite extension of the acknowledged universe. Our most advanced telescopes like the Hubble can only see to a certain limit given the finite speed of light (c = 300,000 km/ sec)  which means our vision is confined to a limited radius. This is called the "Hubble radius" and is generally equal to the age of the cosmos translated into distance or 13.8 billion light years.

Thus, if light takes 13.8 billion years to travel to the maximum distance we can actually see (assuming space is static) that turns out to be 13,8 billion LIGHT YEARS. (One light year being the distance light travels in one year.)

In fact, this is a simplification because space or rather space-time isn't static.  Because of its expansion immediately following the Big Bang the actual radius of the cosmos is 42 billion light years or some 28.2 billion LY greater than the telescopic limit.   Assuming physical reality, i.e. the universe, exists beyond the actual Hubble radius then all permitted arrangements may exist - and in infinite numbers.

In effect one finds separate "cosmi", cut off from each other by their own individual Hubble radii. These would be like separate compartments or "bubbles" cut off from each other.  The key point is that the laws of physics in one "bubble" are the same in those in all the others because in the end the universe - despite the disparate "bubbles- is one entity.

Type 2:

While the Type 1 version is based on the cosmological principle, so the laws of physics are the same in all the separate "bubbles" with their own Hubble radii, in this Type 2 case they can vary from one universe to another. The value of G, the Newtonian gravitational constant may be G as we know it (6.7 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2) in our universe, but 1.1G in another in the Type 2 Multiverse, and 0.98G in another. The result would be separate universes remarkably different from each other.

As I noted in previous blog posts, the genesis of the Type 2 Multiverse is distinct from the Type 3 which is really Hugh Everett's "Many worlds" quantum-based theory (which we will get to.) In the Type 2 all the universes in the Multiverse were spawned as a result of cosmic inflation immediately following the Big Bang.

Regarding inflation, most current standard theories propose inflation starting at about  10-35 s  and doubling over a period of anywhere from 10-43 to 10-35 s after the initial inception. Estimates are that at least 85 such 'doublings' would be required to arrive at the phase where entropy rather than field resident energy dominated. The initial size (radius) of our universe would have been likely less than a proton's - maybe 1 fermi (fm) or 10-15 m, by the time the doubling process began. By the time it ended (after 90 'doublings') it would have been around 1.25 x 1012  m. This is roughly eight times the distance of Earth from the Sun.

In effect, the role of inflation is to give cosmic expansion a huge head start or boost, without which our universe would be much smaller. If such an "inflationary field" could spawn our universe it could spawn many others (up to an infinite number).  Further, there is no reason why these offshoot universes from inflation should have the same laws of physics as any of the others.

This is a delightful conclusion since it disposes at once of the "specialness" of the cosmos that too many invoke as a cosmological argument to demand a deity or "Creator".  However, if universes are commonplace, and the physical laws that govern each vary, then the need for a "human-friendly" creator vanishes. It is no longer a fluke that one universe has just the right conditions for life if gazillions of them don't.

Type 2 universes, then, aptly deal with the annoying fine tuning problem that religionists endlessly invoke.

Type 3

The Type 3 "Multiverse" is in reality a product of Hugh Everett's Many worlds quantum interpretation, which was devised to counter the Copenhagen Interpretation's strange ramifications. In the Copenhagen Interpretation, any observer's consciousness is theoretically capable of "collapsing" the wave function, yielding one and only one eigenstate or final observation, i.e. observed state. Everett, to his credit, argued that rather than dealing with one wave function for whatever observed entity (particle, universe, cat in a box - subject to release of cyanide if a cesium atom decays triggering the release device) one might let ALL possible outcomes occur.

In this case, the universe is constantly undergoing a kind of multiple "fission" of reality into umpteen daughter universes where different events unfold from the one we're in. To fix ideas, in one of them Lee Oswald is a published Professor of History at Tulane, not an accused assassin. In the same or other universe, LBJ's plan to have JFK killed is exposed before the executive action and the SOB is tried for treason. In another the Challenger disaster never occurs, it goes off perfectly because NASA took the time to solve the O-ring problem. In yet another, there is no Indonesian tsunami that killed 200,000 in December, 2004 - but there is a massive ocean asteroid strike that kills just as many in SE Asia. You see what I mean?

Here's the catch: All those other universes are inaccessible to those of us in this universe. Hence, for THAT particular universe any given observer picked at random will see only ONE outcome - his own, i.e. from his history- events record. If he observes the outcome of LBJ being hung or shot for treason, he will not observe the outcome in ours where Lee Oswald was framed and LBJ got away with the crime of the century. To put it in the context of Everett's Many Worlds interpretation, the wave function will appear to have collapsed, say  for LBJ's treason and punishment- but that sole wave function collapse (to the exclusion of all other possibilities) is not really what happened. In other ("alternate")  universes other outcomes would have occurred - such as in ours where Oswald is found guilty in absentia and Johnson's Warren Commission fiction and fraud is promoted by a feckless political and media community.

Let's go back to why Everett's "Many Worlds" interpretation was devised specifically as an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM - in order to physically make sense of the principle of superposition in QM. According to this principle, before an observation is actually made to establish a determinate state, the object or particle exists in a multitude of different (quantal) states simultaneously.

As to the more exact definition of a "state" this was first given by Paul Dirac in his monograph Quantum Mechanics ('The Principle of Superposition', p. 11):

"A state of a system may be defined as a state of undisturbed motion that is restricted by as many conditions or data as are theoretically possible without mutual interference or contradiction"

This definition itself needs some clarification. By "undisturbed motion" Dirac meant the state is pure and hence no observations are being made upon it such that the state experiences interference effects to displace or collapse it. In the Copenhagen Interpretation, "disturbance" of mutually defined variables (say x, p or position and momentum) occurs when: [x, p] = -i h/ 2π, where h is the Planck constant) leads inexorably to wave function collapse. Thus, an undisturbed state must yield: [x, p] = 0. Another way of putting this is that in the latter case the 2 variables commute, and in the former they do not.

Again, in Copenhagen, the key to getting from [x,p] = - i h/ 2π to [x,p] = 0 is the presence of an observer capable of collapsing the relevant wave function for the system observed. But the problem  is that peculiar considerations enter. For example, a major irritation is the incessant Copenhagenites' debate over the level of consciousness required for a given observer to collapse a wave function. Perhaps this was best epitomized in Richard Schlegel's  Superposition and Interaction:Coherence in Physics (1980, University of Chicago Press, p. 178,) referring to the opinion expressed once by Prof. Eugene Wigner (at a conference) that "the consciousness of a dog would effect the projection into a single state whereas that of an amoeba would not."

So, in this sense, "Many worlds" provided welcome relief from metaphysical conjectures.

What bothered Everett and others was the Copenhagenites' claim that all such differing states existed simultaneously in the same observational domain for a given observer. Then,  on observation, all but one of the states magically disappeared (referred to as "wave function collapse") when the actual observation was recorded.

To Everett it all seemed too contrived and artificial. What if...he asked himself...instead of explaining the superposition of states this way, one instead thought of all quantum states (prior to observation) as co-existing in one phase space representation . Then one could think of each phase attached to another "world", a quantum world. For the total duration (T) of time before the observation was made, all these "worlds" existed at the same time, and then - on observation - the "choice" for one became reality. However, in other quantum worlds those other choices might materialize, as per the examples given above.

In a way, then, Everett's "Many worlds" interpretation  is actually a theory of alternate universes, at least at the level of potential quantum states. It is more compellingly described this way than as a third type  Multiverse, in my opinion. Especially the Type 2 comprising actual physical universes incepted from the selfsame primordial vacuum state (via inflation) as our own universe. Thus, an actual primordial vacuum - not a human observer or consciousness making observational choices- is the source of the real set of universes. Thus, all putative parallel universes plausibly emerged from the primordial vacuum the way ours did, e.g. from the Big Bang.

In the graphic, I show an "idealized Type 2 multiverse" with an infinite set of members, each specified under a coordinate φ, and separated by uniform angular measure Θ from two adjacent universes. The whole represents a 5-dimensional manifold in a toroidal topology. The topological space of the hypertoroid cosmos can therefore be represented by the global state space, a product of absolute hypertorus coordinate time (Θ) and 'all-space'(φ):GL = Θ X φ

I repeat this is an idealized model which assumes that N-cosmi were incepted at equal intervals of time - as manifested by the equal spacing in Θ.

In principle, we don't know a priori how "close" (e.g. in complex time)  another universe may be to our own. When one uses the assumption of "equal time intervals" between inceptions in our idealized multiverse, one isn't stating what those times are, and so they could be minuscule - and the smallest time unit imaginable is the unit tau, τ. (About 10-43 s, and note Θ = f(τ).)

If we specify an exact parallel time displacement we might be able to show how one universe can be "mapped" topologically onto an adjacent one. As an example, let two parallel universes be distinguished by a 1-τ difference in fundamental time parameter, viz. [1 + 2τ] and [1 + 3τ], then we would require for connection, a mapping such that:

(Universe 'A'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 2φ)

(Universe 'B'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 3φ)

which means the absolute coordinate φ is mapped onto itself 2 times for [Universe A] and mapped onto itself 3 times for [Universe B]. Clearly, there’ll be coincidences for which: f(Θ,2φ) = f(Θ,3φ) wherein the two universes will 'interweave' a number of times.

For example, such interweaving will occur when φ = π/2 in [A] and φ = π/3 in [B]. The total set or system of multiple points obtained in this way is called a Synchronous temporal matrix. The distinguishing feature of this matrix is that once a single point is encountered, it is probable that others will as well. If one hyperspace transformation can occur linking adjacent universes, A and B, then conceivably more such transformations can occur, linking A and C, D and E etc.

What if both absolute toroidal coordinates (Θ,φ) map into themselves the same number of times? Say, something like:

f:X -> = f(Θ, φ) = (2Θ, 2φ): Universe A

f:X -> = f(Θ, φ) = (3Θ, 3φ): Universe B

For example, given the previous conditions for coordinate φ, now let 2Θ = 3Θ for discrete values of Θ (e.g. 2π). For all multiples of 2π, the same toroidal cosmos will be experienced - if the absolute time coordinates are equal (e.g. π/2 = φ in A, and π/3 = φ in B) then we will have: Universe A = Universe B.

This isn't necessarily poppycock.  Stephen Freeney of Imperial College, London has surmised that two adjacent universes in a Type 2 Multiverse could conceivably 'butt up' against each other and leave "imprints" in each other's space. He reasons that these imprints would likely show up in the cosmic microwave background radiation, generating 'splotches' in the radiation field or differing energy density signatures. As yet no such signal has been found, but in truth we may not yet possess the instruments needed to identify such signatures.

Another experiment proposed to test one's conviction in Everett type worlds is best called "quantum Russian roulette" and is only to be undertaken by the most cocksure quantum physicists. (Say like that lot that makes pronouncements on the JFK assassination simply because they have a QM background.)  The experiment is analogous to the one for Schrodinger's cat - with the experimenter inside a sealed off room connected to a cyanide injector with release of a gas capsule  governed by the decay of a radioactive isotope.

 In some futures the guy will be killed, in others he will remain alive. But since  -from his point of view - he is only aware of being alive he will only perceive that he survives. Hence, he does survive.

So far there have been no takers to carry this one out.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Capitalism IS A Zero Sum Game - It's Time Its Apologists Understand That

Despite Bernie Sanders' campaign bringing some degree of enlightenment to the 2016 presidential race (by making it okay to criticize capitalism), much more needs to be done. That includes holding its sundry apologists to account for the loose thinking, and false logic they consistently display.. One such case emerged in the August 15th issue of The Economist in a review of John Plender's book: Capitalism: Money, Morals and Markets.

The anonymous reviewer observed how "capitalism lacks defenders while protests against it have fresh vigor" forgetting that most of those protests have not occurred in the mainstream media but in the marginal media or blogs, as well as on the streets. Hence, it's debatable how much of an impression has been made.

What we can say is that when an illustrious person like Pope Francis speaks out on capitalism's ills, or a Thomas Piketty (in his books) then it's more likely the mainstream news takes note - but more often than not criticizes the critics for their short sightedness. Thus, in the review of Plender's book do we see a faint damning of ancient critics like Socrates who "declared that the more men think of making money, the less they think of virtue."

Which is probably true for most humans, just look at the tallies of those who win giant Powerball jackpots then blow them on booze, drugs, unwise gambling or unwise investments (often in the same category as the previous one).  Money -sighted people then, as I've often found, are basically two dimensional operating on the existential axes of time vs. money and seldom express an original thought outside this reference frame,

Gordon Gekko, of 'Wall Street'  movie fame,  may be something of a caricature but his basic persona is often replicated in many of the Street's money men (bond traders, investment bankers - once referred to as "big swinging dicks" by one of them in a FORTUNE piece, or plain old stock brokers.)   Their failure in morals then, if it transpires, usually occurs by virtue of a failed larger vision or perspective. One that transcends their yearly bonus and where they will spend their grand vacation or how - killing protected lions in Zimbabwe, or going on a week -long million dollar golf binge at a St. Kitts resort, while their wives enjoy $250k each rose and wine wraps - with or without cucumbers.

Usually, the defenders of these guys just plain fail to see the vast harm of which they are capable. Consider just the credit meltdown and freeze of 2007-08. How many attribute the cause to the correct source? Very few! Usually the lazy media (often right wing) blames it on poor dopes who had maybe $100 in an account but were offered sub-prime mortgages by unscrupulous scheisters (such as depicted in the film, 'The Big Short'. Based on the excellent book by Michael Lewis).

Seldom (either) do they look at the pseudo-intellectuals or “quants” that helped develop the Gaussian Copula formula (see embedded graphic at top) who were quite confident that when they applied it to the development of credit default swaps (a bastardized form of credit derivative)  they’d be virtually home free. On account of the lingo used and the complex nature of the underlying formula – few ordinary mortals would figure them out before it was too late.

To refresh memories, these nasty devices were geared to enable commercial banks (the ones that hold your passbook savings) to leverage their assets to preposterous ratios, sometimes as high as 33:1.  In other words, their generation of profits would largely be based on phantom money – since they lacked the reserves to make good if the bets (which is what the credit defaults swaps were) failed. In the meantime, the Gaussian formula itself allowed the credit derivatives to be sliced and diced numerous ways to package them throughout ordinary securities such as collateralized mortgage obligations.  The failure of the credit agencies themselves to be onto the junk bond nature of CMOs and allowing the presence of one fraction of ‘AAA’ bonds in each – then designating the whole AAA - led directly to the collapse of the credit markets in 2008.

 Since then  it’s become ever more evident why elite economics is a failure and can’t even be regarded as a science like Physics, or even in a “pre-scientific phase” . If it had then the main practitioners of the dismal science ought to have been able to predict the effect of their CDS on a vulnerable home debt market. They didn't.

 In the case of the Gaussian copula, invented by David X. Li  -  while working at JP Morgan Chase and articulated in his (2000) paper: ‘On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach”  -  it wasn't even a true mathematically sound equation analogous to those used in physics or celestial mechanics.. It was more an intellectual Frankenstein monster that never should have seen the light of day any more than a four-headed baby with a pointed tail. For example, Li's misuse of the distribution functions (FA(1)) and (FB(1)) would appall any genuine mathematician or physicist. Each is actually based upon significant uncertainties via survival law distributions which can vary enormously. There is no way to normalize any probability based on (TA, TB so there is no way to equate Pr[TA, TB] to anything on the left side. The equal sign is dangerous recklessness masquerading as math. Did the illustrious economists or "quants" know any of this when they cranked out credit default swaps? Or assigned the bonds in which they were buried AAA ratings? The evidence of failure to predict the 2008 credit crash shows they didn't.

All of which supports Chris Hedges’ condemnation of these mental zombots, i.e. p. 98, The Empire of Illusion:

“They cannot grasp that truth is often relative. They base their decisions on established beliefs such as the primacy of an unregulated market or globalization, which are accepted as absolutes.”

In other words, these money men and derivative inventors inhabit a self-confected, solipsist world of illusion devoid of critical empirical testing or critical thought. I mean, Jeez, if any one of these so-called geniuses would have just taken the time to understand WHAT he was doing in applying the Gaussian Copula to credit derivatives he’d likely have seen it was the equivalent of a physicist taking a tiny piece of special relativity and trying to inject it into areas that had no relevance because the primary criterion (speeds near c, the speed of light) were not being  met.

But see, at least physics has and uses empirical testing before advancing – so the odds are less that physicists will make asses of themselves. Not so with these economic, political elites.   Unlike astronomers,  who can accurately predict the position of Jupiter or Mars in 2050 or the next lunar eclipse or occultation of a star, the economists can't even predict simple stuff in their immediate domain - say like forecasting the growth would be 3.2 % in 2011 when it was only 1.7%
Remarkably, Plender is aware of the cost of high finance on capitalism's rep and this is pointed ou by the reviewer (p. 75):
"It's not just that few people can see the benefits of complex financial products like credit default swaps. He adds that 'bankers have undoubtedly done their best to give capitalism a bad name. The extraordinary scale on which big banks have been rigging interest rates and foreign exchange markets and ripping off their customers is almost beyond comprehension."
Fair enough, but it still doesn't let the system itself off the hook, which breeds these tactics and the money men who use them.  This leads to a blindness about perceptions of capitalism.
For example, the reviewer's claim - echoing Plender- that the financial crisis was the latest example of "the inherent stability of capitalism", i.e. "allowing it to benefit from creative destruction". In fact, the financial crisis was just the opposite, a glaring example of capitalism's instability.  We actually came within a hair's breadth of another Depression and only barely escaped because the political system and party in control at the time was enabled by votes to use taxpayer money (nearly $897b) to bail the system out and interject liquidity.
In the same manner, if a series of nuclear reactors were to "nearly melt down" - governed by the same computerized control algorithms - one would not argue or assert the "system is stable" or "shows stability".  But no one - after all the taxpayer money was spent - came after the clowns that nearly wrecked the financial system, leaving it open to future predations.

Why do we keep paying attention to these clowns? Just because they have Harvard, or Cambridge or Stanford or whatever degrees after their names? Mainly, yes – and also because the politicos who achieve high office tend to install them in their cabinets so instead of being relegated to some corner office behind the walls of ivy, they have the ear of Presidents and Prime Ministers. These clowns can then help determine national policy which is usually to the detriment of the rest of us.

At root of it all, which none of them or the bought out media will tell you, is that the trillions of bucks circulating in the capitalist markets represents  FORCE. A force that can crush opponents underfoot, including presidential campaign opponents who dare to bring its nefarious consequences (to our electoral system) to light.

They also don't want too much exposed because they know deep down as capitalism ramps up it generates millions of losers a year, not to mention destroys what's left of our natural environment. As Naomi Klein has pointed out, it's no coincidence that a capitalism has spread and consumerism reached exponential levels, the planet's atmosphere has been laid waste to via the Greenhouse effect.

The Economist reviewer's claim then that (ibid.):

"For all its faults capitalism has raised the living standards of billions of people since the 18th century and improved their life expectancy"

Is only a half truth, since it ignores the other side: that this enhancement of living standards and life expectancy has come at the cost of the planet as a habitable future abode. These long lived consumers (no longer seen as citizens) now plunder the planet to the tune of the equivalent of 1.5 Earths' worth of finite resources per year. They are driven by capitalist-based advertising to do so, as it generates ever more 'wants' as opposed to fulfilling actual needs. Thus, every manjack has to have his own car to drive and pollute  with CO2. Every unused computer or 'Barbie' tossed into the landfill - along with soiled diapers and plastic bags - creates ever more waste and hazards.

It is no surprise that pollution and cancers have reached a peak now as ever newer weedicides and pesticides have to be created - not to mention GMO crops - to feed a growing population in which food sources must keep up with numbers.

But the other perverse aspect is that capitalists love overpopulation because it means - n their minds- vast "markets" of global consumers to buy their ever larger quotas of crap, that ever lowers Earth's store of non-renewable resources.

Perhaps no one has better explained the connection of global warming, especially, to capitalism, than Naomi Klein. Readers who are interested should get hold of her book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. Climate Change.  Basically, as Klein argues, capitalism is unable to affect or alter  the course of climate change due to its dependence on fossil fuels and need for continuous growth. Also,  the time for marginal fixes has expired, thus forcing us to now make radical changes in how we live.

 We simply don't have the luxury of using all the carbon that lies in the Earth. Yet capitalism's never ending growth engine would demand we do so to support the expansion of new markets for exploitation and wanton consumption.  Failing to note that the more we take from the Earth the less real wealth we have left: a zero sum game.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Yes, Hillary Will Have To Meet Conditions To Get Bernie's Supporters On Board

WATCH: Clinton goes off on Greenpeace activist: "I am so sick" of you bringing up my fossil fuel money
"WAAAH! I shouldn't have to accept conditions to get Bernie's supporters!"

In a victory lap speech last night, after taking four eastern primary states (DE, PA, CT. MD) Hillary made a pitch to Bernie Sanders's' supporters that "there is more that unites us than divides us" - betraying a real desperation to be able to actually turn Right, and go after Donald Trump. She also showed again that talk is cheap. But what Bernie's people really want to see is engraved in stone promises to back up the unity blather (having already been burned by "hope and change" nonsense eight years earlier.). You know the old saw: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me."

Well, Bernie's supporters don't plan to get fooled again, especially when most of them already sense a yen to get off the leftward tilt and turn to the "center" and the Right. (In fact the current center, so called, is really center-Right.)

Bernie himself, in response to an idiot reporter's inane question ('When do you plan to drop out?') answered correctly that the campaign isn't just about winning the nomination but changing the political direction of the party and the country - implying that it must be away from its Neoliberal tilt of the past 34 years. (Since the formation of the DLC, 'Democratic Leadership Council', and its "Third way", Republican lite version of the Dems.)

That means building planks into the Democratic Party platform that reflect Bernie's positions, such as dealing with the banks in a real way as opposed to "optically". At the very least that means bringing back a version of Glass-Steagall to keep investment and commercial banks separate. As in Canada, banks should not be using depositors' hard earned savings to make risky bets with derivatives and then have to be bailed out with taxpayer money when they fail. That also means at least verbally acknowledging the validity of Bernie's bill which allows the Treasury Secretary to name banks too big to fail.

It also means making a clear promise to lower the burden of student loan debt.  As one expert on military  growth interviewed recently by Laura Flanders put it, nations are spending an average of $1.75 trillion per year on military armaments. Just a fraction of that ($200b) could be used to enable lower tuition at U.S. public universities for example.

We also want to see Hillary accept a non-interventionist foreign policy given we simply can't continue to spend precious resources on occupations and wars when there are so many pressing domestic needs, like repairing crumbling infrastructure.

In a nutshell then, these are some of the conditions we expect to be met when Bernie rolls into Philadelphia with well over 1, 500 delegates and 10 million votes that Hillary will need to beat Trump:

-  Acceptance of a viable plan to separate commercial and investment banks

- Acceptance of a plausible plan to reduce student college loan debt (at the very least lowering interest rates to 3% or less.)

- Promise not to advocate for any cuts for Social Security (as Obama tried with his "Debt Commission" in 2010)

- No to any cuts to Medicare, including "privatization" plans

- No to any liaisons with Israel to either attack Iran or Syria, or send troops (or cruise missiles) in.

- No to any new adventures in the Ukraine, or trying to set up a "no fly zone" over Syria.

The last two are particularly apropos given Hillary's robust background as a hawk, illuminated in a recent NY Times magazine piece, e.g.

The piece noted that Clinton’s extreme belligerence “will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election,” noting “neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.” In the 2016 presidential campaign, the report concludes, “Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race.”

HRC's gender backers - who may have sons that she enlists to fight a war of choice, say in Syria or Iraq-   ought to take note.

I would also add that before we embrace "Hill"' she come clean and release those transcripts of her Wall Street speeches (mainly to reps of Goldman- Sachs).  We deserve to know exactly what she said, and whether any statements made included promises to "cut entitlements", privatize Social Security or punch any more holes into Dodd-Frank.

Hillary whined last week that she never issued any conditions (to get her supporters on board) when she ultimately backed Obama in 2008. But she omitted saying the differences between them were tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, both Neoliberals at heart.

This time around is not the same, given we have a democratic socialist exposing the flaws of a diehard Neolib and warhawk. Thus, millions of Bernie supporters won't be satisfied with anything less than her not only mouthing words of unity - but building Berne's main proposals into the party platform.

See also:

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

The End Of Moore's Law? Maybe Sooner Than You Think

Let's first clarify that "Moore's law" is not a physical law in the sense of Newton's 2nd law of motion, e.g.

F = m (dv/dt)

But rather a law that appears to govern the miniaturization and speed of microprocessors, applicable at least for the past 44 years.  It can be traced to Gordon Moore, who became one of the founders of Intel and in 1965 wrote a paper in which he claimed that the number of electronic components that could be crammed into an integrated circuit was doubling every year. This exponential increase became known as Moore's law.

By 1970 the rate of doubling was reduced to once every two years and this has pretty well held for the past 44 years. Effectively we're looking at a 22 times doubling (starting with Intel's 4004 chip in 1971) and hence something 4 million times improved. This is just about what's happened. Whereas the 4004 had roughly 2,300 transistors (tiny electrical switches representing the 1s and 0s as the binary language of computers), the Intel's new Xeon Haskell E-5 (launched in 2014) has 5 billion - just 22 nm apart.

But that may be about to end in what some might term "the limit of small".  That is, the components are now approaching the fundamental limit of smallness: the atom. For example, the Intel Skylake transistor is only 100 atoms across. The fewer atoms in scale, the more difficult it is to store and manipulate the electronics and especially those 1s and 0s.

Of course, according to one wag, "There's a law about Moore's law: The number of people predicting the death of Moore's law doubles every two years."

But I am predicting it, based on the limits not only of size but of energy to continue to manufacture any scale of chips. This limit of energy I already wrote about at length in terms of its impact on economics in general, e.g.

Energy limits and especially efficiency are important because once the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) goes below a given threshold all bets are off and production is limited - and more costly - across a wide spectrum of products, not just computer chips. Wonder why NASA's space exploration budget has been pared by nearly one -third (according to the most recent Physics Today)? It's because of the much higher cost of energy to drive those rockets, space craft across vast distances. Wonder  why thousands of oil shale wells across the U.S. have shut down and workers sent home? It's because it is no longer cost effective to take the stuff out of the ground because the price per barrel is too low to support the expenditure of energy needed for extraction, storage, transport.

At root of many of these issues is the standard problem of entropy, or ever smaller amounts of useful energy available for a closed system with each energy conversion.  That is, more waste energy is generally given off, e,g, as heat in the process of transport, than used in the actual chips for computing. The more energy wasted or lost this way the less available for computing. Modern chips are so "power hungry" as the Economist piece notes, that up to 80 percent of the total input energy is expended in the course of transport leaving only a few to get energy in and out.

One possible solution is "spintronic transistors" given the voltage needed to drive them is only 10- 20 millivolts (1 mV = 1/1000 of a volt). This is hundreds of times lower than for a conventional transistor which means the latter's energy needs are hundreds of time greater. Thus, the spintronic device would solve the heat problem at a stroke but the problem is research has been ongoing for 15 years with nothing to show for it. This implies design problems of its own given with such minute voltages distinguishing between a 1 and a 0 from electrical background noise becomes tricky.

To push Moore's law further along a number of key changes would have to occur beyond merely resorting to a few more different designs and materials i.e. that may make transistors amenable to a bit more shrinkage.  (One of these 'tweaks' is to diffuse computing power rather than concentrating it, i.e. spreading the ability to calculate and communicate across an ever larger range of everyday objects.)

Higher energy efficiency will be essential to even keep Moore's law going for a decade. That includes dispensing with energy-intense lithium batteries (unsustainable in a lower energy environment)  and instead harvesting energy from surroundings including from the vibrations of E-M waves - using  tiny amounts of power amidst an intensely crowded radio spectrum.

Even Lindley Gwennap, who runs the Lindley Group of Silicon Valley analysts has admitted in the March 12th Economist: "From an economic standpoint, Moore's law is over." In other words, the cost to continue the Moore's law doubling (for miniaturization and chip power) is no longer sustainable in the current degraded energy environment operating on lower EROEI fuel. (Intel's boss, Brian Krzanich, has also publicly admitted the firm's rate of progress has slowed.)

As The Economist observes:

"The twilight of Moore's law then will begin change, disorder and plenty of creative destruction. An industry that used to rely on a handful of devices will splinter."

According to Bob Colwell who helped design Intel's Pentium chip:

"Most of the people who buy computers don't even know what a transistor does. They simply want the products they buy to keep getting better and more useful than in the past."

That route is getting more difficult but hopefully there will be other ways to make better computers and computing devices even without the full benefit of Gordon's Moore's "law".

We just have to be patient and see what they are.

Monday, April 25, 2016

CERN Set To Rupture Dimensions And Unleash Demons? Total Balderdash!

One of the demons people fear is likely to be released if CERN's Large Hadron Collider Is back  up and running.

What is it about basic physics experiments, i.e. into the basic nature of the universe, that drive an element of humanity into total paranoia and hysteria? Now that CERN is ready to commence experiments once more with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) it's been noted that wacky, halfwit speculations are circulating the memosphere like a virtual brain virus (WSJ, April 5, p. A1 and A10).

One nutty blogger actually tried to pin last year's deadly Nepal earthquake on LHC trial tests, while a headline of an opinion piece published by the Coldwater MI 'Daily Reporter' screamed: "We Should Be Very Careful About CERN!". Why?  Because you don't understand its working principles?

Meanwhile, as the WSJ piece put it (A10):

"Last summer, Internet chatter about CERN's role in hastening Doomsday spiked"

Showing again that too many without adequate knowledge have way too much time on their hands.

Acknowledging the frenzy, CERN's cognoscenti put up a FAQ on its website called "The Surreal FAQ" and in its one of many deadpan rejoinders to the nonsense assured one and all "it won't open a door to another dimension" also adding: "Shiva, a gift from the Indian government represents the life force and we have lots of statues. Our logo is meant to represent particle accelerators, not Satan"

Sadly even having to acknowledge no obeisance to an entity ("Satan") that doesn't exist anyway.

Then there are the dime store psychologists, never mind they lack even a dime store exposure to psychology. The WSJ piece cites a Michael Barkun - an emeritus professor of Political Science at Syracuse University who offered the chestnut that "CERN has a special ability to attract the conspiracy subculture".

But as I noted in my post from two days ago it was Dr. Pat Bannister in the 1970s who distinguished a conspiracy (sub-) culture from the genuine conspiracy research community. And the yokels proposing CERN's LHC opening up "doors to other dimensions"  and unleashing "demons" are definitely of the first category. They are basically adult children who lack a grasp of even basic physical concepts and hence concoct whole cloth nutso nonsense that some - like Barkun - generously describe as "conspiracies".  A better word for them is unsupported, unverifiable bullshit.

According to Barkun quoted in the WSJ (ibid.):

"Any time you have forces that are high energy and invisible, like those in the Large Hadron Collider, they lend themselves to these kind of interpretations"

Which is debatable. It is rather more plausible that such off the wall interpretations will come from those with a minimal science background, or even reading background. Which are exactly the points made by those such as Neil Postman and Pat Bannister. If you think and operate at a cartoon level, and your reading is at a comic book, superstition or cartoon level,  eschewing anything "difficult",  you will emerge as a child. Then you will entertain childish ideation.

This is the specific case of the Raelians also cited in the WSJ piece.  According to the article: "They see life on Earth as the creation of scientists from another planet, and announced last year they would stage a demonstration at CERN's campus to protest the LHC's destruction of tiny life forms contained within particles"

No, you just can't make this shit up. These dopes truly believe subatomic particles like quarks harbor miniature life forms. As one CERN spokesperson put it: "I guess they more or less see particles as planets with very small people on them:"

Clearly the Raelians ignore the fact these life forms would have far more to worry about being gobbled by ordinary dust mites. Fortunately, they must have come to their senses as they never showed up.

Some of the blame I think might be placed on CERN for willingly participating in fantasy fiction fare that weak minds might find believable. For example, CERN chose to participate in the 2009 film 'Angels and Demons' which spun a yarn about using antimatter created in the LHC to construct a super bomb. In fact, CERN's physicists contributed to the script! Bad idea, because even a loose association like that would trigger neurons in the collective brains of a paranoid child subculture that grew up with video games and X-men comics. Then they might conjecture such fictional participation was concealing a real one.

Kate Kahle, who oversees social media for CERN (and has a physics degree), was quoted in the WSJ piece admitting she "tried to engage directly with serial conspiracy theorists with mixed results." She recalled one of the responses to her denial of occult mischief: "Was that a 'no' to the portal or to the demons?"

Of course, Pat Bannister would have advised  Kahle  from the outset not to waste her time because none of the occult lot she addressed were at the level of  mentally mature adults. That is,  who could grasp her words within a rational setting as opposed to an irrational one embraced as more real by semi-literates, unread in even classic fare like 'Beowulf' or The Odyssey'.  (Far less factual scientific books like Hawking's 'Brief History of Time',  or Peter Sturrock's 'The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence', (It would be like arguing with a kindergartner whether the 2nd derivative can be used to obtain the maximum of a function.)

Again, the conspiracy culture approaches its conspiracy thinking - if that is what it can be called - from a cartoon level of simple analogies and caricatures: i.e. good vs. evil, '666' means antichrist,  high energy machines imply dimensional ruptures etc. No genuine research or investigations of any scientific or mathematical validity go into it. Bannister herself would point out the very mention of "demons" immediately discloses the person as possessing the mental age of a 5 or 6 year old.  Hence, no serious person would treat such a "conspiracy" as the rational product of a sound or mature mind.

Kahle's error lay in making that assumption (of dealing with rational minds) as opposed to overgrown babies who combine an extravagant imagination with a sense of profound entitlement to have their codswallop respected. Much like too many in Google groups who believe just because they can express an absurd opinion on the Kennedy assassination they can expect it to be accepted.(Or they base their opinions on a work of fraudulent scholarship like the Warren Report.)

In the end, CERN's high energy experiments will be performed and no untoward effects - like mini black holes or cosmic ruptures- will be manifested. At that stage one hopes the regressed infants and their ideation will settle down, and perhaps muster enough curiosity to read a real science book, as opposed to a comic.