Saturday, September 4, 2010

Why are Americans so damned religious?


A Gallup poll released Tuesday gave yet more cause for consternation among many in this country. What it revealed is that Americans remain outliers in terms of their hyper-religiosity, amongst the advanced, developed nations of the world

Gallup surveyed people in more than 100 countries in 2009 and found that religiosity was highly correlated to poverty. Richer countries in general are less religious. But that doesn’t hold true for the United States. Sixty-five percent of Americans say that religion is an important part of their daily lives, compared with just 30 percent of the French, 27 percent of the British and 24 percent of the Japanese.

This is strange until one compares the preceding percentages with the Gini coefficients measuring economic inequality, as well as surveys of academic performance among the nations as well – whether elementary, secondary or tertiary level. What one finds is enough to despair this country will ever pull up and may actually descend into a new "Dark Age" as Morris Berman has forecast. (Cf. Dark Ages America)

In reference to the Gini coefficient, we know it registers the degree of economic and income inequality in any given nation, referenced as a decimal(e.g. 0.3) , or, more often (in non-technical venues) as a plain number between 0 and 100. In terms of practical applications, a Gini index of zero would denote perfect equality. In terms of western industrial nations, most developed European nations and Canada tend to have Gini indices between 24 and 36, the United States' and Mexico's Gini indices are both above 40, indicating that the United States and Mexico have greater inequality.

Comparing Gini indices or coefficients across the first world (of developed nations) it is always found that lower economic and income inequality correlates with lower religiosity. This pattern is statistically progressive and no exceptions are known, except for the U.S. The core of research (largely statistical) shows the primary reason the U.S. is a statistical outlier in religious belief is income inequality. Moreover, we've seen the index (and inequality) increase ever since Bush Jr. was handed his presidency, compliments of the five Supremes, in 2000. Obama's presidency has made some small inroads, and may make more (with his new health care law) but that isn't expected to begin before 2014. Worse, if Repukes succeed in torpedoing it as "unconstitutional" - because of the mandated pay-ins for insurance, then all bets are off.

Meanwhile, with its historically lower taxes, fewer public safety nets, more poor than rich (by more than a 25:1 ratio), the U.S. displays a greater disparity than any other advanced nation. Moreover, it displays a much greater social pathology. Understanding the basis of this pathology doesn’t take a genius. As anyone with more than air between the ears can see, on examining state by state budget deficits now exploding (with state governments threatening to cut services to the poor, as well as teachers, police etc.) “re-balancing” is inevitably done on the backs of the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the homeless. Loss of health care, loss of jobs and loss of overall security results, as well as increase in drug use, and crime.

Given the resulting mass insecurity and economic discomfort – which we’re seeing a lot of in this recession as more and more lose jobs and go to food banks- the victimized citizens turn to the aid and protection of specious supernatural powers since they can’t expect any relief from government. In other words, the economic inequity drives the vulnerable to seek religious remedies. (Even more glaring when one realizes most homeless shelters and charities, food banks are run by religions, not private services). One can think of one word here, and it is 'extortion'.

By the same token, when scores from international science and math tests are compared, one finds that the U.S. consistently ranks in the bottom quintile of performance. Often, it is beaten out in science tests by small countries like Slovakia or Singapore.

What gives? I believe the answer is that we are losing our kids as a nation, to the mainly religious dolts who sit on school boards and deliberately corrupt and destroy the curricula in the interest of their ideologies. They eviscerate evolution from high school biology, or they allow "Intelligent design" or creationism to be taught along side – defeating the whole purpose while stealing precious class time for nonsense. They omit any reference to or cursory study of the Big Bang in Earth Science or astronomy courses, and they often exclude critical books from student reading lists. The land of "the free" clearly doesn't fancy free thinking, once there is any remote risk that questioning of the basis of existence may arise. No, it's more important the kids all believe in supernatural fairy tales, like talking snakes and donkeys or guys living inside the hydrocholoric acid of whale's bellies for 3 days- and popping out alive and in one piece! And these bumpkins have the nerve to call us "idiots"!

No surprise then that kids grow up scientifically illiterate, even as they're led around by the nose toward supernaturalist religious hokum. They then grow up as misinformed citizens devoid of critical thinking who invest their minds in “faith”. Now, add on a dollop of economic inequality - since any kid deficient in real science is not likely to be hired in any high paying job like tech- and you have added the basis for more religious pressure.

Government is eschewed, unlike other countries such as France, in favor of prayer or church charity. Never mind the latter can’t help or compensate when millions of families are malnourished on a mammoth scale because they can’t get food stamps – because the latest Republican cabal has torpedoed legislation for additional food stamp benefits.

In this barren landscape, people will desperately grasp and reach for religion. What the hell else have they got? Government’s contributions have been compromised or undermined by anti-government jackasses even as they pump and hump to extend tax cuts for the rich who need it the least. (And never make any bones about wanting the money from the tax cuts to buy more luxury yachts or invest in ETFs, or Hedge funds - NOT to create new jobs! ) No wonder this nation is often regarded as a collection of morons by its nation peers.

They consistently vote against their own self-interest, as they are likely to do again come November….because the poor little infants couldn’t get their gratification fast enough – plus they want their tax cuts plus their Social security benefits….and forget about repairing all those collapsing bridges, roads, and sewer systems. They’d rather let it occur than pay the extra taxes needed for $2.2 trillion in repair.

One keeps hoping at some stage there'll be a collective wake up call and at least the younger generation will break free of this downward spiral. But the jury is still out. If they remain instead wedded 24/7 to their Twitter feeds or Facebook, we may well become not only a nation with 250 million impoverished religious crazies, but dumb ones besides!

Beware, Prof. Hawking! Ye Be Demon-Possessed!


"Well, it's gotta be a better fate than being stuck with moron fundies forever!"


Well, we knew Prof. Stephen Hawking would catch some flack from the religious for coming out and telling it like it is about the cosmos self-inception, and we beheld some of the feedback in the previous blog.

Say what you will, most of it was temperate and circumspect, more along the lines that Hawking (and physics) don’t have all the answers, but we never said or claimed we did. We only stated that consistent research, based on hard quantitative measures and rigorous analyses, shows it very probable that the universe emerged from a spontaneous quantum fluctuation – originally confined to the conformal space-time of a dark energy bubble.

It isn’t our fault most people can’t understand the basis for this, for example how conformal space-time differs from normal (post-Big Bang)space-time, or why dark energy manifests as a repulsive aspect of gravity, or how it elicits a negative pressure via its equation of state. How can you explain such things to people who’ve never taken even a basic physics or calculus course?

Anyway, while we’ve seen the reasonable reactions from mainly esteemed churchmen like the Archbishop of Canterbury, there are inevitably the less educated dolts of the religious world’s underbelly who trade mainly in hysteria and fear. So, we mustn’t be surprised or appalled when these trolls react in accord with their menial minds and fears. Hawking's remarks to them have the same effect as a new find in Darwinian evolution. They fear what they don't understand and especially in the scientific domain. While their primitive forbears typically burned scientists at the stake if their claims echoed perceptions of "witch craft" or "heresy" (like Giordano Bruno's claim of life on other worlds) the more modern version asserts "demons" are using the minds of the scientists. Never could it be true that these idiots are simply not able to comprehend advanced theories! Oh NO! It's gotta be demons at work!

One such would-be muckraker has written this about Hawking – even as he scolds atheists as “fools” because they don’t accept "talking donkeys and serpents" (he claims we don’t understand how they really communicate via "demon possession" or some such horse shit - not being remotely aware that even if such possession were possible- the animals themselves lack the anatomical apparatus for speech!) Anyway, he babbles on his blog:

I really shouldn't be too hard on them when they spew their rhetoric , like the idiot Stephen Hawking when he claims that the universe "created itself" from NOTHING ! After all , its really NOT him speaking , but Satan's demons ! Hawking and other hell-bound atheists would fare much better if they would simply let GOD speak to them via the Holy Spirit"


Well, imagine that – Stephen Hawking is an “idiot”! That’s a new one! I'm sure the Provosts, Masters and Fellowship in charge of Cambridge University would be extremely interested in understanding how an “idiot” acquired the esteemed Lucasian Chair originally held by Sir Isaac Newton! I’m also sure Stephen’s colleagues would be intrigued to know what they are- if Hawking (one of the planet’s certified uber-geniuses) is an “idiot”!

But then this retard asserts “it’s one of Satan’s demons speaking” not Hawking!

Now, let’s reason this out- Is Hawking an “idiot” OR is a “demon” speaking through him ?(And I supposed, doing his mathematical research and solutions to tensor equations too, as well as writing his books, and organizing all the interviews with the BBC, newspapers, etc.!)

It can’t be both! (But again, as we saw before, this same fundie got 1 out of 10 in the basic logic test I recently posted – and I didn’t give him credit for his ‘heh, heh, heh’) If indeed one of Satan’s “demons” is speaking, is that demon an “idiot” too? Inquiring minds want to know!

But if Stephen is truly an “idiot” then he can’t be held responsible for what he avers? Right? And that means he can’t be responsible if a demon possessed him! So make up your mind, Pudwhacker, is Stephen an “idiot” or demon-possessed?

And , of course, following this we have the usual threatening malarkey about “hell bound atheists”. Hey, porky, at least we won’t have to spend an eternity with the likes of sanctimonious simpletons like you! A 10,000,000,000,000 C fire would be better than having to listen to one more word out of the fat, ignorant mouths of these odious, blustering, self-righteous, judgmental assholes. No, “Hell” couldn't possibly be worse than being stuck in perpetuity with the likes of them – ANY of them! I believe I’d have to beg to be sent off to Hell, if I found myself with any of them in a "heaven"! I'm sure Stephen Hawking would too.

One more thing, IF God speaks to you through the Holy Spirit, did he tell you to tell your readers that Hawking was possessed by a demon? Huh, porky? If not, it means you're telling lies, and no one or nothing spoke to you. You yourself just invented the bullshit of Hawking and demons because you’re incapable of a reasoned response, having miserably failed the most basic logic test.

Next time, avoid quoting Hawking’s words for your supernatural BS, like you’ve done with Einstein’s in the past to sell your horse pockey to gullible minds. And don't profess to criticize those whose minds are so much vaster than yours that you aren't fit to lick the soles of their shoes- far less shine them!

Friday, September 3, 2010

Yes, the Universe Created Itself from NOTHING!


As we saw in the previous blog, Stephen Hawking has blown fragile minds hither, thither and yon with his recent remarks based on his new book. See also this spot segment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11172158

(Allow 10-20 seconds for commercials to pass)

All I can say is a hearty 'Bravo' to Prof. Hawking for again coming out and speaking truth to the preliterate, unscientific Babbits of this planet(as he did about possible alien threats) and letting them know the universe did indeed create itself from nothing. To those of us familiar with tensor calculus and modern quantum gravity theories, this isn’t amazing at all – but common sense (Well, okay, very close to it). But to fundies, religious zealots and supernaturalists, their minds end up being blown because they haven’t got the wherewithal to examine the theories objectively. Most of the religious miscreants now reacting strongly to Hawking have likely never taken even a basic physics course in secondary school, far less university – and forget about higher mathematics like tensor calc- most have never taken basic calculus! Yet they purport to tell us what makes “sense” and what doesn’t!

So why all the kerfuffle? Basically because Professor Hawking has punctured their fantasy balloons that a god made it all, or taken away their security blankets. Pick your metaphor, it comes to the same thing!

Of course, all the religious leaders – fearful their minions and charges will be afforded the opportunity to exercise their own minds- immediately weighed in, mostly with rubbish.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, expressed the view that "physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing."

Which is technically correct, and also why Hawking might have chosen his own words more carefully – opting to say HOW we are all here is a result of spontaneous inception, not “why”. . What physics can do is to show that there is no need to retain a “creator” at all, since it doesn’t help advance its own predictions. Believing in a creator doesn’t assist me in formulating better solar flare models, nor help cosmologists in assessing the extent of dark energy. In other words, it’s a redundancy.

Meanwhile, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has said: "Science is about explanation. Religion is about interpretation ... The Bible simply isn't interested in how the Universe came into being."

Well, Rabbi, I DO wish you’d tell your fundie counterparts that! And also to keep their noses, ignorance and dull, semi-educated brains from pontificating on physics theories they couldn’t understand even with a brain transplant!

Then Ibrahim Mogra, an imam and committee chairman at the Muslim Council of Britain, was quoted by the London Times as saying: "If we look at the Universe and all that has been created, it indicates that somebody has been here to bring it into existence. That somebody is the almighty conqueror."

Which again brings up the question – never answered or addressed by ANY religionists, of why there is so much dark energy? Why did this “somebody” find it necessary to create something that will ultimately rip the universe apart and all life with it? More to the point, WHAT exactly is this “almighty conqueror” conquering? As usual, the opinions of this or that religious leader are a dime a dozen but none of them offer the necessary and sufficient conditions for their god to exist.

Meanwhile, Hawking's obscurantist colleagues at the University of Cambridge in England, also chimed in with poor results. Denis Alexander, director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion opined:

"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing,"

Oh really? HOW so? Again, let’s lay it out since it seems believers always pass up the chance to explain in detail, or conveniently forget what the questions were!

If "nothing" be the simpler state, in which an invisible deity could still exist as "spirit" then why "create" a universe? Especially one which would be fraught with violence, despair, "sin" and all the rest. Also one which an ominiscient deity would have to know (IF it was judgmental) that it would have to condemn billions before he even created them. This itself makes the act of creation an act of violence against those created- who would not be able (for whatever reason, including where born) to live up to its standards.)

Thus, we would have to question on an a fortiori basis any judgmental (e.g. “Abrahamic faith”) deity that created the cosmos. It could not have good will at its core, since it would know its act would condemn billions it would have to know about before it even began. Hence, it would be a pre-meditative sadist!Let’s also bear in mind that if an all perfect Being already existed, it would have no need to create at all. It would be complete, perfect, self-sufficient and non-contingent. In effect, by creating it really adds something (universe + imperfection) to itself – that mitigates reasons- for arguments.

So again, to Denis Alexander and any other “Abrahamic” theists:

Why wasn't `nothing' (no creation- ab initio perfect "Being") good enough for the creative force or deity? Why perform an act of creation that renders it imperfect?(Since if "omniscient" or assigned such attribute, it would have had to know before all time that it would create those it would later have to destroy (assuming the afterlife construct of "Hell" - which most Catholics and other orthodox believers do.

We'll be waiting for your answers! In the meantime, Hawking’s spontaneous inception premise makes most sense, since we can square the general level of human and natural evil that abounds in the world with a randomized physical event, as opposed to a supposedly beneficent creator.

Alexander goes on to assert:

"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.”

Actually, not, since most cosmologists who use QM realize now that – given the vast amount of dark energy in the cosmos (more than 73%) a spontaneous inception hypothesis is the only one that makes sense. Creation via intelligent agent certainly doesn’t unless one can explain why it would leave so much of its creation “in the dark”!

Meanwhile, Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, says that it's not the existence of the universe that is crucial to proving the existence of God. In his words:

"A creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

Again, this is bollocks and provides no sound explanation. As I noted above, until all the Abrahamic believers-theists address the why something than nothing issue, they are in the la-la zone and can’t be taken seriously. Given the boundless natural and human evil in the world, the brutal fact that every living thing must prey on others to survive, Hawking’s hypothesis of spontaneous inception makes much more sense than that a beneficent creator started it all.

Using fanciful language to assuage the existential qualms of one’s followers is all well and good, but until one can provide coherent explanations he could as well be talking about cartoons.

Beyond all this, and leaving out the physics, one can support Hawking’s thesis using plain old Bayesian probabilities.

To fix ideas here: let p[S] be the unconditional probability there is a supernatural agent responsible for the creation of the universe.

Let p(S-[BB]) be the conditional probability of the existence of a supernatural agent if the Big Bang has indeed occurred.

Let p[B,B] be the unconditional probability the Big Bang occurred and p(BB-[S]) be the conditional probability that the Big Bang occurredprovided a supernatural agent is responsible for the creation of the cosmos.

According to the principles of Bayesian probability theory (e.g. by Bayes’ theorem) we can write:

p(S-[BB])/ p[S] = p(BB-[S])/ p[B,B]

In terms of strict adherence to Bayes’ theorem, one can only have:

p(S-[BB]) >> p[S]

E.g. IF the Big Bang occurred, there is an enhanced probability of the Big Bang being its source.

In other words, the insertion of a “supernatural agent” is redundant. (Note to fundies and other theists: there is a difference between saying something is redundant and something doesn't exist. However, for all intents, for physicists anything redundant in a theory or data stream is usually jettisoned as unnecessary. You already have what you need in terms of data, quantification, so why add something that doesn't advance it? )

Stephen Hawking Blows Minds with Controversial Remarks




Kudos to Stephen Hawking for at last having the courage to come out and say what he should have clearly articulated in his book, A Brief History of Time. Maybe now, the fundies and their pesty friends will cease invoking his words to support their codswallop.

In case you missed it, Prof. Hawking in his new book, The Grand Design, has come out flatly to assert "There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe" and also:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."


You see that, you dumb fundies? Now will you leave Prof. Hawking alone (except maybe to toss him into your little Hell cartoon pits with the rest of Humanity intelligentsia)? Cease to invoke him any further for your pretentious supernatural bunkum!

Why didn't Hawking come out and say as much earlier, since it was clear his book Brief History of Time was leaning that way, with its "boundary free universe"? Well, probably because of the sheer difficulty of the subject matter, which doesn't exactly make for light bedtime reading. Also, Hawking wanted to keep the equations to a minimum since he nted that every one he might include would mark a loss of about 100,000 sales. Well, I'm under no similar constraints here, so here we go, as to why Stephen is correct, though the brainless legions will howl he's gone bonkers.

Let’s admit that most critics still doesn’t grasp what is meant by the energy-time uncertainty principle, or how it applies to spontaneous inception of the cosmos. To briefly recap for those without physics backgrounds: We already have a rough analogy in pair production processes wherein particles are created then quickly destroyed with energy release. For example, the pi mesons.

The typical pi meson (call it pi) lasts 10^-16 sec then vanishes yielding two gamma ray photons in its wake, viz.

Pi -> gamma + gamma

Thus, rest energy is real energy and is capable of doing work. In the case of the pion above, the total mass 2.4 x 10^-28 kg, is converted to electromagnetic energy.

The magnitude of the energy can be computed from the uncertainty:

delta (E) ~ h-bar/ delta(t)

where delta (t) is the undertainty in time, and h-bar = h/2 pi with h = 6.62 x 10^-34 J-s, the Planck constant. Then:

delta (E) ~ { 6.62 x 10^-34 J-s}/ (10^-16s) = 6.6 x 10^-18 J



In addition no one says that time (as a fundamental property) is “external to the physical universe”. The negative pressure- vacuum bubble was no less physical than the universe it spawned on expansion – when the negative pressure fluctuated and incepted a non net-zero mass-energy effect, which result we now perceive indirectly in the cosmos accelerated expansion.

In his paper, ‘Universe Before Planck Time’ (Phys. Review D, Vol. 28, No. 4), T. Padmanabhan is careful to explicate (Sec. IV) the acausal quantum and classical limits (with alpha = 0, the classical limit, and classical time, limit). As he notes:

“We assume the universe made a transition from a quantum to a classical limit around eta = eta-bar, which is taken to be close to zero. Correspondingly, we take (alpha)' to be ~0 with alpha(1) >> alpha(2).

By assuming the universe to be an empty, quantum gravitational spacetime for eta >> eta-bar one can accommodate matter creation in the theory. Continuity of the metric across eta = eta-bar leads to the condition:

1 + 2(eta-bar)^2 = 2 (eta)^2[(rho)^2/ 2(alpha(2) v)]

i.e. (eta-bar)^2 = [alpha(2) v/ (rho)^2]”

Since as he notes, continuity of all derivatives of the metric exists at: eta = eta-bar, then it follows there is no “external” or discontinuous region.

Given this, and the condition of zero net mass energy, the spontaneous and acausal inception of the cosmos is actually the simplest formulation for its origin. Even the smallest fluctuation in the vacuum whereby delta E ~ h/ delta tleads to an instantaneous local deviation in mass-energy and the explosive origin of a cosmic expansion predicated on negative pressure.. As noted by Crowell ('Quantum Fluctuations in Spacetime', p. 134):

"A net zero cosmology is the most economical one that can emerge from the vacuum state".

As Crowell also observes (ibid.):

"The recent discovery that the universe is accelerating outward is the latest of important results, which indicates the universe could well be a net zero (mass-energy). This then indicates that the observed universe is the result of a fluctuation in the quantum gravity vacuum"

It is important to note here that the preceding does not mean that the universe spontaneously creates mass-energy within its normal space-time. So, it does obey the first law of thermodynamics such that dU = - dW + dQ, where U, W and Q denote the internal energy, the work done on the system, and the heat absorbed by it. Assuming a closed cosmology, dE= 0. The main point here is that the universe absorbs work by virtue of the negative pressure (p = -rho) acting on it, as opposed to a positive pressure that does work.

Thus, for consistency one needs:

dW = - p = rho (energy density) and dQ = rho_vac c^2.

Again, the negative energy assures us that the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum will "tunnel through" to create an unstoppable expansion on fluctuation. The best evidence yet for an acausal cosmos and acausal origin.




Next: The reactions to Hawking's remarks.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

There's One in Every Family!

Alveda King, fulminating at the Beckie rally on Saturday


I read with no small degree of amusement Jonathan Capeheart's account: 'The Shame of Cousin Alveda King', in The Denver Post yesterday. Capeheart, a Washington Post columnist, observes how Alveda brought enormous shame on the whole King clan by appearing at the (nearly) all white "Saint Beck" pseudo-religious rally on the DC Mall last Saturday. Basically she, like the other fulminating and holy roller clowns, desecrated the place where her "Uncle Martin" gave his 'I have a dream' speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial 47 years earlier. While that signal gathering sought to address social injustice and inequality, the Beck assembly of clowns degenerated into a miasma of maudlin sanctimony -more than enough to make the toughest constitutions retch.

While Martin Luther King Jr. was a font of tolerance and wisdom, his niece - like the other "Beckies"- are repositories of intolerance and religious bigotry. Capeheart in his piece notes her being both "anti-gay", as well as anti-choice, and no doubt (though he doesn't come out and say it) anti-atheist.

The worst outrage was this little known relative proposing to speak for him at a rally he himself would've disdained as a covert Klan fest. Having lived at the time of King, and seen his speech, I can tell you that not one in ten thousand of those 87,000 or so people (I don't buy that there were more than 100,000) would've appreciated what he was about. But this is what happens when a token celeb gets center state at a Tea party sponsored religion-fest: she abuses it.

Of course, my sympathies go out to the other King family members that had to endure this mockery. If it's any comfort, such goings on - especially with frothing at the mouth bible beaters- isn't unique to the King family. My own years long war with my wannabe pastor brother continues - though tuned down to a much lower temperature and decibel level, and he now doesn't even call me "brother" any more but "cousin". Well, whatever floats your boat. If you're more comfy with "cousin", so be it and have at it, cuz.

My point here is that family shame and embarrassments are a dime a dozen in this country, and affect not just the famous clans. Usually, the shame emerges from one particular family member - who because he or she never received enough love and attention -or whatever, takes it out on all the other members later. He or she incenses his parents with condemnations of their religion or beliefs, even as he castigates siblings for not specifically following the hallowed path set out for himself-herself. It's really pathetic actually! One is tempted sorely to say: "Get a life!"

Meanwhile, this past weekend, my niece Heidi visited from Arizona and I was enthralled at her wonderful, open-ended spirituality (which didn't hinge on proselytizing or punishing others) and her genuine embrace of tolerance as she practiced her spiritual energy and holistic healing exercises. This included going to the peaks of two of Colorado's tallest mountains and expressing an affinity with the cosmic life force in all its manifestations, as she let loose a beam of love energy to embrace and heal the planet.

Later, in conversations, Heidi related how the very thought of seeking to convert others to her way of belief would be an abomination. "People have to be allowed to pursue their own paths, without interference", she acknowledged. As a member of The Aetherius Society she practices what she preaches, and her sole agenda in life is to heal her family and heal others on the planet who are hurting, and certainly don't need any more hell-benders flouting their own fears in their faces.

Heidi's example could be a stellar one for both Alveda King and a certain pastor, if they chose to follow it.

But enveloped in their own bubbles of self-righteous blindness, it's doubtful that they ever will. People who worship false gods, including bibles, don't know the first thing about healing: in their own families, or extrapolated to the people on this planet!

Living Hells on Earth


While the fundies and their fellow religious Babbits babble about "Hell" and avoiding "God's wrath" - it's already here on Earth for tens of millions. I saw this first hand on a recent holiday trip to Barbados, West Indies, when my wife and I visited her cousin Desmond. We hadn't seen him since May, 2003, and - following a Saturday night party in which another cousin noted he was in a bad way, decided to visit him.

When I saw Desmond in 2003 at the family vacation beach house, we'd engaged in a long running conversation and debate about the mass limits of stellar black holes and also the estimated mass of the galaxy-gobbling hole at the center of the Milky Way. In the meantime, I was preparing to give a lecture on dark energy at the local observatory, and so Desmond also wanted to know everything about that: How could it be detected? What specific data did one look for? What would be the long term consequences to Earth, and any sentient beings inhabiting planets? Could it affect the expansion of the universe, and if so, how? How much of the universe did dark energy comprise and how much in relation to its counterpart, dark matter?



Desmond (as shown in the photo) was the epitome of a bright, curious and probing mind. Merely seven years later, he was reduced to a hollow shell of a man, and his intellect only a faint wisp. He could barely recall even basic events, far less engage in a conversation about dark energy or stellar black holes. Worse, the prognosis was that his condition would surely degenerate, to the point he wouldn't even be able to wash himself or use the toilet. Within a year or so, he might be reduced to a babbling baby, even as he continued to avoid eating much. He was in the personal Hell of Alzheimer's disease.

Fundies may blather on about death and stoke fear concerning it, but I can tell you now there are things much worse than death and that is the living death that comes with Alzheimer's disease. By the time we saw Desmond, he was barely aware of the toll it'd already exacted on his mind, his intellect. He recalled none of the earlier conversations we had and had never heard of dark energy. His mind was hollowed out, and the most we could do at the time was recall some brief happy moments that we all shared in the past, or recount for him our various travels: to Alaska to see the aurora, to Vegas to play the slots and see the shows, and to Switzerland, to climb the Stockhorn Mountain. He enjoyed all this but more as a spectator instead of an active participant.

Is there any hope to escape this Hell on Earth? Maybe! An article appearing in today's Denver Post notes a recent discovery by Dr. Paul Greengard (winner of a 2000 Nobel Prize for his work on signaling in brain cells) who has managed to isolate a protein: gamma secretase activiating protein, which is a key catalyst used to make beta amyloid- the telltale plaque that accumulates in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.

To further test his discovery of the protein, Dr. Greengard genetically engineered a strain of mice that possessed a gene for Alzheimer's. Greengard, however, succeeded in blocking the gene for the gamma secretase activating protein. All the mice appeared to be perfectly healthy and none developed the plaques in their brains.

Hopeful? Yes, indeed, but it's a vast step between mice and men, and let's not forget the Pharm companies may not be all that enthused to pursue it, given the recent acknowledgement by Eli Lilly that its own Alzheimer drug was found to make the disease worse.

We do hope that a "fast track" emerges for Greengard's finding and a means can be found to develop a drug blocker to the gamma secretase activating protein gene.

It is too late for cousin Desmond, but hopefully not for millions of others who don't deserve the sort of Hell Desmond is now enduring. Or most especially, the family who have beheld his dramatic downturn of intellectual capacity!

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Basic Statistical Mechanics of Order & Disorder (2)
















In the previous blog on 'order and disorder' in statistical mechanics, we focused on some basic principles, and simple illustrations, including the basis for a Markov process, and the Ehrenfest effect. We confined the basis to very simple systems while now we want to turn our attention to actual spin systems, such as occur in quantum mechanics. In conjunction with this, some readers may find it useful to go back to the blogs dealing with electron spin to refresh memories, e.g.http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-quantum-mechanics-electron-spin.html and http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/07/spin-orbit-coupling-in-quantum.html

Consider two systems of atomic magnets possessing different ‘spins’. We look at what happens when they undergo changes, and what is observed at the quantum level, as well as macroscopic scales. A fact of 20th century physics is that all electrons have a property called spin that’s either up (+½) or down (-½).

The numbers are "spin quantum numbers" and the main thing to remember about them is that they refer to different directions in the atom, and differing energy states. (The plus state slightly higher than the minus). An atom can assume a net spin as a result of the spins of the constituent electrons. Helium, for example, has two electrons which are forbidden (by the Pauli Exclusion Principle) to have the same spin numbers at the same time and so the net spin of the Helium atom cancels out: (-½) + (+½) = 0.

At a more detailed level, spin is assessed in atoms for particular (x, y, z) orientations. That level of detail is omitted here to keep the presentation simple. Also, the details of the experiment by Stern and Gerlach (1921) to infer electron spin using the magnetic moment are omitted, though these were given in a much earlier blog. Basically, they passed a narrow beam of silver atoms through an unequal magnetic field and found it split into two beams: one for the ½ spin, the other for minus ½ spin. Historically, it was Wolfgang Pauli who introduced electron spin into quantum mechanics in 1927, after S. A. Goudsmit and G. E. Uhlenbeck first postulated it in 1925.
Observationally speaking, spin is inferred from fine splitting of atomic spectral lines, cf. Fig. 1, wherein the unperturbed line splits into two separate lines of slightly differing energy. The appropriate inferences are derived by applying a set of quantum rules for combining angular momentum vectors and their quantum numbers in what is known as ‘L-S coupling’. A spin-orbit interaction results with a total angular momentum J’ = L’ + S’, where L’ denotes total angular momentum = L1 + L2 etc. = {l’ (l’ + 1)}^1/2 h/2pi, and S’ the total spin angular momentum = S1 + S2 etc. = {s’ (s’ + 1)}^1/2 h/2 pi, then J’ = {j’ (j’ + 1)}^1/2 h/ 2pi. One applies these to a particular atomic configuration, say: 2p 3d then goes through a procedure of taking differences, assigning values etc. based on selection rules. (See prior blogs)

Let's now look at an elementary, statistical mechanical spin system. For starters, let's say that there is a system consisting of 16 atomic magnets. These atomic magnets exist temporarily in the state S(1) as shown in Fig. 2 (i.e. each arrow denotes the net spin of the atom based on the sum of electron orientations within it). We want to find the degree of order applicable to the system, say at time t(o) and do the appropriate counting of "spin ups" and spin downs" as shown in the left side of Fig. 2 below the system at t(o). We find on doing so (which the reader can verify) that we get 8 spin ups - 8 spin downs = 0 net spin, or in other words the system is at equilibrium.

The degree of order, as well as information, is determined from what is called "the spin excess", or the net spin difference (up minus down or vice versa). The larger this number, the greater the degree of order, and the lower the entropy of the system. Obviously, since 0 denotes an extremely low number, we can deduce large entropy.

Consider then another system but at a different time, for which we behold the right side orientations of the elementary spin magnets. Here we get: 14 spin ups - 2 spin downs = 12 spin ups, or in other words the spin excess = 12. This system, call it S(2), has much higher degree of order (less entropy) than the system S(1). (We should add here that higher entropy - as in S(1) - corresponds to the most probable state, defined by the minimal spin excess of zero.

Now, it is also important to note that one can dramatically generalize what's depicted in Fig. 2 via the "Ising Model" of statistical mechanics. In the 2-dimensional Ising Model for ferromagnetic matter, for example, one finds magnetic domains or regions which can, after a time, undergo a change such as that shown from S(1)-> S(2) (looking at the same system!) Here the Ising model system, by virtue of undergoing spontaneous magnetization, discloses a higher degree of order at the later time t(0) + t, where t could be in billions of years or hundreds of seconds. (Depending on the system).

The reader should also note that each arrow can be generalized to represent a region of indefinite scale size. For example, the depiction given in Fig. 2 might conceivably represent the evolution of an (essentially) two-dimensional current sheet in a highly compressed magnetic region near a sunspot. The arrows would represent plasma flows and current densities that follow magnetic field lines.

Chaos theory, spurred on by a number of notable successes, sheds new light on the numbers. Particular offshoots of Chaos theory disclose entities such as ‘strange attractors’ that can actually spur a system toward an enhanced degree of self-organization. We call such a turning point a bifurcation. Bifurcations represent sudden, abrupt changes toward higher degrees of organization of a system. These include the sudden alteration of system development from equilibrium (maximum entropy) to non-equilibrium.

In the thermodynamic study of chaos, similar approaches to equilibrium can be examined but permitting far from equilibrium changes. Given the right fluctuations, it’s even possible to generate self-organization from pre-existing chaos. The ultimate example is the formation of matter in the universe. From amidst a sea of pure energy, the ambient temperature cooled, re-setting the so-called Higgs Field H(f) from a zero to a non-zero value. This re-setting of the cosmic thermostat enabled the production of material particles in a sudden and spontaneous breakdown of symmetry.

One of the simplest examples of a non-equilibrium system is a simple chemical reaction of the form:

X + 2Y <-> 3Y

X <-> W

where X, Y, W are arbitrary reactants that meet the conditions and the symbol (<->) denotes a two-way equilibrium process. We note here that at equilibrium detailed balance requires (with k1, k2, k3 and k4 the respective concentrations):

k1 xy^2 = k2 y^3

k3 y = k4 w

Similarly, a stationary state ‘far from equilibrium’ is disclosed by the concentration equation:

k1 xy^2 + k3 y = k2 y^3 + k4 w

or


k1 xy^2 + k3 y - k2 y^3 - k4 w = 0


Note that in such a state, far from equilibrium, it isn’t necessary for each separate chemical reaction to balance in both directions. Clearly, non-equilibrium discloses aspects of the system that are inhibited when it is at equilibrium. To assist in identification of far from equilibrium states, bifurcation diagrams can be of use. A typical form or template for such a diagram is depicted in Fig. 3, where F is some state function, and lambda (Greek letter) is called a control parameter.

Note that the equilibrium solution associated with the above is a, valid up to some critical value of the control parameter. Beyond this value there are multiple solutions, viz. the two separated or bifurcated ones. Meanwhile, the use of the classical (Newtonian) order paradigm for the cosmos is now recognized as the byproduct of a bygone era in which astronomers didn’t have access to the wide range of instrumentation available today. It also hearkens to an era in which the assumption prevailed that what one saw was what was actually there. The prevalence of dark matter and dark energy, of course, resoundingly refutes this. We now know there are formidable problems when one postulates a supernatural agent, in this case an allegedly "eternal" deity to create order. Logically, such an entity must be outside all temporal reference frames. However, the action of transforming disorder to order would require this being to exist within time. This inconsistency also intrudes on its being ‘all-knowing’ or ‘omnipresent’. We have then a logical contradiction. The point is that any being postulated to exist outside time (eternal) can exhibit no activity which determines natural laws or processes.
In a future blog I will give examples of systems undergoing bifurcation and subject to spontaneous emergence of order from chaos.