Friday, October 21, 2011

OPERA Trying to send a "bit" of information faster-than-light.

About 3 weeks ago the OPERA neutrino experiment at Gran Sasso laboratory  reported FTL neutrinos. Since than, many explanations came about to explain how this surprising measurement was probably an error, discussions like (the inconsistencies) of tachyons, the problematic relation on astrophysical data, environmental explanation on experimental details, and general relativity effects.

But farther on this note, OPERA scientist thought that maybe they could send a "bit" of information to travel FTL. However, even thought FTL is still in debate OPERA assumes that the "measurement is correct and that there is no systematic shift in the measured data". They thought that based on this assumption it was possible to send a "bit" of data at FTL, with an experimental setup  and of course to see if there was any mistakes on the Lorentz symmetry or errors in the causality principle.

So far there is no errors on the Lorentz symmetry as well as the on the causality principle based on the experiment, thus, the intend to send a "bit" of information was unsuccessful meaning that it was not possible to send information at FTL.

BUT!! this argument goes far beyond.

Scientist at CERN/OPERA have considered that just because the experimental setup was particularly set on a time length of 10000ns, scientist objected that maybe, by improving the luminosity and the position of the experiment or putting the neutrino detectors much much more farther away...the sending of a signal faster than c might be indeed possible. The bad news is that this might be an extrapolation (construction of new data points) meaning that nothing will change by changing the experimental setup. This is because the Lorentz symmetry (The feature  of nature that says that experimental results are independent of the "orientation" or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space) and the causality principle (the description of cause and effect) are our basic understanding of nature.

So far CERN/OPERA scientist believe that the rejection of at least one of these "basic understandings of nature" (Lorentz symmetry or causality principle) might be because of the actual "transmission" of the "bit" of information sent at FTL and not by an extrapolation in the experimental set.

The group of scientist who wrote the paper on the experiment at CERN quoted: " Nature may be subtle, protecting these basic principles with the help of some not yet understood 'censorship' mechanism".

What sort of mechanism is this?? if such mechanism has a censorship on this principles, it is quite unusual to see neutrinos having the ability to travel Faster-Than-The-Speed-Of-Light, therefore, an error must be going on somewhere on this measurement. Why can a particle travel faster than c and a "bit" of information can't? It smells like rotten fish to me, and quite honest we will never know if this experiment was incorrectly set up until we get farther results from other institutions that have measured the neutrino speed and confirmed that, indeed, it is possible that neutrino particles travel faster than light. Until than, my best guess would be that physicist don't have a theory to explain why information goes slower than the speed of light and the apparent measurement of a neutrino particles shows the possibility to break the universal speed limit, meaning that the "basic understanding of nature" might not be "so basic" until farther results.

But I had to ask myself this, if neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light and not be able to send a "bit" of information, what about quantum entanglement or the 'spooky action at a distance' being able to send random information to the other side of the galaxy instantaneously? Whatever it is, here I leave you with a video by Michio Kaku about Quantum Entanglement.

Source: Arxiv :1110.3642v2 [Hep-ph] 18 Oct 2011 Could The OPERA setup send a bit of information faster than light? F.Giacosa, Pkovacs, and S.Lottini  Institute for Theorical Physics, Johan Wolfgang Gothe University, Max-von-Laue-Str. 1, D-60438 Frankfurt am Main and research Institute for particle and Nuclear Physics of the Hungarian Academy of Science, H-1525 Budapest, Hungary

Saturday, October 15, 2011

FTL neutrinos might have an explanation?? (Maybe, Maybe not) + Interesting take on this by Phil Plait aka Bad Astronomer

Recently a team of scientist from the OPERA experiment measured a cloud of neutrinos going faster than the speed of light. Their measurement was very sound saying that the neutrinos were traveling about 64 nanoseconds faster than the usual speed limit (Which is not very much). However, A recent study may suggest that this whole thing might be explained with relativity.

Ronald A.J van Elburg has a different note on this (see paper). He says that just like when you have a one meter long of straw hold by your hand, an observer away from you will see this meter straw much shorter. This is because the universe makes sure everything has the same speed. In other words, If the only speed that the Universe claims to be the speed limit, no matter what. The universe will make sure to make that happened. We know this because Einstein found that the speed of light is the same for every observer, so this would mean that being away from 1 meter long straw  or close to one it will still be, however, a one meter straw for every observer , even if it looks shorter or just like one meter straw being hold by your hand.

But I must quote the Bad Astronomer on this issue about his last post (Which I agree): "As I recall from the foofooraw that unfolded after the initial announcement, the original experimenters said they accounted for all relativistic effects. The paper they published, however, didn't include the detail of how they did this, so it's not clear what they included and what they might have left out. It's possible van Elburg might be right., but I expect we haven't seen the end of this. After all, not long after the announcement, a physicist asked if they had accounted for gravitational time dilation - like relative velocity, gravity can also affect the flow of time, throwing off the measurement - and the experimenters said they had." (Badastronomer 2011/10/15)

If this discovery by van Elderburg is incorrect...This might as well be the beginning of new physics and new theories to apply to our technology. I'm very exited about this and is something that is very important to be clarified once in for all.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Interview with Antonio Eridato

What are Neutrinos?? Do they have Charge??? Here is an interview with Antonio Eridato spoke person of the OPERA experiment.

Disclaimer: this interview was not made by me.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Now neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light as shown through the results via CERN

So yes!!! It is news!! is awesome interesting, amazing, gorgeous, extraordinary happiness news!!!! Faster than light neutrinos have been observed!!!

The OPERA experiment (The most brilliant and awesome experiment by far to me) has gathered data of over 15,000 neutrino events from CERN 730 km away of Italy's INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory.... SO... would it require a complete rewriting of physics???  Here is an interview with Proffesor Brian Cox on the subject.

This is better than Christmas!!!

Saturday, August 13, 2011

The Only Way To Tell Whether Something Is real Is To See If It Works For You. Is This A Legitimate Principle?

I don't think so, if speaking to physical reality, however, if speaking to feelings or modesty than yes it might be a legitimate principal, when you experience events through your life, your reality becomes different by the second than everyone else. The fact that everyone that lives in this world called "Earth" has a different reality is the main reason why your reality becomes real and different to you, per say, when everyone plays a different view of things upon the reality of events such as physical events (Laws of Physics, Matter, Energy..), social events (Relationships, Friendships, Social Interactions,...), human feelings and emotions (Breakups, Lost of someone loved, Fights, Anger, Happiness, Love, Affection, Contempt, depression, Anxiety, Desire, Despair, Disappointment, Ecstasy, Frustration, Boredom...) anything based upon this subjects that make up yours and everyone else's reality.

The most basic understanding of what really stands around you are the none social events, such as physical things, like when light reflects upon an object such as a tree and your eyes indicate that the tree is physically there. In fact, that particular tree that your eyes are seeing will form part of everyone's reality and your reality as well, when that particular tree is there. Using your senses to detect what physical object is in front of you. However, if your own reality of things are based upon who you are, what have you done, what is your position in your society, etc...than everyone's reality becomes different but not necessarily has to work for you or anyone else in order to be real.

To some people when something is real is when feelings and emotions such as love, a love that can or must be mutual in order to know if what they want for their reality works for both of them or not. The same way if something is real to you but not to her, and in the same way if it works for you but not to him, than that kind of reality  makes it different for both of them because they want or don't want  different aspects of what reality of relationship they want to have.

Reality in my opinion can be based in different categories like mentioned before, the reality of the physical, the reality of the world, the reality of emotions and feelings, the reality of society. They are all based upon events that makes it different to everyone else, this functions properly like a perpetual motion machine when all of the aspects of reality work together.

If something is real because it works to you and makes you alive, than yes, in order for something to be real must work for you, (Speaking) for the aspect of every single individual. However, if is speaking in the physical aspects of nature, than no, not necessarily. A tree is in your reality because is there and even if it doesn't work for you that the presence of the tree is there, you cannot make a tree disappear with your thoughts so it can live this world just to make it work for your reality in the real world we live in. If you think the opposite nevertheless, than I'm sorry friend but the world doesn't revolve around you, Copernicus taught us  "The Earth revolves around the Sun, not the Sun revolving around the Earth".

Sunday, July 10, 2011

In Memory Of The Space Shuttle (IMAGES)

It all began in 1972 when Congress approved funding for the shuttle program. In 1977 NASA began to combine a 2 rocket launch system, an orbital spacecraft and a re-entry space plane with modular add-ons.

The first of its kind was the Enterprise built by NASA in 1974 to perform space flights in the atmosphere. It was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield, and was therefore not capable of space flight.

In 1975 NASA began constructing the first space-worthy space shuttle the Colombia. First launched on the STS-1 mission and the first of the Space shuttle program, it completed 27 missions before being destroyed during re-entry on February 1, 2003 near the end of its 28th. STS-107. (We will never forget the crew of STS-107).

The STS-170 Crew.

Over Texas, during re-entry on earth's atmosphere. The lost of Columbia and its crew was one of the biggest break downs NASA and all of the people has ever had.

January 1,1979 a contract award was signed to create a vehicle who could later be converted to a flight vehicle. In order to prevent damage during structural testing, qualification test were performed to a factor of safety of 1.2 times the design limit loads. The qualification test were used to validate computational models, and compliance with the required 1.4 factor of safety was shown by analysis. The  Challenger was born.

Challenger was destroyed as it broke up in mid-flight in the second minute on its tenth mission, on January 28, 1986 at 11:38:00 am ET. The breakup was ultimately due to the failure of an O-ring on its right solid-fuel rocket booster.

While going up...

It occurred within our eyes what no body would have expected that would happen...

(We will never forget you STS-51-L crew).

This next spacecraft takes its name from four British ships of exploration named Discovery, primarily one of the ships commanded by Captain James Cook during his third and final major voyage from 1776 to 1779.

In 1980 the Space Shuttle Discovery Started it structural assembly of aft-fuselage and being finally ready in August 12, 1983 after a complete check and final acceptance. Discovery was NASA's Orbiter fleet leader, having flown 39 successful missions in over 27 years of service. It made its final touchdown at KSC on March 9, 2011 at 10:57:17 CST.

Next we have our beloved Endeavour, built with new hardware designed to improve and expand orbiter capabilities. Endeavour flew it final mission, STS-134 to the ISS in  May 2011 after 18 years of service.

Endeavour was named through a national competition involving students in elementary and secondary schools.

Earth's horizon as seen from the Endeavour.

And last, and the very very last to flight into space is the Atlantis. The last active space Shuttle orbiter in the Space Shuttle fleet belonging to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), it deployed the planetary probes Magellan to Venus (on STS-30) and Galileo to Jupiter (on STS-34) besides other missions that will be remembered through out history.  Atlantis launched successfully for the final time on the 8th of July 2011 at 16:29:00 GMT.

The Atlantis space shuttle cockpit.

And of course the last crew of the Space Shuttle Program in history the STS-135.

And last, a video of the last lift-off of the Space Shuttle Program.

"Dear Space Shuttle,

Thank you for all the assistance you have provided us during all this years. We appreciate the hard work and advice you have given us,as well as the connections with new frontiers. Your expertise and help have been invaluable to all of us during this process.

Again, thank you so much.

A Place For Science."


Saturday, July 9, 2011

"Tarot cards never lie." Is this true?

Some people think so, and I’m not justified in believing it. For example, the chance of one card of the tarot that tells you that you are going to die is 1/40 because if I'm correct, the tarot hand has 40 cards. The chance that one of those cards will say that you are going to have a pleasant and calm life, therefore, is also 1/40. As a result you have a very good reason to begin writing your testament for believing that you are going to die, or a very good reason to start packing for a better life. 

Eventually, if this knowledge has some certainty than of course, the preposition that the tarot cards works will have some certainty. But, what kind of certainty? I know that the tarot cards are all designed in such a way that any card that is thrown will make you think that you are going to die or that you will have a pleasant life,but the human brain is not designed for good reason to doubt a preposition, but for some reason, is designed to find some sort of justification. In fact when people need some sort of justification, or just because they have heard a testimony that the cards do actually predict the future, the less background of information to justify a preposition, the less conflict with the preposition and the more reason there is not to doubt it. However, if you put a question mark after Tarot; if we have good reason for believing it to be false, it will not justify the preposition to be true. Even if all our sensory evidence indicates that it is. I have a good reason to doubt a reading if it conflicts with the exactitude of the prediction that I have reasons to believe. Like Descartes said once, “When it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable”.

I don't believe in the tarot because I do can figure out for myself what it is more probable to happen in the future of my actions than a reading of cards that has algorithms designed to propose your future. But, in fact your own future is determined by what choices you make. Yes, you can have a pleasant life after all, but even if the reading says that you are going to be rich, I can't say that the possibility of you becoming rich is implausible in fact it could happen in 3 ways. (1) you win the lottery , (2) you choose wisely or (3) you are lucky enough to that you have choose wisely.
The tarot randomly will tell you the future that you want to hear, but will never tell you how your future is going to be.

Astrology. What would you do to show them the error of their ways? (My thoughts)

Try to find a good reason to make them think that astrology is wrong, better reasons, better prepositions, astronomy.

The more  likely it is they will start thinking scientifically the better. Some people who believe in astrology believe that to know about planets is the ability to predict the people's personality, future, and to have no doubt of what kind of life this person will have depending in its zodiac sign. I would find good reasons to make them doubt about what astrology propose, than, I think they cannot have a good reason to believe in astrology. But how? and why take their believes away like a father taking the candy from his beloved kid?

In the first question of the how, I would try to explain the laws of physics and demonstrate that gravity is stronger on an apple being hold by your hand than the gravity of a planet affecting on you. I would try to demonstrate through out perception, introspection, memory, and reason that the constellations in the sky are no entirely still, that stars move like planets and that they have nothing to do with your personality; I would try to show them how mathematics works to explain the physics behind nature so they can have reasons to find the scientific method more interesting by learning more scientific background.

Just like they were the very same Babylonians who thought and reasoned the misconception of the position of planets having an effect on you. I would try to make them think that hepatoscopy is not the way to know the future just by explaining that the liver is an organ, that you only have one and is not meant to sacrifice it for the gods to get your future revealed by the their made up gods.  Teaching them real science would make the astrology believers, them who have no reason, to not doubt what's disclosed to them through perception, introspection, memory, or reason than what they are justified in believing through astrology.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Is it logically possible to make a robot (a mechanical device composed of inorganic materials) that can think, feel, and act like we do.

One way to see if this can be physically possible is to think of deep blue. The first chess machine who beat Kasparov, the world's best player. Deep blue was able o beat the human thinking in a war game, however this machine was only programmed to think a pattern of algorithms to make the next move. In some sense deep blue would be a clear example of the beginning of a thinking machine, but be careful, not yet a rational thinking machine because deep blue is only programmed to recognize different sets of patterns and choose which move is the most probable move to win the entire game. For machines to feel is not entirely impossible if the robot has installed on their robotic arm a some sort of skin to sensor what it is around, and even better yet, this machine could be programmed to record all different senses with specific algorithms that have been programmed into a positronic brain. And again, is far beyond our time spam.

For machines to act like humans would be almost possible but not possible. the reason is because machines won't be able to understand what is love, or even understand the relationships of love and pain, or the relationship of dreams and life experiences. OUr brains are very similar to a computers pc, but the one from a pc is inorganic and not highly evolved, our brain can make calculations in 1 sec much more faster than what your regular pc would do. So for a machine to be like us would require for the machine to learn and be conscious, aware to be determined alive. The most popular believe between humans and terminator like machines is that many people think that machines don't have souls, that only humans have souls. However, incorrect.

The whole idea of thinking that humans have a soul is not scientifically proven, what we know as soul is our consciousness, so by the time a machine becomes self aware of its reality than we are screwed.

Machines and humans will be categorized differently, we would be monkeys and they would be cold calculating self aware machines who's superiority will exceed in many ways yet unknown. They could be highly intelligent, highly evolved, and just by thinking these things they might even reach a point were different patterns in their intelligence will make them act like we do, but never feel like we do because they are not humans. They are machines.

Today is not possible to make a robot like DATA because the technology is not there yet. But, one day we will have robots to do all basic things that men kind have done for years, like serving a drink for example replacing bar tenders, or buying and selling shares in the stock market, so a human can become rich.

I often think of FUTURAMA, where "Bender" a roboto from the future who likes to drink and slack off is almost the very same image of some human behaviors. A roboto with such qualities would replace dogs and cats as pets, this kind of robot is the friendly robot is the robot that everyone would like to have, but than we have SKYNET per example. A self aware highly intelligent machine who plans to kill the entire race. No one likes this robot because SKYNET would be the kind of robot that has a Napoleon complexity. So this AI still very robot, and has no idea of planetary diplomacy.

On the other hand we have ASIMO, the only human shape like robot who already does many things such as walk like humans on two legs, bring your food to your table, laugh at your jokes (even though they don't get it). So the thought that robots like humans are logically impossible is incorrect, ASIMO does many human like functions, because the robot was programmed to do these things, until a roboto doesn't become self aware of what is doing, we don't really know if the AI will have a human like personality, we don't even know if the robot will ever learn the set of human values and from there determine weather we should be killed or we should live. A robot is not highly intelligent from what is is today to do this kind of functions and reasoning.

No one likes the idea that some other intelligent "being" will one day walk with us. because we have been here for millions of years, but after all we are all basically made of the same ingredients, their made of metal and we are made of flesh, we all need atoms to be present in this world, they will age like us, they will rust and we will oxidize .

One great advantage is that they will never know the kinds of pleasure that we have unless these robot will be build to study the kind of pleasures that humans have, such as eating, sex, smelling, smiling, sarcastic jokes, affection. One example is that, if this kind of robot is the one from the movie Bicentennial Man, where a robot who functions as a servant seeking for human like experiences,than Andrew Martin, the name of the robot, could eventually be considered human after doing so many plastic surgeries to its body, with technology that might even help humans in the future to live longer. Although the committee who decided weather Andrew should be considered human or not had a rough time because Andrew still had a positronic brain rather than a normal organic brain, and "he had lived much more than any other human being". Ironic isn't it? at the end Andrew dies, his heart stops beating (yes he had a robotic heart) and his positronic brain stopped functioning (making it officially dead).

What ever the kind of robot we want to think of, if it is a killer robot, a robot with Napoleon Complexity, a robot with human like attitudes or a robot with an obsession with cosmetic surgery to become more human are still far from our time line, but this does not mean that they can't act like us or made the same mistakes that our race have done in the past.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Diamonds Is The New Geek's Best Friend

On April 23, 2011 Devin Powell author of ScienceNews wrote an article about how diamonds could store data by manipulating atoms inside the stone, which in turn could encode information as 0s and 1s simultaneously functioning as a quantum memory. This eventually, a "possible hope" of  the beginning of quantum computers will start solving problems that today are not possible with current technology.

But every good idea has its problems.

The diamond is composed of pure carbon crystals which won't do the job. One of the most common defects of a diamond is the presence of Nitrogen atoms that makes the stone yellow.

When a nitrogen atom sits next to a vacant spot in the carbon crystal, the intruding element provides an extra electron that moves into the hole. Several years ago, scientist learned how to change the spin of such electrons using microwave energy and put them to work as quantum bits or also called qbits.

Diamond memory has several advantages: It works at room temperature, it's very stable, and it can be scaled up to larger sizes. David Awschalon of the University of California, Santa Barbara, discussed the technique at the American Physical Society's March meeting in Dallas, Texas.

If everything is solved all right and scientist actually managed to solve the nitrogen problem correctly, this will revolutionize quantum systems. Many quantum systems today require temperatures close to absolute zero, the greatest advantage of  the diamond memory in my opinion is that it works fine at room temperature, meaning that the memory won't overheat at all and won't be needing any cooling system that goes almost below zero temperature.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Tourmaline: The unconceivable effect.

This spring break I got to go to Las Vegas, NV to visit and get to know more about the awesomeness of casinos and learning which kind of games are more efficient to make you lose your money in the most kindly and greedy but vainness way. GOOD thing that I managed to lose my money in buying good clothing!

During this trip while I was walking in the mall located around 50 meters north east of Treasure Island (don;t really know the exact coordinates)  I found this little store in the first floor selling some type of bracelet composed of a very rare mineral.

The seller was telling me how effective the stone was for improving circulation, relieving stress, increasing mental alertness and strengthening the immune system function, she later made me wear the bracelet and extent my arm into 180 degree position. Than pushed down my arm with the bracelet on and after that she did the same thing without it. I realize that she pushed down in different places of my arm, sometimes with less force and other times with more force depending on the point of push on the surface of my arm.

(to tell you the truth I believed that the bracelet worked....shame on me honestly)

This first impression of this pseudoscience got me caught up after that when she was explaining to me how the bracelet worked. I was baffled  how the bracelet did have some sense of equilibrium on my body but i asked her how this bracelet exactly worked than I just got skeptic.( She was actually selling me tourmaline with a huge lack of understanding of simple physics).

Let's begin.

Tourmaline is scientifically interesting  for being piezoelectric (electricity resulting from pressure) and pyroelectric ( the ability to gain a temporary voltage when heated or cooled). These property of the tourmaline has become very popular in the market and many devices are advertised based on the scientific premise of "Tourmaline generating negative ions" and "Far-Infrared light" (FIR) radiation.

Examples like hairbrushes, bracelets and water purifiers.

The hucksters who promote these largely worthless products by convincing people how to find blinks to something that never had eyes, or to make you find platforms to some land that has been ALWAYS a cliff... will guarantee to confuse you! and the LARGE amount of public whose limited understanding of science makes them vulnerable and the perfect target for exploitation.

What they don't tell you is that as far as for (FIR) goes... all materials releases its energy in the far-infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. So when they tell you that tourmaline helps improve circulation, relieves stress, increases mental alertness and strengthens your immune system function; and  all of that by the tourmaline to its ability to absorb energy from a variety of sources such as -sunlight, body or room temperature and releases its energy in the far infrared of the spectrum to equilibrate your body...they are just simply LIES! No research has showed that tourmaline has any proven effect on you in any kind of way.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Coffee Good for women but not for men

Yep, that is sad news... we man can't understand doesn't love us :( coffee loves women...but wait I love women too!! why can't coffee love me the same way??? well according to some studies from Bristol University, UK suggest that women who drink coffee may perform better in stressful situations than those on decaf beverages and that for men is completely the opposite. Here is the link of the article.

But you know what? I still love coffee even if coffee doesn't love me back!! Call that masochistic, schizoid love towards coffee or whatever! i don't care! LOL  i like my coffee even if i can't perform better under stressful situation as suggested from Bristol University. :P

People who visited this blog on the world

Contador de Visitas