The tools of science

If you've had your chair for five minutes, you have fewer reasons and fewer interactions with your chair than an astronomer does of starlight in deep space. Do you really think doubts about the location of your chair are plausible, or even sane, when you first acquire it? Astronomers have also measured aspects of starlight with far greater precision than you will ever know about any aspect of your chair. According to my way of thinking, that means they actually have better grounded knowledge than you do.

I think there is some misunderstanding here. There is not much question that "spooky action at a distance" in standard quantum mechanics exceeds the speed of light; that's just standard physics. What it doesn't do is carry any information. Information can only (as far as anyone can tell to date) be carried at or below the speed of light. So quantum effects are real, but do no allow you to evade the restriction of special relativity. (Unlike astronomy, QM and particle physics I do know something about.)

This is a really silly statement - sorry but that's what I think. But it cuts to the heart of the point I am trying to get to in this OP. How effective is a telescope at seeing stuff out there. It's the only aid we have to the human eye in deep space but how effective can it be? The effects of light can be observed IN deep space only if they pass through something like dust and cause it to glow for instance. Otherwise light is invisible in transit and there is nothing to see except the star from which the light came. The Hubble Telescope (one of the biggest and best ever made) cannot pick out the Apollo landers on the moon let alone the deck chairs the astronauts sat on in between games of golf and moon buggy rides. So my observations, touch impression and the smell of the covering of the chair is all the more real than anything an astronomer can tell me about light in deep space. The tool the astronomer uses is not so precise at such a distance as I can be with my chair. When it comes to seeing what is out there we do not see what is there we calculate what we think should be there given this or that. There is an enormous difference between seeing something as it is and working out how it should appear given things we can more reliably verify closer to home.

Patterns have been discovered, these remote pairs are synchronised at speeds that appear to exceed the speed of light by a considerable margin. Qubits of passed info may not be decryptable in the classical sense and yet are passed with awesome efficiency and at incredible distances between remote objects communicating vast amounts of info. Just because this information cannot be reliably measured or accessed however does not mean that it is not being shared. At the distance of stars it's impossible to prove either way. On the local level the connections are spookily accurate. People trying to create quantum computers may struggle to duplicate the methods they observe in God's creation, but this does not mean that God did not crack info exchange. It is a theoretical constraint to say that information exchanges cannot be superluminal not an experimentally verifiable one.

An alternate theory is that the synchronisation is actually a feature of Gods creation and was set up like that. No information exchange would be required in this view as the web of entanglements would have their own preprogrammed and intuitive logic. It just works cause God made it like that.
We would see remote stuff in real time in this view cause that's the way God made it.

On a straight common sense point of view I look at the sky and think I see stuff as it happens. Physicists come along and tell me that actually the message took billlions of years to reach my eyes. That like the sonic boom that follows the supersonic aircraft flying over ahead I do not hear the thing as it happens. But that takes a lot of explaining, is hardly of child like simplicity. The wheeling out of long dead physicists like Einstein to explain why my common sense is deceived is required. "You cannot be seeing stars in real time" Einstein explains to me "because light travels x fast and this object is at y distance and you do not see something until the light arrives". But of course quantum entanglement eliminates the issue of travel for the light beams. The universe is set up like a great big quantum computer in which info exchange is effortless, intuitive and real time. The light is shared throughout the system because that's the way it was designed.

__________________
Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!!
Ein Englander in Deutschland.
يا أيها الذين الشفاه الجافة هي، والحفاظ يبحث عن المياه.
تلك الشفاه الجافة دليل على أن في نهاية المطاف سوف تصل المصدر
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

But that's not how quantum entanglement works...

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Client-side CF enhancements for Google Chrome. Now with [bible=tag]power[/bible].

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Read CF in your mobile web browser. For all kinds of devices.

Here's my summary of the situation from the perspective of a physicist:

On the one hand, we have a theory (or set of theories) that describe how electromagnetic radiation behaves. The theory predicts the behavior of light in the lab, including quantum entanglement and spooky action at a distance, to ridiculous precision, and is consistent with all observations of deep space. There are multiple lines of evidence supporting the idea that light shows the same behavior in deep space: a direct estimate of the speed of light from the SN1987a echo, the scattering of light from dust, spectral absorption lines in light that has passed through gas, the bending of light by massive objects, as well as a wide range of evidence that all of physics behaves the same for distant objects. According to this theory, light reaching us from deep space has taken thousands to billions of years to get here, depending on how deep the deep space is.

On the other hand, we have the idea that light behaves very differently in deep space, perhaps by speeding up enormously. Supporting this idea we have no theoretical description, no observational evidence whatsoever, no reason offered for the change in behavior between near and deep space, and no explanation for the deep space observations noted above.

As I said before, if you have specific questions about an observation or conclusion, ask them. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be much to talk about.

Actually, wouldn't we have evidence AGAINST the idea that light and such behaves differently in deep space?

Hear me out.

We have things like the pioneer spacecraft and the voyagers. Aren't they in deep space? So if light did behave differently there, wouldn't we expect things like getting their radio signals to us much faster or something?

Metherion

__________________
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.

If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.

--Lewis Carroll, all three.

I thought of them, but counted them as still being in near space (not for any obvious reason).

No your right- just spoken with a physicist friend who really knows his stuff. He told me that according to this theory the pairs were at one time together. So if you were able to identify a pair separated by a distance of 160,000 light years then it was probably cause they separated 160,000 years ago.

So guess if there is a real time information exchange going on between stars it would have to be explained in a different way. I am back to simply don't know and distrustful of anyone who speaks too confidently about such things.

__________________
Great and small they rise and fall but the Lord, He is God forever!!!
Ein Englander in Deutschland.
يا أيها الذين الشفاه الجافة هي، والحفاظ يبحث عن المياه.
تلك الشفاه الجافة دليل على أن في نهاية المطاف سوف تصل المصدر
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Not to derail the thread, but has a "person" been considered as a tool in science? I don't mean that offensively as it sounds. What I mean is that the person has to use their knowledge to come to some conclusion or interpretation of what they are observing.

However, if the Bible is correct and the depravity of man is really that bad, can man really even be trusted to know what truth is, on his/her own?

That isn't suppose to be a slight against anyone, but rather a point of thought that if the Bible is correct (I believe it is) about our depravity and sinfulness, then can anyone say with absolute certainty that whatever man does isn't tainted to some degree?

Christians are also subjected to this as well. A reason why the Bible says to lean not on your own understanding, but God's - at least that is what I believe.

If it's really the case that we cannot trust the eyes God gave us, then how can we know that the Bible is correct when we use the same eyes to read it?

__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood

We can't. That's where faith comes in.