List of Open Universities: Some Fun, A Little Humor, & Tongue-in-Cheek Introductions

Six Famous Thought Experiments, Animated in 60 Seconds Each

by Maria Popova

From Ancient Greece to quantum mechanics,

or what a Chinese room and a cat have to do with infinity.

From the fine folks at the Open University comes 60-Second Adventures in Thought,

a fascinating and delightfully animated series exploring six famous thought experiments.

The Paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles

omes from Ancient Greece and explores motion as an illusion:

The Grandfather Paradox grapples with time travel:

Chinese Room comes from the work of John Searle,

originally published in 1980, and deals with artificial intelligence:

Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel, proposed by German

mathematician David Hilbert, tackles the gargantuan issue of infinity:

The Twin Paradox, first explained by Paul Langevin in 1911,

examines special relativity:

Schrödinger’s Cat, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger

in 1935, is a quantum mechanics mind-bender:

For more such fascination and cognitive calisthenics, you won’t go wrong with

Peg Tittle’s What If….Collected Thought Experiments in Philosophy .

More...

Religion as social control - 60 Second Adventures in Religion (1/4)

Religion as ritual - 60 Second Adventures in Religion (2/4)

Religion as a mother - 60 Second Adventures in Religion (3/4)

Religion as a virus - 60 Second Adventures in Religion (4/4)

Open University - http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/

WIKIPEDIA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_University

The Open University (OU) is a distance learning and research^[5] university founded by Royal Charter in the United Kingdom. The university is funded by a combination of student fees, contract income, and allocations for teaching and research by the higher education funding bodies throughout the UK. It is notable for having an open entry policy, i.e. students' previous academic achievements are not taken into account for entry to most undergraduate courses. The majority of the OU's undergraduate students are based in the United Kingdom and principally study off-campus, but many of its courses (both undergraduate and postgraduate) can be studied off-campus anywhere in the world.^[6] There are a number of full-time postgraduate research students based on the 48 hectare university campus^[7][8] where they use the OU facilities for research, as well as more than 1000 members of academic and research staff and over 2500 administrative, operational and support staff.^[9]

The OU was established in 1969 and the first students enrolled in January 1971.^[10] The University administration is based at Walton Hall, Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire, but has regional centres in each of its thirteen regions around the United Kingdom. It also has offices and regional examination centres in most other European countries. The University awards undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, as well as non-degree qualifications such as diplomas and certificates, or continuing education units.

With more than 250,000 students enrolled, including around 32,000 aged under 25^[11] and more than 50,000 overseas students,^[12] it is the largest academic institution in the United Kingdom (and one of the largest in Europe) by student number, and qualifies as one of the world's largest universities. Since it was founded, more than 1.5 million students have studied its courses.^[12] It was rated top university in England and Wales for student satisfaction in the 2005,^[13] 2006^[14] and 2012 ^[15] United Kingdom government national student satisfaction survey, and second in the 2007 survey.^[16] Out of 132 universities and colleges, the OU was ranked 43rd (second quartile) in the Times Higher Education Table of Excellence in 2008, between the University of Reading and University of the Arts London; it was rated highly in Design, Art History, English, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Computer Science, Development Studies, Social Policy and Social Work, and Sociology.^[17] It was ranked overall as a nationally top forty, and globally top five hundred university by the Academic Ranking of World Universities in 2011, as well as being ranked 247 for citations of its academics.^[18]

The Open University is also one of only three United Kingdom higher education institutions to gain accreditation in the United States of America by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education,^[19] an institutional accrediting agency, recognized by the United States Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.^[20]

* * * * * * * * *

Khan Academy - http://www.khanacademy.org/ (scroll down to see K-College courses)

From Wikipedia -

In 2009, the Khan Academy received the Microsoft Tech Award for education.

In 2010 at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Bill Gates endorsed the learning resource, calling it "unbelievable" and saying "I've been using [Khan Academy] with my kids".

In 2010, Google's Project 10¹⁰⁰ provided $2 million to support the creation of more courses, to allow for translation of the Khan Academy's content, and to allow for the hiring of additional staff.

* * * * * * * * *

WIKIPEDIA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Academy

Khan Academy is a non-profit^[3] educational website created in 2006 by educator Salman Khan, a graduate of MIT and Harvard Business School. The stated mission is to provide "a free world-class education for anyone anywhere".

The website features 700 micro lectures^[1] via video tutorials stored on YouTube teaching mathematics, history, healthcare, medicine, finance, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, economics, cosmology, organic chemistry, American civics, art history, macroeconomics, microeconomics, and computer science.^[4] Khan Academy has delivered over 300 million lessons.^[5][6]

* * * * * * * * *

BBC's Interactive Timelines - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/

Complete List of BBC Topics - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/

Never underestimate the power of a new haircut.

Watch This Incredible Timelapse Of What Happens When You Give A Homeless Veteran A Makeover

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/watch-this-incredible-timelapse-of-what-happens-when-you-giv

Ryan Broderick BuzzFeed Staff
posted on November 7, 2013 at 11:15am EST

 

 

Homeless Vet Gets Awesome Makeover

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a6VVncgHcY

 

1. Meet Jim. He agreed to let the nice people at Dégagé Ministries, Design 1 Salon & Spa, and Rob Bliss Creative give him a makeover.

2. After leaving the service, Jim has struggled with alcohol and homelessness. They wanted to show Jim that a respectable guy was still underneath all that scruff.



3. So they decided to give him a booster shot of confidence.





5. And after a proper shave…



 

7. And a stylish haircut…





9. And a sharp-looking suit…



10. Jim realized things weren’t so grim after all.



11. According to Dégagé Ministries, after the video was shot, Jim decided for the first time to enter Alcoholics Anonymous and now has his own housing.





 

Carrie Underwood and Vince Gill Sing, "How Great Thou Art"

Carrie Underwood with Vince Gill How Great thou Art

2016

Includes Intro

File this one under "gives me chills," Carrie Underwood's voice is absolutely

gorgeous singing "How Great Thou Art" in this emotion-filled duet with Vince Gill.

I have goose bumps all over just simply amazing.

Brings tears to my eyes every time I watch!!!!

Amazing I just love that Song!!!

And yes it brings tears to my eyes.

Amazing Grace it so describes how I truly feel about my God and savior!!

Pacifism's Ideals Against "Just War" and "Measured Response," Part II

Last week I was working through the several ideas of pacifism and its counterparts of "Just War" theory (sic, there are no "just wars," just "just causes") and "Measured Responses" (meet all oppression with appropriate delegation and determination before launching reciprocating policies that become locked into place without budge or move). Those ideas may be found in the post, Pacifism's Ideals Against "Just War" and "Measured Response."

 

Today, Roger Olson presents a post of expediency which I think is basically a re-hash of my earlier post from a week ago. It is built upon common sense and a sensible response to evil and cruelty through judicious remediation, open and honest communication, and a willingness to investigate all truths (or untruths), before forming a solidifying opinion. In a sense, an equitable court of public opinion is presented over an inequitable one filled with mistaken impressions, wrongful lies and slander, biased or prejudicial stereotypes, inaccurate media reports, and/or public fears and political pandering to those fears. Hence, no public policy should be formed without first during the hard work of validating both the wrongs committed, and the ethical dilemmas they may further present, if any further action is undertaken.

 

One further note is Olson's reluctant use of measured force while retaining his idea of being a Christian "pacifist" along the lines of Jesus' commands. Even so, I applaud his version of this idea of pacifism, though another definition of it would see all abandon to any force used to the protection of life, liberty, and freedom. As such, I would much more align with Olson's brand of pacifism in defense of the weak and innocent than I would by not doing anything at all. I suppose this would be more in line with the idea of "American Justice" as we see it exploited by Hollywood. (And no, I don't equate "American Justice" with the judicious response to biblical rightness... rather, I use it as a cultural pejorative, if I understand and am using the term correctly).

 

However, there is a far greater sin than the one of reacting to evil, and that is the one of taking no action at all. It is the sin of cowardice in the face of evil. Or the sin of no response by allowing evil to harm another. Or the sin of pride in dying for one's belief's when they affect another's will to live. Each is a study of reflection and human socio-psychology. In Bonhoeffer's case, look at how many German citizens willing allowed evil its corruption without preventing its rise by turning a blind eye to the concentration camps, or the evils suffered by their Jewish (and minority) neighbors. It takes far greater courage to break from public perception and will than it is to go against the crowd by acting singularly, bravely, and without help, towards the humanitarian debt of necessary prevention and cessation.

 

Lastly, how many times to we read of each reaction in the Old and New Testaments. One for ethical rightness (OT), and the other for judicious judgment (NT). It's an ancient problem and not one to go away anytime soon. Whether at home, in our communities, nationally, or globally. It started with the weak-minded parenting of Adam and Eve in provoking jealousy and animosity and doesn't end when reading of Paul's missionary church's arguing between themselves. However, it behooves us all to use common sense, a biblical sense, coupled with self-examination, humility, grace, and forgiveness. Hard choices to be sure. But then again, living this life in a Jesus-centered fashion is hard in itself. May God give us wisdom.

 

R.E. Slater

November 6, 2013

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

Right, Wrong, and Necessary

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/11/right-wrong-and-necessary/

 

Roger Olson

November 5, 2013

Comments

 

It seems that many people think that in every situation of moral decision making there are two options and two only: right and wrong. By “right” I mean what one ought to do in order to be obedient to the highest moral law (whatever that may be). By “wrong” I mean what one ought not to do because it violates the highest moral law. Right and wrong. Black and white. And the only problem of ethics is figuring out what is “the right thing to do.”

 

Before I continue, let me say that I do not claim any originality for what I am about to say. But, then, I don’t think there is originality in philosophy, theology or ethics. Everything has been said somewhere by someone; originality is only in how it’s said (including by whom, in what manner, when, where, and to what audience).

 

I believe that in some moral decision-situations there’s a [viable] third option besides “right” and “wrong”— [the option of the] “necessary.”

 

“Wait!,” I can hear someone saying. “If it’s necessary, it’s right.” That’s exactly my point—to say no. The moral category “necessary” participates in right and wrong but is not wholly either one.

 

I speak as a Christian from a Christian (not necessarily “the Christian”) point of view in ethics. Jesus, his character, way of life, and teachings form the highest moral law I know. Jesus said “Resist not evil” or “Resist not the evil doer” (Matthew 5:39). Therefore, it is always right to practice non-resistance toward evil. Precisely what non-resistance includes is another subject. We may not know exactly what all one can do while not resisting evil, but we know what ones we can’t do while obeying Jesus’s command—use deadly force.

 

So, I [count myself as] a pacifist somewhere along the sliding scale of pacifism. And yet many, probably most, pacifists would not count me among them.

 

When faced with a decision whether to use deadly force or not, I believe that, in this broken world, inhabited by monsters who rape, murder, torture and enslave children, one ought sometimes to use deadly force. But one ought not call it “right.”

 

Is it, then, “wrong?” Yes, according to the highest known moral law—Jesus’ teaching. On the other hand, it’s not simply wrong. Nor is it simply not right.

 

Someone is now asking “Isn’t this what Kierkegaard called the “teleological suspension of the ethical?” Perhaps. But what I am arguing is that it’s not a “suspension of the ethical” if we recognize “necessary” as an ethical choice alongside “right” but not identical with it.

 

In my taxonomy, then, “necessary” would include those moral decisions and actions which, in a given situation of tremendous evil, one must make and do even though they violate the highest known moral law. Thus, “necessary” participates in both “right” and “wrong” but is not simply one or the other.

 

What’s the practical implication of this distinction? There are, of course, many. But one is that when a person does what is right they can celebrate, give God all the glory, and receive congratulations (not credit) for it. God is the source of all good, so the person who does what is truly right ought always to give God all the glory.

 

But ought a person who has used deadly force, even if it was necessary, celebrate, give God the glory, receive congratulations? Given Jesus’ clear command, the answer must be no.

 

But ought a person who has used deadly force always be criticized or condemned for it? Given clear necessity, that would seem particularly problematic.

 

What, then, is the right response to necessary deadly force? Sorrow, regret, even repentance--trusting in God's merciful understanding of our human condition.

 

In the current issue of the journal Religion in the News (15:1 [Fall, 2013]), published by The Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life, editor Mark Silk refers to Basil the Great, “the fourth century Church Father who presided over a diocese in Asia Minor.” According to Silk, Basil (one of the three Cappadocian Fathers) “recognized that taking up arms might be necessary even as it remained morally problematic.” (p. 1) Silk reports Basil as saying that killing committed in the course of war should not always be classified as murders, but that persons who kill in war should be refused communion for three years “on the ground that their hands are not clean.” (p. 25)

 

The point here is not to agree with Basil’s recommendation; it is only to point out that the view I am expressing here seems to have been one held by at least some ancient Christian leaders. While Basil did not use the word “necessary” (so far as I can tell), his treatment of the issue seems to include the idea of an action that is neither right nor wrong but necessary.

 

In my opinion, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s participation in the plot to kill Hitler (as reported by Eberhard Bethge in his biography of the German theologian) was, even to his own mind, neither “right” nor “wrong” but only “necessary.” And I agree that it was at least necessary to attempt it. This is, to my way of thinking, anyway, the solution to Bonhoeffer’s expressed pacifism combined with his knowing participation in a plot to assassinate the German dictator. (I choose to believe Bethge on that score, as I have already stated here earlier.) He did not shed his pacifism; he sacrificed it on the altar of necessity in this one case.

 

So what is the proper response to someone who has done what was necessary even though it was neither right nor wrong? Immediate forgiveness but not congratulations. They might be congratulated for their courage, but not for the actual act of use deadly force.

 

Now, obviously, a question immediately arises: How to know when a decision and the action based on it is necessary? I do not believe there is any litmus test for it. Casuistry* will not work here, so there’s no point in going down that road. We cannot say definitely when a morally wrong decision and action is necessary and therefore justified (although still not “right”). We live in a tragic world and our human condition is mired in tragedy—until the Kingdom of God comes. Moral, ethical decision making and acting necessarily includes some risk. Casuistry cannot remove all risks, ambiguity or uncertainty, hard as it might try.

 

I suspect the only way to go about filling in the category “necessary” is to look at case studies. I mentioned Bonhoeffer above. Another one, at least in story form (I don’t know the historical facts but the story is supposedly based on reality), is that of Christian Sam Childers as portrayed in the movie “Machine Gun Preacher” by Gerard Butler. Given a specific set of circumstances, he found he had no choice but to use deadly force to protect innocent children from a band of guerilla fighters who were slaughtering whole villages and enslaving children.

 

When I examine Bonhoeffer’s decision and the action of Childers’ [portrayal in the movie], I find myself agreeing with what they decided, and the actions they took, but unable to call them “right.” I call them “necessary” and hope I would have the courage to make and take them as they did and trust God for forgiveness.

 

------ 

 

*cas·u·ist·ry

/ˈkæʒuəstri/ Show Spelled [kazh-oo-uh-stree] noun, plural cas·u·ist·ries.

 

1. specious, deceptive, or oversubtle reasoning, especially in questions of morality; fallacious or dishonest application of general principles; sophistry.

2. the application of general ethical principles to particular cases of conscience or conduct.

 

 

 

The Science Behind "Creatio Continua" versus "Creatio Ex Nihilo" (Process v. Classical Thought)

Multiverse Timeline

Introductory Questions

• Can humans manufacture matter from nothing?
• Can light be turned into matter?
• What Does the First Law of ThermoDynamics have to do with all this?

Observations

The First Law of ThermoDynamics says, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

Then Albert Einstein came along and theorized that "Energy" and "Matter" can be interchangeable.

E = M   or   M = E

Atoms, of course, is matter on a quantumtative scale. A molecule is made up of many atoms.

What is light? Light consists as quantum units of energy called "photons." Thus light is composed of photons which we call light (another term for this energy is "radiation").

When two photons are smashed together they produce "quarks" and "gluons." A quark is a unit of quantum matter; and a gluon is a unit of quantum energy. Thus, smashing two photons together produces both matter and energy.

2 Photons --->  Smashed Together

produces

Quark(s) + Gluon(s)   =   Matter + Energy

Nothing is created. Nothing is destroyed. What is changed are the matter/energy states. Thus retaining the First Law of ThermoDynamics (in theological terms this is known as creation ex continua in Latin, meaning "creation from something").



Big Band Timeline



This event was massively demonstrated in the early history of the primordial universe when it consisted entirely of primordial quantum energy. Within this intense energy a quantum state existed in which "time" was liquefied into a spatial mass giving a maximum of 3 dimensions, and more probably, 2 dimensions - not the 4 or more dimensions that we live in today (sic, string theory requires at least 11 dimensions). And since only space existed, and not time, there existed an infinity of time without reference to itself until released in the Big Bang explosion. At this moment, in the merest fraction of a second, energy violently expanded outward, time was released, and the universe was birthed. And as the universe expanded (known as inflation) it rapidly cooled over an intervening period of several hundreds of thousands of years. And as it cooled it formed into units of quantumtative matter which created the universe we now live in today leaving behind "time islands" of hot mass (stars, galaxies, etc.) amid a much larger lattice of massless cold and darkness known as dark matter and dark energy. Taken together, all the stars and galaxies form 5% of the visible universe. Leaving 27% of it as dark matter which cannot be explained. And a remaining 68% as dark energy (cf. link here) which also cannot be explained.

We can express this event in a simple formula:

Light   --->   Matter

Now what is matter? Matter consists of a paired combination of quantum particles arranged as "matter and anti-matter."

By smashing matter particles with anti-matter particles we may reverse the process and produce light.

2 paired particles   --->   Matter + Anti-Matter  --->  Light

And, as discussed, light consists as a pair of quantum energy particles known as photons.

Light = 2 photons

Thus, from light we may produce matter by smashing two photons together. And, from matter we may produce light by smashing a unit of matter with a unit of anti-matter to get light.

"Can we manufacture matter?" - Epic Science



Published on Oct 18, 2013

Is it possible to make matter out of nothing? What about matter out of energy?

Learn more about matter/energy in this video from Stuff to Blow Your Mind.

Quantum Conclusions

So, yes, humans can manufacture matter from light; and turn light into subatomic matter particles. But this process is not creatio ex nihilo but creatio continua. We have neither created something from nothing nor made that something disappear to nothingness. According to the First Law of ThermoDynamics, all energy must be retained, and can neither be created nor destroyed. It is simply transferred between quantum states of energy, or matter, according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. More simply, energy and matter may be interchanged, exchanged, or rearranged, as transitional quantum states between one another.

Theological Conclusions

From the outset, "creatio ex nihilo" (sic, Latin for "creation from nothing") becomes a moot point to the scientific discoveries of quantum physics.... Meaning there is no "creatio ex nihilo" to be created from because the universe has already been shown by quantum physics to have a beginningless mass where time was non-existent because of (infinitely) dense gravitational forces (for more on this see, The Quantum Evolution of the Universe, amongst other articles).

If anything, we might more accurately describe creation as "creatio ex continua" (creation from something that always was) as Wolfhart Pannenberg did in his theologic writings many years earlier. (You may find this argument here on a previous article I wrote, Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern, Quantum Age, in the third section down under the title "My Postmodern, Quantum Response: to Craig's Modern Epistemic Apologetics").

Thus answering how God created. And if we go with a multiverse state of physics than God created from something... not nothing. This is the Process Model of Theism. However, as a matter of philosophical argument, we might suppose that "God would not be God if He couldn't create from nothing" as Classical Theists posit. And in the long run of things, given the nature of each theistic system, it has been demonstrated that the process model holds the upper hand re scientific proof, but that the classical model may be retained without demoting our idea of God being God based upon philosophic arguments one way or another.

"[In Process Theology] it is an essential attribute of God to be fully involved in, and affected by, temporal processes, an idea that conflicts with traditional forms of theism that hold God to be in all respects non-temporal (eternal), unchanging (immutable), and unaffected by the world (impassible). Process theology does not deny that God is in some respects eternal, immutable, and impassible, but it contradicts the classical view by insisting that God is in other respects temporal, mutable, and passible."  - Wikipedia

"... process philosophical thought paved the way for open theism, which sits more comfortably in the [progressive] Evangelical Christian camp." - Wikipedia

More simply said, let us move on from our favorite predilections and learn to see relevant, newer theologic systems as more helpful than we first thought. Process wants a God who is here... One who is with us, who is experiencing our experiences. However, Christian classicism saw a God who was out there, away from us, up in the heavens, who was sometimes with us, but more generally removed from our human experiences as a heavenly being, speaking to us as He would a Job, unmoved and unfeeling. This is the Greek-Hellenistic side of Medieval Christianity which the church has inherited through its traditions and cultures.

All rhetoric aside, the argument becomes moot in Jesus as classicism must now adjust its dogmas by virtue of God's incarnation. Who, in His holy Being, doeth now bear mankind's humanity with us. More specifically, God can no longer stand wholly apart from our humanity, nor remain dispassionately unmoved (or stoical) from our physical sufferings and ethical dilemmas, by reason of His experience as a man (even though the philosophical argument could be made that God was never dispassionate even in His eternal state regardless of classicism's speculated need for His incarnation by some, God being God and all). Even so, by Jesus' incarnation all philosophies may drop away as to whether God was impassive, or passionate, towards man's humanity with the historical occurrence in time and space of His incarnation as fully God and fully man (cf. hypostasis). And because of God's incarnation amongst mankind, He passionately understands us now as our Creator-Redeemer (though we suspect that He knew this subject intimately even before His incarnation). Which is what process theology is plainly stating.

As to the charges of panentheism, they are true. God and the cosmos are one. But not ontologically, as some process theologians would state, for God is the Creator of the cosmos, and not the created of the cosmos.

Nor is God "the All" so popularized by Oprah Winfrey, whose philosophy wanders into pantheism (not pan-en-theism, as stated above) where God and the universe are an ontological oneness. Yes, God is "the All" but He is also greater than "the All." Even distinguished from "the All" as separate from "the All" as its Creator-Redeemer.

Nor is God dependent upon His creation even though He has intricately (and mysteriously) bound Himself to it by decree, by incarnation, by His death, and redemption of it. Each phase of this process should be necessarily understood as relational processes whereby God is creation's Creator, Sustainer, Nurturer, Provider, Savior, and Redeemer. As such, God is shown to be deeply involved with His creation (even as ancient Judaism proclaimed, though it now denies God's incarnation in Christ Jesus). Nor is God impassively separated from His experience of creation's groans and sufferings against the early claims of the church's more classical doctrines erroneously based upon the predominant philosophies of Greek Hellenism.

This then is the position of Relational Theism, which is the halfway-house between the two competing positions of process theology v. classical Christian thought (or theism). The idea of Relational Theism (which we have worked on here quite a bit at Relevancy22) would meld both systems into one synthetic soup, making the waters even murkier than they were before... but hopefully clearer as well. As purists, neither side likes a synthesis of their positions, do they not? But then again, the extremes of any position are fraught with their own special dilemmas when not taking into account the other's arguments and observations.

For myself, the process model bears relevancy over the classic model for the postmodern age that the church now lives within. Even as we have developed it here as a synthesis between two competing positions, which have been described as relational-process theism. A theism that is neither fully classical, nor fully process. That stumbles over each other when trying to assert (or deny) ex nihilo creation. Where in the end we mince about words rather than seeing the reasonableness of either view.

Life is messy. And so is doctrine. Let us learn to open our spirits to believing that we are not alone in this world. Nor this wide, and amazingly complex (multi)universe. No. Within it, around it, about it, is our Creator-Redeemer God who is truly with us in all that He is and was and will be. Whose everywhere-bound-presence should be our comfort and help, our hope and deep knowledge that we are not abandoned. Nor alone. Nor left to ourselves, whatever trials and tribulations come. To know that God is there as He has always been there. That He is - and has become - our Titanium. Amen.

(For more discussion on these matters, simply go to the sidebars to the right under "theism." Thank you.)

R.E. Slater

November 4, 2013

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Particle Physics, Quantum Science, and the Universe"

* * * * * * * * *



5 Cheat Sheets with Michio Kaku | Mysteries of The Universe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A_lGRGc0co&list=PL0AD0581D8B41A28C

Michio Kaku Explains String Theory

Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?

"How does a mathematician read the mind of God? The Mind of God is read through cosmic music.

It is the music of strings, resonating through eleven dimensional hyperspace of supersymmetry. The

latest renaissance of mathematics." - Dr. Michio Kaku

From Universe to Multiverse

* * * * * * * * *

Light Changed to Matter, Then Stopped and Moved

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=28520

Also reported at PHY.org - http://phys.org/news90077438.html

 CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 8, 2007 -- By converting light into matter and then back again, physicists have for the first time stopped a light pulse and then restarted it a small distance away. This "quantum mechanical magic trick" provides unprecedented control over light and could have applications in fiber-optic communication and quantum information processing.

---

Harvard University professor Lene Hau explains how she stops light in one place then retrieves and speeds it up in a completely separate place. (Photo: Justin Ide/Harvard News Office)

---

In quantum networks, information optically transmitted over the network is converted into matter, processed, and then converted back into light. The physicists at Harvard University hope that their discovery could provide a possible way to do this, since matter, unlike light, can easily be manipulated. Their findings were published this week in the journal Nature.

"We demonstrate that we can stop a light pulse in a supercooled sodium cloud, store the data contained within it, and totally extinguish it, only to reincarnate the pulse in another cloud two-tenths of a millimeter away," said Lene Vestergaard Hau, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and of Applied Physics in Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences and School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

---

In a "quantum mechanical magic trick" devised by Harvard University physicists, a light pulse is extinguished in one ultracold atom cloud (purple), converted to matter and then revived in another before being allowed to exit the second cloud in its original state. (Image courtesy of Sean R. Garner)

---

This marks another milestone for Hau in light manipulation. In 1998, she slowed light, which travels in free space at a speed of 186,000 miles a second, to just 38 miles per hour in a cloud of ultracold atoms. Einstein and others have theorized that the speed of light in free space can't be changed. Two years later, she stopped light completely in a similar cloud, then restarted it without changing its characteristics. She received a $500,000 MacArthur Foundation Fellowship (so-called "genius grant") for these experiments.

In her latest work, Hau and her co-authors, Naomi S. Ginsberg and Sean R. Garner, found that the light pulse can be revived, and its information transferred between the two clouds of sodium atoms, by converting the original optical pulse into a traveling matter wave which is an exact matter copy of the original pulse, traveling at a molasses-like pace of 200 m (600 ft) per hour. The matter pulse is readily converted back into light when it enters the second of the supercooled clouds -- known as Bose-Einstein condensates -- and is illuminated with a control laser.

"The Bose-Einstein condensates are very important to this work because within these clouds atoms become phase-locked, losing their individuality and independence," Hau said. "The lock-step nature of atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate makes it possible for the information in the initial light pulse to be replicated exactly within the second cloud of sodium atoms, where the atoms collaborate to revive the light pulse."

Within a Bose-Einstein condensate -- a cloud of sodium atoms cooled to just billionths of a degree above absolute zero -- a light pulse is compressed by a factor of 50 million, without losing any of the information stored within it. The light drives some of the cloud's roughly 1.8 million sodium atoms to enter into "quantum superposition" states, with a lower-energy component that stays put and a higher-energy component that travels between the two clouds.

---

Diagram showing the time line for the Harvard research. (Image courtesy of Naomi S. Ginsberg, Sean R. Garner and Lena V. Hau)

---

The amplitude and phase of the light pulse stopped and extinguished in the first cloud are imprinted in this traveling component and transferred to the second cloud, where the recaptured information can recreate the original light pulse.

The period of time when the light pulse becomes matter, and the matter pulse is isolated in space between the condensate clouds, could offer scientists and engineers a tantalizing new window for controlling and manipulating optical information; researchers cannot now readily control optical information during its journey, except to amplify the signal to avoid fading. The new work by Hau and her colleagues marks the first successful manipulation of coherent optical information.

"This work could provide a missing link in the control of optical information," Hau said. "While the matter is traveling between the two Bose-Einstein condensates, we can trap it, potentially for minutes, and reshape it -- change it -- in whatever way we want. This novel form of quantum control could also have applications in the developing fields of quantum information processing and quantum cryptography."

This research was supported by the Air Force Office of Sponsored Research, the National Science Foundation and NASA.

For more information, visit: www.harvard.edu

Evolutionary Theory and Moral Development

Bio - Mark A. Maddix
Northwest Nazarene University

Professor of Practical Theology and Discipleship

Mark A. Maddix is Professor of Practical Theology and Discipleship, and Dean of the School of Theology and Christian Ministry at Northwest Nazarene University. Before coming to NNU he served in pastoral ministry for twelve years. He has published several articles and co-authored books including Discovering Discipleship, Spiritual Formation: A Wesleyan Paradigm, and Missional Discipleship: Partners in God's Redemptive Mission.

Evolutionary Theory and Moral Development

http://exploringevolution.com/essays/2013/11/04/evolutionary-theory-and-moral-development/#.UngHdE8o69J

by Mark A. Maddix

November 4, 2013

Growing up in a Christian home, evolution was only referred with negative connotations. I was taught that evolution was an atheistic theory which undermined the authority of Scripture in general and specifically Genesis 1 and 2. If a person believed in evolution he or she could not be a Christian. This view was substantiated during my first biology class at a nearby state college. The professor supported evolution and took great pride in degrading uneducated and ignorant Bible-believing Christians who denied evolution. The professor, teaching in the Bible Belt, enjoyed arguing with students who opposed his views. This experience confirmed the assumptions of my upbringing that evolution was from the "pit of hell."

A year later I sensed God calling me to be a pastor so I enrolled as a Bible major in a Christian liberal arts university, rooted in the Wesleyan tradition. During my first semester I took Introduction to the Old Testament. I was eager for the professor to support my view of the creation accounts and to deny a humanistic view of evolution. In my amazement, the professor said nothing about the creation-evolution debate. Rather, he began to explain that the creation story in Genesis 1 & 2 was a hymn that was theological and had nothing to do with proving or disproving creation from a scientific perspective. He said the author of Genesis, probably not Moses, (that created another anxiety) had no understanding of modern science and was writing to show God's relationship with God's creation. His explanation changed the course of my understanding of the creation-evolution debate and helped me understand Genesis 1 and 2 as theological not scientific.

I was convinced that Genesis 1 & 2 had a different purpose and meaning, until I took a course in the natural sciences, taught by a young earth, seven day creationist (YEC). He argued that the creation accounts in Genesis could be scientifically traced, and the world was only 6,000 years old. He talked about dispensations of time and used the Bible to support his views. Now I was really confused.

I continued to wrestle with what I believed until I took Introduction to Biology, a course I had taken at the state university and had to take again because of a poor grade. In class the professor affirmed his belief in evolution by stating that Darwin's theory was the best way to explain how God created the universe. He affirmed what my Bible professor had articulated about Scripture. He also indicated that many scientists, who were Christian, see connections between science and the Bible. After class I asked the professor to explain how he could hold to evolution and creation. He responded by stating, "Believing in evolution does not reject Scripture, since Scripture was not written for such purposes."

My Christian liberal arts education provided me with a clearer understanding of a Wesleyan view of Scripture, particularly as it related to the creation accounts and a view of creation that could include evolution. As a pastor, and now as a professor, this theological understanding of the creation accounts are foundational in discussing creation and science with parishioners, students, and constituencies. Many of them think that the more recent focus on evolution among evangelicals in general, and Nazarenes in particular, is something new. I often remind them that it was something I learned in college over twenty-five years ago.

Evolution and Moral Development

Since I am not a scientist, I cannot speak about the details of evolutionary theory. I can only rely on the vast amount of research that supports evolution as a viable option in explaining how God may have created the universe. I can speak, as a practical theologian, on the theological significance of the creation accounts and my expertise in the integration of theology and the social sciences. Beginning with my doctoral studies in the interdisciplinary fields of Christian education, theology, and the social sciences, I explored how evolutionary psychology impacts the understanding of how people grow and develop. I began to see clear evidence of the impact of evolution on development theories as it relates to how we grow physically, cognitively, and morally. More recent studies in evolutionary psychology and neuroscience have expanded my understanding of how persons grow and develop. I want to explore in more detail how evolutionary theory impacts my understanding of moral development.

In my search for understanding how persons grow and develop morality, I first asked whether humans are born with the capacity to know what is right or wrong (nature), or is morality shaped primary by our environments (nurture). Developmental theories argue that human consciousness - how we determine right and wrong - is developed during the first years of life through our interaction with our parents. In other words, humans are created in the image and likeness of God, with the capacity to know what is good and evil, but a person's moral consciousness is shaped and developed by our parents and/or guardians. This is why some people have a higher level of consciousness (morality) while others do not. Since persons inherit a particular environment, it impacts their morality.

On the one hand, we are shaped morally by our environments, but on the other hand, recent studies in evolutionary ethics show that morality is not merely learned through one's environment. Many of our moral instincts are inherited through our evolutionary past. We are created with a universal morality that is imbedded in our nature, which is biological. Thus, humans don't simply learn moral behavior, but humans are biologically designed to acquire morality. In other words, humans are biologically wired with the necessary components for morality. Therefore, all human persons, created in the image and likeness of God, have the inherit capacity for morality.

Evolutionary ethics does not contradict a Biblical view of human persons Instead it provides a scientific explanation for how God created humans with the capacity to be moral, and through our environments, we grow and develop morally.

Index to past discussions -

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"