Slashdot Mirror
Testing Quantum Behavior — From Earth to the ISS
KentuckyFC writes "Einstein famously believed that the instantaeous effect of quantum entanglement would allow 'spooky action-at-a-distance' in violation of special relativity. Every test of entanglement on Earth has so far agreed with quantum mechanics but naysayers continue to point out various loopholes that might allow the results of these experiments to be determined in advance rather than instantaneously as QM suggests. Today, an international team of scientists is proposing the mother of all entanglement experiments, to be performed in space. The plan is to send entangled photons between an observer on the ground and one on the International Space Station. By the peculiarities of special relativity, the high relative velocity between the observers means that both will always be able to claim to have carried out their measurement first, thereby ruling out the naysayers' arguments (abstract). The experiment, called Space-QUEST, would be housed aboard Europe's Columbus module and would give the much-derided ISS a stab at doing some decent science for a change."
But the ISS is not only about science, it's also about engineering and learning how to live for long periods off the world (the MIR was pioneer, but its design and MO would be too dangerous to use beyond Earth's orbit). The next target will be the Moon and then probably Mars, but we had to learn how to walk before we can run.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
they actually are both H and V polarized at the same time. you can think of them as just being "unknown" for the sake understanding why you cant use it to communicate faster than light, but it isnt what's actually going on.
we know this because in a quantum superposition, different possibilities in the superposition can interfere with other possibilities, making certain results more or less likely. this is shown by the double-slit experiment. shooting photons at a screen through two slits produced not two stripes like you'd expect, but several stripes. this is because each photon went through 2 waves of possibilities, one through each slit, and the waves then collided with each other, making certain ares of the screen more likely to be hit than others.
Forgive my modification to your quote, but I think that print offers better coverage of science issues. And while Fox News may report science news as well as CNN does, an astrologer reports as much science as either one of them as well. Fox News is crap. If other TV channels are also crap, well, good job my friend, you're still watching crap.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I agree with the accusation that the ISS is a white elephant. Your claim of "hundreds" of experiments is padded by a considerable number of low value experiments such as archiving (in addition to the regular sampling if I read the list correctly) fluid and tissue samples from the crew of each expedition (there have been 17 returned expeditions so far, hence, 17 "experiments"). Let's put this in perspective. By the time the ISS has run through 2016, it'll have consumed around $150-160 billion between NASA and the other participants. This includes a decade or so of the Space Shuttle which we could have phased out in 2000 or earlier, if it wasn't for the ISS. Even after completion, it'll cost almost $2 billion dollars a year to maintain.
In comparison. including launch costs the MIR station cost a few billion and the first serious NASA proposal in the mid-80's was around $12 billion in today's dollars, including launches. If NASA had gone with a scaled down station, it would have been completed years ago and generating a similar quantity of useful science (over its lifetime) for a small fraction of the cost of the ISS. The high maintenance cost means that there's a good chance that it'll be cheaper to splash the ISS and launch a new station, than to leave the ISS up there. Finally, I think it's clear that the primary purpose of the ISS has always been to extend the lifespan of the Shuttle (and deliver public funds to NASA contractors) rather to do anything useful in space. In that, it has been remarkably successful.
I find it odd that ISS supporters have to resort to the numbers game and other vague arguments (like lauding the value of "international cooperation"). If you can't find 5 or so big reasons that justify the ISS, you're not going to make up the difference with thousands of mediocre ones. What justifies almost $2 billion a year in maintenance and the huge opportunity cost of putting almost a sixth of a trillion dollars into this project? As I see it, we could have done a hell of a lot more in space with that money.