Slashdot Mirror


Creating a Quantum Superposition of Living Things

KentuckyFC writes "Having created quantum superpositions of photons, atoms, and even molecules, scientists are currently preparing to do the same for larger objects — namely viruses. The technique will involve storing a virus in a vacuum and then cooling it to its quantum-mechanical ground state in a microcavity. Zapping the virus with a laser then leaves it in a superposition of its ground state and an excited one. That's no easy task, however. The virus will have to survive the vacuum, behave like a dielectric, and appear transparent to the laser light, which would otherwise tear it apart. Now a group of researchers has worked out that several viruses look capable of surviving the superposition process, including the common flu virus and the tobacco mosaic virus. They point out that after creating the superposition, scientists will be able to perform the Schrodinger's Cat experiment for the first time, which should be fun (but less so for the virus)."

321 comments

  1. There *is* no virus... by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1, Funny

    ladaladaladalada

    1. Re:There *is* no virus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how the heck is this flame bait? it is a joke you morons!

    2. Re:There *is* no virus... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      A Lada is not funny, not even if repeated four times!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  2. Viruses don't live by tsa · · Score: 3, Informative

    Viruses are not living things. They have no metabolism and need a host to reproduce. They're basically just packets of proteins containing DNA.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Viruses don't live by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please. They're self-replicators in the domain of organic chemicals. They take resources from their environment (i.e. DNA), effectively use those resources for self-replication, and manage to do this with just enough random noise for adaptive mutation to occur.
      .
      That's more than I can say of certain slashdotters living in their mother's basements. Are you saying that they're not alive?
      .
      Let the debate begin!

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    2. Re:Viruses don't live by koterica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Parent is correct: Biological viruses are like complex SQL injections that cause the host software to send out copies of the injection code. However, they are not executable on their own.

    3. Re:Viruses don't live by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      And sometimes RNA. And the case is not the clear. Certainly there are other symbionts and parasites that require a host for reproduction. The problem, as always, is that nature does not behave in the nice, clean way our minds would like.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Viruses don't live by Permutation+Citizen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure. That's why we call them "no-life".

    5. Re:Viruses don't live by AP31R0N · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have a point, most of these azoic creatures never reproduce.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    6. Re:Viruses don't live by LitelySalted · · Score: 1

      Is this the Matrix? Cuz if it is, we're a virus too. And I'm pretty sure that I'm alive...

    7. Re:Viruses don't live by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 1

      They're basically just packets of proteins containing genetic material.

      Fixed that for you. Not all viruses use DNA as their genetic material; some use RNA.

      You are correct in that they do not have a metabolism and need a host to reproduce. This experiment could be conducted on an enzyme for the same effect: Will the enzyme be functional before/during/after the experiment? Obviously a virus is more complicated than an enzyme, but as long as nothing is structurally damaged it will still "work" (or, as these scientists would like to say, "live").

      Would the same be true for a bacterium?

    8. Re:Viruses don't live by tkjtkj · · Score: 2, Informative

      By any criteria, viruses are NOT LIVING THINGS!

      All the convoluted wording you choose to assemble will never
      show otherwise.

      viruses are packets of DNA or RNA 'packedup' into envelopes of protein. They are like a letter you'd send to anyone: In fact, totally FREE (un-enveloped) DNA,eg, is found everywhere in nature.. Even yoiur highschool bio class must have shown you pics of stings of dna being drawn into bacterial cells!!

      virus DNA, eg, can not only be frozen solid for millions of years, but it can be CRYSTALIZED!
      Do THAT to a tadpole, why dontchya!

      j. anderson, md
      tkjtkj@gmail.com

      --
      "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
    9. Re:Viruses don't live by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Biological viruses REALLY are like computer viruses. Computer ones also cannot execute on their own. They need computers and operating systems.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    10. Re:Viruses don't live by RandomFactor · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're only MOSTLY dead!

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    11. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think there's much of a debate. It's common consensus that virii sit on the border being alive. They have most of the traits of what is usually defined as being alive, but they don't have all of them. The technicalities aren't terribly important in any context, including the philosophical one, so nobody really bothers.

    12. Re:Viruses don't live by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Analysis of virus DNA has suggested the viruses evolved from bacterium- quite different than the genesis of a prionic disease.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    13. Re:Viruses don't live by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stop it. Just stop. Don't compare Biology to code. It doesn't work, and only show ignorance in at least one of those, often both.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not executable on your own. Vacuum hurts.

    15. Re:Viruses don't live by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Funny

      If they were completely dead, all you could do is check their pockets for change.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    16. Re:Viruses don't live by Ironica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      virus DNA, eg, can not only be frozen solid for millions of years, but it can be CRYSTALIZED!
      Do THAT to a tadpole, why dontchya!

      Ok, viruses are not animals, like tadpoles.

      But human sperm and ova can be frozen and then used for reproduction. So... are they alive, or not?

      Plant seeds and insect eggs can lie dormant for years and then sprout or hatch when conditions are right. Are they alive, or not?

      The question of whether viruses are living things is far from clear-cut.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    17. Re:Viruses don't live by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If there is no clean line then perhaps the concept we are trying to define does not exist and the distinctions people try to draw with it are by definition bogus.

      The "life" theory is bunk. Perhaps we should stop using that blanket and invalid term and replace it with a functional system with terms that are more clear and finite. Maybe its just time to stop trying to pretend there are two separate classes, living things like us that are sacred and everything else that doesn't matter.

    18. Re:Viruses don't live by mikael · · Score: 1

      The Mimi-virus is an unusual case. It has 900 genes, more than some bacteria, can process certain amino acids that other bacteria can't process. But it is still dependent on other cells for energy and reproduction.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    19. Re:Viruses don't live by Unordained · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh? Just the other day, we were talking about how much cell division is like fork(): it's not just the pure code that's forked, but the state of all globals and open file descriptors, too. There's more to reproduction than just our DNA, there's all that "running VM" stuff going on, too: an infected cell that reproduces is likely to result in two infected cells, even if that's not part of the cell's normal DNA; a cell with a chemical imbalance will likely pass that on to its new sibling. Some cloning methods rely on injecting one cell's DNA into another -- like running a program in both a test and production environment, care should be taken to think about the whole situation when diagnosing problems, not just the DNA/code itself. See? More similarities.

      Comparing & contrasting (via "like") is not the same as saying the two are the same (via "equals"). Commonalities, when they can be found, are informative because (most) humans have the power of inductive reasoning. You're welcome to point out the important differences so we can avoid coming to undue conclusions in one or the other field.

    20. Re:Viruses don't live by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or perhaps we just shouldn't make line-in-the-sand definitions. This is nothing new to biology. The question as to what defines a species has been going on for decades, and the reality is that no matter what kind of a "rule" you make, there are exceptions, so you build that into the definition. We now, for the most part, have a fairly reasonable species definition that does also encapsulate phenomena like ring species.

      The same, to my mind, applies to viruses and other highly specialized parasites that require a host. Yes, they do not have every feature that typifies life, but in all cases, they do reproduce and they do evolve.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:Viruses don't live by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      You're not executable on your own. Vacuum hurts.

      You are executable on your own. They even have a word for it. Have you ever heard of suicide?

    22. Re:Viruses don't live by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      So , by your definition a parasite , isn't alive either ? as it can't survive on it's own.

      You are creating your own definition of alive , in other to determine what is alive and what not

    23. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. So they are not alive yet they attempt to reproduce using a host. I think the definition of "life" is rather subjective.

    24. Re:Viruses don't live by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      The question of whether viruses are living things is far from clear-cut.

      The question of whether viruses are alive or not is as interesting a question as whether submarines swim. (To steal a phrase for Dijkstra).

      We know what viruses do and don't do. Arguing about whether they're "alive" or not is purely semantics and is not a scientific question at all.

      --
      AccountKiller
    25. Re:Viruses don't live by Bob-taro · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Biological viruses are like complex SQL injections that cause the host software to send out copies of the injection code. However, they are not executable on their own.

      Interesting, but I think we need a car analogy to really clear up the issue.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    26. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a classification scheme to be conceptually useful, it only has to apply to the majority of things you want to group into sets. Having overlaps at the boundaries isn't a problem.

      There's nothing that requires such schemes to be valid for all things, since they're essentially meaningless beyond being a conceptual aid for us.

      Another silly example is the Pluto planetary debate.

    27. Re:Viruses don't live by ivan_w · · Score: 1

      I can't see the analogy.

      First, not all viruses need an operating system (see boot sector viruses).

      Second, your logic assertion is flawed. you are implying 1 statement from another when there is no logic relations between the 2. It's like saying : a virus is like a car (the statement to prove). A car cannot run by itself. It needs fuel to run (a tautology with no relation to the statement to prove).

      If you want to compare anything, all you can say is that a computer virus is just like any other sequence of instructions that run on a computer - it's just the programmer's intents and its effects which differentiate a computer virus from other type of programs. And since no entity (unless you are an ID proponent) has 'designed' viruses and, furthermore, not all biological viruses have ill effects, computer viruses and biological viruses are *definitely* dissimilar.

      What differentiates viruses from other biological entities is that they lack some of the basic tools to reproduce on their own, so they have to borrow some of those tools from a host cell.

      And since the majority of life forms need assistance from other life forms to sustain themselves and to eventually reproduce (humans needs to eat.. Not only for the energy, but also, for example, to gain access to essential amino-acids that human physiology cannot create on its own), I'm not sure this is a criteria to determine whether a virus is alive or not.

      --Ivan

    28. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists who actually study viruses beg to differ. They see viruses as just as living as anything else. You are taking the half-truth you learned in high school for the complete truth, which it is not. Virologists and biologists in general see life as a spectrum. Virology shows that although they are not "living" in the same sense as many other living things, they are as good as living as they are clearly on the life spectrum.

      Try not to be so defensive when you clearly don't understand what you are talking about.

    29. Re:Viruses don't live by grumbel · · Score: 1

      The problem I have with calling viruses alive in this context is that "alive" kind of implies interaction with the environment, as thats needed for reproduction, but with quantum stuff that interaction is exactly what would ruin the superposition. So while a virus might be alive in the broader sense, this kind of deep freezing doesn't sound like putting an alive thing into superposition.

    30. Re:Viruses don't live by Mprx · · Score: 1

      Here is a living entity:

      0000000
      0001110
      0010010
      0100010
      0100100
      0111000
      0000000

      It replicates when placed in the environment of HighLife (variant of Conway's Life). Like Conway's Life, this environment allows for universal computation. Self-replicators are also proven to exist under Conway's Life, although none are yet constructed.

      If you don't believe that 49bit pattern is alive then you shouldn't believe viruses are alive.

    31. Re:Viruses don't live by jellomizer · · Score: 0, Redundant

      So it would be like a car who parks in a factory and uses it engine to power the factory to make more cars?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    32. Re:Viruses don't live by Tom · · Score: 3, Funny

      We know what viruses do and don't do. Arguing about whether they're "alive" or not is purely semantics and is not a scientific question at all.

      But it's important! See, this 4th level AD&D spell affects, according to its definition "all living things within 5 feet of the target position". I must know whether it'll wipe out a virus! The fate of the world depends upon it!

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    33. Re:Viruses don't live by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      So, they're half life?

    34. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But do virii have souls? That's the real question.

    35. Re:Viruses don't live by fbjon · · Score: 1

      The whole "problem" of viruses being alive or not comes from the mistaken presumption that life/non-life is a binary proposition.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    36. Re:Viruses don't live by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      viruses are packets of DNA or RNA 'packedup' into envelopes of protein. They are like a letter you'd send to anyone:

      Um...the letter needs a writer. Who "writes" the virus?

      If the letter was written by another letter, and could in turn write more letters, then I would say the letter met some definition of life.

      If viruses come from other viruses, and in turn create more viruses, then they are alive.

    37. Re:Viruses don't live by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I'd say alive means something that has all the machinery to eat and reproduce. Viruses, as others have pointed out are basically a protein package containing some DNA or RNA. That packet was made by a cell and its purpose is to infect another cell to make more viruses. Cells are alive, viruses are just information.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    38. Re:Viruses don't live by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Forget Schrodinger's virus, is there any beer in the fridge?

    39. Re:Viruses don't live by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      An inaccurate but funny meme is insightful? In fact, geeks get the girls. If you're not getting any, maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.

    40. Re:Viruses don't live by genner · · Score: 1

      The question of whether viruses are living things is far from clear-cut. The question of whether viruses are alive or not is as interesting a question as whether submarines swim. (To steal a phrase for Dijkstra).

      We know what viruses do and don't do. Arguing about whether they're "alive" or not is purely semantics and is not a scientific question at all.

      Nope not a scientific question.
      Defining what life is falls under philosophy.

    41. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you prefer a car analogy?

      Biological viruses are like complex MapQuest queries that give the driver directions to a destination and the driver copies them for future reference or to give to a friend. However, they cannot drive the car on their own.

      Captcha: chided. As in, I'm about to get chided for making such a stupid analogy.

    42. Re:Viruses don't live by genner · · Score: 1

      Viruses are the undead.
      They prey on living cells and convert them to their own kind like a zombie or a vampire.

    43. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such thing as "virii". The plural of the English word virus is "viruses". It comes from the singular Latin word virus which means poison and has no plural form originally.

    44. Re:Viruses don't live by IICV · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know what else is common consensus? The plural of "virus" is "viruses".

    45. Re:Viruses don't live by SuperNumberOne · · Score: 1

      Most geeks have no metabolism and everyone needs a willing host to reproduce.

      --
      Super Number One, a podcast about all things geek
    46. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plural of virus is NOT virii. If it was following general Latin pluralization, it would be "viri", but that is the plural of "vir", which means man. "Virii" would be the plural of "virius", which isn't even a word.

      bus -> buses
      virus -> viruses
      fungus -> fungi (notice the single "i")
      radius -> radii (because the singular already has an "i" before "us")

      Stop trying to sound smart by replacing "us" with "ii"; it just makes you look dumb and voids any and all points you make in your post.

    47. Re:Viruses don't live by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      i have a live-in GF.

      Maybe that "you" you're referring to is the general "you".

      Was my joke modded insightful?? Hah!

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    48. Re:Viruses don't live by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      But how many viruses can dance on the head of a pin?

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    49. Re:Viruses don't live by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I'd say alive means something that has all the machinery to eat and reproduce."

      So a fetus or a pork tapeworm (can't sustain themselvers) are not alive? So an ant (sterile) is not alive?

      "Viruses are basically a protein package containing some DNA or RNA. That packet was made by a cell"

      Not. That "package" was not made by a cell. The "package" managed for the cell to do the job for it. Are you not flying when the one that really flies is the plane? Making use of the environment in order to self-replicate is the very definition of life.

      "Cells are alive, viruses are just information."

      Ask that to the virus. Maybe they'll answer "Virus are alive, cells are just tools we use in our quest for replication".

    50. Re:Viruses don't live by johanatan · · Score: 1

      Actually those technicalities may be important to a Buddhist who values all life (or PETA).

    51. Re:Viruses don't live by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Biological viruses REALLY are like computer viruses. Computer ones also cannot execute on their own. They need computers and operating systems."

      You do say it as if there were *any* computer program that wouldn't need operating systems and computers to run.

    52. Re:Viruses don't live by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "If you don't believe that 49bit pattern is alive then you shouldn't believe viruses are alive."

      Because?

      Nice an exposition, but where's an explanation?

    53. Re:Viruses don't live by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Um...the letter needs a writer. Who "writes" the virus?

      Hijacked cells. If we must use a letter analogy, think of them as nothing more than self-propagating chain letters. You (a cell) get the letter, which instructs you to write 1000's of copies of it, if you don't... well you have to... In making thousands of copies you (the cell) die. So, in reality who made the copies? You, the cell, did, not the letter.

      A virus out in the world, all alone, can't do anything. Its as dead as a door nail. Only by having a host cell handy, and having some form of genetics to hijack can it do anything. Viruses are basically stupid protein machines with a reproductive payload.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    54. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On slashdot we must classify everything into binary bins.

      or not.

    55. Re:Viruses don't live by shaitand · · Score: 1

      A definition is a line in the sand. If you can't draw such a line then the "thing" is not an appropriate categorization at all. Any theory or model based on it will fail because the distinction isn't real.

      Electricity, magnetism, gravity. These are distinct, it is legitimate to label these things. Life, morality, sentience, these things can not be solidly defined and thus they aren't real, we need labels for real and valid things not muddy artificial concepts we simply make and try to define until the end of time.

    56. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any definition of life that is less broad than "a temporary replicating pattern" fails.

      The word life is the result of wanting to define things that are similar to our own replicating temporary pattern. It isn't as if life vs non-life actually serves any sort of functional purpose.

    57. Re:Viruses don't live by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Two of your own examples demonstrate the fallacy of assuming that natural phenomena can be shoe boxed. Look up Maxwell sometime.

      One can categorize while still catching things that aren't quite in the given category. I've already given an example of ring species; which on one level demonstrate that the extreme ends of the ring are interfertile (thus, by standard species definitions, would not be the same species), and yet can have every intermediary interfertile.

      So I'm afraid you're wrong. Biology has long had to deal with things that seem to fit in multiple boxes, or even into none at all. And yet cladistics does exist and does work, so clearly you can work within taxonomical systems all the while knowing that the edges will always be fuzzy.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    58. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the attributes, "sit on the border [of] being alive" and "have most of the traits of what is usually defined as being alive" and "but don't have all of [the traits of being alive]" add up to A WHOLE LOT OF DEBATE?

      Are they alive? maybe. Pick a side, because there is a lot of debate on this topic.

    59. Re:Viruses don't live by khallow · · Score: 1

      We know what viruses do and don't do. Arguing about whether they're "alive" or not is purely semantics and is not a scientific question at all.

      Nope not a scientific question.
      Defining what life is falls under philosophy.

      the school of philosophy it happens to fall under is semantics. What a coincidence that this is exactly what the grandparent said! It's almost like you two are *agreeing* with each other. Better stop it before someone puts an eye out.

    60. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but computers also do maney different things but are not alive, neither are those japan robots.

      So according to your explanation they are very well designed bio-machines. NOT alive.

    61. Re:Viruses don't live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all viruses have dna

    62. Re:Viruses don't live by GCPSoft · · Score: 1

      Oh? Just the other day, we were talking about how much cell division is like fork(): ...

      C'mon! Everyone here knows you need a good knife to divide anything... not a fork! Sick techies....

    63. Re:Viruses don't live by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      That is assuming objective judgment on the side of the female. Considering general human experience, our species doesn't fare so well against other ones (being dumber makes less room for subjectivity) so, in other words, everybody who isn't stereotypically and socially acceptably smart is screwed in the bad sense of the word. As a vocal drug legalization advocate, and nice person with a shitload of quirks, I've had my fair share of turndowns on that basis.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  3. I implore you, by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Funny

    won't someone think of the viruses? I'm going to pen a letter to the Amercian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Microscopic Organisms That May Or May Not Be Alive immediately!

    1. Re:I implore you, by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Amercian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Microscopic Organisms That May Or May Not Be Alive

      The ASPCMOTMOMNBA?

      You, sir, need to work on your organization names.

      Let me suggest a few:

      The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Questionable Under Examination To Zoological Life Characterization Organisms Almost This (.) Large.

      The SPC-QUETZLCOATL is, of course, dedicated to the humane treatment of viruses, and should not be confused with the SPCQ, which is dedicated to the humane treatment of feathered-serpent redeemer/savior archetypal figures.

      Also it should be noted that the (.) in the official name of the organization is a tiny dot in parentheses, not a ASCII boobie, no matter how much you'd like it to be one.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:I implore you, by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Amercian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Microscopic Organisms That May Or May Not Be Alive

      or "NAMBLA" for short.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    3. Re:I implore you, by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      ... that was brilliant! how long did it take you to get that acronym to work? if i had mode points, you'd be getting a +funny

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    4. Re:I implore you, by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      that was brilliant! how long did it take you to get that acronym to work?

      Well, seeing as my post was made eighteen minutes after the parent, some amount of time less than eighteen minutes. Given a couple minutes before I came across his post, and a couple minutes to compose the rest of the post, a couple minutes to hand up on some incoming phone calls, a couple minutes to remotely wipe the hard drives of the users who interrupted my slashdot time with their phone calls... I'd say it probably took me about 5 minutes. That is, if I had actually needed to make up the acronym.

      The truth is, I'm a founding member of SPCQ, and due to our constant confusion with SPC-QUETZLCOATL in the non-profit world, I was able to writ that post as quickly as I can type (using my split Dvorak ergonomic keyboard, of course). The delay to eighteen minutes was due to needing to sacrifice a virgin from the top level of my temple in Teotihicuan, a ritual I repeat before submitting every slashdot post, to ensure that I receive the favor of the Gods to prevent spelling, grammatical, and HTML errors.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:I implore you, by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I was able to writ that post as quickly as I can type (using my split Dvorak ergonomic keyboard, of course). The delay to eighteen minutes was due to needing to sacrifice a virgin from the top level of my temple in Teotihicuan, a ritual I repeat before submitting every slashdot post, to ensure that I receive the favor of the Gods to prevent spelling, grammatical, and HTML errors.

      Apparently, born-again virgins don't count. And true virgins are hard to come by these days.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:I implore you, by thepotoo · · Score: 1

      And true virgins are hard to come by these days.

      Uh, are you aware of which site you're on?

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    7. Re:I implore you, by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Also it should be noted that the (.) in the official name of the organization is a tiny dot in parentheses, not a ASCII boobie, no matter how much you'd like it to be one.

      I, for one, welcome our floating breast-shaped macroscopic organism overlords.

      Or, as I like to call them, our Juggy Moos.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    8. Re:I implore you, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare you compare your measley dot to a true ASCII boobie? I shall immediately inform the Internetional Association for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage of the ASCII Boobie ((o)).

      It should be noted that the (o) in the official name of the organization is the ASCII boobie. Coincidentially, this also serves as the Association's official logo.

  4. What if Schrodinger was wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Will looking in a box for a cat that may or may not exist destroy the universe? Tune in and find out!

    1. Re:What if Schrodinger was wrong? by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 1

      No, else David Copperfield would've done it already.

    2. Re:What if Schrodinger was wrong? by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      Geraldo Rivera.

      What? The joke is 20 years old? Crap.

      --
      Dan
  5. Hasn't Schrodingers Cat been through enough? by TheRealPacmanJones · · Score: 4, Funny

    We are still experimenting on this mans cat after all these years? Im surprised PETA isnt all over this...

    --
    Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make its own judgment - Zemfram Cochrane
    1. Re:Hasn't Schrodingers Cat been through enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you sure about that? I am pretty sure the cat died years ago, but I haven't checked.

    2. Re:Hasn't Schrodingers Cat been through enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but HONEST TO GOD the following happened to me.

      My wife had a friend who was a bit of a house plant. Not unattractive, but not so clever. Somehow Schrodinger's cat came up in conversation. She didn't know the reference and when it was explained to her, her reaction was not one of puzzlement, but horror. "That's terrible, putting a kitty in a box with no holes!"

    3. Re:Hasn't Schrodingers Cat been through enough? by smeg · · Score: 1

      "What have you done to the cat? It looks half dead"
      -- Schrodingers wife

    4. Re:Hasn't Schrodingers Cat been through enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can haz a second chance?

    5. Re:Hasn't Schrodingers Cat been through enough? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Peta is both for and against this until someone actually gives a shit about their opinions.

  6. Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The virus will be both dead and alive! So this is how the zombie plague will begin...

    1. Re:Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was exactly my first thought.

      Gentlemen, it's time to gather the firearms and get to the safe zones.

    2. Re:Uh oh! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't know the "LHC will collapse the universe" physicists also did biology!

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Uh oh! by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      The virus will be both dead and alive!

      Given that half of this thread was about whether or not viruses are "alive" in the first place, I suspect any "alive/dead superposition" findings are going to be even more debatable.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    4. Re:Uh oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The virus will be both dead and alive!

      Given that half of this thread was about whether or not viruses are "alive" in the first place, I suspect any "alive/dead superposition" findings are going to be even more debatable.

      Maybe viruses are the result of a Schrodinger experiment!

  7. Scale to larger living things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not certain that this technique will scale to cats.

    1. Re:Scale to larger living things? by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not certain that this technique will scale to cats.

      Don't worry, the next step up from viruses are lawyers. Since they have to put them in a vacuum and hit them with a laser, line 'em up and put it on Youtube ... in the name of science!

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:Scale to larger living things? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Scientist: We were unable to find any lawyers that were transparent to laser light, so they were all destroyed during the experiment and no superposition was observed.
      Scientist: HA HA HA HA HA HA!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Scale to larger living things? by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the next step up from viruses are lawyers. Since they have to put them in a vacuum and hit them with a laser, line 'em up and put it on Youtube ... in the name of science!

      Where do I sign up? (But are you sure you want to contend with mutant zombie lawyers on top of the regular ones?)

    4. Re:Scale to larger living things? by GradiusCVK · · Score: 1

      the next step up from viruses are lawyers

      Huh? I certainly hope they tested this on lawyers before they subject some poor virus to a potentially dangerous experiment. Is the ethics committee asleep at the wheel or something?

    5. Re:Scale to larger living things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean, step up?

    6. Re:Scale to larger living things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought those _were_ the regular ones.
      And that the weakened forms tend to migrate to public jobs... and so on...

  8. That's how I pick up chicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    At the physics conventions....my best pickup line is always "hey baby, want to go back and create a quantum superposition of living things?"

    1. Re:That's how I pick up chicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then she takes a peek at your ding-a-ling and watches your waveform collapse :(

    2. Re:That's how I pick up chicks by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      "This is amazing! I'm coming/not-coming at the same time!"
      "Nice try. I observed you ejaculating three seconds into it."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:That's how I pick up chicks by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      "Nice try. I observed you ejaculating three seconds into it."

      Then you don't know how much energy I put into it -- provably!

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    4. Re:That's how I pick up chicks by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      "Then you don't know how much energy I put into it -- provably!"

      "No, but I can bound the amount of energy at 'not enough'!"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:That's how I pick up chicks by Gryle · · Score: 1

      An aquaintance of mine uses this one: "According to the multiverse theory, in some universe, you're giving me your phone number. It might as well be this one." Interestingly enough, it works.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  9. There is only... Super Virus! by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seriously, people, anyone who has read comic books knows that strange scientific experiments involving lasers, quantum mechanics and viruses can only lead to an acute case of superheroitis.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Or zombies.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    2. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by defireman · · Score: 1

      Only if you get bitten by it, that is.

    3. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or superzombies.

    4. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by buswolley · · Score: 2, Funny

      slashdotters

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    5. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Jurily · · Score: 0

      Seriously, people, anyone who has read comic books knows that strange scientific experiments involving lasers, quantum mechanics and viruses can only lead to an acute case of superheroitis.

      Misleading headlines are more likely, though. Virii are not living things.

    6. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      The Umbrella Corporation would like to have a word with your and your "superhero" theory.

    7. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by rattaroaz · · Score: 1

      When they experiment on humans, call me. It would be crazy NOT to try it!

    8. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Tomorrow's /. headline:

      Scientists create next superflu via quantum superpositioning.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    9. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patient: I think I might have the bird flu.
      Doctor: Let me run a test.
      Patient: No, I can't take the chance it gets any worse.

    10. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by severoon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great, now I have to hear my doctor say, Um, it seems you completed the full course of antibiotics...but it turns out it only attacked the inert state of your disease. The virulent, flesh-eating superposition continues unchecked.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    11. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Virii is not a word. The plural is 'viruses.'

      Whether viruses are life is still a matter of some debate. They have genes, reproduce, and evolve, but have no metabolism of their own and do not reproduce by division. They require a host cell in order to reproduce, but so do some bacteria. It's a fuzzy line.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    12. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Virii is not a word. The plural is 'viruses.'

      If that's true, then what are infecting my boxen?

    13. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Really ? On what basis do you assume that virri are not alive ?

    14. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by spun · · Score: 1

      Virii is not a word. The plural is 'viruses.'

      If that's true, then what are infecting my boxen?

      Crabs?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    15. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Informative

      If we pull a DNA strand out of a nucleus from one of your cells and put it on a plate, it is not a living thing. It remains true that if we put it back undamaged, it can then reproduce, but it's still just a DNA fragment.

      If we are to say viruses are living things, it would imply that that DNA fragment is a living thing.

      Also, we've been on a crusade recently to taxonomically reclassify everything based on its evolutionary history, now that our understanding of DNA enables us to determine this. Since viruses, being leftover DNA or RNA fragments from the breakup of expired bacteria for the most part, they don't have an evolutionary history per se. They don't fit into the taxonomic classes for living things anywhere. A severed or left-over part of a living being is not, in an of itself, a living being, no matter how it behaves when you reattach or reinsert it into one.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    16. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Wizdumb · · Score: 1

      Hey, just like Aliens!

    17. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      ...do not reproduce by division.

      So?

    18. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Jurily · · Score: 1

      They have genes, reproduce, and evolve

      They do not have genes. They are genes, wrapped in some proteins. And it's not even their own "genes", just an RNA chain that confuses another cell. The fact that the host's reproduction mechanism is not perfect is not a requirement for life.

      They require a host cell in order to reproduce, but so do some bacteria. It's a fuzzy line.

      No, it's not. Hint: bacteria contain moving parts and perform actions in order to survive.

    19. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antibiotics are not effective against viruses anyway, so you'd still have to contend with both states of the virus.

    20. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Just make sure to have plenty of light, because as they will collapse as soon as you observe them.

    21. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by EddyPearson · · Score: 1
      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    22. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you're real is still a matter of debate too. You can post and reply to posts. You require a host to post to, but so do some real people. It's a fuzzy line.

    23. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by ashtophoenix · · Score: 1

      There is no line (except for those man-made). In absolute, everything, including the dust of the Sahara is alive. Molecules are alive as they are a collective and behave a certain way, albeit unconsciously, and so are atoms and so are electrons and so on and so forth. There is no line.

      --
      Life is about being a Phoenix!
    24. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Perhaps we're about to witness the shocking origin of... The Grue!

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    25. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by joeyblades · · Score: 0

      Technically, there's no plural of the word 'virus'. It's a 'mass noun' which has no logical plural meaning. English convention tends to accept 'viruses', so one might argue that this is slightly less incorrect than virii...

      See: latin words ending in us and virii

      If you're going to pick nits, you should pick well.

    26. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      I agree that the line is man-made, but man-made definitions are useful tools for sorting things - in this case, sorting the living from the non-living.

      Metaphorically, poetically, and/or romantically you may call the dust of the Sahara, molecules, atoms, electrons, etc. alive, but none of these things pass the test of scientific, biological definition of the term. In other words, there's no utility in referring to these things as being alive. There is utility in referring to entities that pass the formal definition as being alive.

    27. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      They have no metabolism and cannot reproduce without the aid of the cellular machinery of another living cell.

    28. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "If we are to say viruses are living things, it would imply that that DNA fragment is a living thing."

      If we are to say men are living things, it would imply that if we take a man heart's out of his body we must admit that either the heart or the other part is still a living thing? WTF!!!???

      The fact is our perception of life (as it is our perception of causality) is modelled after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in which we never consciouslly affronted the virus concept. No wonder our definitions and "common sense" perceptions become a bit blurred (even quite blurred) when tested against them. What's a species? Where's the frontier between life and non-life? How can it possibly be that a thing (light) is two things at a time (wave and particle)? As Nietzsche would have said, it's language mummifying reality.

      "A severed or left-over part of a living being is not, in an of itself, a living being, no matter how it behaves when you reattach or reinsert it into one."

      Are you aware that which part is the "severed" and which one is the "remaining" is quite a question of point of view? (is it really a decapitation or is it more a debodyzation?)

    29. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      It's spelled "superhalitosis".

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    30. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      If you're going to consistently play faux-Latin, you might claim that your boxen have viri, but I can't think of any reason for ever typing "virii". That's like talking about octopii or hippopotamii.

    31. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by spun · · Score: 1

      Curses! How did you guess my super power?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    32. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether something is "life" or not is an anachronistic question. It really had meaning only in the olden days when "life" was this mysteriously animated stuff that possessed some kind of life force.

      In that sense, nothing is alive today, even life, as it's just complicated chemistry.

      Now if people still want to persist for romantic reasons in determining if a virus is "life" or not, I will only point out a quote I read a few years ago: "Biologists no longer argue about whether a virus or a seed is 'alive' ". It's a non-issue. They are what they are and the mechanisms are largely known.

      It's just a half-step from arguing if something has a "soul" or not.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    33. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by jeffshoaf · · Score: 1

      Seriously, people, anyone who has read comic books knows that strange scientific experiments involving lasers, quantum mechanics and viruses can only lead to an acute case of superheroitis.

      As long as it doesn't lead to an acute case of superhalitosis!

      --
      Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
    34. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by ogrisel · · Score: 1

      or a zombie outbreak if you are out of luck.

    35. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plumber, the mailman and the cable guy.

    36. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by mhelander · · Score: 1

      What utility?

    37. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by mhelander · · Score: 1

      In "Virolution", Frank Ryan suggests that we could define a virus as a life form if we include its standard environment - that is, the host - into the picture of the "virus organism".

    38. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by mhelander · · Score: 1

      But with that aid they _can_ reproduce...and they don't need their own metabolism, because they parasitically use that of their hosts.

    39. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Sociable+Scientician · · Score: 1

      If you're going to consistently play faux-Latin, you might claim that your boxen have viri, but I can't think of any reason for ever typing "virii". That's like talking about octopii or hippopotamii.

      or penii! (latin plural of penis is penes)

    40. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      can only lead to an acute case of superheroitis

      I read that as "superhotties" and rejoiced, briefly.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    41. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      Claiming that virus(es) are alive is a classification error. Cells can be alive, but the components of cells are not alive. A virus is not alive in the same way that DNA, RNA, proteins, and all of the other components of a cell are not alive. What makes a cell alive is how those components interact. When a virus infects a cell it becomes one more non-living component of that cell.

    42. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      The utility of conducting experiments that aid in our understanding of what conditions and chemistry are essential to be on one side or the other of that man-made line we call life.

    43. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by soundguy · · Score: 1

      Virii is not a word. The plural is 'viruses.'

      If that's true, then what are infecting my boxen?

      Crabs?

      Wouldn't that be "infesting" rather than "infecting"? Just sayin'...

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    44. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by kojot350 · · Score: 0

      Please mod parent up!

      It still amazes me that people tend to confuse the map with the territory (simulacra anyone?) "Life" is a meaningless concept on it's own, the meaning is made by context, if your context is based on romantic/Christian base it shifts towards the soul nonsense, but if your context is purely scientific - it depends only on definitions and facts.
      IMHO life is gens, it's DNA in motion, it's the amino-acids that forms DNA and it's the particles that forms those amino-acids. Life is everything.
      If someone want to divide their "territory", please go ahead, but please remember it's just in your mind. You create life with concept of "'I' that lives", of "'Me' that is living' and start to divide me/not-me, life/death, etc... but those are just concepts, they only 'exists' as representations of 'the world' that 'the mind' tries to understand in order to use or 'live in'.
      So for me it's irrelevant if something is considered alive or not. E.g.: when there will be a computer system that can mimic the brain in it's functions - it'll be just as alive as former.

      --
      [ $[ $RANDOM % 6 ] == 0 ] && rm -rf / || echo *Click*
    45. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by kojot350 · · Score: 1

      Please read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins to understand better what you're saying...

      --
      [ $[ $RANDOM % 6 ] == 0 ] && rm -rf / || echo *Click*
    46. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 1

      Technically, there's no plural of the word 'virus'.

      ... in Latin. There's a perfectly good plural - "viruses" - in English. Did you read the links you posted?

      If you're going to pick nits, you should pick well.

      Sounds like good advice :-)

    47. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      If it's no longer a question, then why is there an ethics debate over whether to destroy the last known samples of the smallpox virus? The core of that debate is whether it is ethical to undertake an action that would knowingly render extinct something that may be considered to be life.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    48. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      That wooshing sound you just heard was the point flying right over your head... :-)

    49. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      virii is an English word. Whether or not a word is a valid Greek word has never been and never will be a criterion for being valid English.

      More to the point: You don't ever get to declare something "not a word" after it has been intentionally used.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    50. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I can declare anything I want, just as you can declare that I can't declare something. However, to satisfy your pedantry, it is not a word that is recognized as valid by any published dictionary. A few mention it, but always as an incorrect pluralization of the word 'virus.'

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    51. Re:There is only... Super Virus! by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      English dictionaries have also never been intended to list what /isn't/ a word, only to record the meanings of those they list. Do you know what virii means? Does everyone else you know, know? Is it possible to use the word "virii" in conversation without the slightest pause to consider its meaning? Then there is no debate as to whether or not it is a meaningful word. To pretend that it is meaningless is only to lie for no useful end.

      Though I would not challenge the assertion that "virii" refers usually to a plurality of computer "viruses", not biological ones. (if we can use the term "biological ones" without falling dangerously back on-topic and attempting to conclude whether or not a non-computer virus can be considered biological)

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  10. Reckless world-line creation! by argent · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since the collapse of the state vector is an illusion caused by the entanglement of the experimenter with the experiment, whereupon the experimenter (now in a superposition of states) can only measure one outcome, this recless creation of macromolecular superpositions will deplete the multiverse's supply of world-lines and immanentize the eschaton. We'll have doppelgangers racing madly through the streets, and it will all end in tears.

    1. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Since the collapse of the state vector is an illusion caused by the entanglement of the experimenter with the experiment, whereupon the experimenter (now in a superposition of states) can only measure one outcome, this recless creation of macromolecular superpositions will deplete the multiverse's supply of world-lines and immanentize the eschaton. We'll have doppelgangers racing madly through the streets, and it will all end in tears.

      And brains!!!!!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since the collapse of the state vector is an illusion caused by the entanglement of the experimenter with the experiment, whereupon the experimenter (now in a superposition of states) can only measure one outcome, this recless creation of macromolecular superpositions will deplete the multiverse's supply of world-lines and immanentize the eschaton. We'll have doppelgangers racing madly through the streets, and it will all end in tears.

      Close but what's really going to happen is that we are going to put this virus in a superposition where it will enter a world that is parallel to ours. That world will be a virtual utopia ... until our virus hits it. At which point they'll realize that we have just declared germ warfare on them and they will unify to work against the degenerative subpositioned attackers who they have done no harm. After millennia of trying to coexist peacefully with us, we will feel their true wrath and power ... as horrors blink into existence on a subposition to begin the onslaught on us.

      Uwe Boll will direct with a nod toward Steven Seagal to play the initial superpositioned virus sent over.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention: And a dog will be seen eating cat food in the land.

    4. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's assuming there's objectively such a thing as a world-line. I favor the view that wave functions are the fundamental reality.

      --
      For great justice.
    5. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since the collapse of the state vector is an illusion caused by the entanglement of the experimenter with the experiment, whereupon the experimenter (now in a superposition of states) can only measure one outcome, this recless creation of macromolecular superpositions will deplete the multiverse's supply of world-lines and immanentize the eschaton. We'll have doppelgangers racing madly through the streets, and it will all end in tears.

      Seems no less reasonable than the wiki writeup on superposition. QM reads to me like high-brow White Zombie lyrics, just words rammed together with no inherent meaning. Stick a few "motherfuckers", "yeahs" and obscure movie quotes in there and I think we'd have it. I'm sure it makes sense to some people but I'd need a contact high to grok it.

      THE DEAD HAVE COME BACK TO LIFE!The Hamiltonian gives the rate at which the particle has an amplitude to go from m to n. YEAH! The reason it is multiplied by i AMBIENT SCREAMING SOUNDSis that the condition that U is unitary translates to the condition: YEAH MOTHERFUCKER YEAH! which says that H is Hermitian. The eigenvalues of the Hermitian matrix H are real quantities which have a physical interpretation as energy levels. PSYCHOLOIC SLAG SUCKING JUICE FROM A FALLEN ANGEL If the factor i were absent, the H matrix would be antihermitian and would have purely imaginary eigenvalues, which is not the traditional way quantum mechanics represents observable quantities like the energy.INSANE CLOWN LAUGHTER

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    6. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by argent · · Score: 1

      If you want to make fun of quantum mechanics, it helps if you understand it first.

    7. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Fail. He's making fun of himself for not getting it, QM terminology to an extent for sounding like made-up words to those who don't get it, and also White Zombie.

      That was funny, damnit. Lighten up.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like to discuss a record deal?

                          -MM

    9. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by argent · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't make fun of White Zombie, I don't understand it.

    10. Re:Reckless world-line creation! by ShadowXOmega · · Score: 0

      ...quantities like the energy.INSANE CLOWN SLAUGHTER

      corrected for you

  11. that's not the point by poetmatt · · Score: 0

    uh? it's not less alive, per-say, than a single celled amoeba or an atom. They didn't say sentient.

    1. Re:that's not the point by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Funny

      it's not less alive, per-say, than a single celled amoeba or an atom

      Wut?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:that's not the point by Sancho · · Score: 2
    3. Re:that's not the point by Ironica · · Score: 1

      uh? it's not less alive, per-say, than a single celled amoeba or an atom. They didn't say sentient.

      It is less alive than a single-celled organism, since it outsources all the metabolic processes even a single-celled organism does in house.

      It is more alive than an atom, though.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    4. Re:that's not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, my bad. I was spelling phonetically for english not for the accurate term.

    5. Re:that's not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I had the same reaction. Maybe it's a mistype and he was thinking diatom

    6. Re:that's not the point by Hal_Porter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      uh? it's not less alive, per-say

      I think you should spell it Percy.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:that's not the point by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Dude, when you meet people like this tell them to say "Percy". It gives their posts a nice Blackadder feel to them.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:that's not the point by Sancho · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Fantastic idea! I do try to be a kinder, gentler grammar/spelling nazi.

    9. Re:that's not the point by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "It is less alive than a single-celled organism, since it outsources all the metabolic processes even a single-celled organism does in house."

      Then it's as much alive as some CEOs I know of.

  12. Kids today... by chill · · Score: 2

    20+ comments in and no Tron references. Sad.

    Maybe they can time this to coincide with the TR2N release?

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Kids today... by Itninja · · Score: 1

      I think once Microsoft co-opted the MCP acronym for their own corporate needs, Tron references became somewhat less than common. End of line.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    2. Re:Kids today... by tobiasly · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more of The Stand. I'm pretty sure creating a superposition of the common flu is how Captain Trips got started. This will end badly.

  13. Time for Schroedinger's cat... by dogganos · · Score: 1

    ...to get sick.

    1. Re:Time for Schroedinger's cat... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Enter the wonderful world of Schroedinger's flu: You may or may not be infected with a lethal strain of the virus. Just don't go to doctor to check it and all will be well.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  14. The researchers who work with viruses disagree by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    A lot of the researchers who work with viruses consider them to be alive. See for example this piece by Abbie Smith explaining why viruses should be considered to be alive and why most of the arguments against are not convincing: http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2009/03/ten_five_reasons_clumsy_excuse.php. The people who argue that viruses aren't alive are almost inevitably non-biologists or biologists who don't work with viruses.

    1. Re:The researchers who work with viruses disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, that grad student's blog which you linked to is hardly convincing. The argument against "viruses are not alive" consists of quotes from textbooks which use works like "alive" and "living beings" in the same sentence as viruses. The next three arguments and summarized and dismissed in one sentence. Not a solid argument.

    2. Re:The researchers who work with viruses disagree by Ibag · · Score: 1

      The people who argue that viruses aren't alive are almost inevitably non-biologists or biologists who don't work with viruses.

      And the people who argue that HTML isn't computer code aren't web designers. And the people who argue that slashdot isn't interesting aren't slashdot readers. Ok, well, maybe not on the second point, but of course people who work with viruses are going to view their work differently than others will. It makes it sound better from the outside if they could convince people that viruses are alive. I bet you could find robot designers who would try to argue that their creations are alive too. As long as we insist on using vague human languages which have definitions that break down in corner cases (What is alive? Red? Funny?), we're going to have disagreements like this. In the end, it doesn't matter except for people's egos.

    3. Re:The researchers who work with viruses disagree by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, those four points that are really two aren't very good points. They don't deserve any more refutation than they received. The first point, that all biologists are in agreement, is demonstrably false. Citing biologists who call viruses alive is more than sufficient to demonstrate it as such. The next three points are all invalid appeals to Occam's Razor. That is "this way is easier, so it's the truth", which is only a good guideline, and you can only use it if the simplest way accurately represents the way things are. A tree is, unfortunately, too simple to represent phylogeny. Take bacteria, for example. A highly amusing quote on the matter is "Bacteria trade genes more frantically than a pit full of traders...". Viruses help them, but they have other means of transfer. So, any argument that viruses have to be included because of "multiple inheritance" issues must necessarily disqualify bacteria. And actually, even higher forms of life can have genes transfered between them due to recombination. Life isn't a tree. It's a weighted, directed acyclic graph. You need viruses on there in some way or other to represent gene transfers across species boundaries. Depending on your definition of "alive" viruses may or may not be. They self-replicate (with help) but have no metabolism. But they have to be on the "tree" of life, there can be no debate. Another poster has called them "mistletoe" on the tree of life. Fairly apt. They connect branches. Without them on there, your "tree" is wrong.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    4. Re:The researchers who work with viruses disagree by Ironica · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, here's a much more detailed discusssion:

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-viruses-alive-2004

      Not conclusive one way or another, but it certainly informs the debate.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    5. Re:The researchers who work with viruses disagree by TheClockworkSoul · · Score: 1

      I can't say I agree with you. IAA molecular pathologist who studies papillomaviruses, and from time to time somebody will ask me whether viruses are alive or not alive, to which I always respond "yes". They're kind of like a biological koan that way.

      When infecting their hosts, viruses are effectively part of the host's cellular biology and are as alive as the system that it requires for replication. When they're inactive, they exist either as packets of protein and genetic material completely lacking in metabolism, or as DNA integrated into the hosts genomic DNA (in the case of latant retroviruses).

      Most virologists will give the same answer when asked if viruses are living or non-living: "yes". This includes the author of the source you cited.

    6. Re:The researchers who work with viruses disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to that article, Word documents would be alive.

    7. Re:The researchers who work with viruses disagree by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      I think the AC's point was that the blog smelled of a straw man. Thus the ease with which he dismissed those arguments isn't indicative of a fair debate.

    8. Re:The researchers who work with viruses disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if someone just asks you if viruses are alive? Awkward silence?

    9. Re:The researchers who work with viruses disagree by vikstar · · Score: 1

      A lot of the researchers who work with viruses consider them to be alive... The people who argue that viruses aren't alive are almost inevitably non-biologists or biologists who don't work with viruses.

      That's because it looks cooler on a grant application to say they are alive.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
  15. Is this necessary? by Robert1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was under the impression that there was nothing to be gained by doing the schrodinger's cat experiment. The idea is that in collapsing the probability wave of any object, the "observer"-object (really anything that the collapsing object interacts with, conciousnes not required!) essentially becomes a superposition of states. This forms an outward expanding wave of super position with the individuals caught within the wave observing it as collapsed and those outside the event observing all those that interact with the superpositions becoming superpositions themselves.

    For example scientist-A is in an isolated box and has a cat in an isolated box. The cat is a superposition either dead or alive, is definately one or the other when he opens the box. Let's say for him, the cat is dead when he opens it and that makes him sad. However the scientist-B, outside the larger box which contains scientist-A can now say that the box is filled a superposition of A-with dead cat (sad scientist), and A-with live cat (happy scientist). This is because scientist-B does not know the result of scientist-A opening the box,only that room now contains a superposition of a sad or happy man with a dead or live cat. Only when B opens this larger box does it the superposition of A collapse for scientist B. Now B is in the same position - he is now be a superposition of states of scientist-B seeing sad-man with dead cat, and scientist-B seeing happy-man with live cat. So the idea is that ALL quantum events function in this way. Performing this on any object, be it virus or molecule or cat. Of course because the real world has no such isolation boxes, these wavefronts of collapse and local superposition happen continuously and undetectably.

    So what will happen is they'll go through all this difficulty to superpose two states. Then view the virus, seeing it in one state - all the while oblivious that they are now intertwined with that superposition to an outside observer.

    1. Re:Is this necessary? by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Funny

      To an outside observer, I am now in a superposed state of understanding and totally not understanding your comment...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Is this necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Quick, somebody hit him over the head with a 2x4 and collapse his probability wave.

    3. Re:Is this necessary? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You are wrong.

      Hint: They now know the a particle of light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

      The method they used to do this is why you are wrong.

      Figure it out.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Is this necessary? by locofungus · · Score: 2

      There is a point in doing Schroedinger's experiment in that we don't know if there is a level of complexity above which a superposition cannot form.

      It seems crazy that a cat (or a person) can be in a state where an outside observer thinks that they must be in a mixture of dead and alive. Which would imply that at some level QM must break down.

      But we do not know what that level is (or even if it exists)

      Note that you don't actually have to do the dead/alive experiment. It is sufficient to have the cat (or the person) in a superposition of position in order to do the test. The dead/alive test is merely an extreme case of superposition that is hardest to "just accept that's the way the universe works."

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    5. Re:Is this necessary? by xmousex · · Score: 1

      im dodging superposition with tldr

    6. Re:Is this necessary? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      And that only means that you are sane.

      I, on the other hand, only understand the comment.

      men in white coats. Knocking at my door. Be right b

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    7. Re:Is this necessary? by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      "Scientists Prove Through Quantum Mechanics That Ignorance Is Bliss" ?

    8. Re:Is this necessary? by Ztream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh, forgive me for not understanding QM, but how exactly would we *know* that the cat is in a superposition of states? As soon as we check, they would collapse, no?

      Unless of course we can cause the probability wave of the cat state to interfere with itself in some way not classically explainable, but I have a hard time thinking of a way to do that.

    9. Re:Is this necessary? by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      Well stated. If I could, I would give you the rest of my mod points!

    10. Re:Is this necessary? by joeyblades · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. All we can say for sure is that photons and other small entities have attributes that we can measure as if they were particles and waves. However, they might be something else entirely. Perhaps, if we could perceive in 5 dimensions rather than 4, all would be clear.

      When all you have is a hammer - everything looks like a nail.

      When all you have is a couple of slits and photomultiplier everything looks like a particle/wave duality...

    11. Re:Is this necessary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an outside observer, I am now observing you in the superposed state of understanding and totally not understanding GP's comment.

    12. Re:Is this necessary? by exa · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out, Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment was a paradox meant to illustrate the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation. (Much like the antinomies in set theory that were meant to show basic flaws in the theory)

      That is to say, only an idiot would take it seriously. Including these idiots of scientists who are trying to apply the said paradox and the people who comment on it as if the Copenhagen interpretation was correct.

      And let's not forget hordes of moronic professors who teach the Copenhagen interpretation as if it were some kind of received wisdom. That's how smart the average population is. Not much.

      The slightly smarter person would reckon that, the Copenhagen interpretation does not make any sense, and there is no such magical event as a wave-collapse. That is why, people are trying to find more scientifically plausible interpretations of QM.

      --
      --exa--
  16. Sweet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting something where we aren't so certain whether it's really alife into a state where we actually aren't so certain whether it's really alife.

    Behold the miracles of science. :-)

  17. Parlor Trick? by swanzilla · · Score: 1

    This experiment reeks of philosophic undertones. The liife /vs/ quantum mechanics angle might look good for a grant proposal...but this scenario is sort of a tired on the experimental level.

  18. Schroedinger's cat? by kinnell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Surely all you need to perform the Schroedinger's Cat experiment for real is a box, a cat and a radioactive substance which decays into a poison. I thought the whole idea of superposition is that the object is simultaneously in multiple states until you observe it, at which point it is in a single state. If they can observe something in different states simultaneously, doesn't that debunk the whole theory? If they can't then what is the point of the experiment? My layman's knowledge of quantum physics is obviously lacking. Could someone explain?

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, a real cat and a real box are too tightly coupled to the rest of the world to actually create a superposed state. The common layman's understanding treats a superposition as sort of an "I don't know" state, but that's not accurate. If you made a Schrodinger's cat-killing box, certainly you wouldn't know if the cat was alive until you opened the box, but you wouldn't end up constructing a superposed quantum state.

      One consequence of a superposition being a real state (rather than an "I don't know") is that you can perform tests that show an object must have been in a superposed state, beyond simply opening many cat-boxes and observing that half are dead and half are alive. It's fair to call this "observing that the object is in a superposed state", but it conflicts with the quantum-mechanical definition of "observation" that involves collapsing the wavefunction. They certainly can't quantum-mechanical-observe the superposed state directly -- but that's not what they're saying.

    2. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Another issue is that a cat can't be alive and dead, only one or the other. Just because YOU don't know which, doesn't mean that it doesn't, or that reality doesn't. It's arrogant/solipsistic to assume that the cat's state needs you to see it. Solipsism, while interesting to me has never been useful. i'ven't been able to hack the matrix yet. So either reality is real or the matrix is so secure that it might as well be reality.

      Let's try it this way. Put a person in a box with the randomly decaying poison. The person inside ticks off the seconds they are alive inside the box. When we open the box, the person will be alive or dead. If they are dead we can check the sheet for the last entry.

      It might be easier to have a computer in a box counting, with a shotgun pointed at it. At some random time the shotgun may or may not have blasted the computer. We check the safely secured USB drive for the count showing when the computer died.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    3. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's information leaking from the physically imperfect box [if it was a perfect box, you'd be perfectly right]. The experiment is just doing the same thing, but the object (virus?) is theoretically (as we understand physics) is not "observed".

    4. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by locofungus · · Score: 1

      It seems intuitively obvious that a cat will know if it is dead or alive at any point in time. However it is _theoretically_ possible to design an experiment where the cat (to an external observer) must be in a superposition of being dead and being alive unless quantum mechanics breaks down at that scale.

      One question that Schroedinger's Cat raises is "Is there a level of complexity that prevents a superposition forming?" and the proposed experiment will extend the upper limit of complexity that we know quantum mechanics applies to.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    5. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by moon3 · · Score: 1

      Schrödinger's Cat

      A cat is put in a box with a radioactive substance and a radiation detector (such as a geiger counter). The half-life of the substance is the period of time in which there is a 50% chance that a particle will be emitted (and detected). The detector is activated for that period of time. If a particle is detected, a poisonous gas will be released and the cat killed.

      Ok, I know that some pre-WW2 German scientists were crazies, but what a Nazi experiment.

    6. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, no. It's a common misconception about QM that the 'probability field' is an illusion. It's not that we just don't know yet, it's that /literally/ there exists, at the same time, both states. The double-slit experiment with a single electron proves this. A single electron, when fired at a pair of slits, is actually a 'ripple of probability' rather than a dot. It's a ripple that's wide enough to pass through both slits, and cause interference on the other side. When we observe it, we see it as a single dot, but if you do that a lot, you see that the distribution of electrons really does look like an interference pattern.

      In short, it's not just "when you open the box, it immediately reverts to either the cat having died, or not," but rather while the cat is in a superposition, it can actually have an effect on the 'other' reality. I have no idea what would interfere in a macro-object, though. I guess that's why we're experimenting.

    7. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously saying that a dead cat knows it is dead?

    8. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another issue is that a cat can't be alive and dead, only one or the other. Just because YOU don't know which, doesn't mean that it doesn't, or that reality doesn't. [...]

      Yes, that was once a common philosophical view of reality, but it's one that's flat out contradicted by observation. I'm ignoring the errors in the rest of your post since it all seems to follow from the above false statements.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    9. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      It's not that we just don't know yet, it's that /literally/ there exists, at the same time, both states.

      The way I image quantum mechanic (laymen wise) is that you don't have a particle to begin with. Superposition is often explained as having the particle magically go through both slits at once, but I find that explanation overly confusing and unnecessarily magical. Why assume we start with a particle or that there are particles to begin with? When you start with a wave it gets much more clear. Wave comes, goes through both slits, interferes and gives you a nice pattern, nothing magical so far. The only trick is that energy is quantized and thus the wave can only react with the wall in a single point, thus giving the 'look' of a particle. Think of a lighting strike, there might be electric fields and stuff that cause it, but in the end you get just a single burst of electricity hitting the ground aka the "particle".

    10. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I had a friend who was studying Physics and he said that the collapse of the wave function is a change in the knowledge of the observer, not of reality.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    11. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by hypomorph · · Score: 1

      One question that Schroedinger's Cat raises is "Is there a level of complexity that prevents a superposition forming?" and the proposed experiment will extend the upper limit of complexity that we know quantum mechanics applies to.

      Exactly! But, isn't there a different (though related) question: Does it matter if the object (cat) is capable of making observations of its own? Is it possible that "being capable of observation" excludes the possibility of superposition?

      I think we'd all agree that a virus isn't capable of making observations... but the cat is? (or if you have a problem with that, just place a person in the box)

      Or maybe (BIG maybe), "being capable of observation" just requires a certain amount of complexity?

      --
      Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something. --Thomas A. Edison
    12. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      > Just because YOU don't know which, doesn't mean that it doesn't, or that reality doesn't.

      Actually, that's precisely what it means. Quantum mechanics isn't just about what you know or don't know. It says that the both-alive-and-dead state is real, and not just some hidden variable. We accept that fairly easily when it comes to photons or electrons. Schroedinger's thought experiment was to demonstrate that the weirdness can't be confined to just subatomic particles.

      But it's harder than it sounds. Actual cats in actual boxes aren't really isolated, so the superposition state "collapses" by interaction with the rest of the world. It has nothing to do with "solipsism". Your brain is just one of the objects the cat system interacts with. Because your brain is large-scale, it tends to cause the superpositions to be forced into one state or the other.

      It looks like solipsism because you can't see the object without interacting it with your brain. But it's nothing special with your brain as compared to other objects in the universe, except that the brain happens to be yours and so is intimately involved in your actually detecting anything.

      The upshot: the superposition is real, but as long as your brain is involved, you'll never "see" the superposition. That doesn't mean we can't detect that it actually happened that way rather than just being a hidden state you couldn't see. Various subtle and intriguing experiments have been done, described in (among other places)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

    13. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by StuffMaster · · Score: 0

      I quite agree, although I think that interpreting the wave as a probability distribution for a single particle lends credence to the superposition view.

    14. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      So there are dead-alive cats? Wouldn't it's being dead mean that it can't be alive anymore? Most things stay dead. Does observation show dead things coming back to life (resuscitation aside)? How does the cat feel when it is both?

      i have three cats at home are some of them dead because i'm not looking at them? How do they come back to life when i get home?

      How about this? You're in room A, i'm in the hallway with doors to room B and C. i could go into one or the other. Am i in both rooms because you're not able to see me. What room do i think i'm in? i think i'm in C. We could have cameras recording me which should show me entering both rooms. Both should show me when we review the tape, right?

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    15. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Your friend is incorrect. This is similar to a "hidden variables" interpretation of superposition, where all along the system has been either in state A or state B, and the "superposition" is simply the observer's lack of knowledge of which state it is in. However, this can and has been differentiated from true superposition by experiment.

      What could be the case is that making the observation puts the observer+particle system into a superposed state, one where the observer measures A and one where he measures B. Basically, then, the particle's superposition extends to the observer through observation. The observer, though, can't differentiate between this and simply collapsing the particle's superposition -- they appear identical. Since real observers are essentially coupled to the rest of the universe, now you're basically saying that observation puts the entire universe in a state superposition -- which is just a "many worlds" interpretation of superposition.

    16. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      So if i'm dropping ping pong balls down a tube that will cause it to bounce around and eventually fall into to one of two containers... we're summoning ping pong balls ex nihilo which are all falling into BOTH the containers. The mass in *each* container should be the same. If i open one and you open the other, we'll find twice as many ping pong balls as we started with. Because they each went into each container. That or some of your ping pong balls should vanish into thin air when we compare numbers.

      i should try this with my collection of silver rounds.

      What am i missing?

      If the cat is dead, it can't be alive, and vice versa. What state does the cat think it is? Or if i was in the box with it. What would i feel while i was both? What would i feel between the time close and open the box? Would i be happily, healthfully pacing the floor and then suddenly drop dead because you opened the box?

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    17. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was once a common philosophical view of reality, but it's one that's flat out contradicted by observation.

      A cat isn't a single particle or molecule, so keeping it in superposition will be quite a bit of a challenge, especially since being alive kind of implies some form of interaction with the environment and superposition breaks the moment you have any interaction at all.

    18. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, hidden variable theories have made a bit of a comeback, though they have a long way to go (as acknowledged in the article).

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    19. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      > What am i missing?

      That you're looking at the ping-pong balls. Even if you're not using your eyes, measuring the mass of them is an observation that causes the wave function to collapse.

      Actually, ping-pong balls are large enough that their uncertainty is negligible all by themselves. That's why experiments like this are so hard to set up. It's pretty remarkable that they can isolate something as big as a virus.

      > What state does the cat think it is?

      You can't know without asking the cat, which makes you part of the cat's superposition. And any object big enough to incorporate you asking the cat is going to have its wave-function collapse.

      If it was you in the box (the "quantum suicide" experiment), you're still a big object in the box, collapsing the wave forms. So either you live or die. But from outside, if the box is truly isolated (which it never is), then the answer is undefined until they open it up, at which point it's certainly no longer isolated. The wave collapses, and either an alive or dead form is observed.

      Until the box is opened, it's neither alive nor dead as far as the outside of the box is concerned. It's genuinely undefined.

      I know this is at odds with what you expect. That's because you live your whole life as a large-scale object. But if you pare the components down, you can do the experiments (Stern-Gerlach, two-slit, etc) yourself. The subatomic particles behave very differently from what you expect.

    20. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Schroedinger's Cat" is not an experiment; it is an argument that Schroedinger made. The argument is that the cat can't be both dead and alive at the same time: it's a paradox. It disproves the Copenhagen interpretation.

      I have no idea when and how the argument *against* this insanity became an argument *for* it.

      "... the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect ..." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics

    21. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your patience. i promise i'm not trying to be difficult, i'm just trying to wrap my head around this.

      "That you're looking at the ping-pong balls. Even if you're not using your eyes, measuring the mass of them is an observation that causes the wave function to collapse."

      Pretend i'm not. How much force are the ping pong balls exerting on the bottom of the container? If we pour in 1 kilo of balls, there should be one kilo in each container (whether or not anyone is looking at it or measuring it). The bottom of the container should "know". The balls should know where they are.

      "You can't know without asking the cat."

      That doesn't answer my question. i'm not asking the cat, i don't need to know. The cat is asking itself, or reality is asking the cat. It should at least remember the bottle breaking or licking the poison, if it did so. If not, it should be bored or chasing its tail. The cat doesn't need anyone else to tell it that it's alive or dead.

      i don't need anyone to tell me which room i'm in. i just look around, and see i'm in the kitchen. Just because my girlfriend is upstairs and can't hear me washing dishes over her headphones doesn't mean that i'm also in the basement and the living room and the dining room. i'm in the kitchen... washing dishes, whether anyone else observes me or not. It would be pretty cool if i could play PlanetSide while doing the dishes.

      Likewise, the ping pong ball should "know" it's in container A. Whether or not any living thing ever checks on it.

      "The subatomic particles behave very differently from what you expect."

      i'm not asking about subatomic particles as a thought experiment on what *particles* do. i'm asking about cats, people and ping pong balls. Someone suggested that a cat could be alive and dead without violating that dead means 'not alive and never will be again', or that a ping pong ball could be in two places at once without violating conservation of mass. i want to now how a literal cat is supposed to be dead and alive (without regard for an observer). The cat doesn't need an observer to be alive and/or dead.

      If a photon can go through both slots, fine, but that's not what i'm asking about.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    22. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      When we say that the cat is "alive and dead", we mean that there are two possible quantum states in the box, but it's absolutely impossible for you to know what's inside the box until you look.

      What does the cat see? Well, there's two possibilities. The cat may be licking its tail. Or it may be an ex-cat. The cat knows which, it being the cat. But you (outside) can't know which without looking.

      The ping-pong balls are large-scale objects, and they have a definite position and momentum. Or at least, the indefiniteness is so small you can't even begin to observe it. If you did the same experiment with electrons or atoms (such as the Stern-Gerlach experiment) you'd observe that the mass is conserved; you don't get duplicate objects. But the mass detector is itself a large-scale object, and the combined system of (atom+mass detector) has a definite position.

      In essence... the waveform is different whether you're on the inside or the outside. Nobody quite knows what that "means", and there are different interpretations. Personally, I prefer to leave it uninterpreted; I don't believe that we'll ever make it reconcile with our large-scale notion of reality.

      That the reality is different at small scales is well-demonstrated, but that different reality is oddly hidden: every time you look at it, it goes away. Try to scale it up (which is what the Cat experiment is about) and you'd think you could get a good look at it, but the universe seems to conspire against you to make it seem like it doesn't happen.

    23. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      A big problem is that "observer" is entirely the wrong word. QM has nothing to do with "observation", but I suppose "observer" sounds more profound than "photon absorber".

    24. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Another issue is that a cat can't be alive and dead, only one or the other. Just because YOU don't know which, doesn't mean that it doesn't, or that reality doesn't. It's arrogant/solipsistic to assume that the cat's state needs you to see it. Solipsism, while interesting to me has never been useful. i'ven't been able to hack the matrix yet. So either reality is real or the matrix is so secure that it might as well be reality.

      Quantum computing (a bit early to say "quantum computers"...) is real. The superposition of states is a real state, not just an illusion, or quantum computing wouldn't work like it works in various experiments.

      What we don't know is, are there theoretical or practical limits to what can be in superposition. If a human can be in a superposition of states, we don't know. What it would mean (or feel like) if it were possible, we don't know that either.

    25. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at which point it is in a single state:
      repeating the measurement (physically)could give within a certain probability A DIFFERENT RESULT (THE EXCITED STATE)

    26. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      It won't work because we'd have "which path" information. You will only find superposition indirectly. No one has ever seen an object in two places (or states) at once. But the effects of an object existing in two states at once have been confirmed by thousands of experiments.

      You claim to be in room C. You remember being in room C. We have videotape of you being in room C. Of course it's sensible that I believe you were in room C. You were never in a superposition, because we have measurements of you being in room C.

      Now, if there was no way *at all* that anyone (not even you) could know what room you were in, *then* we would be in a regime where a superposition is possible. This situation is exactly analogous to the double-slit experiment, which I suggest you read up on. (Having not thought about it, though, I'm not sure how you'd perform the final measurement for your "room" experiment, but I'd be surprised if something couldn't be worked out.)

      All said, your post indirectly touches on why the sort of thing the article is talking about is actually interesting. For very small things, like ions and photons, everything you describe about being in two positions simultaneously is absolutely true and confirmed experimentally. The kicker is that there's no fundamental principle that limits the size of what can be in a superposition. It's just that it's easier to do it with smaller objects, because it gets exponentially tricky to decouple the object from the outside environment, and erase any "which path" memory.

    27. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      "i want to now how a literal cat is supposed to be dead and alive (without regard for an observer)."

      But what is reality without observation?

    28. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Got it. That makes way more sense than undead cats.

      +1 Informative

      Thanks!

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    29. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Glad to help. I wish I could be even clearer, but then, nobody really understands what the implications of all this are. The physicists are forced to say, "The numbers are what they are, and if they don't match your intuition, tough." Which is true and unhelpful, in the sense of jokes like this one:

      http://www.ahajokes.com/bus161.html

      So we end up with the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many-Worlds Interpretation and the Consistent Histories Interpretation (my favorite), which end up all being exactly equivalent but people argue passionately about them because none of them actually make sense in the way you'd want them to.

      I favor Consistent Histories precisely because it makes the least sense, and therefore forces you to give up your preconceptions if you're even going to hope to apply it, but all of these interpretations mean the same thing mathematically. And the math is an enormous amount of effort to apply to something you never actually see.

    30. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by locofungus · · Score: 1

      Try reading up on Quantum Eraser.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    31. Re:Schroedinger's cat? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Again, the Quantum eraser experiment has nothing to do with "observation". If the detectors had been replaced with anything else capable of absorbing photons at that wavelength, the result would have been the same.

      It's a matter of logic:
      "observer" implies "photon absorber" (and thus wavefunction collapser) but
      "photon absorber" does not imply "observer".
      Calling anything capable of collapsing a wavefunction an "observer" is like calling all four-legged animals "dogs".

  19. Wrong field by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Funny

    With the Schroedinger cat you didnt know if it was alive or dead in the physical experiment. But biology has decided yet if virus are alive to start it? What will be the next thing they will use for this test? a meme?

    1. Re:Wrong field by sbillard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I could be wrong, but I think the point of the experiment is to learn where and how quantum aspects interface with macro-objects. A virus is much larger than a photon, for example. If they can reproduce "delayed choice" and "quantum eraser" type effects on a virus, then that would really be something.

      It's not a test to see whether something is alive or dead. It's a test to understand if and/or how "which-path" observations collapse the wavefunction for macro-objects,

      IANAP, so please enlighten me if I missed the point.

    2. Re:Wrong field by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sir, we have chosen YOU to be the star of our next experiment. Being the oldest Slashdotter still not officially declared completely dead, you fit perfectly! Please sign here. Oh, and here... It's just a minor thing about getting frozen and then ripped apart by a giant laser. Nothing that should distract you. Here, a new /. article for you! *takes out his tiny victim-catching net*

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Wrong field by scratchpaper · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point here...Schroedinger's Cat is just a simplified example of a two-state system. No one is claiming that the object of the experiment is to produce a fuzzy superposition consisting of a living and a dead virus. The two states here are the virus' ground state energy and that of an excited state. Nothing more. So please, people, stop bitching about whether viruses are strictly classified as living organisms; it is not important in the context of the experiment.

    4. Re:Wrong field by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      So please, people, stop bitching about whether viruses are strictly classified as living organisms; it is not important in the context of the experiment.

      That's what people said about slaves back in the civil war, or Jews in Nazi Germany - stop bitching, it's not important if they're classified as human or not.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:Wrong field by scratchpaper · · Score: 1

      Oh my god, you're seriously comparing the two? Get over your inflated sense of moral superiority. But okay, to assuage your delicate sensibilities, I refer you to the final 6 words of my previous post. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash my hands, then immediately set up a monument to the bacteriological Holocaust I'm about to commit.

    6. Re:Wrong field by radtea · · Score: 1

      If they can reproduce "delayed choice" and "quantum eraser" type effects on a virus, then that would really be something.

      Yawn. In fairness, this kind of work needs to be done, but it is the most boring kind of science imaginable because we are as certain as anything of what the outcome will be. It would be a LOT more interesting if they FAILED to reproduce any of the expected effects of quantum weirdness, but the odds of that happening are so low that these experiments always end in disappointment (that is, with the quantum predictions validated.)

      All adding more particles does is exponentially decrease the decoherence time. There is no new physics added, and if we can do it with photons we can do it with atoms and if we can do it with atoms we can do it with molecules and if we can do it with molecules we can do it with (in principle) arbitrarily complex molecular assemblies, including ones that happen to be more-or-less alive. Of course, with most living things after we isolate them sufficiently to be able to observe the phenomena of interest they won't be alive anymore, but that's beside the point.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:Wrong field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, IAAP.

      It's actually pointless, from a theoretical point of view. I'm a theorist, so I may be biased here, but I consider these experiments a sort of dick-size contest.
      They are just trying to see how large a quantum system they can get to superimpose, that is, to overcome the myriad of technical difficulties that arrive when you up the size so much (mainly decoherence).

      And, of course, grab the headlines about SchrÃdinger kittens. The public loves them. I should post a picture of a SchrÃdinger LOLCAT in my page...

    8. Re:Wrong field by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      As you may have read above, there is still ongoing scientific debate about whether viruses count as "life" or not. Thus, the scientists in this story seeking to create a quantum superposition of a virus are merely attempting to bring some peace to science by merging the two theories and making viruses both life and not-life simultaneously.

  20. Not the worst thing for the poor little virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could be sent on a virused space mission.

  21. Terrible idea by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can see it now...

    Me: Tell me Doc, do I have HIV?
    Doctor: Well, yes and no.

    1. Re:Terrible idea by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Absurd. By testing, the doctor would have collapsed the wave form. Thus opening him up for malpractice suits. "By preforming the test, the doctor altered the outcome."

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    2. Re:Terrible idea by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Fool. He should have postformed it.

  22. Fascinating by Taibhsear · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But what will doing this show? I'm not a physicist, although the topic in very interesting to me. I sort of understand why it is useful in quantum computing but what effect would this have on the virus? Would it interact with other matter/organisms differently? Would it return to its normal state upon removal from the vacuum/cold or would it stay in this quantum superposition? What are the applications of this research aside from recreating Schrodinger's cat (they aren't nicknaming the virus the T-Virus are they...)?

    1. Re:Fascinating by jythie · · Score: 1

      I am sure someone will try to rewrite the proposal to describe how it can be applied to oil exploration.

    2. Re:Fascinating by radtea · · Score: 1

      But what will doing this show?

      It will almost certainly show that quantum mechanics can be used to accurately describe such a complex system in a superposition of states. There is a tiny chance that it will show quantum mechanics fails in this situation, which would be earth-shattering. The huge importance of that possible result justifies doing the experiment, even though the odds of that outcome are vanishingly small.

      If we are ever to replace quantum theory with something else, it will be because we find places where quantum theory fails. Large systems are one extreme, where that might happen, so it is worth looking at them even though the results are almost certainly already known.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:Fascinating by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      But, having the experiment fail and having QM fail are entirely different things. I expect that the experiment likely will fail, not by contradicting QM but by producing no significant result at all.

  23. Re:Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most probably. Most high level science is made on Linux, with "shared" code (not open source, but just because nobody even cares to select a license).

  24. You know what I can't stand about Slashdot? by wonkavader · · Score: 5, Funny

    The smell, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste the Slashdotters' stink and every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it.

    1. Re:You know what I can't stand about Slashdot? by robinsonne · · Score: 1

      sorry, haven't been able to convince mom & dad to hook up a shower in the basement yet

    2. Re:You know what I can't stand about Slashdot? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I can taste the Slashdotters' stink and every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it.

      You got it all backwards, it's when you don't feel it anymore you should worry. Natural immunity, you see.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  25. Catch the wave function! by argent · · Score: 1

    So, basically, Coca Cola is the unified field underneath reality?

  26. It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Radhruin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The definition of life is somewhat squishy, even in Biological fields, but still, technically, viruses are not living as they do not exhibit many traits that living creatures do (eg. homeostasis, metabolism, growth, asexual or sexual reproduction, etc).

    In common language, and philosophically speaking, the argument for calling a virus living could be made, but it's all just semantics.

    Wikipedia has an interesting article on life and its varying definitions throughout time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

    1. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Unordained · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wikipedia also has an interesting article on semantics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics .

      Please stop saying "[just|merely|only|nothing but] semantics" in common language, as they are anything but insignificant, by definition.

    2. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      The alive/not-alive debate is, I think, the wrong question.

      The better question would be, "What invariant properties do all self-replicators share, and what specific properties do self-replicators in the domain of organic chemicals share, or not?

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    3. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Please stop saying "[just|merely|only|nothing but] semantics" in common language, as they are anything but insignificant, by definition.

      I've always taken the expression to mean that in context, you're busy pointing out linguistic inaccuracies that are not actually relevant to the point being made. To make an example and invoke Godwin at the same time, imagine you started a sentence with "After Hitler grabbed power, he..." only to be broken off by a 15 minute discussion on whether "grabbed" is the right word. Then you could say something like "Stop bickering over semantics, what I was trying to say was that after that..."

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      viruses are not living as they do not exhibit many traits that living creatures do (eg. homeostasis, metabolism, growth, asexual or sexual reproduction, etc).

      If you consider a virus to only be the infectious particles outside of a cell, that's true. However, that's not even the interesting portion of a virus's existence. It's just a kind of dormant spore.

      When a cell gets infected with a virus, one could argue that the original identity of the cell is lost, and the newly reprogrammed cell now *is* the virus, and it is in its active phase. The cell is born again. It is no longer concerned with replicating its original self (or the organism it belongs to), but instead it becomes mainly dedicated to replicating the virus.

      There is no doubt that the virus is alive at that point, as it consumes energy and cranks out more spore particles. When the cell bursts and releases the particles, it goes back into the dormant phase until it comes alive again in new cells.

      So I'd argue that a virus is alive, but only intermediately. It has the ability to suspend itself into pure information between active states, then reconstitute itself.

      It's life, but not as we know it.

    5. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The definition of life is somewhat squishy, even in Biological fields"

      The definition of life is somewhat squishy *mainly* in Biological fields. They are the ones that deal with the corner cases (well, Biology, Vram Stoker and Mary Shelley, that is).

    6. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by symbolset · · Score: 1

      as they are anything but insignificant, by definition.

      If you're going to use definitions to win arguments, please update the Wikipedia page to include that property. Oddly enough this results in circular logic because the definition of definition includes the system of scientific classification of life.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia also has an interesting article on pedantry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantry

    8. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Please stop saying "[just|merely|only|nothing but] semantics" in common language, as they are anything but insignificant, by definition.

      Semantics are important in that they are about how words convey meaning, in the case of an adjective, what properties the word implies about the object being . When we're talking about something with known and agreed upon properties, and trying to reverse our way to what word we should use to classify it, and the words in question don't account for this case, then that is a useless exercise in semantics.

      Viruses are different than every other living thing, and every other not-living thing. The argument is basically over whether the inadequate definition of "alive" should be jiggled to include or exclude viruses. In neither case will this change a single agreed upon property of the virus. Where the specific meanings of "alive" are important, you will have to account for how the virus is different in either case.

      In other words, you can define something as meaning "important", but you can't define something as being important. Note that there are two "something"s there -- a word, and a thing which you assign a word to.

      Semantics are useless here because ultimately this is an issue of classification, and the real world simply doesn't comply with our desire for clear classifications.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      [Semantics] are anything but insignificant, by definition.

      "...from the Greek word σημαντικός (semantikos), "significant", from σημαίνω (semaino), "to signify, to indicate" and that from σήμα (sema), "sign, mark, token"..."

      I see what you did there.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    10. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      Who the heck is Vram Stoker? Is that someone who stirs up memory chips? I'm confused...

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    11. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's semantics, and that's the point of a debate.

      When we argue about what properties are derived from living things, we can ask whether it is possible to assemble life from those properties.

      Semantics of life evolve. If we followed the old semantics, then infusing something with 'elÃn vital' would make it living. Now we know better.

      So, the debate about what is life is not purely semantics, it's applied semantics.

    12. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Well, that, and you just implied that the Wikipedia page on "Definition" is, itself, the definition of definition. And any of us can change the definition of definition. Semantics FTW!

    13. Re:It's semantics, so debate is pointless by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Finding/crafting a word to fit a situation, I agree, is a "useless exercise in semantics". In this case, they were moving forward -- using or abusing the commonly-understood definition of life while making a claim concerning their achievements: if there weren't something special & coveted about the "alive" status, it wouldn't have been part of the claim. It's a bit like money: worthless paper, yet worth a lot under the right circumstances.

      So the question becomes: why do we care if it's alive or not? What property of labeling it "life" makes it so much more important, useful, difficult, etc.? And is *that* aspect of "life" true, in this particular case? If we decide that it's important for reasons that are only a subset of life in general (active metabolism isn't required, for example), then we don't care if it's alive or not per se, we care about that one important/useful/difficult property, and that's much easier to argue over.

  27. Re:Viruses don't live. Are you on crack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seriously, just re-read your post.

  28. Quantum zapping by Merdalors · · Score: 1

    Great! Now we're going to infect another dimension with our viruses... Just what they need...

    --
    Slashdot entertains. Windows pays the mortgage.
  29. One possible definition of life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An organism is alive when it is so complex that it's impossible to create a completely accurate scheme for how it is transformed when subject to various conditions.

    This would satisfy most current popular definitions of life. You cannot completely predict the movements of a human, dolphin or fly when you place a cherry pie next to them. You can however completely predict the movements of a rock when you place a cherry pie next to it. For the "deterministic brain" crowd: Obviously life is a meaningless concept, but the difficulty of predictive determinism would be a handwavingly useful point at which to start measuring it. For the "nondeterministic brain" crowd: This should be a no-brainer (pun intended).

    Although in this sense, plants would probably not be defined as "life". I'm not sure whether virii and bacteria would be.

    1. Re:One possible definition of life by ivan_w · · Score: 1

      Wow !

      With such a statement, you have just defined that *everything* is alive since Quantum theory basically states that nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty (only that most things can be guessed with a certain degree of confidence).

      To take your analogy, you cannot *actually* predict with 100% certainty that the rock won't ever jump into the cherry pie. It's just highly unlikely !

      --Ivan

    2. Re:One possible definition of life by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 1

      Just because a formula is unknown does not mean it does not exist.

      Chaos is simply something of a high enough order as to be too complex for current knowledge to accurately describe.

      Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.

      If we knew all the laws of the universe, and the current state of all variables involved, we could accurately predict the outcome of any situation. There is no free will, only the guise of such due to a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanics.

      --
      Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
    3. Re:One possible definition of life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With such a statement, you have just defined that *everything* is alive since Quantum theory basically states that nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty (only that most things can be guessed with a certain degree of confidence).

      Yes. Everything is alive, to the degree that it participates in a living complex system.

  30. Just What We Need by monopole · · Score: 3, Funny

    Schrodinger's Flu!

    1. Re:Just What We Need by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      It won't kill you as long as no doctor examines you.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  31. ShroÃdinger by Rhaban · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Shroedinger's point with the cat experiment was to explain how stupid it would be to take the quantum model for something that could work at human scale.

    Too bad people took it seriously, as if the quantum model was more than what it is: a model.

    1. Re:ShroÃdinger by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's no more meaningful to say that quantum mechanics is "just a model" because it has effects that are observed at a particle scale but not observed at a human scale than it is to say that relativity is "just a model" because at the human scale gravity is simply a constant, downward-pointing force.

    2. Re:ShroÃdinger by kojot350 · · Score: 1

      No, it is a model, because it's not what it is 'modeling', what I'm trying to say is that we can only use concepts (e.g. models) to understand what we call the world. There is a difference between map and the territory, map is divided to concepts to be comprehensible by the mind and the territory isn't. So only thing we can observe is the mapped representation of what we call case and effect and if it contradicts the model or confirms, we never see the actual world, because the mind sees only concepts and qualia not what they describe.

      --
      [ $[ $RANDOM % 6 ] == 0 ] && rm -rf / || echo *Click*
  32. Quantum kittens. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that to detect the superposition you'd have to observe the experimentee having collapsed into one state while evidence exists for something it intereacted with having collapsed into a state that would have been incompatable.

    For instance: Schrodenger's cat is a tom and there's a queen in heat in another compartment, with the partition opening between them after the half-death event. Sometimes when you open the box you find a pregnant queen and a tom killed by the machinery that operated before the partition opened.

    (But I'm not a quantum mechanic. Perhaps a qualified physicist can vet that statement.)

    How do you perform a similar detection for a virus? (And if that's not how you do it with quantum kitty, how DO you detect that the cat was in a superposition?)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Quantum kittens. by lomedhi · · Score: 1

      (But I'm not a quantum mechanic. Perhaps a qualified physicist can vet that statement.)

      Gotta love any problem that involves quantum mechanics, physicists, and veterinarians.

      --
      Did you say "insightful" or "inciteful"?
  33. No live alive testing yet sorry... by msh104 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Well technically they will not be able to perform Shroedinger cat's experiment since viruses in biology are not defined as living things.
    They will have to evolve their experiments to be able to superposition cells at the least.

    But all nitpicking aside, its still quite a nice experiment.

    1. Re:No live alive testing yet sorry... by onemorechip · · Score: 1

      The idea behind Schrodinger's Cat is whether superimposed quantum states can affect properties of macroscopic entities ("macroscopic" being a relative term in this context; compared to an atom or molecule a virus is macroscopic). It doesn't require a living subject; by using a living subject in his thought experiment Schrodinger was using a reductio ad absurdum argument.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
  34. Damn you, Orson Scott Card! by soulsteal · · Score: 1

    It's all fun and games until you create the descolada! We'll all be Pequeninos or sentient philotic trees before this is done!

  35. Alive/Not Alive is misleading conceptually by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    The alive/not-alive debate is, I think, the wrong question.
    .
    The better questions would be:
      .
    "What invariant properties do all self-replicators (e.g. salt crystals in solution, books, money, religions, cats, etc.) share?"
    .
    What specific properties do self-replicators in the domain of organic chemicals share, in addition to the more general case of self-replicators?"
    .
    I think that's all you can meaningfully ask. I believe the second question is what we usually mean by "alive."

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  36. Ah ha! I see! by Anticrawl · · Score: 1

    Got it. Magic.

  37. Qvirus by exa · · Score: 1

    I just hope they don't call it the qvirus. Please. Don't do it!

    Next you'll have is biologists who will invent the field of quantum biology (which already exists, but forget about it for the fun of the moment), and claim that it is about harnessing the biological variety of parallel universes.

    And then presumably, head back to the church of scientology.

    --
    --exa--
  38. Amazing/Meh by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    This is certainly a (remarkable article/slow news day). I will be looking (forward to this experiment/for something better to read) and the result will (more than likely/fat chance) collapse this waveform so I better know whether I (cheer for science/give a rat's ass).

  39. respond to external siumuli ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virii don't respond to external stimuli, slalshdotters DO when they're mothers call to them from upstairs..

    "GET THE F*** OFF THAT COMPUTER AND COME UP HERE AND TAKE OUT THE TRASH!" .......

    Oh, wait, nevermind!

    1. Re:respond to external siumuli ? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've never met CowboyNeal.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  40. For a second there... by joetheappleguy · · Score: 1

    I read the title as "Creating a Quantum Suppository"

  41. Definition of "Life" [Re:Viruses don't live] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I don't think there's much of a debate.

    The C2 wiki had a massive debate about the definition of "life". We explored scenarios like self-replicating robots, prions, brain emulations on chips, viruses, etc. No consensus was ever reached, but it was a fun debate.

    After thinking about it, I drafted a multi-factored criteria/algorithm:

            * Shaped by natural selection - 12 points (co-requisite A)
            * Ability to adapt to changes - 4 points (co-requisite B)
            * Reproduces - 8 points
            * Maintains self - 7 points
            * Consumes energy - 3 points
            * Complex - 2 points

    An item must score at least 15 points to qualify and have at least one of the first two properties (natural selection or adaptability). The various criteria may also get partial scores if they only partially qualify.

    The reason that at least one of the first two are needed is that life cannot be "static". If it's static, it's merely a machine. It must somehow change based on circumstances. A race of robots that simply makes exact copies of themselves forever is not "life" because the group does not adapt. However, if they re-engineer themselves based on circumstances, they then qualify.

    A tricky borderline case would be cloning Einstein's brain and emulating it electronically. Such brain(s) will stay the same brain forever. However, brains can learn and adapt. Thus, it qualifies at least partially on the 2nd.

  42. It's Alive! by sneakyimp · · Score: 1

    Wait, are viruses ever 'alive' ? This is hardly schrodinger's cat.

    It also sounds like a really good way to destroy every shred of life on the planet -- or at least set up a doomsday scenario in your screenplay that will never get published. Or maybe turn yourself into the Hulk.

  43. OMGWTFBBQ by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    What are you people thinking?? Haven't you ever seen a science fiction movie?? Viruses teleporting themselves through isolation barriers will threaten the entire WORLD!!!

  44. Quantum computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The macro viruses on star trek voyager kind of remind me of half-life head suckers.

  45. A more fruitful debate.... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a superposition of all the possible quantum states of the virus also include all possible mutations of the virus' DNA? i.e., instant mutant lethal super-swine-flu!

    Or are we just generating a subset of the possible quantum states without any real comprehension of how that would affect the DNA...

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  46. Other macro scale superpositions by hypomorph · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure, but isn't it the case that Bose-Einstein condensates have been created (a collection of super cooled particles) and shown to behave as if they were a single particle?

    Specifically, haven't physicists achieved putting such a condensate in a superposition? Wouldn't that count as a larger scale demonstration of superposition?

    I can see that a virus is going to be much more complex than a bunch of uniform particles, but why should scale matter whether superposition is possible? Don't all objects experience some level of superpostion, only it occurs for immeasurably small time periods before wave collapse?

    --
    Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something. --Thomas A. Edison
  47. Sure they're alive by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 1

    If it can reproduce, it's alive.

    --
    In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
    1. Re:Sure they're alive by StellarFury · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Reproduction is only one of the criteria for determining if something is alive or not.

      The others include:

      Detection of and response to stimuli
      Growth/Life cycle
      Organization
      Metabolism
      Homeostasis

      Viruses fail to carry out the last two. Which makes it not alive - but not dead either.

  48. What? by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    I thought Schrodinger's Cat was meant to mock Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics and superposition... not actually suggest a rational experiment for proving or disproving anything.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  49. Quantum Super Whatsis ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alright, I have to admit that this particular article went way over my head. Anyone care to explain the summary in laymen terms, so that stupid, ignorant and uneducated people can understand ?

  50. Physicists Don't Understand Biology by StellarFury · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Last time I checked (admittedly, that was five years ago in AP Bio), viruses still didn't fit biology's qualifications for life. They don't maintain homeostasis. Viruses aren't "alive." You can't really quantify if an virus is alive or dead - only "active" or "dormant."

    Let me put it to you theoretical types in your own language. The virus ALREADY exists in a superposition of states - those of "alive" and "dead" - and you can't collapse that wavefunction until biology solves the Schroedinger Virus Equation for the system.

  51. n00b by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    The smell, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste the Slashdotters' stink and every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it.

    You must be new here. Welcome to slashdot.

  52. forget about viruses by taniwha · · Score: 1

    this creating superimposed states of living things is just waiting for "The Fly" sorts of outcomes - scientist goes home with normal body, head of a virus, tiny virus with scientist head screams at camera in voice too high to hear

    Worse still will be the quantum flu containing all possible mutations that collapses into just the right one to kill each person it infects

  53. Relative pleasures by Max+Hyre · · Score: 1

    which should be fun (but less so for the virus)."

    The concept of detecting multiple levels of viruses' sense of fun makes my head hurt. I think I can deal with a single level: ``Are we having fun yet [yN]?''

    --
    I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
  54. Why not just use cats? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    Since Schrodinger demonstrated their strange quantum properties by studying his own.

    I'm sure my cat exists in a supposition of all possible locations including next to the food bowl and the wave function only collapses when the food container lid is cracked.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  55. Viruses Can Suck Themselves Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you guys have more than completely missed the point. As a student working on empirical quantum models in the social sciences, and in particular in IR, the fact that scientists are moving from empirical data on particles to empirical data on quasi-cellular models is a quantum leap.

    Get over yourselves. If anything, the title is slightly off, but this debate is quite irrelevant to the importance.

  56. Probability Dispersion of Missing the Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you guys have more than completely missed the point. As a student working on empirical quantum models in the social sciences, and in particular in IR, the fact that scientists are moving from empirical data on particles to empirical data on quasi-cellular models is a quantum leap.

    If anything, the title is slightly off, but this debate is quite irrelevant to the importance.

  57. what fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as far as i'm concerned i just want my virus dead.

  58. Yeah, living things, here we go... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    Yeah, so, when are we going to do this with people? Oh, wait...

    > The technique will involve storing a virus in a vacuum and then
    > cooling it to its quantum-mechanical ground state in a microcavity.

    Okay, maybe not.

    Also, when did viruses become living things? I still remember when they changed the definition of "alive" to include plants and exclude fire, but I've *never* heard a definition that would include viruses.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  59. they're going to teleport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the H1H1 virus into us. no0o0oo0oo

  60. Huh by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Will this enable teleporting viruses?

    (disclaimer IANARS)

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  61. step further, other means by qwertzisnotazerty · · Score: 1

    I have made the experience with a real cat, but with no laser:

    http://www.raphisme.ch/general/general/Artworks/Entrees/2009/5/3_Schrodingers_cat.html

    --
    really?