In the classic case where Alice and Bob each have one photon of a previously-entangled pair, once Alice measures her photon, she knows what Bob will see. If there is a deterministic process in place that Bob follows upon measuring his photon, Alice now knows what Bob will do. She can prepare accordingly. She has gained information by measuring her photon; she knows what the other measurement will be. In the scenario mentioned, she knows what will happen across the universe, faster than she could otherwise know if she were limited to learning about what the other side saw, by the speed of light.
The next time you're at the beach, watch the waves coming in. You will notice that the point where the wave breaks will often move faster than the waves do. This happens when the waves come in close to perpendicular to the beach.
The effect is that if you know the wave is breaking at point A, you can predict that it will break at point B soon afterward.
So, you predict the wave will break at point B. But why can't you manipulate the waves so that one part is traveling faster or slower? Then your prediction is false. Encode information in how far off your prediction is.
This post, by the way, indicates that receivers on the moon will experience activation faster than the speed of light would travel between them, just as waves on the beach can break faster than the waves are traveling.
What are you seeing from the earth, then? Are you seeing the laser travel across a fake moon? Where exactly is that fake image of the moon, and why can't the moon see it too from its side? From the moon side, the dot across the fake surface will also travel faster than the speed of light.
Encode information in the multiple of the speed of light that the dot (wherever it is) moves.
" Nothing moved faster than the speed of light in order to make this happen, no matter how fast the "dot" appeared to move"
And yet the dot can be seen to move faster than the speed of light allows, across the surface of the moon. If the receiver on the moon is looking at the laser, at some point along the laser it will see it moving faster than the speed of light.
Encode information in changes of a multiple of the speed of light. Both sides will see the dot moving faster than the speed of light, at some point along the laser beam.
Say you entangle two particles, and separate them by a long distance. You measure your particle, and know what the other particle will read when it is measured. You now have information on what the other side will see, when they measure the particle.
If you also know some other things about the other side, that it's a deterministic computer, say that will execute a certain action upon reading a "1" and another action upon reading a "0", you now know what the computer at the other side is doing, after you've measured your particle. You know this instantaneously. You know what the other side is doing, you can predict it. And you can devise your own reaction.
Say you know the computer on the other side will launch an attack in one quarter upon reading a zero, and in another quarter upon reading a one. You measure your particle; you now know which quarter the attack will take place, and you can prepare for that.
How is that not information gained at the speed of entanglement, i.e. faster than the speed of light?
Why can't you encode information by changing the speed at which you flick your wrist? At one wrist-flick speed, the dot travels at one multiple of the speed of light; at another wrist-flick speed, the dot travels at a different multiple. The receiver tracks the dot and decodes the speed changes into bits or other representations of information.
I know that I'm individual. I've learned foreign languages. I use my methods, which included grammar, pronunciation, and literature. But I don't generalize from myself to assume that anyone else should learn my way. Why do teachers? For control.
although teachers may be required to submit a final grade, thereâ(TM)s no requirement for them to decide unilaterally what that grade will be. Thus, students can be invited to participate in that process either as a negotiation (such that the teacher has the final say) or by simply permitting students to grade themselves. If people find that idea alarming, itâ(TM)s probably because they realize it creates a more democratic classroom, one in which teachers must create a pedagogy and a curriculum that will truly engage students rather than allow teachers to coerce them into doing whatever theyâ(TM)re told. In fact, negative reactions to this proposal (âoeItâ(TM)s unrealistic!â) point up how grades function as a mechanism for controlling students rather than as a necessary or constructive way to report information about their performance.
So, first, get rid of grades. Teach like Socrates, without tuition or tests. Just knowledge exploration, where Socrates is often just as confused at the end of the dialog as his interlocutor.
Index everything, savings, transfer payments, everything, to inflation as Israel does successfully.
US t-bills are used as the gold of the international monetary system. There is such a scarcity of t-bills that interest rates on repos go negative, which means you pay money to loan money to someone who will temporarily give you a t-bill as collateral. You want the t-bill so badly to show as an asset on your own balance sheet, if only for a short time, that you're willing to pay someone to borrow money from you.
But I think education should strive to let each student learn in the way they think is best, for them. Education should be all things to all people.
MOOCs are a start, but they still retain holdovers from an obsolete, archaic educational method that focuses too much attention on cheating and censors students from voluntarily helping each other and sharing information.
As an example, I recently completed a Solar Energy MOOC. It was great because it introduced a lot of theory which required calculus. But they left the deadlines long enough that I could go back and review calculus, and pursue other investigations into the theoretical concepts that were built upon in the class. So even if I had no strong background in calculus, I was able to do enough research into it on my own to get how and why it was being used in the class (to measure the area under the solar spectrum curve, for example). Then I could go to wolfram alpha or somewhere to plug in numbers and let a program do the integrals for me. I got a real sense of how calculus is useful for engineering problems.
That's my vision for education: let each student follow their own interests, learning what they want, exploring into more fundamental concepts as they wish. And asking questions, which others are free to help them with, without fear of being censored because of some antiquated "honor code".
Education today is more about control than knowledge transmission. Eliminate grades, and stop worrying about cheating. Focus on the knowledge and try to facilitate each student's individual approach to knowledge acquisition.
Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had.
Alcohol makes you more aggressively confident, pot makes you more careful of your driving.
Think about musicians though. It's certainly possible to execute very precise muscle movements with precision and control while stoned. Why shouldn't you be able to drive?
How many Domino's Pizza delivery drivers drive while stoned? You get good at it.
The total value of housing units in the United States amounts to $19.3 trillion, with $10.6 trillion in mortgage debt and the remaining $8.7 trillion representing equity in those units as of June 2008.
Of the approximately 80 million houses in the United States, 27 million are paid off, while the remaining 53 million have mortgages. Of those households with mortgages, 5 million (or 9 percent) were behind in their payments and roughly 3 percent were in foreclosure as of mid-2008.
So, say 10% of $10.6 trillion was at risk of default, or $1 trillion.
The notional amount of CDS increased from less than $1 trillion in 2001 to slightly more than $62 trillion in 2007, before declining to $47 trillion on October 31, 2008.
So the derivative market inflated the real value of the mortgages by about a factor of 6, and then magnified the size of the possible default problem by a factor of 15.
I'm reminded of a sentence from John Lanchester's book, I.O.U.:
"Even once it's explained, however, it still seems wholly contrary to common sense that the market for products that derive from real things should be unimaginably vaster than the market for the things themselves."
Of course not, the prisoner's dilemma is a crude model, and those who take it as gospel are mistaking the map for the territory, practicing bad science.
Capitalism has outlived its usefulness, time to move on. I suggest Libertarian socialism. Start with a basic guaranteed income for all who want it. Fund it with money creation. The private sector creates on the order of 10 times more money than government; there is plenty of room for government fiscal policy (funded by the Fed, say, at zero cost) to reward altruistic behavior.
Hamilton's rule: rB > C. If government makes the Cost negative, you get rewarded for altruism. Even if you are not related to the Beneficiary.
The private sector created some $76 trillion in one year alone.
There is plenty of room for the government to create money to spend on projects the private sector considers too long-term to invest in. Government debt is a complete distraction. There is an artificial scarcity of money.
We should be spending money on research. Using economics as an excuse not to do research is silly, since the private sector wouldn't exist without money creation and debt being rolled over or forgiven.
Thermodynamics doesn't apply at large scales. Relativity doesn't necessarily conserve energy, for example; where does the energy from red-shifted photons go?
Also, thermodynamics admits no scale effects. But scale effects are all over. Emergence is an example of a scale effect.
Dark energy also violates energy conservation.
The limits of thermodynamics apply only within a very limited physical range. Steam engines, mostly.
The mortgages themselves weren't the problem. The problem was the inflation of the mortgages into many times their original value, using financial derivatives and insurance. Because the derivatives were rated AAA, shadow banks didn't take out enough insurance. And insurance companies didn't really insure the derivatives, because they were rated so high they couldn't fail.
Then a few RMBSes failed, and market groupthink took over. Suddenly no one wanted these derivatives, not because they had no value, but because the market became paranoid and emotionally panicked. No private party wanted to roll over funding using the derivatives as collateral anymore. The private parties all wanted T-bills, because they were much much safer.
The government stepped in to take the instruments off the banks' balance sheets.
The government didn't make banks create financial derivatives. The government didn't rate those derivatives AAA. The government didn't fail to insure them adequately. In fact, the government became the insurer when the ostensible insurers (i.e., AIG) failed.
Without question the best and most effective approach to the problem would have been to bail out the subprime homeowners directly, forcing banks to take losses but keeping them manageable. For an investment of perhaps a few hundred billion dollars, the US Treasury could have saved itself from a financial crisis whose cumulative cost, counting lost output, already runs into many, many trillions of dollars. Instead of âoesaving Wall Street,â a subprime bailout would have been targeted, almost by definition, at lower-income households. But unfortunately, this approach too would have been politically impossible prior to the crisis.
Why don't righties quote that passage from Rogoff? Why wasn't bailing out individuals politically feasible? Because of the ignorance of the Tea Party, that's why.
Yes. But market forces block most implementations, because ignorant salespeople gotta get paid first. Engineers who might want to work on these things have to code intrusive sound popup ads so some stupid boss can go to a country club. He can pay for bodyguards, he makes more money from finance than r&d.
To get faster development, give everyone a choice of working on their own ideas, or going into the market. Hold challenges to stimulate the type of disruptive thinking that came up with, say, graphene, and how to overcome remaining barriers to ease of production or use. Entrepreneurial private firms can compete too, or do what they do today, unmolested.
Slashdot Mirror
In the classic case where Alice and Bob each have one photon of a previously-entangled pair, once Alice measures her photon, she knows what Bob will see. If there is a deterministic process in place that Bob follows upon measuring his photon, Alice now knows what Bob will do. She can prepare accordingly. She has gained information by measuring her photon; she knows what the other measurement will be. In the scenario mentioned, she knows what will happen across the universe, faster than she could otherwise know if she were limited to learning about what the other side saw, by the speed of light.
From your link:
So, you predict the wave will break at point B. But why can't you manipulate the waves so that one part is traveling faster or slower? Then your prediction is false. Encode information in how far off your prediction is.
This post, by the way, indicates that receivers on the moon will experience activation faster than the speed of light would travel between them, just as waves on the beach can break faster than the waves are traveling.
What are you seeing from the earth, then? Are you seeing the laser travel across a fake moon? Where exactly is that fake image of the moon, and why can't the moon see it too from its side? From the moon side, the dot across the fake surface will also travel faster than the speed of light.
Encode information in the multiple of the speed of light that the dot (wherever it is) moves.
" Nothing moved faster than the speed of light in order to make this happen, no matter how fast the "dot" appeared to move"
And yet the dot can be seen to move faster than the speed of light allows, across the surface of the moon. If the receiver on the moon is looking at the laser, at some point along the laser it will see it moving faster than the speed of light.
Encode information in changes of a multiple of the speed of light. Both sides will see the dot moving faster than the speed of light, at some point along the laser beam.
Say you entangle two particles, and separate them by a long distance. You measure your particle, and know what the other particle will read when it is measured. You now have information on what the other side will see, when they measure the particle.
If you also know some other things about the other side, that it's a deterministic computer, say that will execute a certain action upon reading a "1" and another action upon reading a "0", you now know what the computer at the other side is doing, after you've measured your particle. You know this instantaneously. You know what the other side is doing, you can predict it. And you can devise your own reaction.
Say you know the computer on the other side will launch an attack in one quarter upon reading a zero, and in another quarter upon reading a one. You measure your particle; you now know which quarter the attack will take place, and you can prepare for that.
How is that not information gained at the speed of entanglement, i.e. faster than the speed of light?
Why can't you encode information by changing the speed at which you flick your wrist? At one wrist-flick speed, the dot travels at one multiple of the speed of light; at another wrist-flick speed, the dot travels at a different multiple. The receiver tracks the dot and decodes the speed changes into bits or other representations of information.
I know that I'm individual. I've learned foreign languages. I use my methods, which included grammar, pronunciation, and literature. But I don't generalize from myself to assume that anyone else should learn my way. Why do teachers? For control.
I think Alfie Kohn says it best in The Case Against Grades:
So, first, get rid of grades. Teach like Socrates, without tuition or tests. Just knowledge exploration, where Socrates is often just as confused at the end of the dialog as his interlocutor.
Index everything, savings, transfer payments, everything, to inflation as Israel does successfully.
US t-bills are used as the gold of the international monetary system. There is such a scarcity of t-bills that interest rates on repos go negative, which means you pay money to loan money to someone who will temporarily give you a t-bill as collateral. You want the t-bill so badly to show as an asset on your own balance sheet, if only for a short time, that you're willing to pay someone to borrow money from you.
I support your sig, by the way.
But I think education should strive to let each student learn in the way they think is best, for them. Education should be all things to all people.
MOOCs are a start, but they still retain holdovers from an obsolete, archaic educational method that focuses too much attention on cheating and censors students from voluntarily helping each other and sharing information.
As an example, I recently completed a Solar Energy MOOC. It was great because it introduced a lot of theory which required calculus. But they left the deadlines long enough that I could go back and review calculus, and pursue other investigations into the theoretical concepts that were built upon in the class. So even if I had no strong background in calculus, I was able to do enough research into it on my own to get how and why it was being used in the class (to measure the area under the solar spectrum curve, for example). Then I could go to wolfram alpha or somewhere to plug in numbers and let a program do the integrals for me. I got a real sense of how calculus is useful for engineering problems.
That's my vision for education: let each student follow their own interests, learning what they want, exploring into more fundamental concepts as they wish. And asking questions, which others are free to help them with, without fear of being censored because of some antiquated "honor code".
Education today is more about control than knowledge transmission. Eliminate grades, and stop worrying about cheating. Focus on the knowledge and try to facilitate each student's individual approach to knowledge acquisition.
From http://www.ukcia.org/research/...:
Alcohol makes you more aggressively confident, pot makes you more careful of your driving.
Think about musicians though. It's certainly possible to execute very precise muscle movements with precision and control while stoned. Why shouldn't you be able to drive?
How many Domino's Pizza delivery drivers drive while stoned? You get good at it.
Quoting from http://www.milkeninstitute.org...:
So, say 10% of $10.6 trillion was at risk of default, or $1 trillion.
So the derivative market inflated the real value of the mortgages by about a factor of 6, and then magnified the size of the possible default problem by a factor of 15.
I'm reminded of a sentence from John Lanchester's book, I.O.U.:
"Even once it's explained, however, it still seems wholly contrary to common sense that the market for products that derive from real things should be unimaginably vaster than the market for the things themselves."
Of course not, the prisoner's dilemma is a crude model, and those who take it as gospel are mistaking the map for the territory, practicing bad science.
You believe? So you're relying on faith? You're telling a story that matches your preconceived notions, and waving your hands a lot?
Capitalism has outlived its usefulness, time to move on. I suggest Libertarian socialism. Start with a basic guaranteed income for all who want it. Fund it with money creation. The private sector creates on the order of 10 times more money than government; there is plenty of room for government fiscal policy (funded by the Fed, say, at zero cost) to reward altruistic behavior.
Hamilton's rule: rB > C. If government makes the Cost negative, you get rewarded for altruism. Even if you are not related to the Beneficiary.
We choose to have a duty. Government protects "unalienable rights." Because we want to.
Like the rules of the prisoner's dilemma happen in nature.
Did you know that worldwide OTC derivatives total $710 trillion, according to the Bank for Internatiional Settlements?
The private sector created some $76 trillion in one year alone.
There is plenty of room for the government to create money to spend on projects the private sector considers too long-term to invest in. Government debt is a complete distraction. There is an artificial scarcity of money.
We should be spending money on research. Using economics as an excuse not to do research is silly, since the private sector wouldn't exist without money creation and debt being rolled over or forgiven.
"Science is not magic"
Remember Clarke's three laws?
Thermodynamics doesn't apply at large scales. Relativity doesn't necessarily conserve energy, for example; where does the energy from red-shifted photons go?
Also, thermodynamics admits no scale effects. But scale effects are all over. Emergence is an example of a scale effect.
Dark energy also violates energy conservation.
The limits of thermodynamics apply only within a very limited physical range. Steam engines, mostly.
The mortgages themselves weren't the problem. The problem was the inflation of the mortgages into many times their original value, using financial derivatives and insurance. Because the derivatives were rated AAA, shadow banks didn't take out enough insurance. And insurance companies didn't really insure the derivatives, because they were rated so high they couldn't fail.
Then a few RMBSes failed, and market groupthink took over. Suddenly no one wanted these derivatives, not because they had no value, but because the market became paranoid and emotionally panicked. No private party wanted to roll over funding using the derivatives as collateral anymore. The private parties all wanted T-bills, because they were much much safer.
The government stepped in to take the instruments off the banks' balance sheets.
The government didn't make banks create financial derivatives. The government didn't rate those derivatives AAA. The government didn't fail to insure them adequately. In fact, the government became the insurer when the ostensible insurers (i.e., AIG) failed.
Righties like to quote Kenneth Rogoff. Here's a quote from him:
Why don't righties quote that passage from Rogoff? Why wasn't bailing out individuals politically feasible? Because of the ignorance of the Tea Party, that's why.
Yes. But market forces block most implementations, because ignorant salespeople gotta get paid first. Engineers who might want to work on these things have to code intrusive sound popup ads so some stupid boss can go to a country club. He can pay for bodyguards, he makes more money from finance than r&d.
To get faster development, give everyone a choice of working on their own ideas, or going into the market. Hold challenges to stimulate the type of disruptive thinking that came up with, say, graphene, and how to overcome remaining barriers to ease of production or use. Entrepreneurial private firms can compete too, or do what they do today, unmolested.
We should pursue policies that address terrorism at its root causes, instead of creating hardships for people and animals by closing borders.
As a Border Patrol guard near Nogales told me: " The only people that are going to bother you are Border Patrol agents."
So "crypto-currency" was an abuse of language, or false advertising, or bait-and-switch. Why are libertarians so criminal-minded?
They should call it an Exhibitionist, not a Crypto, currency.