Ppl couldn't have using the technology we think they were limited to. If we limit ourselves to what we think their technology was, can we recreate what they did? That's the meaning of the sentence that seems to have made you respond in such an emotional manner.
In a way, that's even more interesting. So the shadow on the moon as seen from the earth is traveling faster than it's seen on the moon?
So the person on earth will see the shadow go across features of the moon before they actually go across those features, when you're on the moon looking at the shadow?
So the person on the earth is seeing something that hasn't actually happened on the moon yet?
The person on earth might watch the shadow travel across a crater and see the shadow's contours change as it encounters that feature of the moon's surface; but to the person on the moon the shadow will be delayed, so it won't have touched the crater yet? So the person on earth is seeing something in the future of the person on the moon?
What is the shadow on the moon, the one that travels faster than light? If, while on the moon, you can detect that shadow moving, and you can detect it moving at different multiples of the speed of light, then you have a protocol that you can use to send messages from the earth to the moon faster than light?
In other words, when you move a shadow across the surface of the moon and look at it from earth, and the shadow seems to be moving faster than light's speed, what is happening on the moon? Is the shadow also moving across the surface of the moon at faster than light speed? If it is, you should be able to use two different speeds of the shadow to distinguish zero from one, which yields a protocol for sending messages faster than photons can be sent from the earth to the moon?
"It is easy to imagine a system which looks like something is moving faster than light: shine a bright enough torch on the moon. If you move the torch fast enough it will look like the spot on the Moon is moving faster than light. This is perfectly fine because there is no way to change the where the beam moves if you happen to be where the beam is pointing at a particular time i.e. no information flows between one spot and the next because everything is under the control of the torch wielder back on earth."
Can the person on the moon detect the speed of the shadow's movement? If he can, then you could create a protocol: 2c = 0, 3c = 1 or something. The person on the ground controlling the beam could then send a message to the person on the moon that would get there faster than the same message sent using photons?
So, you're holding to that 99.99% figure without testing it, until someone else does the work to prove you wrong?
Also: the great promise of computer science and simulations is that we can create virtual realities in which anything or everything we know is wrong. Then if we like them, we can stay in them.
Even the statement that "the speed of light is constant" is open to interpretation in general relativity. Einstein himself, on page 76 of his book "Relativity: the Special and the General Theory", wrote that the statement cannot claim unlimited validity. When there is no absolute definition of time and distance it is not so clear how speeds should be determined.
Why should the currency devalue, if we're continuing to increase knowledge and innovation? The focus should be on how to create new things and knowledge advancement. Money is simply a tool to help us towards those goals. As long as we keep innovating we can create as much money as we like. Debt is a complete distraction; knowledge is the key to standard of living increases.
Prophets changed things, like Jesus overturning some of the ancient laws. In Jainism, Tirthankars can reformulate the basic axioms of the religion.
In science you get things like Millikan making an error in his famous oil-drop experiment, and future researchers fudging their data to find ways to replicate that error, because they took it on faith that the original experiment was right.
Consider Weimar Germany, compared to the United States of today. Germany had just lost a world war, to the US. Germany had its factories taken over by force by France, as part of its reparation payments because of losing the world war. Germany was a new democracy.
The US is a sovereign nation that has a strong military and has not lost a world war to anyone. The US is not being compelled to pay reparations to any country that defeated it in a world war. The US has a centuries old tradition of constitutional democracy.
Also, note that Hitler started printing his own money when he got into power.
We can create as much money as we want. Debt does not matter (see the Modigliani-Miller theorem). What matters is what we use the created money for: if we use it to advance knowledge and innovation, we will continue to raise standards of living and produce things others want.
We the People need to reject the feudal economics that says a government can only spend what it takes in, and vote accordingly. We must remember that Lincoln created over $400 million greenbacks to raise money without increasing taxes or borrowing it. Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Japan has a 230% debt-to-gdp ratio and a currency it keeps trying to devalue. The US has had a national debt since Alexander Hamilton in the first administration assumed the states' war debts; none of the predictions of grandchildren being worse off than their grandparents have ever come true.
Debt is a distraction. The focus should be on innovation and the advance of knowledge. Knowledge confers the greatest survival fitness by better enabling us to predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic change.
Didn't investing in Goldman Sachs toxic assets contribute to their problems?
The problem in Greece seems to be an artificial scarcity of money imposed by the EU central bank and the IMF. The solution is to get out of the EU and stimulate individuals to innovate with a basic income, and challenges.
In Coursera's recent "Exploring Quantum Physics" class, Ian Applebaum talked about spin. If electrons spin like tops spin, you can calculate the minimum speed it must be spinning from the electron's charge, size, and magnetic field. The problem is that the minimum speed exceeds the speed of light.
The forums for the class are an excellent resource. Often other students can explain things better than the instructors, because the instructors are so familiar with the material they forget what is confusing about it to someone learning it.
The edx quantum computation class will be offered again, not sure when. The Coursera "Exploring Quantum Physics" class is finishing this week, but will likely be offered again.
There may be others, you can check coursera's and edx's sites...
The observing mind is not a physical system, it cannot interact with any physical system. And it might be better to reserve the term "subject" for the observing mind.... For the subject, if anything, is the thing that senses and thinks. Sensations and thoughts do not belong to the "world of energy."
Another sample:
The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.
Another:
Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge... It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. Indeed in a certain sense two "I"'s are identical namely when one disregards all special contents -- their Karma. The goal of man is to preserve his Karma and to develop it further... when man dies his Karma lives and creates for itself another carrier.
Andrew Cleland and Aaron O'Connell have recently done experiments putting a macroscopic object in a superpositional state.
the swing both swings back and forth and stays perfectly still at the same time.
In conclusion: 1) Schroedinger had mystical beliefs, which is relevant when you bring up his ulterior motives for the "cat" analogy; 2) modern experiments demonstrate superposition on a macroscopic scale.
I took the Berkeley Quantum Computation MOOC through Coursera, taught by Umesh Vazirani, twice. First time I maybe got half of what was in it (though I passed, barely); second time maybe 70% (again barely passing; homeworks and tests had mostly different problems). I learned to manipulate Hamiltonians in Octave to find their eigenvectors and eigenvalues, for example. So now I have a better sense of the math used to describe a superposition state, and I feel better informed about current models and ways of thinking about quantum phenomena such as superposition and entanglement.
The current Coursera MOOC "Exploring Quantum Physics" involves a lot more math. Most of it goes over my head, but still there are some basic concepts that I can grasp; and just seeing the math laid out is somewhat helpful to know what it looks like and have some sense of how it's being used.
In conclusion, the MOOCs on quantum computation/physics have helped me develop a better understanding of the mathematics behind the models. So I feel more informed than I was before, approaching the subject simply from a philosophical viewpoint. Yes, I'm a "N00B", but so was the poster I was replying to; now I'm a little less ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
Ppl couldn't have using the technology we think they were limited to. If we limit ourselves to what we think their technology was, can we recreate what they did? That's the meaning of the sentence that seems to have made you respond in such an emotional manner.
Wait are you talking about Wall Street traders?
In a way, that's even more interesting. So the shadow on the moon as seen from the earth is traveling faster than it's seen on the moon?
So the person on earth will see the shadow go across features of the moon before they actually go across those features, when you're on the moon looking at the shadow?
So the person on the earth is seeing something that hasn't actually happened on the moon yet?
The person on earth might watch the shadow travel across a crater and see the shadow's contours change as it encounters that feature of the moon's surface; but to the person on the moon the shadow will be delayed, so it won't have touched the crater yet? So the person on earth is seeing something in the future of the person on the moon?
Are you saying Vulture Capitalism is a good thing?
"Democrat Party" sounds like you're deliberately using bad grammar to demonize democrats, because they rate so low in your estimation.
What is the shadow on the moon, the one that travels faster than light? If, while on the moon, you can detect that shadow moving, and you can detect it moving at different multiples of the speed of light, then you have a protocol that you can use to send messages from the earth to the moon faster than light?
In other words, when you move a shadow across the surface of the moon and look at it from earth, and the shadow seems to be moving faster than light's speed, what is happening on the moon? Is the shadow also moving across the surface of the moon at faster than light speed? If it is, you should be able to use two different speeds of the shadow to distinguish zero from one, which yields a protocol for sending messages faster than photons can be sent from the earth to the moon?
"It is easy to imagine a system which looks like something is moving faster than light: shine a bright enough torch on the moon. If you move the torch fast enough it will look like the spot on the Moon is moving faster than light. This is perfectly fine because there is no way to change the where the beam moves if you happen to be where the beam is pointing at a particular time i.e. no information flows between one spot and the next because everything is under the control of the torch wielder back on earth."
Can the person on the moon detect the speed of the shadow's movement? If he can, then you could create a protocol: 2c = 0, 3c = 1 or something. The person on the ground controlling the beam could then send a message to the person on the moon that would get there faster than the same message sent using photons?
The ad hominem character and emotional fervor in the responses to this post perfectly illustrate the religious nature of the current scientific dogma!
So, you're holding to that 99.99% figure without testing it, until someone else does the work to prove you wrong?
Also: the great promise of computer science and simulations is that we can create virtual realities in which anything or everything we know is wrong. Then if we like them, we can stay in them.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#14
If the scientific wisdom is almost always right, why was Einstein so wrong about entanglement for example, or a Grand Unified Theory?
Why should the currency devalue, if we're continuing to increase knowledge and innovation? The focus should be on how to create new things and knowledge advancement. Money is simply a tool to help us towards those goals. As long as we keep innovating we can create as much money as we like. Debt is a complete distraction; knowledge is the key to standard of living increases.
Newtonian mechanics can't do GPS, so in that sense it's been overturned.
Mendel's data was ignored by the scientists of his day. Nageli told him he was too empircal, not rational enough.
So the scientists that rejected Mendel and Wegener weren't real scientists? But their credentials and books etc. said different...
Prophets changed things, like Jesus overturning some of the ancient laws. In Jainism, Tirthankars can reformulate the basic axioms of the religion.
In science you get things like Millikan making an error in his famous oil-drop experiment, and future researchers fudging their data to find ways to replicate that error, because they took it on faith that the original experiment was right.
In an infinite universe, everything happens.
Consider Weimar Germany, compared to the United States of today. Germany had just lost a world war, to the US. Germany had its factories taken over by force by France, as part of its reparation payments because of losing the world war. Germany was a new democracy.
The US is a sovereign nation that has a strong military and has not lost a world war to anyone. The US is not being compelled to pay reparations to any country that defeated it in a world war. The US has a centuries old tradition of constitutional democracy.
Also, note that Hitler started printing his own money when he got into power.
We can create as much money as we want. Debt does not matter (see the Modigliani-Miller theorem). What matters is what we use the created money for: if we use it to advance knowledge and innovation, we will continue to raise standards of living and produce things others want.
Why can't the knowledge be passed on? Memes instead of genes.
We the People need to reject the feudal economics that says a government can only spend what it takes in, and vote accordingly. We must remember that Lincoln created over $400 million greenbacks to raise money without increasing taxes or borrowing it. Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Japan has a 230% debt-to-gdp ratio and a currency it keeps trying to devalue. The US has had a national debt since Alexander Hamilton in the first administration assumed the states' war debts; none of the predictions of grandchildren being worse off than their grandparents have ever come true.
Debt is a distraction. The focus should be on innovation and the advance of knowledge. Knowledge confers the greatest survival fitness by better enabling us to predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic change.
What if we can make suicide (death with dignity, etc.) the leading cause of death? Would we still be rolling the dice then?
Didn't investing in Goldman Sachs toxic assets contribute to their problems?
The problem in Greece seems to be an artificial scarcity of money imposed by the EU central bank and the IMF. The solution is to get out of the EU and stimulate individuals to innovate with a basic income, and challenges.
In Coursera's recent "Exploring Quantum Physics" class, Ian Applebaum talked about spin. If electrons spin like tops spin, you can calculate the minimum speed it must be spinning from the electron's charge, size, and magnetic field. The problem is that the minimum speed exceeds the speed of light.
More at http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-spin-in-particle-physics-why-is-it-different-from-just-ordinary-rotation/
The forums for the class are an excellent resource. Often other students can explain things better than the instructors, because the instructors are so familiar with the material they forget what is confusing about it to someone learning it.
The edx quantum computation class will be offered again, not sure when. The Coursera "Exploring Quantum Physics" class is finishing this week, but will likely be offered again.
There may be others, you can check coursera's and edx's sites...
Schroedinger was a mystic. Read some of his quotations about Nirvana and Hinduism at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger
Here's a sample:
Another sample:
Another:
Andrew Cleland and Aaron O'Connell have recently done experiments putting a macroscopic object in a superpositional state.
O'Connell's PhD dissertation: http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/theses/OConnell2010.pdf
In O'Connell's words, from http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v464/n7287/nature-2010-03-18.html:
In conclusion: 1) Schroedinger had mystical beliefs, which is relevant when you bring up his ulterior motives for the "cat" analogy; 2) modern experiments demonstrate superposition on a macroscopic scale.
I took the Berkeley Quantum Computation MOOC through Coursera, taught by Umesh Vazirani, twice. First time I maybe got half of what was in it (though I passed, barely); second time maybe 70% (again barely passing; homeworks and tests had mostly different problems). I learned to manipulate Hamiltonians in Octave to find their eigenvectors and eigenvalues, for example. So now I have a better sense of the math used to describe a superposition state, and I feel better informed about current models and ways of thinking about quantum phenomena such as superposition and entanglement.
The current Coursera MOOC "Exploring Quantum Physics" involves a lot more math. Most of it goes over my head, but still there are some basic concepts that I can grasp; and just seeing the math laid out is somewhat helpful to know what it looks like and have some sense of how it's being used.
In conclusion, the MOOCs on quantum computation/physics have helped me develop a better understanding of the mathematics behind the models. So I feel more informed than I was before, approaching the subject simply from a philosophical viewpoint. Yes, I'm a "N00B", but so was the poster I was replying to; now I'm a little less ignorant.