Yes it's an interesting result that should point the way for more definitive study. The notion of the singularity is not well defined and may be more of a layered structure than a boundary that applies to all particles at all times ever to fall in. It would be interesting in an actual test case as the sonic approximation model suggests entanglement is preserved for higher frequencies but does rely on many (interesting) assumptions.
Conclusions
In conclusion, thermal Hawking radiation stimulated by quantum vacuum fluctuations has been observed in a quantum simulator of a black hole. This confirms the prediction of Hawking regarding spontaneous pair production in the presence of a horizon. This has implications beyond the physics of black holes, as it confirms the semiclassical step toward the understanding of quantum gravity. The Hawking spectrum is observed, as are the correlations between the Hawking radiation exiting the black hole and the partner particles inside the black hole. These correlations are surprisingly narrow in position space, which implies that the high frequency tail of the distribution of Hawking pairs are entangled. On the other hand, the overall weakness of the correlations in position space implies that the low frequencies are not entangled. The entanglement confirms that there is an issue of information loss within the semiclassical approximation.
To offer a simple explanation no it cannot send information faster than light. You can have these instant correlations but as the latest research actually shows, the values are truly random until measurement. So you can send these entangled photons and unpack one at one location and another at a second remote location and know you have the correlating bit but without knowing what that is, which must be sent classically, you have no idea what is being sent. Moreover currently i know of no experiment that preserves entanglement after measurement so you must also wait classically for the particles to arrive before taking the instant correlation measurement.
Unless nasa has gotten some really interesting data from SETI im pretty sure its from outside of the light cone of the experiment, not an actual event horizon of the black hole.
Not that the actual paper or press release is linked at this time (who reads those?) but there have been experiments lately that close loopholes in bells theorm and show that the details are truly random until measured yet correlated upon measurement. This includes determining the experiment details randomly from outside the light cone of the experiment using advances in optical measurement of single photons and random number generation. link to a related article
Correct. More over its being called a "jet pack" but it's more like a small airplane on your back. I see no videos of these hovering, you could not possibly hold a hose or even rescue anything traveling at speeds over 120 miles an hour. While cool, they are useless for firefighting and certainly are not a replacement for ladders.
While pressurized water jet packs, commonly used over water, might be interesting - they cannot climb to high heights as the weight and forces from the supply hose limits you to something like 30-60 feet. Nowhere near thousands. Secondly the peroxide jet packs have very low weight capacity and run for only 1-2 minutes, probably no more than four tops before needing extensive refueling and servicing. You couldn't even fly to 2800 feet and back down again, much less try to save someone.
it would be more practical, but less fun, to try just about any alternative.
If there was a single actual practical advance for every 100 of these articles i'd be driving an electric car with a thousand mile range on a fifty dollar battery the size of a lunchbox.
Its kind of depressing how slowly battery technology evolves.
What will happen is the CEO will do even less work, and reap in more money than before. Fired? Lmafo! I've heard straight from the lips of more than one CEO that the goal is to set everything up so they have absolutely nothing to do.
While it is pithy and simple to set a target temperature goal, like 2C, i think it misses the overall implications of a changing climate. As the Nature article today on slashdot points out, even a mild temperature change could possibly do something like turn the entire Middle East extremely humid making it basically uninhabitable. Something this trivial, like a local increase in moisture over a relative small region, could provoke war, even nuclear war.
There could be a change in ocean currents, or moisture content/cloud cover of other regions, or any number of other effects from relatively small changes in temperature that in themselves aren't dangerous but human reactions to them could actually be a 'doomsday' level.
Its difficult to explain anything to people that can't be summed up into one sentence or a short five sentence anectdotal story.
That said the basic thermodynamics of added CO2 and other heat trapping gasses is simple, well understood, and was settled long ago academically. The real cutting edge research today is determining what will happen on a regional scale. In the above study published in Nature, it's not an increase in temperature so much as its an increase in regional moisture brought on by a slight warming and a shift in climate. It's not a dust bowl effect, think of how bad that dry heat is going to be if it turns high humidity. While results like these could be more accurately modeled, say by having better satellites, far more money is spent arguing than buying hardware and funding research. The possible doomsday scenerio isn't a whole planet that's too hot - its far more likely a slightly insane nuclear arms bearing nation essentially being locked inside a car with the windows rolled up in a Flordia kmart parking lot in July.
Pretty funny troll comment. CO2 in the atmosphere as used for enviornmental studies is not estimated from diesel vehicle emissions. It is measured directly using CO2 sensor data from thousands of points around the world and from satellite data. It has been this way for many decades - you can simply take air samples from ice around the world to go back farther using the same direct measurement.
Obviously it's not just news. Either the paper presented above is incorrect for some reason or the uncertainty and completeness of the IPCC report is called into question. It's sad that its so hard to actually address the science without half the posters going nuts.
so why can't Antarctica actually be losing massive amounts of ice and the resulting removal of mass cause uplifting of the underlying rock?
Ice has a density of approx 0.91 g/cm^3. The Earth's crust has a density of approx 2.7 g/cm^3. So the crust weighs about 3x more per unit volume than ice.
You are hypothesizing that (in terms of net potential energy) the removal of 1 ton of ice lowering the top of the ice by a net 1 meter results in the uplifting of a net 3 tons of rock by more than 1 meter. Basic physics says what you posit can only occur in the presence of a (massive) external energy source which replenishes that lost potential energy and then some. I suppose that might be possible if there's a huge pressurized magma bubble underneath Antarctica exerting a huge amount of upward pressure, but the burden of proof would be upon you.
No what I was thinking was the ice could have been receeding for a long time and while the underlying rock wont rise to compensate the total distance overall, if it has been an ongoing process it can still be rising. Therefore if there was loss in the past centuries, it could be rising. This has happened in other areas of the world for different events
I was not seeking proof or making a claim, I just was wondering where in the references cited by the paper where the question of the underlying rock later is addressed when we are talking about such tiny amounts of distance without ever mentioning it in the paper. Good science outlines all the parameters and the paper is making claims whereas i am not.
You can connect at the bottom of the page as of right now the link in the article above is not working for me.
I am not a glaciologist but i read the article and am a bit puzzled by the findings related to snowfall and "thickness". It looks as if only satelite data was used, so why can't Antarctica actually be losing massive amounts of ice and the resulting removal of mass cause uplifting of the underlying rock? Removal of large amounts of mass over wide areas tend to have that effect and I was not able to find reference in the references. ICESat only uses laser range finding. http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat/glas.php
What I don't understand, is if it takes so many generations for a mutation that may or may not do anything, how do you explain complex functions that require thousands of beneficial mutations before the new functionality actually causes a survival benefit. I can't see how it would ever happen.
It's like throwing match sticks on a floor hoping one day it makes a sentence. You may after billions of attempts get a letter, but you will never achieve a whole sentence when those partial non beneficial mutations that are yet to form a beneficial structure are mutated back out again.
You understand correctly. It is extremely rare if non-existent for even small non functional changes. All changes have some intermediate functional state. You can have horizontal transfer in some cases, but this does not imply you get a free lunch, nor does an inactive or 'junk' sequence acquiring an advantage.
It's also beneficial to note that with organisms like bacteria, over long periods of time, it's not billions of attempts, not trillions, not quadrillions. It surpasses quintillions of attempts for a single species and all it takes is one success to fix it in a population. It's a massively parallel process and just because humans often are extremely poor at conceptualizing it, that does not invalidate reality.
You don't need to do hardly any up front auditing and you collect premiums. Make a single claim or claims over a trivial amount and then you do get audited - likely after someone has made payments under these fake accounts. The insurance company then just keeps all the money and cancels the contract.
Hell they do this now to honest people - they are experts at setting up a one sided contract and simply not paying for the i meat of reasons when the payout time comes.
Right that's what I get for viewing on my mobile device before coffee. Still it's the traditional poorly referenced third party article instead of the actual source article but what else do you expect?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it's an interesting result that should point the way for more definitive study. The notion of the singularity is not well defined and may be more of a layered structure than a boundary that applies to all particles at all times ever to fall in. It would be interesting in an actual test case as the sonic approximation model suggests entanglement is preserved for higher frequencies but does rely on many (interesting) assumptions.
Conclusions
In conclusion, thermal Hawking radiation stimulated by quantum vacuum fluctuations has been observed in a quantum simulator of a black hole. This confirms the prediction of Hawking regarding spontaneous pair production in the presence of a horizon. This has implications beyond the physics of black holes, as it confirms the semiclassical step toward the understanding of quantum gravity. The Hawking spectrum is observed, as are the correlations between the Hawking radiation exiting the black hole and the partner particles inside the black hole. These correlations are surprisingly narrow in position space, which implies that the high frequency tail of the distribution of Hawking pairs are entangled. On the other hand, the overall weakness of the correlations in position space implies that the low frequencies are not entangled. The entanglement confirms that there is an issue of information loss within the semiclassical approximation.
To offer a simple explanation no it cannot send information faster than light. You can have these instant correlations but as the latest research actually shows, the values are truly random until measurement. So you can send these entangled photons and unpack one at one location and another at a second remote location and know you have the correlating bit but without knowing what that is, which must be sent classically, you have no idea what is being sent. Moreover currently i know of no experiment that preserves entanglement after measurement so you must also wait classically for the particles to arrive before taking the instant correlation measurement.
Unless nasa has gotten some really interesting data from SETI im pretty sure its from outside of the light cone of the experiment, not an actual event horizon of the black hole.
Not that the actual paper or press release is linked at this time (who reads those?) but there have been experiments lately that close loopholes in bells theorm and show that the details are truly random until measured yet correlated upon measurement. This includes determining the experiment details randomly from outside the light cone of the experiment using advances in optical measurement of single photons and random number generation.
link to a related article
That is a different ducted fan design. I saw no flaps behind the engines in any of the videos to vector thrust.
Correct. More over its being called a "jet pack" but it's more like a small airplane on your back. I see no videos of these hovering, you could not possibly hold a hose or even rescue anything traveling at speeds over 120 miles an hour. While cool, they are useless for firefighting and certainly are not a replacement for ladders.
While pressurized water jet packs, commonly used over water, might be interesting - they cannot climb to high heights as the weight and forces from the supply hose limits you to something like 30-60 feet. Nowhere near thousands. Secondly the peroxide jet packs have very low weight capacity and run for only 1-2 minutes, probably no more than four tops before needing extensive refueling and servicing. You couldn't even fly to 2800 feet and back down again, much less try to save someone.
it would be more practical, but less fun, to try just about any alternative.
If there was a single actual practical advance for every 100 of these articles i'd be driving an electric car with a thousand mile range on a fifty dollar battery the size of a lunchbox.
Its kind of depressing how slowly battery technology evolves.
I've never heard of a cop pulling over a car for going too slowly. Never once in my life.
How else do you harass stoned teenagers?
What will happen is the CEO will do even less work, and reap in more money than before. Fired? Lmafo! I've heard straight from the lips of more than one CEO that the goal is to set everything up so they have absolutely nothing to do.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
While it is pithy and simple to set a target temperature goal, like 2C, i think it misses the overall implications of a changing climate. As the Nature article today on slashdot points out, even a mild temperature change could possibly do something like turn the entire Middle East extremely humid making it basically uninhabitable. Something this trivial, like a local increase in moisture over a relative small region, could provoke war, even nuclear war.
There could be a change in ocean currents, or moisture content/cloud cover of other regions, or any number of other effects from relatively small changes in temperature that in themselves aren't dangerous but human reactions to them could actually be a 'doomsday' level.
Its difficult to explain anything to people that can't be summed up into one sentence or a short five sentence anectdotal story.
That said the basic thermodynamics of added CO2 and other heat trapping gasses is simple, well understood, and was settled long ago academically. The real cutting edge research today is determining what will happen on a regional scale. In the above study published in Nature, it's not an increase in temperature so much as its an increase in regional moisture brought on by a slight warming and a shift in climate.
It's not a dust bowl effect, think of how bad that dry heat is going to be if it turns high humidity.
While results like these could be more accurately modeled, say by having better satellites, far more money is spent arguing than buying hardware and funding research. The possible doomsday scenerio isn't a whole planet that's too hot - its far more likely a slightly insane nuclear arms bearing nation essentially being locked inside a car with the windows rolled up in a Flordia kmart parking lot in July.
Pretty funny troll comment. CO2 in the atmosphere as used for enviornmental studies is not estimated from diesel vehicle emissions. It is measured directly using CO2 sensor data from thousands of points around the world and from satellite data. It has been this way for many decades - you can simply take air samples from ice around the world to go back farther using the same direct measurement.
Obviously it's not just news. Either the paper presented above is incorrect for some reason or the uncertainty and completeness of the IPCC report is called into question. It's sad that its so hard to actually address the science without half the posters going nuts.
I am wondering if this is a change of heart brought on by the recent emergency meeting held when mp found out they themselves were being spied on.
Ice has a density of approx 0.91 g/cm^3. The Earth's crust has a density of approx 2.7 g/cm^3. So the crust weighs about 3x more per unit volume than ice. You are hypothesizing that (in terms of net potential energy) the removal of 1 ton of ice lowering the top of the ice by a net 1 meter results in the uplifting of a net 3 tons of rock by more than 1 meter. Basic physics says what you posit can only occur in the presence of a (massive) external energy source which replenishes that lost potential energy and then some. I suppose that might be possible if there's a huge pressurized magma bubble underneath Antarctica exerting a huge amount of upward pressure, but the burden of proof would be upon you.
No what I was thinking was the ice could have been receeding for a long time and while the underlying rock wont rise to compensate the total distance overall, if it has been an ongoing process it can still be rising. Therefore if there was loss in the past centuries, it could be rising. This has happened in other areas of the world for different events
I was not seeking proof or making a claim, I just was wondering where in the references cited by the paper where the question of the underlying rock later is addressed when we are talking about such tiny amounts of distance without ever mentioning it in the paper. Good science outlines all the parameters and the paper is making claims whereas i am not.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/...
You can connect at the bottom of the page as of right now the link in the article above is not working for me.
I am not a glaciologist but i read the article and am a bit puzzled by the findings related to snowfall and "thickness". It looks as if only satelite data was used, so why can't Antarctica actually be losing massive amounts of ice and the resulting removal of mass cause uplifting of the underlying rock? Removal of large amounts of mass over wide areas tend to have that effect and I was not able to find reference in the references. ICESat only uses laser range finding.
http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat/glas.php
If you save mountains of crap you will find 0.12% of it useful. Someday...
The article is about mitochondrial DNA, which to use a computer analogy, is closer to the operating system than features of software as you describe.
What I don't understand, is if it takes so many generations for a mutation that may or may not do anything, how do you explain complex functions that require thousands of beneficial mutations before the new functionality actually causes a survival benefit. I can't see how it would ever happen. It's like throwing match sticks on a floor hoping one day it makes a sentence. You may after billions of attempts get a letter, but you will never achieve a whole sentence when those partial non beneficial mutations that are yet to form a beneficial structure are mutated back out again.
You understand correctly. It is extremely rare if non-existent for even small non functional changes. All changes have some intermediate functional state. You can have horizontal transfer in some cases, but this does not imply you get a free lunch, nor does an inactive or 'junk' sequence acquiring an advantage.
It's also beneficial to note that with organisms like bacteria, over long periods of time, it's not billions of attempts, not trillions, not quadrillions. It surpasses quintillions of attempts for a single species and all it takes is one success to fix it in a population. It's a massively parallel process and just because humans often are extremely poor at conceptualizing it, that does not invalidate reality.
I'm very surprised that the producers didn't consult experts with practical experience growing potatoes on Mars. Typical Hollywood bullshit.
I'll tell them to post their technical questions on slashdot next time.
in fighting cybercriminal networks, it's sometimes difficult to completely shut down their operations.'
Except for the sometimes - yes.
You don't need to do hardly any up front auditing and you collect premiums. Make a single claim or claims over a trivial amount and then you do get audited - likely after someone has made payments under these fake accounts. The insurance company then just keeps all the money and cancels the contract.
Hell they do this now to honest people - they are experts at setting up a one sided contract and simply not paying for the i meat of reasons when the payout time comes.
Right that's what I get for viewing on my mobile device before coffee. Still it's the traditional poorly referenced third party article instead of the actual source article but what else do you expect?