We know that space can be created faster than the speed of light, this is the basis for inflationary theory and the big bang. Many measurements can be made that independently verify inflation, though it is true it does not have the level of proof a theory needs (almost though). For example, the size of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background support faster than light expansion of space. it's a far cry from religion that has zero evidence in support and absolutely massive amounts of facts that disprove its tenants. There is no evidence to show inflation false.
The space between us and something that was 15 billion light years from us is expanding faster than the light it is emitting toward us can travel, therefore we will never see the light and that thing is beyond our light horizon of the visible universe.
Technically dark energy is causing something 19billion light years away to expand faster than the speed of light (or so). This is outside the visible universe. If expansion was causing things to expand faster than the speed of light at 15 billion light years the cosmic microwave background would be more red shifted. In fact if it was 14 billion years away the microwave background would be completely wiped from our existence. Thus the background being visible is proof it isn't happening inside that radius. every second as i type the light bubble of our universe expands by 386 thousand miles or so in radius, continually exposing new universe that was last connected only during inflation.
Search for susskind on youtube. He is a famous professor at Stanford who not only was one of the original creators of string theory but also beat up Stephen hawking on the nature of black holes and got him to admit he was wrong. I recommend special and general relativity series, also the one on inflation. He avoids the arcane and makes physics pedestrian yet provides the mathematical basis for each topic. He gets serious props in my opinion for freely sharing his knowledge online, giving anyone the ability to essentially audit his classes.
You should watch susskind on youtube discussing inflation. Not only can space be created, infinite space can be created within a finite volume due to infinite time. If you can wrap your brain around that, well it's not easy. Take a look here
Yes that is correct. The distance between those two points is increasing at 2x light speed. However that is not traveling through space faster than the speed of light. Space can be created, bypassing the light speed limit. Read more on inflationary theory, or watch susskind explain inflation on youtube.
Yes. From the perspective of a photon it travels infinately fast. From your perspective it looks like there is no light speed limit, time dilation is what causes outside observers to see you as never hitting the light speed limit, just as you say. however you cannot travel through space faster than the speed of light. Any attempts to bend space or time to circumvent that require such unrealistic amounts of energy (such as entangling two black holes and pulling them apart, etc.) that it will likely never happen. Space travel is so slow the universe will age and die of old age before you go an appreciable distance.
If you put a location to your original reference frame that's not entirely true. Space may be created along your path to effectively increase your apparent speed beyond light speed. For more reading study inflationary theory.
Not exactly. The op was relatively correct in explaining general relativity (pun intended). Nothing can move through space faster than light. However during inflation, just after the Big Bang (the first 10^-34 seconds or so) space was created much faster than light could traverse. Quantum uncertainty was able to affect locations right at the Big Bang. However general relativity shows us that if you have an unbelievably dense undilutable piece of space, it will double in size extremely quickly. This doubling separated portions of the universe that only now are reconnecting due to light speed. Dark energy will move the Big Bang from beyond our perception in only 4 billion years or so through a very similar process of space creation. Quantum uncertainty is what brought our portion of inflation in reality to an end, however it is hypothesized due to the percentage of space that rolls down the density curve is so small, inflation continues eternally somewhere. Both inflation and dark energy are mechanisms that create space directly and therefore do not violate relativity because nothing is moving through it technically. Therefore both mechanisms are a way to casually disconnect space that was once connected.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do we even know how big "space itself" is? I mean sure, we have an idea as to how much of it we can see thanks to radiation and whatnot, but who's to say it's not actually bigger than we ever thought? We live at the bum end of the galaxy, who's to say we don't also live at the bum end of a universe that expands twice or a hundred times farther in the other direction than we ever considered?
well because of the patterns we can measure in the cosmic microwave background we can measure the 'flatness' of space itself. Positive and negative curvature imply a finite size to the universe. As it is we have measured that space is at least 1000 times the volume we can 'see' in the visible universe. Possibly its infinitely large.
And who's to say that all of what we can see actually belongs to our universe and isn't just spill-over from a bunch of intersecting universes?
Because we can measure distance we know that we are sitting at the 'center' of the visible universe as it is isotopic (the same in every direction). Technically you yourself live across a nearly infinite number intersections of universes that were in contact during the early inflation times, but separated and only now are reconnecting. Your own two eyes each peer into a slightly different universe where the percieved 'center' of the visible universe is offset a few inches. Each eye can 'see' a few nano light seconds beyond the visible horizon of the other.
And who's to say our big-bang-bubble-universe isn't just one in countless universes expanding all throughout space itself?
actually about as many cosmologists agree this is the case as climatologists agree on anthropogenic climate change. It appears highly plausible if not actually true.
What is space itself anyway? Isn't it just an arbitrary construct created to give ourself some sense of importants, some sense of being in a specific place and time, because our simple brains can't cope with not knowing where we are and how the universe revolves around us?
Space itself is likely just a mathematical construct. It would explain why math works so frekishly well at explaining the physical world while no AI/purpose driven explanations make any sense at all. It's even possible that all possibilities of our physical laws (or even combinations of all possible laws) 'exist' statically and eternally with only the perception of time and choice when you find yourself inside a particular one, continually only ever sensing a tiny fraction of it. The the theory of everything may just be the ultimate ensemble theory.
What is the question about life, the universe and everything, anyway?
It's actually plausible the only 'purpose' of life is to increase entropy faster that without it. Like fire burning or water running down hill it simply is a pathway to diffuse energy. It's why all life has a version of eating and pooping. There is no 'purpose' but that actually is the best scenario for us all - we have the freedom to make our own purpose. The computational complexity of the universe itself is so vast free will really feels free, it is an amazing experience and one i have great trouble topping in my imagination.
All that tin foil hat crap is likely true, we already have automated plate readers tracking vehicles today. Most people have cell phones and all of those are tracked. However the tech for actual city driving autonomous cars is more like 30-50 years out. 10 years from now we could have specialized freeway autonomous driving, but even that is unlikely given the public backlash when the first baby is killed by a machine mistake no human would make.
If your kids never learn to drive its likely either because they live in a dense urban area with good public transit or are too rich to drive themselves.
I know no one reads the article, or often even the summary but these are regular 'yellow' taxis. The only difference is the cabbies got more than the usual amount of client information.
My first car had A/C that probably stopped working 5 years before I got it. I got a junker for 500 bucks and fixed it up (well it ran without breaking down anyways). Fixing cars is still pretty easy for most repairs and motivating teens to learn to fix the easy stuff is a good life lesson. I didn't actually buy a vehicle worth over 2k usd till I was done with my undergrad.
Umm, did you reply to the right comment? I said i have been voting for 3rd parties. However it's not a very big FU when the 3rd party gets 3% of the vote. It really would be interesting what mandatory voting would do; likely it would backfire on the democrats.
This is interesting. I've found it difficult to actually follow politics in a meaningful way and have been disappointed in the choices I have made because they just go and do what they want when in office when elected as long as it doesn't piss off the majority of voters too soon to elections. Further, there are often no good choices, and determining which is the lesser of two evils is difficult and a bullshit premise. I don't vote along party lines, I vote on issues, which isn't effective in America. So lately, for the most part, I've been "throwing my vote away" on write ins or 3rd parties. It would be pretty interesting to see what would happen if everyone voted.
I for one welcome president "mickey mouse" and wish him the best.
I dare Disney to make less sense than the candidates have recently.
All of that is true however in 50-60 years all those drives and processing will likely fit in a cellphone size, cost and power form factor. I doubt it will even be 100 years before we can have true autonomous cars, I'll guess under 50 for the commonly held idea of the capabilities(city driving, etc). Probably another 30 for people to accept them on top of that. But eventually they are pretty likely.
As someone who worked in a robotics lab for nearly 8 years and who knows the technology - no we are no where near being able to do as well as the worst humans comparing apples to apples. In 30-50 years we may have them until then maybe dedicated lanes on highways or something may be possible in 10-20 years.
When SDC can scrape their own sensors free of ice (or even be able to function in snow/icy/wet conditions) I'll be impressed! In all seriousness though the worst human drivers are here to stay - if you thought gun nuts rage when goverment tries to restrict them just wait untill the government tries to say people "dont have the right to drive anymore".
I'm really sorry to have to be so direct but that is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Driving is not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of reaction. Sure, intelligence and experience help you anticipate when other drivers are being idiots, but there is very little involved in driving that can not be compensated by reaction time and adhering to proper distances.
actually extracting raw enviornment data is fairly trivial compared to the interpretation, fusion, and implementation problems. When sensor data conflicts, or sensors become dirty, its things get hard. But how do you know if that bicycle is going to stop when its trajectory intersects with your vehicle? People make eye contact to make sure the cyclist sees you - simply running them over for a minor infraction is not a solution, nor is applying the brakes every time any pedestrian or cyclist is near
The biggest hurdle to take is to correctly measure the surroundings. If you did that via image recognition, then yes, AI would be important. But there is laser, radar, GPS and so many other sensors involved that do nothing more than note distances to targets, location on road etc.
as above this is the most trivial thing - if that was all that it took it would be already solved
Autonomous driving certainly isn't trivial, but the other thing you have to keep in mind is that your oh so intelligent human drivers are actually driving like morons a lot of the time.
Please stop putting the bar for autonomous driving so high the systems have to practically be perfect the be viable. The moment they are twice as good as a human should be the moment we start switching. And we're not far from that.
Remember how badly the average driver actually drives. And then remember that half of them drive worse than that.
Add on top of that networked driving, where cars coordinate over several hundred meters and you'll see so much potential gain even from non-perfect systems it's staggering.
With 50 different brands, car nuts screaming the government is taking away their freedom, etc. We will never have cooperative piloting on general roads. It's pretty obvious you have never worked with this technology.
We already know that. The insurance company is responsible.
Three states (California, Nevada, and Florida) already allow SDCs on their roads. The liability issue is already resolved.
This has never been tested in court. It's one thing to quietly pass a bill and another when CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc all run "first human baby murdered by rampaging machine" as a headline
Another problem is that when a self-driving car causes an accident, it will be something that would have been obvious to a human driver, resulting in the general opinion that self driving cars are stupid.
When a human causes an accident, it is almost always something that would have been obvious to another human driver, resulting in the general opinion that humans are stupid. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that SDCs will not be perfect, but they will prevent a lot more accidents that they will cause, and the tradeoff is worth it. Seat-belts and airbags also occasionally kill people, but they save ten lives for every one they take, and people accept the tradeoff.
Are you seriously busting out "people are logical and rational AND will know better" as an argument? Seatbelts have no sensors they are purely mechanical. Airbags need some extremely basic smarts but there have been injuries and fatalities due to design problems. But very few. SDC need extreme smarts bordering on strong AI do do what even the worst humans can. Humans stem from creatures that have been navigating the world for billions of years - a strong ability to navigate is built into all animals. People wont tolerate machines failing to miss simple human avoidable accidents even if safer. SDC, if implemented widely, will cause tens of thousands of deaths a year or more the the political backlash will have more to do with stupid people and politics than sense.
It's true the tesla is a nice quality sports car. A 500hp 4800lb vehicle is about as green as a electric SUV. Tesla is a bad choice if you want to save the planet but a good choice if you want a nice sports car.
Slashdot Mirror
No one is forcing anyone. If you read the summary you would know it simply is a required offering. Not mandatory.
We know that space can be created faster than the speed of light, this is the basis for inflationary theory and the big bang. Many measurements can be made that independently verify inflation, though it is true it does not have the level of proof a theory needs (almost though). For example, the size of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background support faster than light expansion of space.
it's a far cry from religion that has zero evidence in support and absolutely massive amounts of facts that disprove its tenants. There is no evidence to show inflation false.
The result is correct in base 13
The space between us and something that was 15 billion light years from us is expanding faster than the light it is emitting toward us can travel, therefore we will never see the light and that thing is beyond our light horizon of the visible universe.
Technically dark energy is causing something 19billion light years away to expand faster than the speed of light (or so). This is outside the visible universe. If expansion was causing things to expand faster than the speed of light at 15 billion light years the cosmic microwave background would be more red shifted. In fact if it was 14 billion years away the microwave background would be completely wiped from our existence. Thus the background being visible is proof it isn't happening inside that radius.
every second as i type the light bubble of our universe expands by 386 thousand miles or so in radius, continually exposing new universe that was last connected only during inflation.
Search for susskind on youtube. He is a famous professor at Stanford who not only was one of the original creators of string theory but also beat up Stephen hawking on the nature of black holes and got him to admit he was wrong. I recommend special and general relativity series, also the one on inflation. He avoids the arcane and makes physics pedestrian yet provides the mathematical basis for each topic. He gets serious props in my opinion for freely sharing his knowledge online, giving anyone the ability to essentially audit his classes.
You should watch susskind on youtube discussing inflation. Not only can space be created, infinite space can be created within a finite volume due to infinite time. If you can wrap your brain around that, well it's not easy. Take a look here
Yes that is correct. The distance between those two points is increasing at 2x light speed. However that is not traveling through space faster than the speed of light. Space can be created, bypassing the light speed limit. Read more on inflationary theory, or watch susskind explain inflation on youtube.
Yes. From the perspective of a photon it travels infinately fast. From your perspective it looks like there is no light speed limit, time dilation is what causes outside observers to see you as never hitting the light speed limit, just as you say.
however you cannot travel through space faster than the speed of light. Any attempts to bend space or time to circumvent that require such unrealistic amounts of energy (such as entangling two black holes and pulling them apart, etc.) that it will likely never happen. Space travel is so slow the universe will age and die of old age before you go an appreciable distance.
If you put a location to your original reference frame that's not entirely true. Space may be created along your path to effectively increase your apparent speed beyond light speed. For more reading study inflationary theory.
Not exactly. The op was relatively correct in explaining general relativity (pun intended). Nothing can move through space faster than light. However during inflation, just after the Big Bang (the first 10^-34 seconds or so) space was created much faster than light could traverse. Quantum uncertainty was able to affect locations right at the Big Bang. However general relativity shows us that if you have an unbelievably dense undilutable piece of space, it will double in size extremely quickly. This doubling separated portions of the universe that only now are reconnecting due to light speed. Dark energy will move the Big Bang from beyond our perception in only 4 billion years or so through a very similar process of space creation. Quantum uncertainty is what brought our portion of inflation in reality to an end, however it is hypothesized due to the percentage of space that rolls down the density curve is so small, inflation continues eternally somewhere. Both inflation and dark energy are mechanisms that create space directly and therefore do not violate relativity because nothing is moving through it technically. Therefore both mechanisms are a way to casually disconnect space that was once connected.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do we even know how big "space itself" is? I mean sure, we have an idea as to how much of it we can see thanks to radiation and whatnot, but who's to say it's not actually bigger than we ever thought? We live at the bum end of the galaxy, who's to say we don't also live at the bum end of a universe that expands twice or a hundred times farther in the other direction than we ever considered?
well because of the patterns we can measure in the cosmic microwave background we can measure the 'flatness' of space itself. Positive and negative curvature imply a finite size to the universe. As it is we have measured that space is at least 1000 times the volume we can 'see' in the visible universe. Possibly its infinitely large.
And who's to say that all of what we can see actually belongs to our universe and isn't just spill-over from a bunch of intersecting universes?
Because we can measure distance we know that we are sitting at the 'center' of the visible universe as it is isotopic (the same in every direction). Technically you yourself live across a nearly infinite number intersections of universes that were in contact during the early inflation times, but separated and only now are reconnecting. Your own two eyes each peer into a slightly different universe where the percieved 'center' of the visible universe is offset a few inches. Each eye can 'see' a few nano light seconds beyond the visible horizon of the other.
And who's to say our big-bang-bubble-universe isn't just one in countless universes expanding all throughout space itself?
actually about as many cosmologists agree this is the case as climatologists agree on anthropogenic climate change. It appears highly plausible if not actually true.
What is space itself anyway? Isn't it just an arbitrary construct created to give ourself some sense of importants, some sense of being in a specific place and time, because our simple brains can't cope with not knowing where we are and how the universe revolves around us?
Space itself is likely just a mathematical construct. It would explain why math works so frekishly well at explaining the physical world while no AI/purpose driven explanations make any sense at all. It's even possible that all possibilities of our physical laws (or even combinations of all possible laws) 'exist' statically and eternally with only the perception of time and choice when you find yourself inside a particular one, continually only ever sensing a tiny fraction of it. The the theory of everything may just be the ultimate ensemble theory.
What is the question about life, the universe and everything, anyway?
It's actually plausible the only 'purpose' of life is to increase entropy faster that without it. Like fire burning or water running down hill it simply is a pathway to diffuse energy. It's why all life has a version of eating and pooping. There is no 'purpose' but that actually is the best scenario for us all - we have the freedom to make our own purpose. The computational complexity of the universe itself is so vast free will really feels free, it is an amazing experience and one i have great trouble topping in my imagination.
All that tin foil hat crap is likely true, we already have automated plate readers tracking vehicles today. Most people have cell phones and all of those are tracked. However the tech for actual city driving autonomous cars is more like 30-50 years out. 10 years from now we could have specialized freeway autonomous driving, but even that is unlikely given the public backlash when the first baby is killed by a machine mistake no human would make.
If your kids never learn to drive its likely either because they live in a dense urban area with good public transit or are too rich to drive themselves.
I know no one reads the article, or often even the summary but these are regular 'yellow' taxis. The only difference is the cabbies got more than the usual amount of client information.
They have an uber problem on their hands. She should have a right to be lyft alone.
My first car had A/C that probably stopped working 5 years before I got it. I got a junker for 500 bucks and fixed it up (well it ran without breaking down anyways). Fixing cars is still pretty easy for most repairs and motivating teens to learn to fix the easy stuff is a good life lesson. I didn't actually buy a vehicle worth over 2k usd till I was done with my undergrad.
Most modern vehicles already do have these records and they can be subpoena.
Umm, did you reply to the right comment? I said i have been voting for 3rd parties. However it's not a very big FU when the 3rd party gets 3% of the vote. It really would be interesting what mandatory voting would do; likely it would backfire on the democrats.
I for one welcome president "mickey mouse" and wish him the best.
I dare Disney to make less sense than the candidates have recently.
All of that is true however in 50-60 years all those drives and processing will likely fit in a cellphone size, cost and power form factor. I doubt it will even be 100 years before we can have true autonomous cars, I'll guess under 50 for the commonly held idea of the capabilities(city driving, etc). Probably another 30 for people to accept them on top of that. But eventually they are pretty likely.
As someone who worked in a robotics lab for nearly 8 years and who knows the technology - no we are no where near being able to do as well as the worst humans comparing apples to apples. In 30-50 years we may have them until then maybe dedicated lanes on highways or something may be possible in 10-20 years.
When SDC can scrape their own sensors free of ice (or even be able to function in snow/icy/wet conditions) I'll be impressed! In all seriousness though the worst human drivers are here to stay - if you thought gun nuts rage when goverment tries to restrict them just wait untill the government tries to say people "dont have the right to drive anymore".
I'm really sorry to have to be so direct but that is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Driving is not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of reaction. Sure, intelligence and experience help you anticipate when other drivers are being idiots, but there is very little involved in driving that can not be compensated by reaction time and adhering to proper distances.
actually extracting raw enviornment data is fairly trivial compared to the interpretation, fusion, and implementation problems. When sensor data conflicts, or sensors become dirty, its things get hard. But how do you know if that bicycle is going to stop when its trajectory intersects with your vehicle? People make eye contact to make sure the cyclist sees you - simply running them over for a minor infraction is not a solution, nor is applying the brakes every time any pedestrian or cyclist is near
The biggest hurdle to take is to correctly measure the surroundings. If you did that via image recognition, then yes, AI would be important. But there is laser, radar, GPS and so many other sensors involved that do nothing more than note distances to targets, location on road etc.
as above this is the most trivial thing - if that was all that it took it would be already solved
Autonomous driving certainly isn't trivial, but the other thing you have to keep in mind is that your oh so intelligent human drivers are actually driving like morons a lot of the time.
Please stop putting the bar for autonomous driving so high the systems have to practically be perfect the be viable. The moment they are twice as good as a human should be the moment we start switching. And we're not far from that.
Remember how badly the average driver actually drives. And then remember that half of them drive worse than that.
Add on top of that networked driving, where cars coordinate over several hundred meters and you'll see so much potential gain even from non-perfect systems it's staggering.
With 50 different brands, car nuts screaming the government is taking away their freedom, etc. We will never have cooperative piloting on general roads. It's pretty obvious you have never worked with this technology.
We already know that. The insurance company is responsible.
Three states (California, Nevada, and Florida) already allow SDCs on their roads. The liability issue is already resolved.
This has never been tested in court. It's one thing to quietly pass a bill and another when CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc all run "first human baby murdered by rampaging machine" as a headline
Another problem is that when a self-driving car causes an accident, it will be something that would have been obvious to a human driver, resulting in the general opinion that self driving cars are stupid.
When a human causes an accident, it is almost always something that would have been obvious to another human driver, resulting in the general opinion that humans are stupid. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that SDCs will not be perfect, but they will prevent a lot more accidents that they will cause, and the tradeoff is worth it. Seat-belts and airbags also occasionally kill people, but they save ten lives for every one they take, and people accept the tradeoff.
Are you seriously busting out "people are logical and rational AND will know better" as an argument? Seatbelts have no sensors they are purely mechanical. Airbags need some extremely basic smarts but there have been injuries and fatalities due to design problems. But very few. SDC need extreme smarts bordering on strong AI do do what even the worst humans can. Humans stem from creatures that have been navigating the world for billions of years - a strong ability to navigate is built into all animals. People wont tolerate machines failing to miss simple human avoidable accidents even if safer. SDC, if implemented widely, will cause tens of thousands of deaths a year or more the the political backlash will have more to do with stupid people and politics than sense.
Thanks i just noticed :(
It's true the tesla is a nice quality sports car. A 500hp 4800lb vehicle is about as green as a electric SUV. Tesla is a bad choice if you want to save the planet but a good choice if you want a nice sports car.