The difference is that there are very simple tests for the helio-centric model, and there aren't any obvious experimental tests for the many world hypothesis (and seems like there are likely none), but that appearantly hasn't stopped people from trying to find a test.
In order to explain this, one has to talk about the polarization of light, which is a quantum mechanical state. Think about it. Common sense tells you that adding an additional filter for the light shouldn't increase the amount of light going through, and yet it does.
Polarization is a 2 dimensional quantum state, just like the spin of an electron or a "qubit" used in a quantum computer.
What you're essentially doing is doing is performing 3 quantum measurements on this state, which each give you one of two results: the photon passes the filter or it doesn't.
The thing is these 3 measurements don't commute, which means that once you do a measurement, you're no longer in the state you thought you were for the previous measurements.
First he threatens people who use pirated software with blowing up their computer, and then it's found he forgot to register some software on his website.
And then, one of his staffers does a little "P2P" sharing with hacking into Democratic files, and obtaining information that he was not legally allowed to have. So guess what happens there? It goes to the Senate to the Senate Judiciary Committee to decide whether to have a probe. The Democrats aren't in the room at one point, and the Chairman (Senator Hatch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) ends the investigation.
Here's how a quantum random number generator works. You start with a qubit, which could be the polarization of a photon, or the spin of an electron. You put it into the state (1/sqrt(2)) |0> + |1>, where |0> and |1> are orthogonal vectors. Then you measure 0 or 1 with probability of 50% each, and if the axioms of quantum mechanics are correct, then it is truly random.
It seems to me like gerrymandering could be cut to manageable proportions by mandating a few simple rules, enforced in order of priority:
1) Districts must be contiguous. 2) No party registration data may be used while assigning districts. 3) Districts must encompass areas equivalent in population within 0.X%. 4) Districts must have a ratio of perimeter to area of no more than Y. 5) Redistricting may not move the geographical center of any district by more than Z miles per census cycle.
Actually, rule #3 is a federal law that every state has to follow. Rule #1 is used in almost all states. I don't think rule #4 is used anywhere, really. Rule #2 might be used by some non-partisan commissions. Sometimes the state government will try to keep districts more or less the same (rule #5).
Thanks to Diebold, Florida was called for Bush. Bush pissed away $9 trillion of projected surpluses, got the whole world mad at us, lost 7.5 millions compared to what was needed to sustain current employment rates. I think we should sure Diebold for $10 trillion. That ought to get their attention.
How about a California anti-Diebold Proposition?
on
Students, ISP Sue Diebold
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hey, why not use this ability to submit Propositions for something good, and use them to outlaw closed source, paper trail-less, unaudtable voting machines like Diebold's here in Alameda County.
It would be good if this could get on the March primary ballot, so that there'd be time to ditch them before November, and for other states to realize that they should ditch them, too.
I did just realize, there's a huge conflict of interest with using Diebold voting machines to count votes on an anti-Diebold proposition. We'd have to conduct opinion and exit polls to make sure that the results of the election agreed with how people actually though, since Diebold has already shown that they can't be trusted, and often get the wrong results (always in favor of Republicans, it seems).
Isn't it weird how every single time that Diebold's machines screw up it's in favor of the Republican (Gore in Volusia county, test run in Texas, actual election in Texas, 18181 margin of victories of Republicans, suspicious Georgia 2002 election, and so on).
You'd think that their CEO had pledged Ohio's electors to Bush, or something.
They were the epicenter of a Presidential election where more people went to the polls intending to vote for the Democrat than the Republican. The Democrat won the popular vote, but lost the election because he officially lost Florida. He only needed one more state to win. The dispute went on for over a month, and involved the Supreme Court.
Well, perhaps eventually. I read the Nature article, and we're not dealing with a proper CNOT gate yet, and even then, I think there are some kinks that will be need to be taken care of.
The factorization of 15 was done with NMR, which doesn't scale very well. This CNOT gate was done with Jacobsen junctions, which have the possibility of scaling. No one had figured out how to a CNOT before. The thing is, with a set of certain local gates (particularly the Weyl group), and CNOT, all quantum operations can be performed.
Classical operations are a subset of quantum operations. So you can run classical operations on a quantum computer. Of course you'd probably be much better off just running your classical operations on a classical computer.
The thing is the NMR techniques used by IBM don't scale very well to more than about 10 qubits. Yes, it was definitely interesting to demonstrate that you can run Shor's factoring algorithm on 15 (the smallest number for what Shor's algorithm works), but you can't run it on any numbers much larger than 15 that way.
The future is in some other sort of system, possibly the Jacobson junctions used in this experiment. Jacobson junctions have the possibility of scaling. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of errors this CNOT gate gives, or perhaps will give in theory. I study quantum computing fault tolerance, so the types of errors that gates give is of particular interest to me.
The Democrat won the popular vote. The Democrat only needed to officially win one more state to win the popular vote. More people went to the polls to vote for the Democrat than the Republican in Florida. There was a long dispute about who won the Florida election, in which the US Supreme Court got involved. The Republican ended up becoming President. For some reason this seems familiar.
It is getting attention in the mainstream press. Only problem is it's in the wrong country. US media doesn't seem interested in reporting on US election problems. Read about what Greg Palast found about the 2000 election that the US media wouldn't report on here.
I think the California recall election is a bad example. California has never had a statewide recall election, and there hasn't been a recall election of a governor anywhere for over 80 years. So they had a hard time predicting what sort of people would vote, so there were various polls disagreeing with each other (Gallup choose some criteria for what sort of voters to count, LA Times choose some differnent criteria, and so on).
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that there are very simple tests for the helio-centric model, and there aren't any obvious experimental tests for the many world hypothesis (and seems like there are likely none), but that appearantly hasn't stopped people from trying to find a test.
In order to explain this, one has to talk about the polarization of light, which is a quantum mechanical state. Think about it. Common sense tells you that adding an additional filter for the light shouldn't increase the amount of light going through, and yet it does.
Polarization is a 2 dimensional quantum state, just like the spin of an electron or a "qubit" used in a quantum computer.
What you're essentially doing is doing is performing 3 quantum measurements on this state, which each give you one of two results:
the photon passes the filter
or it doesn't.
The thing is these 3 measurements don't commute, which means that once you do a measurement, you're no longer in the state you thought you were for the previous measurements.
My favorite was the one where you have a light source, and some filters that only let through light polariized in a certain direction.
A horizontally and a vertically polarized filter block out all light.
But put a 45 degree diagonally polarized filter in between, and suddenly 1/8th of your original light source is going through.
Oops, that gives it away. February 30th is never a Monday.
First he threatens people who use pirated software with blowing up their computer, and then it's found he forgot to register some software on his website.
e ss .memos.reut/
And then, one of his staffers does a little "P2P" sharing with hacking into Democratic files, and obtaining information that he was not legally allowed to have. So guess what happens there? It goes to the Senate to the Senate Judiciary Committee to decide whether to have a probe. The Democrats aren't in the room at one point, and the Chairman (Senator Hatch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) ends the investigation.
WTF is wrong with Utah?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/congr
Here's how a quantum random number generator works. You start with a qubit, which could be the polarization of a photon, or the spin of an electron. You put it into the state (1/sqrt(2)) |0> + |1>, where |0> and |1> are orthogonal vectors. Then you measure 0 or 1 with probability of 50% each, and if the axioms of quantum mechanics are correct, then it is truly random.
So if Larry Flynt had won the California governor election in a landslide with 5 billion votes, no one would call for a recount?
There is an important advantage to certain people of using a computer. What's easier, changing a million paper ballots, or a million votes on a PC?
Greg Palast had some of his findings on the 2000 election broadcast on the BBC. Does that mean that the BBC is not a reliable source of information?
It seems to me like gerrymandering could be cut to manageable proportions by mandating a few simple rules, enforced in order of priority:
1) Districts must be contiguous.
2) No party registration data may be used while assigning districts.
3) Districts must encompass areas equivalent in population within 0.X%.
4) Districts must have a ratio of perimeter to area of no more than Y.
5) Redistricting may not move the geographical center of any district by more than Z miles per census cycle.
Actually, rule #3 is a federal law that every state has to follow. Rule #1 is used in almost all states. I don't think rule #4 is used anywhere, really. Rule #2 might be used by some non-partisan commissions. Sometimes the state government will try to keep districts more or less the same (rule #5).
It's that attitude that gets your workers to strike and revolt. Go cry me a river about Bill Gates having to pay taxes.
Thanks to Diebold, Florida was called for Bush. Bush pissed away $9 trillion of projected surpluses, got the whole world mad at us, lost 7.5 millions compared to what was needed to sustain current employment rates. I think we should sure Diebold for $10 trillion. That ought to get their attention.
Are we running sparse matrix algorithms on it?
Hey, why not use this ability to submit Propositions for something good, and use them to outlaw closed source, paper trail-less, unaudtable voting machines like Diebold's here in Alameda County.
It would be good if this could get on the March primary ballot, so that there'd be time to ditch them before November, and for other states to realize that they should ditch them, too.
I did just realize, there's a huge conflict of interest with using Diebold voting machines to count votes on an anti-Diebold proposition. We'd have to conduct opinion and exit polls to make sure that the results of the election agreed with how people actually though, since Diebold has already shown that they can't be trusted, and often get the wrong results (always in favor of Republicans, it seems).
Does that mean that he only gets to steal one Presidential election? The US deserves to have only one stolen Presidential election every 124 years.
Isn't it weird how every single time that Diebold's machines screw up it's in favor of the Republican (Gore in Volusia county, test run in Texas, actual election in Texas, 18181 margin of victories of Republicans, suspicious Georgia 2002 election, and so on).
You'd think that their CEO had pledged Ohio's electors to Bush, or something.
They were the epicenter of a Presidential election where more people went to the polls intending to vote for the Democrat than the Republican. The Democrat won the popular vote, but lost the election because he officially lost Florida. He only needed one more state to win. The dispute went on for over a month, and involved the Supreme Court.
Oh, I'm talking about 1876, BTW.
Well, perhaps eventually. I read the Nature article, and we're not dealing with a proper CNOT gate yet, and even then, I think there are some kinks that will be need to be taken care of.
The factorization of 15 was done with NMR, which doesn't scale very well. This CNOT gate was done with Jacobsen junctions, which have the possibility of scaling. No one had figured out how to a CNOT before. The thing is, with a set of certain local gates (particularly the Weyl group), and CNOT, all quantum operations can be performed.
Classical operations are a subset of quantum operations. So you can run classical operations on a quantum computer. Of course you'd probably be much better off just running your classical operations on a classical computer.
The thing is the NMR techniques used by IBM don't scale very well to more than about 10 qubits. Yes, it was definitely interesting to demonstrate that you can run Shor's factoring algorithm on 15 (the smallest number for what Shor's algorithm works), but you can't run it on any numbers much larger than 15 that way.
The future is in some other sort of system, possibly the Jacobson junctions used in this experiment. Jacobson junctions have the possibility of scaling. I'd be interested in seeing what sort of errors this CNOT gate gives, or perhaps will give in theory. I study quantum computing fault tolerance, so the types of errors that gates give is of particular interest to me.
The Democrat won the popular vote.
The Democrat only needed to officially win one more state to win the popular vote.
More people went to the polls to vote for the Democrat than the Republican in Florida.
There was a long dispute about who won the Florida election, in which the US Supreme Court got involved.
The Republican ended up becoming President.
For some reason this seems familiar.
It is getting attention in the mainstream press.
Only problem is it's in the wrong country.
US media doesn't seem interested in reporting on US election problems.
Read about what Greg Palast found about the 2000 election that the US media wouldn't report on here.
I think the California recall election is a bad example. California has never had a statewide recall election, and there hasn't been a recall election of a governor anywhere for over 80 years. So they had a hard time predicting what sort of people would vote, so there were various polls disagreeing with each other (Gallup choose some criteria for what sort of voters to count, LA Times choose some differnent criteria, and so on).