A. Unitary quantum mechanics.
B. Unitary quantum, plus an ad-hoc assumption about 'wavefunction collapse.'
Really? Because I was under the impression that "wavefunction collapse" was simply a collision between particles that limits the possibilities of their wavefunctions. For example, in a double-slit experiment particles can go through two slits simultaneously causing an interference pattern to build up over time. When bouncing photons off of the particles in a certain way, the possible path of each particle is limited to one slit and the interference pattern disappears. Simple. I guess I don't see what the contention is here about what constitutes a collapse.
I don't see A as being simpler at all. In MWI a person splits between many possible states just because and yet we experience just one of these because of explanations that amount to hand-waving. The alternative is that particles pick certain options during collapses rather than others just because, and that's what we observe. Both explain the exact same outcome in different manner. One just has much fewer universes than the other.:)
But quantum mechanics was accepted because of its ability to make accurate predicitions to natural phenomenon, and thus was an improvement of what came before it. Since MWI (observers split into experiences of multiple outcomes) and the alternative (the particles of the universe operates as wavefunctions except when forced to a particular state by an "observation") are different interpretations of QM, the only criteria to judge them by is what works better "conceptually".
Thus, a local observer (e.g. an instrument or a human) perceives a single outcome only because they are a participant in this "global superposition" (the superposition of the entire universe). The wavefunction of the universe as a whole evolves deterministically.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, this means that MWI takes the indeterminism out of the universe at large and instead puts it to the measurement of each separate individual (be it instrument or conscious observer) as to what aspect of the multiverse is being experienced at any given time.
I'm sorry but I don't see how this is an improvement.
I finally managed to refute Pausch's dictums by imagining myself trying to persuade a Zen Buddhist practitioner to follow them.
Actually Zen Buddhist monks live very strict, regimented, structured lives. Espcially those in Japan. They would consider anybody with a tendency to daydream or procrastinate as failing to live "in the moment". One great quote I remember hearing goes, "Don't do nothing. Do nothing." One monk from the non-fiction book "Ambivalent Zen" would pay any bills he received as soon as he received them so that he could better keep his mind clear.
That said, I'd have a hard hard time changing my own daydreaming, procrastinating ways.
But the Pauli exclusion principle prevents two *identical* fermions from occupying the same quantum state simultaneously. Are an electron and positron considered identical fermions or is this between two electrons and positrons within the "molecule"?
I'm also wondering just how stable the molecules are. Could they be used for a matter-antimatter propelled rocket?
Today's Thursday. Must be my armchair physicist day.
We will never be able to do it. To do so would be to circumvent causality, which means circumventing logic. And logic is more powerful than physics. Tired arguments stating, "In the past we thought doing X was impossible, but we figured it out," just don't apply. Transmitting information faster than light is a fiction.
Dharma, is the diestic philosophy, of the thestic "religions" of Bhuddism, Jainism, Siehkism, and vedism (aka Hinduism).
I'm sorry, but I'm curious as to where you're getting your information from. As I understand it Buddhism is non-theistic (the existence or non-existence of any god(s) is irrelevant), Sikhism is monotheistic (being a combination of Islam and Hinduism), Hinduism is panentheistic (the universe is a subset of god, although god exhibits itself in many many manisfestations) and I'm just not sure about Jainism, although I suspect it is also panentheistic.
OK, I see what you mean about the 1 versus 3 year Martian warming trend. But the fact remains that this is still just a region on Mars, not a reflection of global temperature, which you must admit is a much more misleading and errorneous propaganda trick.
As for why he got the text wrong, why don't you ask him how this (pratically insignificant) flaw came up? There is a space for posting comments, you know.
Remember, in the distant past the Earth was MUCH warmer than it is right now. It's happened before naturally, and is likely to occur again naturally.
True, global temperature does tend to change naturally over time. But it doesn't usually happen so rapidly. And when it does, it tends to suck for all us organisms living here.
To the young and inexperienced, six months seems like a really long time. How long is "a while" for you? A year?
Try twelve. Although I got my graduate degree a couple of years ago after being in the workforce for a while, that hardly makes me young and inexperienced.
I'm convinced: you feel great, passionate love for the "Human Virus". Sure you want to improve "our" welfare, provided that I'm lucky enough to be one of the chosen ones who gets to survive in your utopia. I wouldn't dare call you an elitist.
Might there be a distinction between making a case for having less children (what I'm saying) and killing people (what you're implying I'm saying)? I'm saying we're currently acting like a virus that's killing the host that it depends on for survival. I hate that we're acting this way, but I don't believe that defines who we are as a species.
You seem to have missed the meat of the matter, so I'll make it very clear. If we "stop having so many fucking kids", how will we avoid the huge problem that is facing Italy right now where there are too many old people and not enough young people to support them?
Well probably by young people cutting down on their own consumption and doing what they can to support them. This would suck, but only temporarily. The alternative is to continue where we're going and have problems increase exponentially until our numbers are painfully decreased by factors that have grown beyond our control.
Look, I'm not promoting legislation to force people to have less kids and consume less. I'm just trying to make a simple plea to stop and think of where we're going for a while. Is what we're doing worth it? Is progress simply a measure of how many humans can live simutaneously with the longest lifespans? What percentage of man-hours is actually spent improving our lives rather than making and acquiring gadgets that we don't need nor makes us any happier? Judging by the knee-jerk reactions here against even bringing up these questions make me think I'm just spitting in the wind, though.
Alas, I haven't been a young college student for a while now. Seeing as how I'm arguing on how to improve our welfare, it doesn't make me much of a misanthrope either. A true misanthrope would promote a rapid increase in population and take joy in the suffering that ensues.
Your ad hominem rant was entertaining, nonetheless.
You are speculating about mass extinction events, but the only mass extinction events that will be of any consequence are things like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcano eruptions and such. And the only reason why those will matter is because we are much more densely populated than previously.
I am not speculating about a mass extinction event. If you read the article I linked you'll see I'm talking about "a sharp decrease in the number of species in a relatively short period of time". 70% of biologists believe we are currently in a mass extinction event caused by us. If we take out a species and later find out their existence is important for our survival or well-being we just can't say "oops" and bring them back to life.
Also, I am not convinced that our current population spurt is the cause of our rapid advances in technology. You're confusing correlation and causation. It's more likely that we hit a "sweet spot" in technological advance and it was the cause of the population boom, not the other way around. For example, the germ theory of disease (by a single individual) and innovations in farming techniques preceeded, not followed, accelerated population growth. If our population were reduced the technological advances would continue unabated, and the quality of life of people would increase at the same time.
Pollution and the destruction of natural resources have already decreased life styles and life spans in many areas of the world. Just be thankful you're not in one of them. It might not be so easy to turn back the tide of environmental impact at the moment we start noticing a global trend in negative impact toward humanity. It's kind of hard to heal a mass extinction event in any reasonable amount of time, among other things. Thanks goodness for progress. Extending lives by making the world desolate.
You're talking about human population, not the health of the environment. While the population grew from 2 to 6.5 billion I'm willing to bet that the amount of pollutants unleashed increased well over 3 times what was already there. And if you don't believe me, read The World Without Us. The book lays out the extent of our effect on the environment quite nicely.
That's just it. In the real world accelerated population growth creates environmental issues quicker than the technological advances produced by the population can deal with them. Comprende?
I couldn't disagree more. (And I'm sorry I misinterpreted the intent of your original post). From all I've read about the issue, the rate of problems caused by population growth exceeds the rate that said population can fix them. Seems more likely that as the population decreased, the amount of overhead for dealing with problems caused by overpopulation would drop dramatically and give us more time to focus on the issues you highlighted. Why would massive amount of minds working simulaneously be necessary? For my money, less minds in a decent work environment beats a bunch of minds distracted with constantly putting out fires, to use an IT analogy.
I guess I missed his point. I thought he was continuing the cycle of population growth, increased technology, population growth until the process was no longer sustainable. I didn't know his endpoint was going to be a technological utopia. Seeing as how pollution and its effects seem to be growing quicker than our ability to more efficiently use our resources, this outcome seems unlikely.
Just as an aside, 12% of the land for raising food is farmland, the rest is for grazing.
There are far more ants on the planet than humans, but their impact on it is much less than ours. If I really had an anti-people bias, I would push for the human race to have as many kids as possible and argue that the blind pursuit of "progress" without some type of foresight would be the best pursuit of action. If current trends are any indication, it would truly be hell on Earth.
If you would like to read up on just how much of a negative impact we have had on the environment we depend on for our health, happiness and well-being, try reading The World Without Us. It's quite an eye-opener.
Increase in usage of certain types of energy and resources allows our population to grow, which pushes the tech forward, which allows population to grow even more eventually forcing us to think of new energy sources and other resources etc. It's all about population growth.
Exactly. The new technologies to live efficiently are great, useful advances. But the real key to improving our world and our lives on it.. Stop. Having. So many. Fucking. Kids. Reduce the population. Over one-third of the land on Earth is used to raise food for human consumption for cryin' out loud. It's time we stop being the Human Virus and return to the Human Race.
Yes but if you are able to travel close to the speed of light relative to where you left (a big if) the distance you are traveling contracts radically and the time to make the trip decreases as well. The people who saw you leave will long be dead by the time you get back to see them though.
Slashdot Mirror
If I understand it correctly, a Quantum Computer already is a Beowulf Cluster of possibilities.
B. Unitary quantum, plus an ad-hoc assumption about 'wavefunction collapse.'
Really? Because I was under the impression that "wavefunction collapse" was simply a collision between particles that limits the possibilities of their wavefunctions. For example, in a double-slit experiment particles can go through two slits simultaneously causing an interference pattern to build up over time. When bouncing photons off of the particles in a certain way, the possible path of each particle is limited to one slit and the interference pattern disappears. Simple. I guess I don't see what the contention is here about what constitutes a collapse.
I don't see A as being simpler at all. In MWI a person splits between many possible states just because and yet we experience just one of these because of explanations that amount to hand-waving. The alternative is that particles pick certain options during collapses rather than others just because, and that's what we observe. Both explain the exact same outcome in different manner. One just has much fewer universes than the other. :)
But quantum mechanics was accepted because of its ability to make accurate predicitions to natural phenomenon, and thus was an improvement of what came before it. Since MWI (observers split into experiences of multiple outcomes) and the alternative (the particles of the universe operates as wavefunctions except when forced to a particular state by an "observation") are different interpretations of QM, the only criteria to judge them by is what works better "conceptually".
So if I'm understanding you correctly, this means that MWI takes the indeterminism out of the universe at large and instead puts it to the measurement of each separate individual (be it instrument or conscious observer) as to what aspect of the multiverse is being experienced at any given time.
I'm sorry but I don't see how this is an improvement.
Actually Zen Buddhist monks live very strict, regimented, structured lives. Espcially those in Japan. They would consider anybody with a tendency to daydream or procrastinate as failing to live "in the moment". One great quote I remember hearing goes, "Don't do nothing. Do nothing." One monk from the non-fiction book "Ambivalent Zen" would pay any bills he received as soon as he received them so that he could better keep his mind clear.
That said, I'd have a hard hard time changing my own daydreaming, procrastinating ways.
Don't forget the quarks held together by the exchange of gluons. There is no strong nuclear force holding anything together in the positronium atom.
But the Pauli exclusion principle prevents two *identical* fermions from occupying the same quantum state simultaneously. Are an electron and positron considered identical fermions or is this between two electrons and positrons within the "molecule"?
I'm also wondering just how stable the molecules are. Could they be used for a matter-antimatter propelled rocket?
Today's Thursday. Must be my armchair physicist day.
So positronium is an atom composed of an electron and a positron. Is this then an atom without a nucleus?
Weird.
We will never be able to do it. To do so would be to circumvent causality, which means circumventing logic. And logic is more powerful than physics. Tired arguments stating, "In the past we thought doing X was impossible, but we figured it out," just don't apply. Transmitting information faster than light is a fiction.
I'm sorry, but I'm curious as to where you're getting your information from. As I understand it Buddhism is non-theistic (the existence or non-existence of any god(s) is irrelevant), Sikhism is monotheistic (being a combination of Islam and Hinduism), Hinduism is panentheistic (the universe is a subset of god, although god exhibits itself in many many manisfestations) and I'm just not sure about Jainism, although I suspect it is also panentheistic.
Maybe this has to do with what Bob Dylan was talking about earlier when he mentioned the lower sound quality of modern recordings.
OK, I see what you mean about the 1 versus 3 year Martian warming trend. But the fact remains that this is still just a region on Mars, not a reflection of global temperature, which you must admit is a much more misleading and errorneous propaganda trick.
As for why he got the text wrong, why don't you ask him how this (pratically insignificant) flaw came up? There is a space for posting comments, you know.
The facts and the link get better when you bother to read the whole thing.
Remember, in the distant past the Earth was MUCH warmer than it is right now. It's happened before naturally, and is likely to occur again naturally.
True, global temperature does tend to change naturally over time. But it doesn't usually happen so rapidly. And when it does, it tends to suck for all us organisms living here.
Try twelve. Although I got my graduate degree a couple of years ago after being in the workforce for a while, that hardly makes me young and inexperienced.
I'm convinced: you feel great, passionate love for the "Human Virus". Sure you want to improve "our" welfare, provided that I'm lucky enough to be one of the chosen ones who gets to survive in your utopia. I wouldn't dare call you an elitist.
Might there be a distinction between making a case for having less children (what I'm saying) and killing people (what you're implying I'm saying)? I'm saying we're currently acting like a virus that's killing the host that it depends on for survival. I hate that we're acting this way, but I don't believe that defines who we are as a species.
You seem to have missed the meat of the matter, so I'll make it very clear. If we "stop having so many fucking kids", how will we avoid the huge problem that is facing Italy right now where there are too many old people and not enough young people to support them?
Well probably by young people cutting down on their own consumption and doing what they can to support them. This would suck, but only temporarily. The alternative is to continue where we're going and have problems increase exponentially until our numbers are painfully decreased by factors that have grown beyond our control.
Look, I'm not promoting legislation to force people to have less kids and consume less. I'm just trying to make a simple plea to stop and think of where we're going for a while. Is what we're doing worth it? Is progress simply a measure of how many humans can live simutaneously with the longest lifespans? What percentage of man-hours is actually spent improving our lives rather than making and acquiring gadgets that we don't need nor makes us any happier? Judging by the knee-jerk reactions here against even bringing up these questions make me think I'm just spitting in the wind, though.
Your ad hominem rant was entertaining, nonetheless.
I am not speculating about a mass extinction event. If you read the article I linked you'll see I'm talking about "a sharp decrease in the number of species in a relatively short period of time". 70% of biologists believe we are currently in a mass extinction event caused by us. If we take out a species and later find out their existence is important for our survival or well-being we just can't say "oops" and bring them back to life.
Also, I am not convinced that our current population spurt is the cause of our rapid advances in technology. You're confusing correlation and causation. It's more likely that we hit a "sweet spot" in technological advance and it was the cause of the population boom, not the other way around. For example, the germ theory of disease (by a single individual) and innovations in farming techniques preceeded, not followed, accelerated population growth. If our population were reduced the technological advances would continue unabated, and the quality of life of people would increase at the same time.
Pollution and the destruction of natural resources have already decreased life styles and life spans in many areas of the world. Just be thankful you're not in one of them. It might not be so easy to turn back the tide of environmental impact at the moment we start noticing a global trend in negative impact toward humanity. It's kind of hard to heal a mass extinction event in any reasonable amount of time, among other things. Thanks goodness for progress. Extending lives by making the world desolate.
You're talking about human population, not the health of the environment. While the population grew from 2 to 6.5 billion I'm willing to bet that the amount of pollutants unleashed increased well over 3 times what was already there. And if you don't believe me, read The World Without Us. The book lays out the extent of our effect on the environment quite nicely.
That's just it. In the real world accelerated population growth creates environmental issues quicker than the technological advances produced by the population can deal with them. Comprende?
I couldn't disagree more. (And I'm sorry I misinterpreted the intent of your original post). From all I've read about the issue, the rate of problems caused by population growth exceeds the rate that said population can fix them. Seems more likely that as the population decreased, the amount of overhead for dealing with problems caused by overpopulation would drop dramatically and give us more time to focus on the issues you highlighted. Why would massive amount of minds working simulaneously be necessary? For my money, less minds in a decent work environment beats a bunch of minds distracted with constantly putting out fires, to use an IT analogy.
My bad. 12% of all of the planet's landmass is cultivated. With grazing land added you get another 18+%.
I guess I missed his point. I thought he was continuing the cycle of population growth, increased technology, population growth until the process was no longer sustainable. I didn't know his endpoint was going to be a technological utopia. Seeing as how pollution and its effects seem to be growing quicker than our ability to more efficiently use our resources, this outcome seems unlikely.
Just as an aside, 12% of the land for raising food is farmland, the rest is for grazing.
There are far more ants on the planet than humans, but their impact on it is much less than ours. If I really had an anti-people bias, I would push for the human race to have as many kids as possible and argue that the blind pursuit of "progress" without some type of foresight would be the best pursuit of action. If current trends are any indication, it would truly be hell on Earth.
If you would like to read up on just how much of a negative impact we have had on the environment we depend on for our health, happiness and well-being, try reading The World Without Us. It's quite an eye-opener.
Exactly. The new technologies to live efficiently are great, useful advances. But the real key to improving our world and our lives on it.. Stop. Having. So many. Fucking. Kids. Reduce the population. Over one-third of the land on Earth is used to raise food for human consumption for cryin' out loud. It's time we stop being the Human Virus and return to the Human Race.
Look here for details.