Matter and energy are only quantized because they are fundamentally (as intelligible objects of perception) information events, and information is necessarily quantized. Without the epistemic effects of an observer in the underlying model, there may be no need of quantization in physics: The discretization effects which quantum theory predicts could be explicable as harmonic nodes of a Lagrangian system, and the continuity of the model be thus preserved.
Besides which, renormalization theory requires an infinite regress of entities in order to explain the quantum, so I don't think you're escaping physically real infinities by resort to a quantum theory.
> debunks the idea of a "graviton" or a particulate carrier for gravity because of the need for it to have mass.
Some problems with that description:
1) So particles which act to mediate forces require mass huh? Like, say, photons?
2) If you don't allow recursive feynmann diagrams, you're pretty much tossing all of renormalization theory.
I have no familiarity with the lecture you describe, so I don't know if your characterization is dim, or if the original lecture is just plain wrong -- after all, you're talking about 50 year-old physics, so it's probably totally obsolete and wrong. Being the words of a Laureate does not sanctify ignorance.
I've never had a credit check for a job, nor have I met anyone who has. I know that it has been done, but that's a pretty weak statement.
The only real value of a credit history is as a means of incurring more debt. That may be a very useful thing to do, but really, that's all there is to it, and if you don't ever want to incur debt, as e.g. for a mortgage, there's no practical reason to want a credit history.
That's the most ludicrous argument in favor of a bank account that I have ever heard. It is a reasonable argument in favor of a brokerage account, however.
I'm sorry -- I left the important units off of the right-hand column. The table of the comment above represents calendar year versus the number of megawatt-hours of metered residential electricity which one man-year of U.S. per-capita GDP would suffice to purchase. The data was derived from the US DOE EIA web site for 1960 to 2005, and from miscellaneous other historical sources for prior years.
Rather than merely throwing one's hands up in the air and saying "it's too expensive, so it won't happen", which I think we all knew, isn't it more interesting to ask when it will no longer be too expensive? What was the cost of producing 2e18 joules in 1000 AD? 1900 AD? 2000 AD? Restricting ourselves to the post-Edison era, from 1882 to date, I observe that one man-year of US per-capita GDP will buy an exponentially increasing amount of energy:
Thus, it requires 1.25 million man-years of economic output to send his "capsule" load to the stars today. But in 100 years, it may take 3000 or less, and in 500 years it should be easily within the entertainment budget of a single household.
Of course past history is no guarantee of future performance!
Positrons in a magnetic bottle are by far the most do-able high-density energy storage system. They also make a great weapon of mass destruction, without any silly regulatory hassles on the materials.
You are beneath most animals, in that most animals would not do such things as you endorse to others of their kind. Being both inhumane and intelligent, you are, therefore, a dangerous monster.
It is very sad to see someone twist the idea of a woman's right to personal corporeal autonomy into an amoral indifference to killing people.
And grasshoppers developed little wing stubs which made a delightful sound that attracted mates when wiggled vigorously. By increasingly vigorous wiggling, with selection pressure for higher sound volume implying larger wing surface area, one day a particularly horny grasshopper began to fly, and said "whoa! wtfbbq! i can fly! sure beats walking!" and then all the others noticed that he could fly, so they started flying too. after that, you couldn't get a mate unless you flew them to a drive-in movie.
I'd like to hear your opinion again after you've had your child ripped out of your belly, and been forcibly sterilized. Or perhaps after this happened to your wife or sister. Mutilation and murder are not a form of population control. They are a form of mutilation and murder.
Indeed, I can't see how this can change, until a contrary incentive is provided. For example, were company boards subject to attrition to assassination, I think the picture would change very, very rapidly indeed.
It's not the censorship that troubles the people of China. It's the bill sent to your family, to pay for the bullet used to execute you. It's the forced abortions. It's the two years of torture in a disease-ridden prison camp without the benefit of an opportunity to face your accuser in an imparital court. It's the removal of your land and livelihood, without compensation. It's the gloating faces of the limosine riders who poison your water.
It's difficult to see how one can promote free speech by helping to imprision anyone who says something the CCCP doesn't like. In fact, I'll go one step further: If you claim to be promoting free speech by engaging in censorship, you are a liar.
> Don't you think that the U.S. should protect the only multiethnic, multifaith, and fully participatory > democracy in the region from the surrounding dysfunctional regimes
In a word, no. It's not what you say, sir, that makes you a liar, but what you omit.
Even in scare quotes, "terrorist" is just a lie in this context. We're talking about people defending their homes against a lawless, barbaric invasion. There's no doubt whatsoever who is the evil-doer in this situation.
Actually, no I.D. whatsoever is required in order to fly domestically. It just takes a bit longer to get through security in such cases. REAL ID has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to fly domestically.
I basically stopped flying after the first round of clampdown. I will only fly when it is strictly necessary for business, and I will usually decline business which implies flying. To do otherwise is to be complicit in the establishment of fascism and the evisceration of the rule of law. I am willing to compromise because sometimes the impact of a bloody-minded rigid adherence to single principle does more harm than good by riding roughshod over the preponderance of other principles.
Why Gateway shareholders don't file a lawsuit against Gateway for reckless disregard of their fiduciary duties, manifest as the use of litigous attacks on Gateway customers as a substitute for customer support, I may never know.
Disregard the norm for a moment. There is at least one case of a Quasar with a redshift two orders of magnitude greater than that of the galaxy which it occludes, NGC 7319. (Link is an article of Pasquale Galianni, E.M. Burbidge, H. Arp, V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, and Stefano Zibetti.) The conclusion being obvious, I eagerly await your refutation, which is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Matter and energy are only quantized because they are fundamentally (as intelligible objects of perception) information events, and information is necessarily quantized. Without the epistemic effects of an observer in the underlying model, there may be no need of quantization in physics: The discretization effects which quantum theory predicts could be explicable as harmonic nodes of a Lagrangian system, and the continuity of the model be thus preserved.
Besides which, renormalization theory requires an infinite regress of entities in order to explain the quantum, so I don't think you're escaping physically real infinities by resort to a quantum theory.
> debunks the idea of a "graviton" or a particulate carrier for gravity because of the need for it to have mass.
Some problems with that description:
1) So particles which act to mediate forces require mass huh? Like, say, photons?
2) If you don't allow recursive feynmann diagrams, you're pretty much tossing all of renormalization theory.
I have no familiarity with the lecture you describe, so I don't know if your characterization is dim, or if the original lecture is just plain wrong -- after all, you're talking about 50 year-old physics, so it's probably totally obsolete and wrong. Being the words of a Laureate does not sanctify ignorance.
> Posting anon, for obvious reasons.
Because obviously no one would ever tolerate you again, as long as you live, once they found out that you once worked for the IRS?
Or because obviously you anticipate death threats, stalkers, polonium in the toothpaste, snipers....?
Or because obviously you're just making this stuff up?
Personally, I find the word "obvious" to be only rarely correct.
I've never had a credit check for a job, nor have I met anyone who has. I know that it has been done, but that's a pretty weak statement.
The only real value of a credit history is as a means of incurring more debt. That may be a very useful thing to do, but really, that's all there is to it, and if you don't ever want to incur debt, as e.g. for a mortgage, there's no practical reason to want a credit history.
That's the most ludicrous argument in favor of a bank account that I have ever heard. It is a reasonable argument in favor of a brokerage account, however.
I'm sorry -- I left the important units off of the right-hand column. The table of the comment above represents calendar year versus the number of megawatt-hours of metered residential electricity which one man-year of U.S. per-capita GDP would suffice to purchase.
The data was derived from the US DOE EIA web site for 1960 to 2005, and from miscellaneous other historical sources for prior years.
Agreed.
Rather than merely throwing one's hands up in the air and saying "it's too expensive, so it won't happen", which I think we all knew, isn't it more interesting to ask when it will no longer be too expensive? What was the cost of producing 2e18 joules in 1000 AD? 1900 AD? 2000 AD? Restricting ourselves to the post-Edison era, from 1882 to date, I observe that one man-year of US per-capita GDP will buy an exponentially increasing amount of energy:
1882 - 1
1900 - 2
1932 - 8
1941 - 26
1960 - 114
1970 - 231
2005 - 442
Thus, it requires 1.25 million man-years of economic output to send his "capsule" load to the stars today. But in 100 years, it may take 3000 or less, and in 500 years it should be easily within the entertainment budget of a single household.
Of course past history is no guarantee of future performance!
Positrons in a magnetic bottle are by far the most do-able high-density energy storage system. They also make a great weapon of mass destruction, without any silly regulatory hassles on the materials.
You are beneath most animals, in that most animals would not do such things as you endorse to others of their kind. Being both inhumane and intelligent, you are, therefore, a dangerous monster.
It is very sad to see someone twist the idea of a woman's right to personal corporeal autonomy into an amoral indifference to killing people.
And grasshoppers developed little wing stubs which made a delightful sound that attracted mates when wiggled vigorously. By increasingly vigorous wiggling, with selection pressure for higher sound volume implying larger wing surface area, one day a particularly horny grasshopper began to fly, and said "whoa! wtfbbq! i can fly! sure beats walking!" and then all the others noticed that he could fly, so they started flying too. after that, you couldn't get a mate unless you flew them to a drive-in movie.
Calling simple factual statements about reality a "troll" is pathetically contemptible.
I'd like to hear your opinion again after you've had your child ripped out of your belly, and been forcibly sterilized. Or perhaps after this happened to your wife or sister. Mutilation and murder are not a form of population control. They are a form of mutilation and murder.
Indeed, I can't see how this can change, until a contrary incentive is provided. For example, were company boards subject to attrition to assassination, I think the picture would change very, very rapidly indeed.
It's not the censorship that troubles the people of China. It's the bill sent to your family, to pay for the bullet used to execute you. It's the forced abortions. It's the two years of torture in a disease-ridden prison camp without the benefit of an opportunity to face your accuser in an imparital court. It's the removal of your land and livelihood, without compensation. It's the gloating faces of the limosine riders who poison your water.
It's difficult to see how one can promote free speech by helping to imprision anyone who says something the CCCP doesn't like. In fact, I'll go one step further: If you claim to be promoting free speech by engaging in censorship, you are a liar.
This is an excellent informative post. Thank you.
It is interesting to observe that Iraq proposed to market oil in Euros shortly before the invasion, and that Iran proposes to do so today.
> Don't you think that the U.S. should protect the only multiethnic, multifaith, and fully participatory
> democracy in the region from the surrounding dysfunctional regimes
In a word, no. It's not what you say, sir, that makes you a liar, but what you omit.
Even in scare quotes, "terrorist" is just a lie in this context. We're talking about people defending their homes against a lawless, barbaric invasion. There's no doubt whatsoever who is the evil-doer in this situation.
Umm... 1998 called -- they want their technology back. Ajax is not a new technology.
How about Skype?
Actually, no I.D. whatsoever is required in order to fly domestically. It just takes a bit longer to get through security in such cases. REAL ID has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability to fly domestically.
Actually, you can board an airliner without any I.D. whatsoever. It just takes longer.
I basically stopped flying after the first round of clampdown. I will only fly when it is strictly necessary for business, and I will usually decline business which implies flying. To do otherwise is to be complicit in the establishment of fascism and the evisceration of the rule of law. I am willing to compromise because sometimes the impact of a bloody-minded rigid adherence to single principle does more harm than good by riding roughshod over the preponderance of other principles.
Why Gateway shareholders don't file a lawsuit against Gateway for reckless disregard of their fiduciary duties, manifest as the use of litigous attacks on Gateway customers as a substitute for customer support, I may never know.
Disregard the norm for a moment. There is at least one case of a Quasar with a redshift two orders of magnitude greater than that of the galaxy which it occludes, NGC 7319. (Link is an article of Pasquale Galianni, E.M. Burbidge, H. Arp, V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, and Stefano Zibetti.) The conclusion being obvious, I eagerly await your refutation, which is not.