"Where do you get a laser that produces entangled pairs with the ability to separate the pairs into 2 coherent beams?"
That part is easy. A UV laser produces photons that when fired though a LiO3 crystal are split to provide two momentum correlated photons. This is routinely done in labs all round the world and specifically by Ms Dopfer for her Ph.D. back in 1998. Cramer is attempting to see if the pattern change she observed in her experiment will arise if you don't demand a coincidence between the arms.
Now I have real problems with the causality violation part of his idea, but getting a spontaneous change in interference pattern would be really very interesting indeed.
I think the trick with this is that it is not one individual photon whose state you're try to force, but a collection of them.
So the experiment is is to see if he force either a single slit interference pattern or a double slit interference pattern but destroying the entangled photon at distance "f" (double slit pattern) or distance "2f" (giving single slit). This can only arise after a collection of photons arrive. The experimenter speculates this could be achieved in as few at a dozen photons.
Nevertheless the experimenter can signal either a "0" (single slit) or "1" double slit by absorbing the beam at "f" or "2f".
This seems like a nice loophole and I really wonder what he will see. If it doesn't work I would also love to see why the coincidence is required given "singles" rate after the pin-hole is likely only 25% larger than the coincidence rate.
Actually no. This new experiment is VERY interesting. The new experiment proposed by John G. Cramer aims to test an idea that might allow quantum signaling.
The idea is to see if an interference pattern will spontaneously change from a single slit to a double slit merely by moving the position of where entangled photons are destroyed.
I think there is a reasonable chance this will work. This is interesting as it in principle allows FTL communication.
The reference I quoted was a peer reviewed paper from 2005 which examined a current (1980's generation) nuclear power plants in Switzerland. It was performed by an independent scientific team.
Look it up.
It makes sense once you do a back of the envolope calculation. A 1 GW coal fired power burns 9000 tonnes of coal per day, emitting around 25000 tonnes of CO2 every day.
A 1 GW nuclear power plant consumes around 30 tonnes of nuclear fuel per year. That derives from 200 tonnes of natural uranium. The lowest grade mine in the world is Rossing in Namibia.
Rossing produces 3000 tonnes of Uranium at an energy cost of 1 PetaJoules per year. That's enough for 15 GW worth of Nuclear Power per year. 15 GW of nuclear power per year is 15*30 = 450 PetaJoules. So 1 PJ of energy to mine, 450 PJ worth of energy, 0.2% of of the CO2 output. The conversion to UF6, enrichment to 5% U235, energy construction cost of the plant, decommisioning of the plant and disposal of the waste takes it up to 1%.
I invite you to do your own sums and your own research.
"It's not that either. People forget that it's made out of rocks and not magic beans. The enrichment process involves heating Uranium up until it becomes a gas - which requires a bit of fossil fuels but overall wiht the best Uranium ore the CO2 emissions will end up less than a third of what you would get if you burnt natural gas to make electricity."
All this stuff has been fully worked through. Nuclear Power emits around 1% the CO2 of a fossil fuel plant. It's CO2 footprint is about the same as wind power. Storm and Smith are way out of date.
See:
Donnes et al. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessments, 10, P 10-23 (2005)
and enjoy the benefits of all the grey packages delivered via yum. Personally, I like the Fedora approach of giving totally free products a boost.
The main benefit of Fedora over over Ubuntu is the actively maintained Fedora Extra's. These are generally updated as soon as the upstream maintainers make a release as opposed to waiting 6 months for the next Ubuntu upgrade.
Anyway now that the standard Ubuntu troll is out of the way, all this is moot. The point is that THIS FC6-based distro has all the grey packages available on a nice easy to use ISO.
There are a lot of members and Ministers of the Uniting Church of Australia (about the 2nd largest denomination in Australia) who hold very similar views.
"I am happy for you that it works for you, but I also feel profoundly sorry that you need to delve into the halls of mysticism and absurdity to find meaning in your life. Wouldn't it be better if you could find purpose an meaning without inventing an all-good, punishing, caring and eternal-damnation-creating Santa Claus pulling the strings from behind that curtain and those mirrors?"
Actually you don't sound particularly happy for me but maybe that is just the nature of an internet conversation. I have lots of meaning in my life and many, many challenges. I have marvelous sense of wonder at the beautiful Universe for us to discover learn about. I have the chance to participate in that. I have challenges of developing a first rate software program that could transform the lives of millions of children around the world. I have the challenge of participating in the debate of the future of the energy for our civilization. Having access to that peace and connectedness it a marvelous aid to the challenges of my life.
Well it certainly proves my laziness. I could talk about connectedness, pacisfism, turning the other cheek, the true nature of effective leadership, discarding the superfluous, the benefits of altruism, the power of redemption but no doubt all those ideas have precedent in some other culture at an earlier time.
What can I say? In the end it works for me. I feel a profound peace and much higher sense of connectedness to the world and my fellow man after church. That is good enough for me. I think it is only right that I tell others about this in case it helps them too.
Finally I do not think Christianity is the only path to God. It is what I know the best and am comfortable with though.
My goodness you have a very warped view of Christianity. Of course I don't think you will burn in hell. God loves you just as much as he loves me. Just as much as he loves everyone and there is nothing you or I can do to change that.
Thanks for your post. I would have thought this obvious. We have brain evolved for hunting-gathering not for bunching into huge tribes and Nation-states.
"Several tribes in the Amazon use a mixture called ayahuasca to hunt monkeys at night. And anthropological-type question: how does a hallucinogenic potion ( a mixture of harmaline and harmine, psychoactive MAOIs, from the ayahuasca vine, and DMT from the Chacruna bush, ) help you run through the jungle at night, wielding 9' long blow-guns to inject poison darts into monkeys fleeing through the top of the canopy?"
This is fascinating! Are there any measures of the effectiveness of this strategy compared to no using the potion?
I have no Scientific evidence, just personal experience.
My personal experience is from my Oseopath who regularly manages to fix muscular and spinal misalignments by touch and intention. My most vivid example was when my knee cap which was about 1 inch away from where is should be, moved back to proper position under her hands.
It was the most amazing experince. I could feel it move back.
I've asked her how she does stuff like that and her answer is along the lines, "Oh could just feel the right energy pathways and touched you with the right intentionality."
It sounds incredibally New-Agey-bullshit and but Osteopathy has worked everytime I needed it. She recently fixed my back in the same gentle way in about 30 minutes after about 6 months of discomfort. (I thought it would get better with just some exercises for that long.)
I was raised a Christian. As a teenager I went deep into being an agnostic but never went across into an atheist, afterall how can such a concept be disproved?
As a Scientist I have been amazed at the depths of knowlege we've obtained about Nature and wondered why it is that Universe is so knowable. I started to reularly attend church again and found teachings of Jesus to be thoroughly unplausible within the context of the culture in Palestine at his time. Despite being very counter-inuative, those ideas worked and still resonate around us and form the basis of Western Humanist secular society.
The tiny sects they founded were outstandingly successful because their members actually followed the teachings of Jesus and found new ways to cooperate and live fuller lives.
But in the end, reglion is fundamentally a subjective experience. I personally feel calmer and more at Peace with the world after attending church. It is definately a beneficial experience.
"Religion has by far been the most destructive motivational force on the face of the planet. "
Written by someone who is almost certainly a member of Western Civilization this is pretty strange. The Humanist ethics considered the norm in Western Countries are the direct outgrowth of Christian morals.
There are plenty of other morals to choose from. Choose them if you want to be free of Christian taint.
Actually the early christian church provided a significant advantage to it's members because their level of cooperation was significantly above the norm.
Their number grew by about 40% per decade despite constant persecution.
Actually QFT has survived some pretty impressive tests. One of these is that the mass of a particle is precisely the same as the anti-particle of the same type.
This has been validated to approximately one part in 10^18 in the neutral kaon system and is easily the most precise test of any theory in Science.
I don't know if they're dead, but their importance is somewhat diminished.
arXiv.org started out a single researchers unix workstation devoted to the field of particle physics phenomenology and has grown to what it is today.
Basically all the the fields that use Latex/Tex as their publishing standard use it.
Still arxiv.org is "preprint" archive, often papers are significantly more polished by the time they've been peer reviewed and published. Some papers do not make the cut. Still it is incrediablly useful. I use it all the time.
Physical Review (http://publish.aps.org/), run by the American Physical Society still has access charges and the process of organising peer review and getting articles up to the required standards does cost money.
Slashdot Mirror
"Where do you get a laser that produces entangled pairs with the ability to separate the pairs into 2 coherent beams?"
That part is easy. A UV laser produces photons that when fired though a LiO3 crystal are split to provide two momentum correlated photons. This is routinely done in labs all round the world and specifically by Ms Dopfer for her Ph.D. back in 1998. Cramer is attempting to see if the pattern change she observed in her experiment will arise if you don't demand a coincidence between the arms.
Read:
http://www.analogsf.com/0612/altview.shtml
Now I have real problems with the causality violation part of his idea, but getting a spontaneous change in interference pattern would be really very interesting indeed.
I think the trick with this is that it is not one individual photon whose state you're try to force, but a collection of them.
So the experiment is is to see if he force either a single slit interference pattern or a double slit interference pattern but destroying the entangled photon at distance "f" (double slit pattern) or distance "2f" (giving single slit). This can only arise after a collection of photons arrive. The experimenter speculates this could be achieved in as few at a dozen photons.
Nevertheless the experimenter can signal either a "0" (single slit) or "1" double slit by absorbing the beam at "f" or "2f".
This seems like a nice loophole and I really wonder what he will see. If it doesn't work I would also love to see why the coincidence is required given "singles" rate after the pin-hole is likely only 25% larger than the coincidence rate.
Actually no. This new experiment is VERY interesting. The new experiment proposed by John G. Cramer aims to test an idea that might allow quantum signaling.
See this:
http://www.analogsf.com/0612/altview.shtml
The idea is to see if an interference pattern will spontaneously change from a single slit to a double slit merely by moving the position of where entangled photons are destroyed.
I think there is a reasonable chance this will work. This is interesting as it in principle allows FTL communication.
After that his ideas get REALLY interesting.....
I totally agree about being off topic and I'm all in favour of research into cellulistic ethanol.
1. I'm not the nuclear industry.
2. Gas is a factor of 2 better than coal, not a factor of 10.
3. Concrete is included in the calculation.
Look at the peer reviewed papers on this stuff.
The reference I quoted was a peer reviewed paper from 2005 which examined a current (1980's generation) nuclear power plants in Switzerland. It was performed by an independent scientific team.
2 0Stakeholder%20Report%202004.pdf
Look it up.
It makes sense once you do a back of the envolope calculation. A 1 GW coal fired power burns 9000 tonnes of coal per day, emitting around 25000 tonnes of CO2 every day.
A 1 GW nuclear power plant consumes around 30 tonnes of nuclear fuel per year. That derives from 200 tonnes of natural uranium. The lowest grade mine in the world is Rossing in Namibia.
See here: http://www.altonsa.co.za/rossing/reports/Rossing%
Rossing produces 3000 tonnes of Uranium at an energy cost of 1 PetaJoules per year. That's enough for 15 GW worth of Nuclear Power per year. 15 GW of nuclear power per year is 15*30 = 450 PetaJoules. So 1 PJ of energy to mine, 450 PJ worth of energy, 0.2% of of the CO2 output. The conversion to UF6, enrichment to 5% U235, energy construction cost of the plant, decommisioning of the plant and disposal of the waste takes it up to 1%.
I invite you to do your own sums and your own research.
"It's not that either. People forget that it's made out of rocks and not magic beans. The enrichment process involves heating Uranium up until it becomes a gas - which requires a bit of fossil fuels but overall wiht the best Uranium ore the CO2 emissions will end up less than a third of what you would get if you burnt natural gas to make electricity."
All this stuff has been fully worked through. Nuclear Power emits around 1% the CO2 of a fossil fuel plant. It's CO2 footprint is about the same as wind power. Storm and Smith are way out of date.
See:
Donnes et al. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessments, 10, P 10-23 (2005)
Propaganda by Greenpeace is still propaganda.
George Orwell would have been proud of you.
As someone who runs both Ubuntu and FC6 distros, I think you have it backwards...
For FC6 just install the livna rpm's like this:
# rpm -Uhv http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-6.rpm
# rpm --import http://rpm.livna.org/RPM-LIVNA-GPG-KEY
and enjoy the benefits of all the grey packages delivered via yum. Personally, I like the Fedora approach of giving totally free products a boost.
The main benefit of Fedora over over Ubuntu is the actively maintained Fedora Extra's. These are generally updated as soon as the upstream maintainers make a release as opposed to waiting 6 months for the next Ubuntu upgrade.
Anyway now that the standard Ubuntu troll is out of the way, all this is moot. The point is that THIS FC6-based distro has all the grey packages available on a nice easy to use ISO.
As others have pointed out, this article is almost entirely useless.
Can someone provide a link to something that answers the obvious questions:
1. How does it work?
2. How much energy does it take to extract it's 10 tonnes of CO2 per year?
3. How does this compare with refrigeration or plants as a means to reduce CO2 concentration?
4. What is it's likely cost?
There are a lot of members and Ministers of the Uniting Church of Australia (about the 2nd largest denomination in Australia) who hold very similar views.
"I am happy for you that it works for you, but I also feel profoundly sorry that you need to delve into the halls of mysticism and absurdity to find meaning in your life. Wouldn't it be better if you could find purpose an meaning without inventing an all-good, punishing, caring and eternal-damnation-creating Santa Claus pulling the strings from behind that curtain and those mirrors?"
Actually you don't sound particularly happy for me but maybe that is just the nature of an internet conversation. I have lots of meaning in my life and many, many challenges. I have marvelous sense of wonder at the beautiful Universe for us to discover learn about. I have the chance to participate in that. I have challenges of developing a first rate software program that could transform the lives of millions of children around the world. I have the challenge of participating in the debate of the future of the energy for our civilization. Having access to that peace and connectedness it a marvelous aid to the challenges of my life.
I feel sad you feel the need to denegrade it.
Well it certainly proves my laziness. I could talk about connectedness, pacisfism, turning the other cheek, the true nature of effective leadership, discarding the superfluous, the benefits of altruism, the power of redemption but no doubt all those ideas have precedent in some other culture at an earlier time.
What can I say? In the end it works for me. I feel a profound peace and much higher sense of connectedness to the world and my fellow man after church. That is good enough for me. I think it is only right that I tell others about this in case it helps them too.
Finally I do not think Christianity is the only path to God. It is what I know the best and am comfortable with though.
As I said, I'm a Christian and I don't believe you or anyone else will burn in hell. I guess I'm not your definition of a Christian.
Right. That's why the early Christian church grew from one insignificant death to envoloping the Roman Empire despite continuous persecutions.
Because their morals and sense of cohesion were no different from everyone elses.
My goodness you have a very warped view of Christianity. Of course I don't think you will burn in hell. God loves you just as much as he loves me. Just as much as he loves everyone and there is nothing you or I can do to change that.
I'm very sorry you feel this way.
Thanks for your post. I would have thought this obvious. We have brain evolved for hunting-gathering not for bunching into huge tribes and Nation-states.
"Several tribes in the Amazon use a mixture called ayahuasca to hunt monkeys at night. And anthropological-type question: how does a hallucinogenic potion ( a mixture of harmaline and harmine, psychoactive MAOIs, from the ayahuasca vine, and DMT from the Chacruna bush, ) help you run through the jungle at night, wielding 9' long blow-guns to inject poison darts into monkeys fleeing through the top of the canopy?"
This is fascinating! Are there any measures of the effectiveness of this strategy compared to no using the potion?
I have no Scientific evidence, just personal experience.
My personal experience is from my Oseopath who regularly manages to fix muscular and spinal misalignments by touch and intention.
My most vivid example was when my knee cap which was about 1 inch away from where is should be, moved back to proper position under her hands.
It was the most amazing experince. I could feel it move back.
I've asked her how she does stuff like that and her answer is along the lines, "Oh could just feel the right energy pathways and touched you with the right intentionality."
It sounds incredibally New-Agey-bullshit and but Osteopathy has worked everytime I needed it. She recently fixed my back in the same gentle way in about 30 minutes after about 6 months of discomfort. (I thought it would get better with just some exercises for that long.)
I guess my point is, your post had a tone of "What has religion done for me?". I was pointing out something large and obvious.
I was raised a Christian. As a teenager I went deep into being an agnostic but never went across into an atheist, afterall how can such a concept be disproved?
As a Scientist I have been amazed at the depths of knowlege we've obtained about Nature and wondered why it is that Universe is so knowable. I started to reularly attend church again and found teachings of Jesus to be thoroughly unplausible within the context of the culture in Palestine at his time. Despite being very counter-inuative, those ideas worked and still resonate around us and form the basis of Western Humanist secular society.
The tiny sects they founded were outstandingly successful because their members actually followed the teachings of Jesus and found new ways to cooperate and live fuller lives.
But in the end, reglion is fundamentally a subjective experience. I personally feel calmer and more at Peace with the world after attending church. It is definately a beneficial experience.
"Religion has by far been the most destructive motivational force on the face of the planet. "
Written by someone who is almost certainly a member of Western Civilization this is pretty strange. The Humanist ethics considered the norm in Western Countries are the direct outgrowth of Christian morals.
There are plenty of other morals to choose from. Choose them if you want to be free of Christian taint.
Actually the early christian church provided a significant advantage to it's members because their level of cooperation was significantly above the norm.
Their number grew by about 40% per decade despite constant persecution.
Sure, straight from the PDG, tests of CPT invariance.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/tables/conlaw.pdf
As you say, very impressive indeed.
Cheers
Martin
Actually QFT has survived some pretty impressive tests. One of these is that the mass of a particle is precisely the same as the anti-particle of the same type.
This has been validated to approximately one part in 10^18 in the neutral kaon system and is easily the most precise test of any theory in Science.
I don't know if they're dead, but their importance is somewhat diminished.
arXiv.org started out a single researchers unix workstation devoted to the field of particle physics phenomenology and has grown to what it is today.
Basically all the the fields that use Latex/Tex as their publishing standard use it.
Still arxiv.org is "preprint" archive, often papers are significantly more polished by the time they've been peer reviewed and published. Some papers do not make the cut. Still it is incrediablly useful. I use it all the time.
Physical Review (http://publish.aps.org/), run by the American Physical Society still has access charges and the process of organising peer review and getting articles up to the required standards does cost money.