No, it doesn't. View it from the perspective of the two measuring parties. We'll call them Abe and Bob.
Each particle has a 50% chance of being in one of two states, + or -. Entanglement means that if Abe's particle is +, Bob's is -, and vice versa.
Abe measures his particle. Regardless of if his particle is + or -, that doesn't tell him if Bob measured his particle or not. While the values of the measurements are dependent on one another, without information from the other measuring party, the measurer can't tell the difference between the entangled and collapsed states.
Correct -- theoretically, you can produce zero-momentum particles with a head-on collision of equal-energy beams. So subrelativistic particles are entirely reasonable.
For product particles with reasonable energies, you're only going to see a lifetime extension on the order of a factor of 10.
Well, not getting what you want out of government is a very different matter from a general public vs private sector claim. There are some things -- defense, most notably -- that government certainly should be more efficient at. That's really the point. If they're fucking it up, replace them.
It is not faster-than-light communication. We will know immediately, and do. (You don't need large time scales to test "immediate" communications -- we can measure that to sufficient resolution on Earth.)
I'm not sure your statement on "if [they] are entangled in another dimension" is really meaningful. Entanglement is a property of objects in quantum states.
You can already exploit it, though -- it's fairly similar to the basis for quantum "encryption" (by one definition), which is not encryption at all, but a form of communication that is impossible to intercept without rapid detection. You can create these states with photons, which is what is done. It's unreasonably complex to use outside of special applications and cool demos, though.
The teleportation is instantaneous. (A philosophy-inclined physicist might object to you applying the label "instantaneous", since it implies a signal is propagating instantaneously -- but there's no signal at all.) However, the teleportation cannot be used for communication without information transfer -- which means the communication is bound by the speed you can transfer that information (which is lightspeed).
You most certainly can measure the propagation time of light over distances of one meter. It takes on the order of 10^-8 seconds for light to travel 1 m, and we have time measurement devices better than ns. (Actually, using clever techniques, you can do way better than meters.)
There are very many ways you can be screwed in the private sector that you have no control over. If you have no control, then the "choice" is only an illusion, and you have been screwed just as hard.
Of course, we could form our own collective group of citizens to increase our bargaining power and impose restrictions on those we choose to do business with, but then we'd be labeled with some dirty term like "union" or "government".
I don't think there's a reasonable mechanism for that to occur. "Dissipating" implies Hawking radiation -- meaning a micro black hole would need to rapidly accrete matter after it's formed, and then suddenly no longer have access to that matter. Since accretion is limited by cross-section, bigger black holes accrete faster. (Note also that black holes become more stable as they grow larger, oddly, so they need to accrete less.) This really implies that the black hole passes through the star. This can only occur if the micro black hole has a high enough velocity that it's not captured by the star. Since there's now a lower limit on the velocity of the black hole, you know the size of a neutron star, and you know the maximum accretion rate, you can determine how much the black hole would accrete as it passes through the star. For the cross-section of micro black holes and the size and density of Earth, this accretion amount is absolutely trivial. The more concerning case is where the black hole is captured by a stellar body, which this analysis suggests does not occur.
This is part of the topic of the paper. Black holes don't really have half-lives, but yes, high-speed black holes have longer lifetimes. (The paper's content suggests there are other effects to consider, but my ability to read relativistic physics breaks down at that point.)
High-energy cosmic-ray collisions occur at a rate of something like one per square meter per year. We don't control the energy or involved particles. To do high-energy physics, you need the statistics from millions of collisions with carefully-controlled parameters and sensitive measurement devices (which, incidentally, completely enclose the reaction area -- which would exclude most cosmic rays anyway).
The particle density is actually not high compared to the incredibly small cross-section of such a small black hole. Concerns about accretion rate are actually one of the major topics of this paper (though you wouldn't know that reading the abysmal blog post summarizing it).
There's actually an excellent paper out on this that points out that neutron stars are much more efficient "theoretical mini black hole" catchers than the earth. The number of old neutron stars is evidence against persistent-mini-black-hole production.
Actually, cosmic rays, which regularly (read: constantly) enter our atmosphere, have energies up to 10^20 eV. The LHC uses 7 TeV protons and ~500 TeV lead nuclei. That's on the order of 10^12 to 10^14 eV.
So, you have it backwards. We don't produce particle at anywhere near the energy they're produced in nature.
What he really means is having a new benchmark that has a combination of loads from other benchmarks -- this is closer to a real-world case than any one individual benchmark, which is some kind of extreme case.
I like how you apparently don't know what this is about, so describe it as "monitoring what websites we browse even more" and don't know how much time or money was put into the decision, so label it a "colossal waste of public resources".
I guess in the absence of facts, the thing to do is make things up and be angry about your invented reality.
Yes -- it seems that YouTube is the only one granted this exception because they're the only third-party embedded content.
Incidentally, I was actually somewhat surprised when I went to whitehouse.gov to discover that it didn't use any third-party JavaScript and worked just fine with JavaScript disabled.
No, a logical argument in science does not constitute disproof. While it's fair to say the burden of proof is on the claimant, not being able to prove a claim doesn't prove the inverse.
As GP points out, any kind of statistical correlation with school shootings will be very difficult, due to the rarity of shootings. I think we all know there's no direct effect -- in no case was the shooting an immediate, direct result of the video game. The researcher points out that no studies are able to show a video game-shooting correlation, that there is no logical reason to think video games are a cause, and that there are good logical (sociological) explanations for why video games are blamed despite not being the cause. Taken together, this is very good motivation to think "video games are not a contributing factor to school shootings" until proven otherwise.
It's just that that's not the same as scientific proof.
You seem to misunderstand how the Judicial branch works. They don't have the right to look over every piece of legislation as it's made and decide if it's constitutional. This can only occur when someone's rights are infringed upon.
However, it didn't take eleven years. The law was made but did not take effect in 1998. There was an injunction against it, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. By 2004, that injunction had been appealed enough that it reached the Supreme Court, who upheld the injunction. (If you'll recall from the Metro hacker case, injunctions are generally active while they're under appeal.)
The end result is, while there has been some level of judicial activity around the law up until this point (10+ years since the law was passed), the law has never actually been in effect.
Of the three people you quoted, I count one scientist, who made a quite accurate statement. Perhaps you're confusing "possibility" with "certainty".
BBC article: Quotes one scientist, who says we can only guess at the effect. Spiegel: Scientist; you'll note almost every statement is about "possibility" and mentions uncertainty. Satay: Nonscientist Boston: Duplicate of your direct Webster quote.
Do you really think that a couple of scientists saying that a serious outcome is a possibility means that scientific consensus is that that outcome is a certainty?
I don't know how one is nominated for a Nobel, but I don't think the decision takes citations into account at all. However, influential works are both more likely to win a Nobel prize and more likely to be cited often.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't. View it from the perspective of the two measuring parties. We'll call them Abe and Bob.
Each particle has a 50% chance of being in one of two states, + or -. Entanglement means that if Abe's particle is +, Bob's is -, and vice versa.
Abe measures his particle. Regardless of if his particle is + or -, that doesn't tell him if Bob measured his particle or not. While the values of the measurements are dependent on one another, without information from the other measuring party, the measurer can't tell the difference between the entangled and collapsed states.
Correct -- theoretically, you can produce zero-momentum particles with a head-on collision of equal-energy beams. So subrelativistic particles are entirely reasonable.
For product particles with reasonable energies, you're only going to see a lifetime extension on the order of a factor of 10.
Well, not getting what you want out of government is a very different matter from a general public vs private sector claim. There are some things -- defense, most notably -- that government certainly should be more efficient at. That's really the point. If they're fucking it up, replace them.
It is not faster-than-light communication. We will know immediately, and do. (You don't need large time scales to test "immediate" communications -- we can measure that to sufficient resolution on Earth.)
I'm not sure your statement on "if [they] are entangled in another dimension" is really meaningful. Entanglement is a property of objects in quantum states.
You can already exploit it, though -- it's fairly similar to the basis for quantum "encryption" (by one definition), which is not encryption at all, but a form of communication that is impossible to intercept without rapid detection. You can create these states with photons, which is what is done. It's unreasonably complex to use outside of special applications and cool demos, though.
The teleportation is instantaneous. (A philosophy-inclined physicist might object to you applying the label "instantaneous", since it implies a signal is propagating instantaneously -- but there's no signal at all.) However, the teleportation cannot be used for communication without information transfer -- which means the communication is bound by the speed you can transfer that information (which is lightspeed).
You most certainly can measure the propagation time of light over distances of one meter. It takes on the order of 10^-8 seconds for light to travel 1 m, and we have time measurement devices better than ns. (Actually, using clever techniques, you can do way better than meters.)
Many nations agreed we should be in Afghanistan, though many disagreed with our particular approach.
Most nations disagree with our being in Iraq.
What about where he promised we'd see no new terrorist attacks on American soil?
I promise no new bear attacks in Springfield.
My plan? A Bear Patrol.
Also, I bought this rock from Lisa that keeps away tigers.
There are very many ways you can be screwed in the private sector that you have no control over. If you have no control, then the "choice" is only an illusion, and you have been screwed just as hard.
Of course, we could form our own collective group of citizens to increase our bargaining power and impose restrictions on those we choose to do business with, but then we'd be labeled with some dirty term like "union" or "government".
Head-on beam collision (that is, two colliding beams), which is what they do in the LHC, can produce low-momentum, high-energy particles.
I don't think there's a reasonable mechanism for that to occur. "Dissipating" implies Hawking radiation -- meaning a micro black hole would need to rapidly accrete matter after it's formed, and then suddenly no longer have access to that matter. Since accretion is limited by cross-section, bigger black holes accrete faster. (Note also that black holes become more stable as they grow larger, oddly, so they need to accrete less.) This really implies that the black hole passes through the star. This can only occur if the micro black hole has a high enough velocity that it's not captured by the star. Since there's now a lower limit on the velocity of the black hole, you know the size of a neutron star, and you know the maximum accretion rate, you can determine how much the black hole would accrete as it passes through the star. For the cross-section of micro black holes and the size and density of Earth, this accretion amount is absolutely trivial. The more concerning case is where the black hole is captured by a stellar body, which this analysis suggests does not occur.
This is part of the topic of the paper. Black holes don't really have half-lives, but yes, high-speed black holes have longer lifetimes. (The paper's content suggests there are other effects to consider, but my ability to read relativistic physics breaks down at that point.)
High-energy cosmic-ray collisions occur at a rate of something like one per square meter per year. We don't control the energy or involved particles. To do high-energy physics, you need the statistics from millions of collisions with carefully-controlled parameters and sensitive measurement devices (which, incidentally, completely enclose the reaction area -- which would exclude most cosmic rays anyway).
The particle density is actually not high compared to the incredibly small cross-section of such a small black hole. Concerns about accretion rate are actually one of the major topics of this paper (though you wouldn't know that reading the abysmal blog post summarizing it).
There's actually an excellent paper out on this that points out that neutron stars are much more efficient "theoretical mini black hole" catchers than the earth. The number of old neutron stars is evidence against persistent-mini-black-hole production.
Actually, cosmic rays, which regularly (read: constantly) enter our atmosphere, have energies up to 10^20 eV. The LHC uses 7 TeV protons and ~500 TeV lead nuclei. That's on the order of 10^12 to 10^14 eV.
So, you have it backwards. We don't produce particle at anywhere near the energy they're produced in nature.
What he really means is having a new benchmark that has a combination of loads from other benchmarks -- this is closer to a real-world case than any one individual benchmark, which is some kind of extreme case.
I like how you apparently don't know what this is about, so describe it as "monitoring what websites we browse even more" and don't know how much time or money was put into the decision, so label it a "colossal waste of public resources".
I guess in the absence of facts, the thing to do is make things up and be angry about your invented reality.
Yes -- it seems that YouTube is the only one granted this exception because they're the only third-party embedded content.
Incidentally, I was actually somewhat surprised when I went to whitehouse.gov to discover that it didn't use any third-party JavaScript and worked just fine with JavaScript disabled.
Incidentally, the download links are to MP4 files that are hosted on whitehouse.gov.
No, a logical argument in science does not constitute disproof. While it's fair to say the burden of proof is on the claimant, not being able to prove a claim doesn't prove the inverse.
As GP points out, any kind of statistical correlation with school shootings will be very difficult, due to the rarity of shootings. I think we all know there's no direct effect -- in no case was the shooting an immediate, direct result of the video game. The researcher points out that no studies are able to show a video game-shooting correlation, that there is no logical reason to think video games are a cause, and that there are good logical (sociological) explanations for why video games are blamed despite not being the cause. Taken together, this is very good motivation to think "video games are not a contributing factor to school shootings" until proven otherwise.
It's just that that's not the same as scientific proof.
You seem to misunderstand how the Judicial branch works. They don't have the right to look over every piece of legislation as it's made and decide if it's constitutional. This can only occur when someone's rights are infringed upon.
However, it didn't take eleven years. The law was made but did not take effect in 1998. There was an injunction against it, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. By 2004, that injunction had been appealed enough that it reached the Supreme Court, who upheld the injunction. (If you'll recall from the Metro hacker case, injunctions are generally active while they're under appeal.)
The end result is, while there has been some level of judicial activity around the law up until this point (10+ years since the law was passed), the law has never actually been in effect.
By that measure, it took zero years.
Since I started watching the Cookie Monster on Sesame Street when I was 3, I've gained 160 pounds.
Of the three people you quoted, I count one scientist, who made a quite accurate statement. Perhaps you're confusing "possibility" with "certainty".
BBC article: Quotes one scientist, who says we can only guess at the effect.
Spiegel: Scientist; you'll note almost every statement is about "possibility" and mentions uncertainty.
Satay: Nonscientist
Boston: Duplicate of your direct Webster quote.
Do you really think that a couple of scientists saying that a serious outcome is a possibility means that scientific consensus is that that outcome is a certainty?
I don't know how one is nominated for a Nobel, but I don't think the decision takes citations into account at all. However, influential works are both more likely to win a Nobel prize and more likely to be cited often.
PageRank is very much like academic citation.