I hacked into DEKA last night and got the scoop on Ginger. It's basically a pogo stick with some self stabilizing actuators. It's going to make the razor scooter obsolete.
Gates is a revolutionary for reimplementing the Macintosh on an x86 chip, Linus is a revolutionary for reimplementing Unix on an x86 chip, am I starting to see a pattern here?
You are correct, it is only general relativity that doesn't get along well with QM. But when one says relativity, shouldn't the term default to the general rather than the special form? Anyhow, this is linguistic nit-picking.
The author's qualifications to write about this field apparently come from the fact that she used to be married to a physicist/mathematician. I read her book The Mind Body Problem and while overall it was boring her description of the Princeton mathematics community was dead on.
Depends on whether you are talking about flat or curved spacetime. QM in curved spacetime is still a bit of a mess. That's what people usually mean when they talk of unifying QM with relativity.
1. The Higgs does not get its mass purely from the Higgs mechanism. To make the Standard Model work, a quadratic Higgs mass term has to be stuck in the lagrangian by hand. It's a kludge. Ask a real physicist, he will admit it.
2. Yes, it is responsible for the mass of _fundamental_ fermions and gauge bosons, if the Standard Model is correct, but when physicists are talking to the public they rarely mention that the masses of _fundamental_ particles have very little to do with the masses of actual stable particles such as protons and neutrons which exist outside the laboratory. My initial claim that the proton would have almost the same mass without the Higgs mechanism has not been refuted, because it is true.
Strong interactions have a lot to do with chiral symmetry breaking, which is more relevent to the proton mass than the Higgs mechanism is.
Even within the confines of the Standard model the standard answer is a bit of a cheat because the mass of the Higgs boson itself is stuck in by hand.
With regards to your other question, the answer has to do with the definition of the vacuum in an accelerating reference frame. Recall the GRAVITON is a massless bosonic particle and can be popped out of the vacuum at will. Any good text on quantum gravity should explain it.
Actually, my post is correct. Without a Higgs, stable matter would weigh almost the same as it does with the Higgs. Atomic physics and chemestry would be changed because it depends on the mass of the electron, but that's a different story.
Most people don't know a gauge boson or top quark from Adam so it is misleading to tell them the Higgs is the origin of mass. Also it leaves open the question of how the Higgs itself gets its mass.
Umm, as a professional physicist you should be a little more careful when you go around saying things like "the higgs is responsible for the generation of mass". The fact is for most stable matter the Higgs has relatively little to do with mass. The mass of a proton is less than 10% due to the Higgs mechanism, if memory serves, with most being due to strong interactions.
Physicsists are spending all these Billions of dollars (and Euros) to win this Nobel prize, they will be sorely disappointed when they find out that the prize is only about a million bucks.
The Higgs boson actually has very little to do with the mass of your average matter. If you were to take your average atomic nucleus, the amount of that mass which is due to the Higgs boson is negligible, most of it is due to gluons.
Although he usually doesn't mention it in his stump speaches, Hagelin is a hard core follower of Transcendental Meditation. He doesn't really oppose SDI because he doesn't think it won't work, but because he thinks ten thousand people practicing yogic "flying" in unison will achieve "quantum coherence" and prevent missiles from ever being launched in the first place.
Umm, actually Hagelin IS one of those people who wants to reduce crime through yogic flying, though he generally doesn't emphasise that in his campaign. He's been a follower of the Maharishi and transcendental meditation for decades, but I guess he feels that the public is not ready for that yet.
Exactly how big is a routing table? I've never seen one, but given that they can fit inside a computer they must be pretty small. If they get bigger why can't we just keep them in that big empty hole they dug for the Supercollider in texas?
Well, if you're so smart, what happens to a decoherence free quantum state when it passes through an event horizon, and comes back out via Hawking radiation? I bet Peter Shor doesn't have an answer to that.
A more interesting question is, when will we have the first dead human in outer space? It almost happened with that Apollo mission, and people have gotten fried trying to get up into space or coming down, but to my knowledge there has never been a person to actually die in outer space. Am I wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
I hacked into DEKA last night and got the scoop on Ginger. It's basically a pogo stick with some self stabilizing actuators. It's going to make the razor scooter obsolete.
You're right. Whoever wrote that article doesn't know his stuff.
>Insert amusing quip about favorite operating system/game/programing language running on quantum computer
How many chips has Transmeta actually sold? How many slashdot threads have discussed transmeta chips? Which number is greater?
Gates is a revolutionary for reimplementing the Macintosh on an x86 chip, Linus is a revolutionary for reimplementing Unix on an x86 chip, am I starting to see a pattern here?
You are correct, it is only general relativity that doesn't get along well with QM. But when one says relativity, shouldn't the term default to the general rather than the special form? Anyhow, this is linguistic nit-picking. The author's qualifications to write about this field apparently come from the fact that she used to be married to a physicist/mathematician. I read her book The Mind Body Problem and while overall it was boring her description of the Princeton mathematics community was dead on.
Depends on whether you are talking about flat or curved spacetime. QM in curved spacetime is still a bit of a mess. That's what people usually mean when they talk of unifying QM with relativity.
I thought the next war was going to be fought in cyberspace.
Most people aren't American. Remember, if an American wasn't involved, it didn't happen.
1. The Higgs does not get its mass purely from the Higgs mechanism. To make the Standard Model work, a quadratic Higgs mass term has to be stuck in the lagrangian by hand. It's a kludge. Ask a real physicist, he will admit it. 2. Yes, it is responsible for the mass of _fundamental_ fermions and gauge bosons, if the Standard Model is correct, but when physicists are talking to the public they rarely mention that the masses of _fundamental_ particles have very little to do with the masses of actual stable particles such as protons and neutrons which exist outside the laboratory. My initial claim that the proton would have almost the same mass without the Higgs mechanism has not been refuted, because it is true.
Strong interactions have a lot to do with chiral symmetry breaking, which is more relevent to the proton mass than the Higgs mechanism is. Even within the confines of the Standard model the standard answer is a bit of a cheat because the mass of the Higgs boson itself is stuck in by hand.
With regards to your other question, the answer has to do with the definition of the vacuum in an accelerating reference frame. Recall the GRAVITON is a massless bosonic particle and can be popped out of the vacuum at will. Any good text on quantum gravity should explain it.
Actually, my post is correct. Without a Higgs, stable matter would weigh almost the same as it does with the Higgs. Atomic physics and chemestry would be changed because it depends on the mass of the electron, but that's a different story.
Umm, actually the particle that mediates gravity is called the GRAVITON and has nothing at all to do with the Higgs. Get a clue.
Most people don't know a gauge boson or top quark from Adam so it is misleading to tell them the Higgs is the origin of mass. Also it leaves open the question of how the Higgs itself gets its mass.
Umm, as a professional physicist you should be a little more careful when you go around saying things like "the higgs is responsible for the generation of mass". The fact is for most stable matter the Higgs has relatively little to do with mass. The mass of a proton is less than 10% due to the Higgs mechanism, if memory serves, with most being due to strong interactions.
Physicsists are spending all these Billions of dollars (and Euros) to win this Nobel prize, they will be sorely disappointed when they find out that the prize is only about a million bucks.
The Higgs boson actually has very little to do with the mass of your average matter. If you were to take your average atomic nucleus, the amount of that mass which is due to the Higgs boson is negligible, most of it is due to gluons.
Although he usually doesn't mention it in his stump speaches, Hagelin is a hard core follower of Transcendental Meditation. He doesn't really oppose SDI because he doesn't think it won't work, but because he thinks ten thousand people practicing yogic "flying" in unison will achieve "quantum coherence" and prevent missiles from ever being launched in the first place.
Umm, actually Hagelin IS one of those people who wants to reduce crime through yogic flying, though he generally doesn't emphasise that in his campaign. He's been a follower of the Maharishi and transcendental meditation for decades, but I guess he feels that the public is not ready for that yet.
Exactly how big is a routing table? I've never seen one, but given that they can fit inside a computer they must be pretty small. If they get bigger why can't we just keep them in that big empty hole they dug for the Supercollider in texas?
This is old hat. I read about it a couple months ago. Tell me something I don't already know.
Has anyone done any research on using QC to play chess?
Well, if you're so smart, what happens to a decoherence free quantum state when it passes through an event horizon, and comes back out via Hawking radiation? I bet Peter Shor doesn't have an answer to that.
A more interesting question is, when will we have the first dead human in outer space? It almost happened with that Apollo mission, and people have gotten fried trying to get up into space or coming down, but to my knowledge there has never been a person to actually die in outer space. Am I wrong?