Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable.
Evolution isn't proven either. You can't prove a scientific theory. Anyone talking about "proof" in the evolution/creationism debate needs to rethink the scientific method.
Scientists make some assumptions: 1) the universe follows some rational laws 2) those laws are isotropic in space and time 3) we can infer abstract laws from inductive tests (experiment)
So I repeat something a bunch of times in the lab, and assume that my result is "true". If everyone's results are explained by a given theory, then the theory becomes accepted. No proofs are made, and it only takes one counterexample to demolish the theory. We find the theories useful because they have predictive power (i.e. I can use Maxwell's equations to design a waveguide rather than using trial and error).
Christians make different assumptions: 1) there exists an all-powerful and benevolent Creator 2) that the Bible is true (of course, different denominations interpret this with varying vigor; it seems that the original sin/creation, death, and resurrection of jesus/faith thing is pretty much universal though)
Note the first assumption that each camp makes: if the universe follows set laws, then God can't do whatever he pleases. Therefore, the assumptions are mutually exclusive. Any theory invoking God (or other Intelligent Designer) is not a scientific one, as it has no predictive power (as God is not confined to any ruleset) and is inherently NOT experimentally disprovable. So intelligent design has no place in a science class.
The real issue here is one of cognitive dissonance: our culture is heavily influenced by the things we've done with science, so people assume it's true. If you're a fundamentalist Christian, then you make different assumptions. Passing off ID theory as science is a rather disengenous way to deal with that dissonance.
I am a scientist, but I am not a Christian; however, notice that I have not claimed either philosophy is correct. I can't prove that there's a God, nor can I prove that the Universe follows rational rules. We'd all be better off, though, if we took the time to understand the assumptions we're making.
I apologize, I should've been more specific in what I meant. There are huge differences between Evolution and Intelligent Design- primarily, one is a scientific theory while the other is not. The problem with the creationism/evolution issue is primarily that it involves some subtlety in your understanding of the scientific method- something that most people don't have a reason to know!
Evolution provides an explanation for what we observe, has predictive power, and has room to be experimentally disproved (i.e. by showing that certain features couldn't appear by random mutation followed by natural and sexual selection). You can accept evolution as a good theory without adopting any new beliefs- it's a simple explanation that (despite much effort) hasn't been disproven. The fact that you can't prove it isn't an issue- you can't prove any theory, unless it has a finite number of possible ramifications.
Intelligent design provides an explanation for what we observe, but does not have disprovability nor predictive power. Thus it is not a scientific theory. Accepting ID does involve adopting extra beliefs (someone to do the designing), but isn't disprovable (can't argue with "God did it"). Science doesn't work when you introduce a deus ex machina to explain everything.
I'm a scientist, and I don't care if people are for evolution, Intelligent Design, UFO's, shamanism, or whatever. But if you're choosing a Christian belief system, call it a Christian belief, and don't try to pass it off as science.
Just so you know, you can only experimentally disprove a theory. You can find data to support a theory, but you can't possibly reproduce experimentally all possible ramifications of the theory, so you can never prove it. If you're looking for theories to be proven true, science isn't for you.;-)
maybe i'm just being anal-retentive or something, but i won't buy a product named after a religion. a company with a name like "creative" should be able to do better... i mean, if they called it the "Jesus Micro" people would get really upset.
I see you've never studied quantum! The experiments that inspired quantum mechanics necessitate that we redefine how we interpret our experiments. There have been tons of alternate interpretations of quantum mechanics (Einstein tried hard to disprove the Copenhagen interpretation; look up the EPR paradox), and the study of these (check out J.S. Bell's experiment) has had a profound impact on physics and on the philosophy of science.
You're absolutely right to admonish us against calling interpretations "real", but some are definitely more correct than others. Many interpretations of QM lead to inconsistent results, ontological arguments, and violations of other rules in physics (like nonlocal hidden variable theories violating relativity). Furthermore, some introduce unnecessary baggage (many scientists place Many Worlds here; I honestly don't know enough to have an opinion), and this is generally considered bad science (insert witty ether comment here).
"We only know what we know" is referred to as the agnostic interpretation; not Copenhagen. For a good discussion on that, check Griffith's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. The constraints that Copenhagen interpretation places on our knowledge of nature aren't a copout; on the contrary, they make an important statement about the universe. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle isn't just saying that we can't measure position and momentum simultaneously, but rather that an object doesn't have a well-defined position and momentum simultaneously. This theory is quite self-consistent and explains experimental data very well. And, as I'm sure you know from your electromagnetism reference, this uncertainty principle has been around for waves (with Fourier relations between position and momentum space) long before QM.
You seem to know much more about Many Worlds than I do; can you tell me how this theory (or translational) has greater predictive power than the Copenhagen interpretation? It's difficult to create a consistent interpretation of QM that both Occam and Bell would agree on.;-)
IAAQP, and while I've not read this man's book, I'd be skeptical. Most physicists subscribe to the "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not deal with parallel universes. The so-called "many-universe" theory has its followers but doesn't get much attention, for one reason: introducing the extra idea of multiple universes doesn't add anything to the descriptive power of the theory.
Before quantum theory was developed, most phenomena in nature were considered to be either particles or waves. This classification system broke down when particles were shown to diffract and waves were shown to be quantized. So nothing is really particle or wave, but everything has a particle or wave nature.
The canonical example is electron diffraction: shine a beam of electrons through two slits, and get an interference pattern on your photographic plate. Woo. Repeat with one electron at a time, recording each result.... and you still get an interference pattern. This presents a problem: each electron must have gone through both slits and interfered with itself. On the other hand, you can never measure the electron to be in two places at once, so we need to construct a third option. This is the idea of a superposition state: the electron is in a superposition of places (again, not actually "in" them); this superposition has wavelike properties and can interfere. When a measurement is made (by the photographic plate) the superposition "collapses" to one location.
This is where many-universe theory (to my understanding) comes in: how does the particle know which state to collapse to? Copenhagen Qm says it's random, but weighted by the superposition; i.e. quantum mechanics predicts probabilities only. Many-universe theory says that when that collapse occurs, the universe splits into a bunch of new ones, one for each outcome of the measurement. I've not yet read a good explanation (anyone have a link to one? I'd love to) of why measurement (that is, a phase-randomizing interaction with a larger system) should create a new universe.
Anyway, I hope this helps! If you are curious about QM, there's an inexpensive book by Isham that has really wonderful discussion (and even mentions many-universe). Feynman's book "QED" takes his path-integral approach and is a great layman's introduction; just don't try solving any problems with that method later (the math is rough).
i hate to sound anal about this, but what does buckminsterfullerene have to do with nanotechnology? i realize they could be used for nanotechnology, but C60 is just a big molecule. there's no nanotech involved in making fullerenes; you can build a carbon arc in your garage if you want to have them. no microscopic manipulation required. you separate them out.... using a solvent. this isn't nanotech, it's chemistry. whoever wrote this article should think before using buzzwords.
also, interestingly, it should be noted that the toxicity of fullerenes isn't a surprise; when richard smalley and company came up with the fullerene structure in the mid-80's, everyone assumed they were toxic (the molecules, not the scientists). most chemicals with a benzene ring (benzene, toluene, PAHs) are pretty nasty stuff; a buckminsterfullerene molecule has 20 benzene rings in it. it would be a miracle if it weren't toxic.
so anyway, in this article, a group of scientists used well-established chemistry techniques to create an aromatic carbon molecule, and showed that it's toxic. why is this news?
IP-
First of all, it's nice to meet another zen buddhist online. I hope it's brought you as much peace as it's brought me. As for your comments, permit me to deal with them one at a time-
-whether doctrine or deity is necessary for a religion certainly depends on who you ask. in my own life, zen has replaced another religion, and does include a set of beliefs and requires faith. perhaps your experiences differ, but believe me, for many of us (certainly those at my zendo) it's a religion!
-zen is agnostic, not atheist. and not somewhere in between.
-"logic-based" philosophies are only a subset of all philosophies. while problems like koans are logically unsolveable, much of the zen structure (such as the abhorrence of scripture!) is there for logical reasons. zen functions quite well as a philosophy.
-i certainly agree that zen is largely experiential, like most of the philosophies upon which it is based. beware, certain philosophy circles debate enlightenment as the "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum". yuck!
-while i agree that zen is the most pure form of buddhism, there are plenty of buddhists who aren't zen.
-why did you include "this sentence is false"? contradiction alone has little to do with zen. if you're looking for good koans, i recomment The Gateless Gate. when labeling things as zen, quasi-mysterious contradictory nonsense is only a bit better than herbal tea;-)
-you're certainly right, zen is a practice, but i fail to see how that has a bearing on whether it's a religion- quite a few eastern religions focus on the path rather than the destination.
Again, it's wonderful to talk to another zen practicioner online. Best of luck to you!
I apologize for coming off that way. I don't take offense to the name, but I think it's kind of sad- I've met a lot of people who could really benefit from Zen, if they didn't associate it with herbal tea and stuff. Having practiced Zen for some time in the Bible belt, I've seen quite a lot of this!;-)
By the way... you have some clever examples there.
I hate to come off sounding like a troll, but what does this thing have to do with Zen?
If I started a line of "Jesus" computers, people would throw a hissy fit, but we slap other people's religions on everything from herbal tea to mp3 players. Granted, a good Buddhist shouldn't care about this, but I think it would be classy if we showed a tad more respect for other cultures than by naming our mediocre product after their religion.
Again, I apologize for the way this sounds... just wanted to get that off my chest! Thanks fellas!
So there are limits to the size of bulk semiconductor components, before "quantum effects" take over (as if semiconductor theory wasn't already based in quantum mechanics)... so who cares? There are plenty of ways to make smaller electronic components by utilizing the properties of small systems (these are your nanotech systems). For example, if you have a small enough slice of graphite, with a carefully chosen orientation, you can turn it into a semiconductor with a custom bandgap (it's essentially an unravelled nanotube, at least in terms of explaining its behavior). And these are an order of magnitude smaller than the bulk semiconductors you're talking about. The current fervor over nanotech is largely because it takes advantage of the phenomena that place constraints on the miniaturization of bulk materials.
That being said, what does this have to do with form factors? I mean, congratulations on your Mensa membership and all, but it doesn't seem to have helped you understand what you're posting, or even post on topic. If you're interested in this stuff, I recommend Kittel's Introduction to Solid State Physics. It's a bit dense, but gives an excellent feel for where band structure arises from.
i'm not an expert on the subject.... but, at least in the case of devices like ATMs, which have fairly simple tasks, how would we benefit from a standardized language? i put my PIN in, money comes out, my bank account balance goes down. the elegance of the code behind it doesn't concern me.
i know that "security through obscurity" is a cheesy solution, but i can't help thinking that if every ATM in the country had the same architecture, the system as a whole would be more prone to hacks and abuse. what do you think?
while I'm all in favor of meditation, I agree with a lot of the slashdotters here that the big problem is the 12 hour days. one of my favorite passages in the Tao te Ching (which certainly had an effect on Zen Buddhism) addresses this:
Fill a cup to its brim and it is easily spilled; Temper a sword to its hardest and it is easily broken; Amass the greatest treasure and it is easily stolen; Claim credit and honour and you easily fall; Retire once your purpose is achieved - this is natural.
That is, (to the best of my understanding) a good Buddhist wouldn't meditate an hour so that he can work 16 hours in a day; he'd work hard for his 10 hours and then go home.
It starts by comparing the quantum theory, which states that space and time are grainy
It's important, when someone talks about discrete space or time, to ask what the hell they mean. In quantum mechanics, a particle's displacement is something you can measure (always with some uncertainty; an error margin, if you will); it is possible that there is only a (very large!) discrete set of possible answers, though the actual sizes would be so small that even in most quantum mechanical measurements space would appear to be continuous.
Time is somewhat different as it's not a measurable quantity; you can only express the propogation of a system through time. Can you only propogate in discrete chunks?
In quantum field theory, space and time are parameters, making spacetime quantization easier to discuss, but certainly not an inherent assumption!
While discrete space and time are important ideas that are being investigated, the current formulation of quantum mechanics that is taught at schools and used in research does not state this. On the contrary, the incorporation of Hilbert spaces into quantum mechanics has happened specifically because space is not discrete.
Don't worry, you're not dim; this stuff isn't easy. I've taken five semesters of quantum mechanics classes, and I'm just now starting to gain some intuition for what's going on down there.
If you really want to understand the stuff in the news about quantum computing and nanotechnology, I'd recommend going to a bookstore near your local science/engineering college, and peruse the used textbooks for a good one on quantum mechanics. Some of them introduce quantum with a telling experiment (Stern-Gerlach or photon polarization); I find that this is the easiest way to attach some physical significance to the ideas discussed in the news (keep in mind that most journalists don't know any more about this than you, so take what they write with a grain of salt!).
Don't you worry, Atrox; your dismal view of quantum computing's future won't come to pass. And if this really does bother you, I'd suggest reading up on quantum computing someplace besides/.
There are only around a half dozen algorithms anyone's come up with for a quantum computer that are good for anything; one of them is for factoring primes, which makes RSA encryption (to my understanding) more or less trivial to break.
If, suddenly, people gain access to quantum computers.... we'll start using other encryption schemes. It's not an "end to privacy"; it's an "end to RSA encryption".
So sleep well at night; the big bad QC's aren't coming to get you... and for the love of God, don't get your education on anything with the word "quantum" in it from here!
My apologies; I can see that my comments were to vague for you. The meteorite had a surplus of one chirality; normally this would be seen as evidence for terrestrial contamination.... but they're using isotope data to suggest otherwise. That's what makes it an interesting article.
Also, I should point out that "how much information there is in comparison to background noise" is the signal to noise ratio. And luckily, we don't have to debate opinions on it.... in secondary ion mass spectrometry (in general, the tool of the choice for this measurement), you're using counting-rate (Poisson) statistics; that is, the error is the square root of the counting rate. Any good SIMS will have a resolution in the hundredths or thousandths of an atomic mass unit, and most don't have many sources for noise, so making sure that the noise is below your error limit (and thus negligible) isn't too hard. This is a well-established technique that we've been using since around the second world war.
It never was orbiting the planet I never said it was. If it's orbiting the sun, and it crashes into a planet, then it's no longer orbiting the sun. funny how that works, huh?;-)
Your point was already quite lucid; the problem is that elastic collisions in space are somewhat rare. If a comet hits something, it usually sticks to it... and ejecta from such a collision wouldn't make a comet. And even if it could collide and continue orbiting the sun, that would change its trajectory, making it unlikely to pass by the earth again. Either way, your suggestion is a silly one.
Ok, clearly the amino acids got into space somehow
If you wouldn't mind explaining, why in the world do you think amino acids can't form in space?
Slashdot Mirror
For the love of pete....
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable.
Evolution isn't proven either. You can't prove a scientific theory. Anyone talking about "proof" in the evolution/creationism debate needs to rethink the scientific method.
Scientists make some assumptions:
1) the universe follows some rational laws
2) those laws are isotropic in space and time
3) we can infer abstract laws from inductive tests (experiment)
So I repeat something a bunch of times in the lab, and assume that my result is "true". If everyone's results are explained by a given theory, then the theory becomes accepted. No proofs are made, and it only takes one counterexample to demolish the theory. We find the theories useful because they have predictive power (i.e. I can use Maxwell's equations to design a waveguide rather than using trial and error).
Christians make different assumptions:
1) there exists an all-powerful and benevolent Creator
2) that the Bible is true (of course, different denominations interpret this with varying vigor; it seems that the original sin/creation, death, and resurrection of jesus/faith thing is pretty much universal though)
Note the first assumption that each camp makes: if the universe follows set laws, then God can't do whatever he pleases. Therefore, the assumptions are mutually exclusive. Any theory invoking God (or other Intelligent Designer) is not a scientific one, as it has no predictive power (as God is not confined to any ruleset) and is inherently NOT experimentally disprovable. So intelligent design has no place in a science class.
The real issue here is one of cognitive dissonance: our culture is heavily influenced by the things we've done with science, so people assume it's true. If you're a fundamentalist Christian, then you make different assumptions. Passing off ID theory as science is a rather disengenous way to deal with that dissonance.
I am a scientist, but I am not a Christian; however, notice that I have not claimed either philosophy is correct. I can't prove that there's a God, nor can I prove that the Universe follows rational rules. We'd all be better off, though, if we took the time to understand the assumptions we're making.
Thanks for your time!
Turing Art Tests have been done before. And they're every bit as useless as Turing tests.
sprekken-
I apologize, I should've been more specific in what I meant. There are huge differences between Evolution and Intelligent Design- primarily, one is a scientific theory while the other is not. The problem with the creationism/evolution issue is primarily that it involves some subtlety in your understanding of the scientific method- something that most people don't have a reason to know!
Evolution provides an explanation for what we observe, has predictive power, and has room to be experimentally disproved (i.e. by showing that certain features couldn't appear by random mutation followed by natural and sexual selection). You can accept evolution as a good theory without adopting any new beliefs- it's a simple explanation that (despite much effort) hasn't been disproven. The fact that you can't prove it isn't an issue- you can't prove any theory, unless it has a finite number of possible ramifications.
Intelligent design provides an explanation for what we observe, but does not have disprovability nor predictive power. Thus it is not a scientific theory. Accepting ID does involve adopting extra beliefs (someone to do the designing), but isn't disprovable (can't argue with "God did it"). Science doesn't work when you introduce a deus ex machina to explain everything.
I'm a scientist, and I don't care if people are for evolution, Intelligent Design, UFO's, shamanism, or whatever. But if you're choosing a Christian belief system, call it a Christian belief, and don't try to pass it off as science.
Hasn't been proven "yet"?
;-)
Just so you know, you can only experimentally disprove a theory. You can find data to support a theory, but you can't possibly reproduce experimentally all possible ramifications of the theory, so you can never prove it. If you're looking for theories to be proven true, science isn't for you.
maybe i'm just being anal-retentive or something, but i won't buy a product named after a religion. a company with a name like "creative" should be able to do better... i mean, if they called it the "Jesus Micro" people would get really upset.
is it just me?
Windows on PPC? So I could still pay for expensive hardware, AND pay for a mediocre operating system? Oh please, where do I sign up?
I see you've never studied quantum! The experiments that inspired quantum mechanics necessitate that we redefine how we interpret our experiments. There have been tons of alternate interpretations of quantum mechanics (Einstein tried hard to disprove the Copenhagen interpretation; look up the EPR paradox), and the study of these (check out J.S. Bell's experiment) has had a profound impact on physics and on the philosophy of science.
You're absolutely right to admonish us against calling interpretations "real", but some are definitely more correct than others. Many interpretations of QM lead to inconsistent results, ontological arguments, and violations of other rules in physics (like nonlocal hidden variable theories violating relativity). Furthermore, some introduce unnecessary baggage (many scientists place Many Worlds here; I honestly don't know enough to have an opinion), and this is generally considered bad science (insert witty ether comment here).
"We only know what we know" is referred to as the agnostic interpretation; not Copenhagen. For a good discussion on that, check Griffith's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. The constraints that Copenhagen interpretation places on our knowledge of nature aren't a copout; on the contrary, they make an important statement about the universe. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle isn't just saying that we can't measure position and momentum simultaneously, but rather that an object doesn't have a well-defined position and momentum simultaneously. This theory is quite self-consistent and explains experimental data very well. And, as I'm sure you know from your electromagnetism reference, this uncertainty principle has been around for waves (with Fourier relations between position and momentum space) long before QM.
;-)
You seem to know much more about Many Worlds than I do; can you tell me how this theory (or translational) has greater predictive power than the Copenhagen interpretation? It's difficult to create a consistent interpretation of QM that both Occam and Bell would agree on.
IAAQP, and while I've not read this man's book, I'd be skeptical. Most physicists subscribe to the "Copenhagen" interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not deal with parallel universes. The so-called "many-universe" theory has its followers but doesn't get much attention, for one reason: introducing the extra idea of multiple universes doesn't add anything to the descriptive power of the theory.
Before quantum theory was developed, most phenomena in nature were considered to be either particles or waves. This classification system broke down when particles were shown to diffract and waves were shown to be quantized. So nothing is really particle or wave, but everything has a particle or wave nature.
The canonical example is electron diffraction: shine a beam of electrons through two slits, and get an interference pattern on your photographic plate. Woo. Repeat with one electron at a time, recording each result.... and you still get an interference pattern. This presents a problem: each electron must have gone through both slits and interfered with itself. On the other hand, you can never measure the electron to be in two places at once, so we need to construct a third option. This is the idea of a superposition state: the electron is in a superposition of places (again, not actually "in" them); this superposition has wavelike properties and can interfere. When a measurement is made (by the photographic plate) the superposition "collapses" to one location.
This is where many-universe theory (to my understanding) comes in: how does the particle know which state to collapse to? Copenhagen Qm says it's random, but weighted by the superposition; i.e. quantum mechanics predicts probabilities only. Many-universe theory says that when that collapse occurs, the universe splits into a bunch of new ones, one for each outcome of the measurement. I've not yet read a good explanation (anyone have a link to one? I'd love to) of why measurement (that is, a phase-randomizing interaction with a larger system) should create a new universe.
Anyway, I hope this helps! If you are curious about QM, there's an inexpensive book by Isham that has really wonderful discussion (and even mentions many-universe). Feynman's book "QED" takes his path-integral approach and is a great layman's introduction; just don't try solving any problems with that method later (the math is rough).
i hate to sound anal about this, but what does buckminsterfullerene have to do with nanotechnology? i realize they could be used for nanotechnology, but C60 is just a big molecule. there's no nanotech involved in making fullerenes; you can build a carbon arc in your garage if you want to have them. no microscopic manipulation required. you separate them out.... using a solvent. this isn't nanotech, it's chemistry. whoever wrote this article should think before using buzzwords.
also, interestingly, it should be noted that the toxicity of fullerenes isn't a surprise; when richard smalley and company came up with the fullerene structure in the mid-80's, everyone assumed they were toxic (the molecules, not the scientists). most chemicals with a benzene ring (benzene, toluene, PAHs) are pretty nasty stuff; a buckminsterfullerene molecule has 20 benzene rings in it. it would be a miracle if it weren't toxic.
so anyway, in this article, a group of scientists used well-established chemistry techniques to create an aromatic carbon molecule, and showed that it's toxic. why is this news?
IP-
;-)
First of all, it's nice to meet another zen buddhist online. I hope it's brought you as much peace as it's brought me. As for your comments, permit me to deal with them one at a time-
-whether doctrine or deity is necessary for a religion certainly depends on who you ask. in my own life, zen has replaced another religion, and does include a set of beliefs and requires faith. perhaps your experiences differ, but believe me, for many of us (certainly those at my zendo) it's a religion!
-zen is agnostic, not atheist. and not somewhere in between.
-"logic-based" philosophies are only a subset of all philosophies. while problems like koans are logically unsolveable, much of the zen structure (such as the abhorrence of scripture!) is there for logical reasons. zen functions quite well as a philosophy.
-i certainly agree that zen is largely experiential, like most of the philosophies upon which it is based. beware, certain philosophy circles debate enlightenment as the "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum". yuck!
-while i agree that zen is the most pure form of buddhism, there are plenty of buddhists who aren't zen.
-why did you include "this sentence is false"? contradiction alone has little to do with zen. if you're looking for good koans, i recomment The Gateless Gate. when labeling things as zen, quasi-mysterious contradictory nonsense is only a bit better than herbal tea
-you're certainly right, zen is a practice, but i fail to see how that has a bearing on whether it's a religion- quite a few eastern religions focus on the path rather than the destination.
Again, it's wonderful to talk to another zen practicioner online. Best of luck to you!
-joe
ad0gg-
;-)
I apologize for coming off that way. I don't take offense to the name, but I think it's kind of sad- I've met a lot of people who could really benefit from Zen, if they didn't associate it with herbal tea and stuff. Having practiced Zen for some time in the Bible belt, I've seen quite a lot of this!
By the way... you have some clever examples there.
Zen is a subset of Buddhism. You're welcome to think what you want of it, but everyone I know who practices Zen does so as a religion.
I see you've never practiced zen. I recommend going to a zendo to find out what it is, rather than asking google.
Ah.... very clever! Are the Taiwanese their target market though, or are they mainly getting shipped overseas? (I honestly have no idea)
I hate to come off sounding like a troll, but what does this thing have to do with Zen?
If I started a line of "Jesus" computers, people would throw a hissy fit, but we slap other people's religions on everything from herbal tea to mp3 players. Granted, a good Buddhist shouldn't care about this, but I think it would be classy if we showed a tad more respect for other cultures than by naming our mediocre product after their religion.
Again, I apologize for the way this sounds... just wanted to get that off my chest! Thanks fellas!
So there are limits to the size of bulk semiconductor components, before "quantum effects" take over (as if semiconductor theory wasn't already based in quantum mechanics)... so who cares? There are plenty of ways to make smaller electronic components by utilizing the properties of small systems (these are your nanotech systems). For example, if you have a small enough slice of graphite, with a carefully chosen orientation, you can turn it into a semiconductor with a custom bandgap (it's essentially an unravelled nanotube, at least in terms of explaining its behavior). And these are an order of magnitude smaller than the bulk semiconductors you're talking about. The current fervor over nanotech is largely because it takes advantage of the phenomena that place constraints on the miniaturization of bulk materials.
That being said, what does this have to do with form factors? I mean, congratulations on your Mensa membership and all, but it doesn't seem to have helped you understand what you're posting, or even post on topic. If you're interested in this stuff, I recommend Kittel's Introduction to Solid State Physics. It's a bit dense, but gives an excellent feel for where band structure arises from.
i'm not an expert on the subject.... but, at least in the case of devices like ATMs, which have fairly simple tasks, how would we benefit from a standardized language? i put my PIN in, money comes out, my bank account balance goes down. the elegance of the code behind it doesn't concern me.
i know that "security through obscurity" is a cheesy solution, but i can't help thinking that if every ATM in the country had the same architecture, the system as a whole would be more prone to hacks and abuse. what do you think?
while I'm all in favor of meditation, I agree with a lot of the slashdotters here that the big problem is the 12 hour days. one of my favorite passages in the Tao te Ching (which certainly had an effect on Zen Buddhism) addresses this:
Fill a cup to its brim and it is easily spilled;
Temper a sword to its hardest and it is easily broken;
Amass the greatest treasure and it is easily stolen;
Claim credit and honour and you easily fall;
Retire once your purpose is achieved - this is natural.
That is, (to the best of my understanding) a good Buddhist wouldn't meditate an hour so that he can work 16 hours in a day; he'd work hard for his 10 hours and then go home.
It starts by comparing the quantum theory, which states that space and time are grainy
It's important, when someone talks about discrete space or time, to ask what the hell they mean. In quantum mechanics, a particle's displacement is something you can measure (always with some uncertainty; an error margin, if you will); it is possible that there is only a (very large!) discrete set of possible answers, though the actual sizes would be so small that even in most quantum mechanical measurements space would appear to be continuous.
Time is somewhat different as it's not a measurable quantity; you can only express the propogation of a system through time. Can you only propogate in discrete chunks?
In quantum field theory, space and time are parameters, making spacetime quantization easier to discuss, but certainly not an inherent assumption!
While discrete space and time are important ideas that are being investigated, the current formulation of quantum mechanics that is taught at schools and used in research does not state this. On the contrary, the incorporation of Hilbert spaces into quantum mechanics has happened specifically because space is not discrete.
Don't worry, you're not dim; this stuff isn't easy. I've taken five semesters of quantum mechanics classes, and I'm just now starting to gain some intuition for what's going on down there.
If you really want to understand the stuff in the news about quantum computing and nanotechnology, I'd recommend going to a bookstore near your local science/engineering college, and peruse the used textbooks for a good one on quantum mechanics. Some of them introduce quantum with a telling experiment (Stern-Gerlach or photon polarization); I find that this is the easiest way to attach some physical significance to the ideas discussed in the news (keep in mind that most journalists don't know any more about this than you, so take what they write with a grain of salt!).
Don't you worry, Atrox; your dismal view of quantum computing's future won't come to pass. And if this really does bother you, I'd suggest reading up on quantum computing someplace besides /.
There are only around a half dozen algorithms anyone's come up with for a quantum computer that are good for anything; one of them is for factoring primes, which makes RSA encryption (to my understanding) more or less trivial to break.
If, suddenly, people gain access to quantum computers.... we'll start using other encryption schemes. It's not an "end to privacy"; it's an "end to RSA encryption".
So sleep well at night; the big bad QC's aren't coming to get you... and for the love of God, don't get your education on anything with the word "quantum" in it from here!
My apologies; I can see that my comments were to vague for you. The meteorite had a surplus of one chirality; normally this would be seen as evidence for terrestrial contamination.... but they're using isotope data to suggest otherwise. That's what makes it an interesting article.
Also, I should point out that "how much information there is in comparison to background noise" is the signal to noise ratio. And luckily, we don't have to debate opinions on it.... in secondary ion mass spectrometry (in general, the tool of the choice for this measurement), you're using counting-rate (Poisson) statistics; that is, the error is the square root of the counting rate. Any good SIMS will have a resolution in the hundredths or thousandths of an atomic mass unit, and most don't have many sources for noise, so making sure that the noise is below your error limit (and thus negligible) isn't too hard. This is a well-established technique that we've been using since around the second world war.
It never was orbiting the planet ;-)
I never said it was. If it's orbiting the sun, and it crashes into a planet, then it's no longer orbiting the sun. funny how that works, huh?
Your point was already quite lucid; the problem is that elastic collisions in space are somewhat rare. If a comet hits something, it usually sticks to it... and ejecta from such a collision wouldn't make a comet. And even if it could collide and continue orbiting the sun, that would change its trajectory, making it unlikely to pass by the earth again. Either way, your suggestion is a silly one.
Ok, clearly the amino acids got into space somehow
If you wouldn't mind explaining, why in the world do you think amino acids can't form in space?
News and science mix much better if you read the article. Try this:
Fact: the signal to noise ratio would be outside error limits or they wouldn't report it
Fact: there are only two chiralities, and synthesizing them in the lab always makes both. biological syntheses always make just one kind.
Fact: isotopic data was used to ensure that contamination didn't effect this chirality data
Conclusion: Some other process that we didn't know about is going on
Aside: if you're interested in this sort of thing, you should read the article.