From the update of Michael I conclude that the problem is on both sides: apparently there are also quite a few geeks who would love to do something in science, but they do not know where to look.
I work in subatomic physics and when I consider future jobs I just go to http://www.hep.net. Quite a few of the jobs listed on that site are mostly computing jobs. One obvious example: most of the DATAGRID-related jobs may be very interesting for non-physicist CS people. I am not a GRID guy (yet) but this (big, international) project involves developing everything that is needed so that scientists will be able to run mega-analysis jobs (e.g. analysis of huge amounts of data from huge particle detectors) in a distributed way, using computer resources all over the globe.
I am sure that other sciences (genomics, astronomy, meteorology+environment, you name it) have similar central job market sites. For this occasion the scientists among us could post now their equivalent to www.hep.net (with a little luck the field of the asker is also covered); but a more permanent solution would be to have a link site, say www.sciencejobs.net or so, in which any geek can decide may decide where he might contribute to find the Holy Grail. Apart from links to www.hep.net et al. there might be section where scientific geekseekers might post their more interdisciplinary (let's call it that way, for now) vacancies.
Probably such a site already exists (please post it if you know one). Somebody wrote here about a site called DreamJobs.net or so, which sounded a bit like it, but it seems not to exist anymore. If such a site does not exist at all (yet/anymore), somebody should (re)create it.
Re:split laser and manipulating end points
on
The Dot in .mars
·
· Score: 5
You have probably read something somewhere about the EPR paradox and the Aspect experiments, which are key ingredients in discussions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is a delicate subject, even many physicists will make errors when trying to explain it. I will also, I am sure, but I count someone will correct me (I actually hope somebody skilled in foundations of QM will comment on this, I am only an experimental nuclear physicist).
EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) considered a correlated pair of particles with spin. E.g. when a neutral pion (spin zero) decays into two photons, the spins of the two photons must be opposite (conservation of angular momentum). Spin is always measured along a polarization axis, with only two possible answers, say + and -.
In the case where both spins are measured along the same axis you know what the measurement will read as soon as you know one of them, namely the opposite. If the two axes are under an angle, quantum mechanics gives a simple formula for the probability that the measurements will give opposite answers (cos^2 of half the angle between the axes, or so).
If you would assume that the actual direction of the polarization was already determined in the middle (when the pion decayed), then you can show that this probability distribution must have a certain property (the illustrious 'Bell inequality'), which is *not* fulfilled by the quantum mechanical prediction. Then Aspect actually tried it out (and it is a very difficult experiment) and lo & behold, QM was right and hence the 'actual spins' (which is a vague concept) are *not* determined in the middle but at the moment of the measurement, and hence the information about the *other* measurement travels faster than light, instantaneous even.
The sad point to note for your superluminal lasercommunication is that you cannot *influence* the information. It is Nature who decides the direction of the spins. So the answer to your question is 'No, in that fashion you cannot communicate faster than light'. Information can be superluminal, influence cannot. For communication you need to be able to influence the information.
With your measurement you can predict what the other would measure if the polarization axis there would be chosen (anti)parallel to yours. You cannot tell from your (measurements) the direction of the other polarization axis, which is what you were suggesting. If, for instance, one (the sender) would keep its polaxis constant and the other (the receiver) would do a series of measurements with the (wrong) idea that due to the correlation you should see an angular dependence; well then, pity, you would measure in any angle + and - equally often (with some random deviations). The QM correlation only tells you whether the other one will measure the same or the opposite, if you would *already*know* the other axis.
I have thought about this as well, but I would like to have the keyboard on my belly, and I would lie down on a dentist chair or a sofa (tapping my belly as if I had just had a great dinner). Instead of a monitor I would use a video projector aimed at the ceiling!
Lying on a sofa or dentist chair (forgetting the dentist, of course) is way more comfortable for my back&shoulders than sitting in a usual bureau chair and I guess it is also way healthier for my eyes, to have the screen 2m above me instead of at 30cm or so in front.
And I am not a gamer (except for chess), but playing action games with 3D effects would be life sized in this way, much more impressive than confined in 15inch box...
Slashdot Mirror
I work in subatomic physics and when I consider future jobs I just go to http://www.hep.net. Quite a few of the jobs listed on that site are mostly computing jobs. One obvious example: most of the DATAGRID-related jobs may be very interesting for non-physicist CS people. I am not a GRID guy (yet) but this (big, international) project involves developing everything that is needed so that scientists will be able to run mega-analysis jobs (e.g. analysis of huge amounts of data from huge particle detectors) in a distributed way, using computer resources all over the globe.
I am sure that other sciences (genomics, astronomy, meteorology+environment, you name it) have similar central job market sites. For this occasion the scientists among us could post now their equivalent to www.hep.net (with a little luck the field of the asker is also covered); but a more permanent solution would be to have a link site, say www.sciencejobs.net or so, in which any geek can decide may decide where he might contribute to find the Holy Grail. Apart from links to www.hep.net et al. there might be section where scientific geekseekers might post their more interdisciplinary (let's call it that way, for now) vacancies.
Probably such a site already exists (please post it if you know one). Somebody wrote here about a site called DreamJobs.net or so, which sounded a bit like it, but it seems not to exist anymore. If such a site does not exist at all (yet/anymore), somebody should (re)create it.
You have probably read something somewhere about the EPR paradox and the Aspect experiments, which are key ingredients in discussions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is a delicate subject, even many physicists will make errors when trying to explain it. I will also, I am sure, but I count someone will correct me (I actually hope somebody skilled in foundations of QM will comment on this, I am only an experimental nuclear physicist).
EPR (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) considered a correlated pair of particles with spin. E.g. when a neutral pion (spin zero) decays into two photons, the spins of the two photons must be opposite (conservation of angular momentum). Spin is always measured along a polarization axis, with only two possible answers, say + and -.
In the case where both spins are measured along the same axis you know what the measurement will read as soon as you know one of them, namely the opposite. If the two axes are under an angle, quantum mechanics gives a simple formula for the probability that the measurements will give opposite answers (cos^2 of half the angle between the axes, or so).
If you would assume that the actual direction of the polarization was already determined in the middle (when the pion decayed), then you can show that this probability distribution must have a certain property (the illustrious 'Bell inequality'), which is *not* fulfilled by the quantum mechanical prediction. Then Aspect actually tried it out (and it is a very difficult experiment) and lo & behold, QM was right and hence the 'actual spins' (which is a vague concept) are *not* determined in the middle but at the moment of the measurement, and hence the information about the *other* measurement travels faster than light, instantaneous even.
The sad point to note for your superluminal lasercommunication is that you cannot *influence* the information. It is Nature who decides the direction of the spins. So the answer to your question is 'No, in that fashion you cannot communicate faster than light'. Information can be superluminal, influence cannot. For communication you need to be able to influence the information.
With your measurement you can predict what the other would measure if the polarization axis there would be chosen (anti)parallel to yours. You cannot tell from your (measurements) the direction of the other polarization axis, which is what you were suggesting. If, for instance, one (the sender) would keep its polaxis constant and the other (the receiver) would do a series of measurements with the (wrong) idea that due to the correlation you should see an angular dependence; well then, pity, you would measure in any angle + and - equally often (with some random deviations). The QM correlation only tells you whether the other one will measure the same or the opposite, if you would *already*know* the other axis.
I have thought about this as well, but I would like to have the keyboard on my belly, and I would lie down on a dentist chair or a sofa (tapping my belly as if I had just had a great dinner). Instead of a monitor I would use a video projector aimed at the ceiling! Lying on a sofa or dentist chair (forgetting the dentist, of course) is way more comfortable for my back&shoulders than sitting in a usual bureau chair and I guess it is also way healthier for my eyes, to have the screen 2m above me instead of at 30cm or so in front. And I am not a gamer (except for chess), but playing action games with 3D effects would be life sized in this way, much more impressive than confined in 15inch box...