It's not just our measurements. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple (which is what you're talking about) is a statement about the universe, not our ability to measure it. More and more, it is apparent that this uncertainty is not because
our instruments are too crude, but that this uncertainty is inherent in nature. You can not measure well defined velocities and positions of particles on the quantum scale because they do not have well defined positions and velocities.
Heisenberg was saying absolutely nothing about the nature of matter, he was bitching about his lab equipment. The principle can be applied in a number of fascinating ways, the firt of which is getting around the limitations of his lab equipment by using large numbers of well deined events to treat them statistically instead of directly. Almost all of physics and chemistry is treated this way, and it is a remarkably successful way to get the job done. What I'm saying is that The paper which was published about the Omega number Proves without question that there can be no randomness in the universe because that contradicts a known good axiom; In fact it violates a lot of them, therefore it cant happen. The reason that quantum physics works despite its failure to be truly correct, is because the math treats the underlying events in a statistical manner.
An example: Black holes are my favorite whipping boys. First they said that you can't get out of them because the speed of light is the limit, and you need a higher velocity than c to escape. The only problem with that one is that they used newtons definition of escape velocity to apply to the black hole, but at the speeds neccesary to escape from a black hole, you get the whole relativistic effect which drammatically reduces the escape velocity . Another way to look at it is do the equations from the standpoint of escape energy instead of escape velocity, and what you get is the fact that ultra high frequencies of light (i.e. ultra high energy) has enough energy to escape a black whole. Quantum theory doesn't allow for this, so they fudged it with quantum tunnelling which is no more than a statistics treatment which when broken down defines the ratio of particles / waves (or whatever you want to call them) which have enough energy to escape a black hole. Once again, right math, wrong explanation.
Systems of particles is really thermodynamics. In quantum mechanics, you can (and do) pay attention to a single particle.
again, that is not truly the case. What they say in quantum mechanics is that we have a given particle that has a probability of being in any given point. This is the basic statement which scream statistical treatment. Its almost scary that only a few scientists have been willing to grasp this idea, and understand its implications. Hawkings understands part of it, which is why if you read any of his papers, he is rabidly against the idea that there is anything random in the universe. He believes, but can't prove that the universe is "predestined". The proof and reason why the universe has fundamental unbreakable laws is given in the Omega Number Theory.
In a rather elegant solution the author has unwittingly proven why the Universe exists with the rules that it does.
Put simply, he used the statement: "This statement is false" to show a fundamental paradox in mathematics. As a mathematical statement, it is gobbledygook, but as a pure physical statment about the universe, it is irrelevant because this circumstance can't happen in the real universe. The result is that we can make the following general statement: "The universe exists with a set of universal and fundamentally consistent and non contradictory (read as predictable) rules because any other circumstance (including non existence) leads to a paradox". Mathematics in general says that we have fundamental rules about how numbers can exist and interact. Violation of those rules is a paradox. Rules that contradict one another are a paradox, so any rule which contradicts a known valid rule can't apply to our universe (or any universe?) The mathematical statement "this is false" is truly irrelevant because we can't construct it into a physical object, or behavior which could contradict itself. we can only express it as a vague abstract concept which cannot be applied to the real world by its very nature. Fundamentally this also destroys quantum theory, because the very notion that there can be a simple lack of rules at any level of the physical world leads to paradoxical contradictions.
But... Quantum theory works right?
Not quite, quantum theory in its simplest form is built on the idea that no matter how good our instruments, the more accurately we read the exact circumstances of an event, or small system, the more we alter it. The real power of quantum physics is that it gives us the means of treating these systems statistically without having to look at them on an individual basis.
I'm quite sure that I'll get flamed all up an down for this by the avid physicists in the crowd, but go back and look at the math that was done for the infinite numbers, and apply it to quantum theory. The whole thing collapses, without disturbing the math! The math is correct, but the reasoning behind whats causing the math is not. The math can be proven by virtue that it is consistent with the rules of a stable universe, which proves all by itself that they must be part of such a universe, and that, that universe must exist. The ramaining "non-stable math" is interesting only in a philophical way, or in the remote possibility that there exists more than one stable, but incompatible sets of rules.
A similar Idea I have heard kicked around is the ability to automatically shutdown single source flood without the need for the Administrators getting involved at all.
The idea works like this: A system realizes its getting DoS'd (a relatively simple realization. either your getting a lot of bogus return address', or you know whos flooding you...) So if you're getting a bunch of bogus address' you need a way to shut it off as close to the source as possible. So, Network hardware all up and down the spectrum needs a new protocol: call it "ADA, Anit-Denial of Service Attack protocol). This language defines a way for a node to ask the next node in the link to automatically kill packets that are coming in with bogus return address', and which are destined to go either to or through your node. The upstream node will be able to tell just by checking which trunk the data came down, and verifying that the return address is coming from that trunk. If it gets some that are invalid (more then 1% of a particular type for example), then it would ask the router along the source trunk to do the same. Each node would take about 1 to 2 minutes of statistics gathering to be able to figure out definitively where the DoS is coming from, and then could stop passing those packets along, and ask the next router upstream to do the same. The advantage is that the system is perfectly safe since you can't ask to have someone else shut down, because the router won't accept and pass on the request unless the trunk the request came from matches the trunk down which the DoS target exists. You would be vulnerable to having your connection severed against your will only if one of the routers is compromised, but by definition if a router is compromised, your connection is vulnerable anyway.
The nice thing about this system is that if you get DoS'd, and you know you're being DoS'd, you send this request upstream, and the routers will work their way back to the source until the attackers own ISP will kill the packets before they even make it one hop onto the net in general. It can be completely automated, and there is no additional risk to your connection than already exists. The protocol would require some basic info and statistics engines in the routers, but that already exists for other purposes (like load balancing). It would still allow you to send out bogus return address' but if you start flooding someone, the system will automatically lock you out from the person you're flooding.
This won't serve to stop all DoS attacks, but it will stop the morons with the instant "DoS in a can" software from being able to attack someone because they stole their IRC nick, or something equally retarded. Additionally, calling the owner of the Router would allow you to use their logs (if they will let you) to track down the perpetrator.
"What you are describing is the complete erasure, if you will, of all hardware and digital media.
What about this? *holds up his "Programming Perl" book*"
The question of what could happen to simply wipe out all technology without wiping everything else brought me to an interesting thought: By slightly altering the physical constants of the universe, you could render most existing technology (all fields) invalid without causing any real significant change to biological systems. The results of specific engineering to that effect could concievably wipe out all electronics and force us to start over. Under those conditions, the books about silicon computers would be useless, and a great deal of our semiconductor physics would have to be revised. The net result would almost a complete start over, since under the new physics, the new semiconductor of choice would need new designs to produce todays reliable results. furthermore, most textbooks regaurding high level languages would be lost before the world would return to a state where they would have some use. Without the use of a simple milling machine its very hard to build any kind of precise machinery, especially if you want the kind of optics it takes to build semiconductors. Forget most of the books on computer hardware you know, you'd have to re-invent the assembly line without so much as a single electric or gasoline motor to aid you, since you'd have to re-invent those too. Net result is it would take you so long to rebuild the base technologies, that computer technologies would be lost before the world was ready for them again.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just our measurements. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple (which is what you're talking about) is a statement about the universe, not our ability to measure it. More and more, it is apparent that this uncertainty is not because our instruments are too crude, but that this uncertainty is inherent in nature. You can not measure well defined velocities and positions of particles on the quantum scale because they do not have well defined positions and velocities.
Heisenberg was saying absolutely nothing about the nature of matter, he was bitching about his lab equipment. The principle can be applied in a number of fascinating ways, the firt of which is getting around the limitations of his lab equipment by using large numbers of well deined events to treat them statistically instead of directly. Almost all of physics and chemistry is treated this way, and it is a remarkably successful way to get the job done. What I'm saying is that The paper which was published about the Omega number Proves without question that there can be no randomness in the universe because that contradicts a known good axiom; In fact it violates a lot of them, therefore it cant happen. The reason that quantum physics works despite its failure to be truly correct, is because the math treats the underlying events in a statistical manner.
An example: Black holes are my favorite whipping boys. First they said that you can't get out of them because the speed of light is the limit, and you need a higher velocity than c to escape. The only problem with that one is that they used newtons definition of escape velocity to apply to the black hole, but at the speeds neccesary to escape from a black hole, you get the whole relativistic effect which drammatically reduces the escape velocity . Another way to look at it is do the equations from the standpoint of escape energy instead of escape velocity, and what you get is the fact that ultra high frequencies of light (i.e. ultra high energy) has enough energy to escape a black whole. Quantum theory doesn't allow for this, so they fudged it with quantum tunnelling which is no more than a statistics treatment which when broken down defines the ratio of particles / waves (or whatever you want to call them) which have enough energy to escape a black hole. Once again, right math, wrong explanation.
Systems of particles is really thermodynamics. In quantum mechanics, you can (and do) pay attention to a single particle.
again, that is not truly the case. What they say in quantum mechanics is that we have a given particle that has a probability of being in any given point. This is the basic statement which scream statistical treatment. Its almost scary that only a few scientists have been willing to grasp this idea, and understand its implications. Hawkings understands part of it, which is why if you read any of his papers, he is rabidly against the idea that there is anything random in the universe. He believes, but can't prove that the universe is "predestined". The proof and reason why the universe has fundamental unbreakable laws is given in the Omega Number Theory.
-=Geoskd
www.geoskd.com
In a rather elegant solution the author has unwittingly proven why the Universe exists with the rules that it does.
Put simply, he used the statement: "This statement is false" to show a fundamental paradox in mathematics. As a mathematical statement, it is gobbledygook, but as a pure physical statment about the universe, it is irrelevant because this circumstance can't happen in the real universe. The result is that we can make the following general statement: "The universe exists with a set of universal and fundamentally consistent and non contradictory (read as predictable) rules because any other circumstance (including non existence) leads to a paradox". Mathematics in general says that we have fundamental rules about how numbers can exist and interact. Violation of those rules is a paradox. Rules that contradict one another are a paradox, so any rule which contradicts a known valid rule can't apply to our universe (or any universe?) The mathematical statement "this is false" is truly irrelevant because we can't construct it into a physical object, or behavior which could contradict itself. we can only express it as a vague abstract concept which cannot be applied to the real world by its very nature. Fundamentally this also destroys quantum theory, because the very notion that there can be a simple lack of rules at any level of the physical world leads to paradoxical contradictions.
But... Quantum theory works right?
Not quite, quantum theory in its simplest form is built on the idea that no matter how good our instruments, the more accurately we read the exact circumstances of an event, or small system, the more we alter it. The real power of quantum physics is that it gives us the means of treating these systems statistically without having to look at them on an individual basis.
I'm quite sure that I'll get flamed all up an down for this by the avid physicists in the crowd, but go back and look at the math that was done for the infinite numbers, and apply it to quantum theory. The whole thing collapses, without disturbing the math! The math is correct, but the reasoning behind whats causing the math is not. The math can be proven by virtue that it is consistent with the rules of a stable universe, which proves all by itself that they must be part of such a universe, and that, that universe must exist. The ramaining "non-stable math" is interesting only in a philophical way, or in the remote possibility that there exists more than one stable, but incompatible sets of rules.
-=Geoskd
www.geoskd.com
A similar Idea I have heard kicked around is the ability to automatically shutdown single source flood without the need for the Administrators getting involved at all.
The idea works like this: A system realizes its getting DoS'd (a relatively simple realization. either your getting a lot of bogus return address', or you know whos flooding you...) So if you're getting a bunch of bogus address' you need a way to shut it off as close to the source as possible. So, Network hardware all up and down the spectrum needs a new protocol: call it "ADA, Anit-Denial of Service Attack protocol). This language defines a way for a node to ask the next node in the link to automatically kill packets that are coming in with bogus return address', and which are destined to go either to or through your node. The upstream node will be able to tell just by checking which trunk the data came down, and verifying that the return address is coming from that trunk. If it gets some that are invalid (more then 1% of a particular type for example), then it would ask the router along the source trunk to do the same. Each node would take about 1 to 2 minutes of statistics gathering to be able to figure out definitively where the DoS is coming from, and then could stop passing those packets along, and ask the next router upstream to do the same. The advantage is that the system is perfectly safe since you can't ask to have someone else shut down, because the router won't accept and pass on the request unless the trunk the request came from matches the trunk down which the DoS target exists. You would be vulnerable to having your connection severed against your will only if one of the routers is compromised, but by definition if a router is compromised, your connection is vulnerable anyway.
The nice thing about this system is that if you get DoS'd, and you know you're being DoS'd, you send this request upstream, and the routers will work their way back to the source until the attackers own ISP will kill the packets before they even make it one hop onto the net in general. It can be completely automated, and there is no additional risk to your connection than already exists. The protocol would require some basic info and statistics engines in the routers, but that already exists for other purposes (like load balancing). It would still allow you to send out bogus return address' but if you start flooding someone, the system will automatically lock you out from the person you're flooding.
This won't serve to stop all DoS attacks, but it will stop the morons with the instant "DoS in a can" software from being able to attack someone because they stole their IRC nick, or something equally retarded. Additionally, calling the owner of the Router would allow you to use their logs (if they will let you) to track down the perpetrator.
-=Geoskd
www.geoskd.com
"What you are describing is the complete erasure, if you will, of all hardware and digital media.
What about this? *holds up his "Programming Perl" book*"
The question of what could happen to simply wipe out all technology without wiping everything else brought me to an interesting thought: By slightly altering the physical constants of the universe, you could render most existing technology (all fields) invalid without causing any real significant change to biological systems. The results of specific engineering to that effect could concievably wipe out all electronics and force us to start over. Under those conditions, the books about silicon computers would be useless, and a great deal of our semiconductor physics would have to be revised. The net result would almost a complete start over, since under the new physics, the new semiconductor of choice would need new designs to produce todays reliable results. furthermore, most textbooks regaurding high level languages would be lost before the world would return to a state where they would have some use. Without the use of a simple milling machine its very hard to build any kind of precise machinery, especially if you want the kind of optics it takes to build semiconductors. Forget most of the books on computer hardware you know, you'd have to re-invent the assembly line without so much as a single electric or gasoline motor to aid you, since you'd have to re-invent those too. Net result is it would take you so long to rebuild the base technologies, that computer technologies would be lost before the world was ready for them again.
-=Geoskd
www.geoskd.com