A hypothesis is an explanation for observation that has not been tested thoroughly. This fails the definition on two accounts: there has not been an observation yet (it's just a proposal for an experiment), and the theory behind it (QED) has been tested thoroughly. So, it's a prediction of an already well-tested theory. And because QED involves integrating over all possible events, it's hard to imagine how QED could be shown to confirm so well with experimental results, if it didn't also correctly represent this type of energy -> matter conversion.
It is part of the theory of quantum electro dynamics, and even if it has been demonstrated in this form, the virtual possibility must already be accounted for in other quantum calculations that have been verified in experiments. Also, the reverse effects have been demonstrated before, and according to theory these effects are fully reversible. It would be a huge shock if a properly conducted experiment would fail to produce the expected results.
They are planning to create an electron/positron pair. Also, it is extremely unlikely you could create anything entirely new with currently available energy levels.
The point is that you want the text to convey a meaning with the least amount of confusion and ambiguity. In this case 'discovered how to create matter from light' can be confusing, as it suggest that this theory is new. It also suggests the experiment has already been done.
If you assume we have a way to convert energy into matter with 100% efficiency, then it's not far fetched to assume we'd also have a way to convert matter into energy. So, you can save yourself all the calculations, and just grab 250 grams of waste products from the ship's waste disposal system, and turn them into a cup of Earl Grey tea.
The threshold is energy. You need very energetic photons to create something like an electron/positron pair. Using E = mc^2 you can calculate exactly how much. That kind of energy is not very common around here, but in places where such high energy photons are created, matter is also formed.
These scientist haven't discovered how to create matter from light. That's already standard theory. What they have done is devised a clever experiment to test this.
That's like saying that a flight simulator is the same thing as an actual airplane.
Not at all, I have travelled by plane, and I can tell you it's completely different from playing with a flight simulator. The most obvious distinction is that you play flight simulator for hours, but still end up in the same room where you started.
It's more like saying that a real nintendo is the same as an nintendo simulator, sitting in the same box, with the same inputs and outputs, and reacting in the same way. Likewise, the brain is also a black box, doing information processing with input from our senses, and output to our muscles. What's inside the brain doesn't really matter. All that matters is the behaviour. If a computer "brain" can produce similar behaviour as a human brain, but you don't believe it has the same conscious experiences, you must also accept the possibility that other people you meet aren't conscious in the same sense.
After all, humans have been selected by evolutionary processes because they had sufficiently advanced impersonation of intelligence. Whether it's "real" or "true" intelligence never an issue, if such a distinction even exists.
It is not necessary to understand how consciousness works before we can replicate it artificially. You only have to recognize that you made it.. and that's easier than you think. Just interact for a while, and follow your common sense. Also, consciousness is a subjective experience, that's not the same for everybody. Some people have no problem accepting the fact that it's just computation, others can't accept that at all. Even if the first group as a perfectly satisfactory explanation for themselves, the second group won't believe it, and will still be looking for the "real" explanation. I don't see how that is ever going to be resolved.
Exactly. It would be like a person sending a letter. Most people are not going to sit by their mailbox for days, waiting for a reply. Instead, they got about their regular business, and occasionally check the mailbox.
Allowing robots to determine the most efficient way to save as many lives as possible could be dangerous. Maybe they'll decide that you need to be killed, so that two of your enemies can survive.
Within the scientific community, consensus is meaningless. Outside this community, where non-scientists have to make decisions based on science, scientific consensus is the best tool we have.
No, I didn't forget. I don't live in the US, so I haven't seen much of Al Gore's stuff here. I mostly read about Al Gore from deniers. Funny that he's invited to speak to congress, when he's not a scientist/expert on the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
With typical flashlight wavelengths, there's not enough energy to create particles. Waiting a few hours isn't going to help.
If Uber wanted, they could keep the barrier high.
I don't think you have the same definition of theory. Here's the one I use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
A hypothesis is an explanation for observation that has not been tested thoroughly. This fails the definition on two accounts: there has not been an observation yet (it's just a proposal for an experiment), and the theory behind it (QED) has been tested thoroughly. So, it's a prediction of an already well-tested theory. And because QED involves integrating over all possible events, it's hard to imagine how QED could be shown to confirm so well with experimental results, if it didn't also correctly represent this type of energy -> matter conversion.
It is part of the theory of quantum electro dynamics, and even if it has been demonstrated in this form, the virtual possibility must already be accounted for in other quantum calculations that have been verified in experiments. Also, the reverse effects have been demonstrated before, and according to theory these effects are fully reversible. It would be a huge shock if a properly conducted experiment would fail to produce the expected results.
The goal is to verify our understanding of quantum physics, not to create matter.
They are planning to create an electron/positron pair. Also, it is extremely unlikely you could create anything entirely new with currently available energy levels.
The point is that you want the text to convey a meaning with the least amount of confusion and ambiguity. In this case 'discovered how to create matter from light' can be confusing, as it suggest that this theory is new. It also suggests the experiment has already been done.
If you assume we have a way to convert energy into matter with 100% efficiency, then it's not far fetched to assume we'd also have a way to convert matter into energy. So, you can save yourself all the calculations, and just grab 250 grams of waste products from the ship's waste disposal system, and turn them into a cup of Earl Grey tea.
The threshold is energy. You need very energetic photons to create something like an electron/positron pair. Using E = mc^2 you can calculate exactly how much. That kind of energy is not very common around here, but in places where such high energy photons are created, matter is also formed.
Collide is indeed a wrong word. Particle is a wrong word too. The problem is that there's no easy and correct way to explain what really happens.
But that was not a Breit–Wheeler pair production.
These scientist haven't discovered how to create matter from light. That's already standard theory. What they have done is devised a clever experiment to test this.
Every time they throw somebody out, sign up somebody else. Use fake credentials if you have to, or sign up the staff's teenage kids.
That's like saying that a flight simulator is the same thing as an actual airplane.
Not at all, I have travelled by plane, and I can tell you it's completely different from playing with a flight simulator. The most obvious distinction is that you play flight simulator for hours, but still end up in the same room where you started.
It's more like saying that a real nintendo is the same as an nintendo simulator, sitting in the same box, with the same inputs and outputs, and reacting in the same way. Likewise, the brain is also a black box, doing information processing with input from our senses, and output to our muscles. What's inside the brain doesn't really matter. All that matters is the behaviour. If a computer "brain" can produce similar behaviour as a human brain, but you don't believe it has the same conscious experiences, you must also accept the possibility that other people you meet aren't conscious in the same sense.
After all, humans have been selected by evolutionary processes because they had sufficiently advanced impersonation of intelligence. Whether it's "real" or "true" intelligence never an issue, if such a distinction even exists.
It is not necessary to understand how consciousness works before we can replicate it artificially. You only have to recognize that you made it.. and that's easier than you think. Just interact for a while, and follow your common sense. Also, consciousness is a subjective experience, that's not the same for everybody. Some people have no problem accepting the fact that it's just computation, others can't accept that at all. Even if the first group as a perfectly satisfactory explanation for themselves, the second group won't believe it, and will still be looking for the "real" explanation. I don't see how that is ever going to be resolved.
Exactly. It would be like a person sending a letter. Most people are not going to sit by their mailbox for days, waiting for a reply. Instead, they got about their regular business, and occasionally check the mailbox.
Allowing robots to determine the most efficient way to save as many lives as possible could be dangerous. Maybe they'll decide that you need to be killed, so that two of your enemies can survive.
Within the scientific community, consensus is meaningless. Outside this community, where non-scientists have to make decisions based on science, scientific consensus is the best tool we have.
They're opposed to thinking.
No, I didn't forget. I don't live in the US, so I haven't seen much of Al Gore's stuff here. I mostly read about Al Gore from deniers. Funny that he's invited to speak to congress, when he's not a scientist/expert on the matter.
Who cares what Al Gore said ? He's not one of the scientists.
Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Seeing as they are not denying the theory of general relativity: no.