Self-creation is nonsensical (violates non-contradiction and all reason);
In my view the laws of reason are just as empirical as the laws of physics. So you have to be careful with what you dismiss as unreasonable. The universe is not bound by human-created reason. Quantum mechanics puts lie to the rule of non-contradiction. Set up a double-slit experiment and fire one electron at a time. When we observe which slit an electron went through, it either goes through A or B, but not both. And yet, we observe an interference pattern, so we have to conclude that the electron went through both slits. Both slits and not both slits. A contradiction in reality, right?
On another note, there's another possibility in the Creation by Other category besides something God-like: Creation by Other Universes. One possibility is that a black hole is where a piece of spacetime twists off from a universe and inflates into its own universe. Universe Zero begets Universe One and was begotten by Universe Negative One. Every universe has a beginning and an end (big rip, heat death, or big crunch), but the set of all universes is eternal. Perhaps in the physics of the metaverse, the null set of universes is impossible. Or, the actual number of universes is infinite and always has been.
I've never looked at the wikipedia articles you mention except to look up the mass of the proton.
In my opinion, the invariant mass-energy of a system should just be called mass. For fundamental particles with no internal structure (as far as we know) like electrons and quarks, this would be the rest mass. By this definition, photons have no mass because they have no invariant mass. For a compound system, like the proton, the invariant mass is its total rest frame energy divided by c^2. The total rest frame energy of a proton is the sum of the invariant mass of the quarks times c^2, the energy of their motion in their ground state, and the energy of the virtual gluons and photons (which themselves have no invariant mass).
You say the quarks and gluons gain extra mass from their kinetic energy; I say the proton gains extra mass from the kinetic energy of the quarks and gluons. This is starting to sound like the difference between 0.999... and 1.
The only difference between your world and mine is linguistic. We're choosing to attach the word "mass" to different parts of equations. The math works out in either case.
Gravity doesn't act on mass directly. A black hole (or any other large mass) warps the space around it. Light travels in a straight line through curved space (a geodesic if you want to be technical about it). It's similar to how, if you walk in a straight line on Earth, you actually walk in a circle due to the Earth being round.
2 kg. However, it is more useful to think of this as the sum of the mass of the beachball and the energy of the photons because both of these can be measured in the rest frame of the beach ball. In the rest frame of a photon, the photon doesn't exist. This is another way of saying that photons do not have a rest frame and that they do not have mass. It is clearer to equate rest mass with mass to keep it separate from measurements different observers will disagree on. All observers will agree on the rest mass of a particle: m^2 = E^2 - p^2 (in natural units).
The concept of relativistic mass would be useful if it allowed us to keep using Newtonian equations, but it doesn't. Sure, relativistic momentum is p = gamma*mv = m_rel*v, but kinetic energy is not K = (1/2)*gamma*mv^2. It's (gamma-1)mc^2.
NASA's page about the eXtreme Deep Field has a picture showing the amount of sky photographed compared to the size of the moon. It looks like all 5500 galaxies could be covered up by a grain of sand held out at arms length.
Discrediting a theory isn't a permanent thing. Any theory can be brought back if evidence warrants it. Even Einstein's "biggest blunder," the cosmological constant, is now the most popular theory to explain the universe's accelerating expansion.
Ansel Adams frequently made duplicate photographs of his images when taking them. One thing that I tell people constantly is that it is always a good idea to take more than one shot of an image if you can in the camera. According to Michael, Ansel frequently took multiple exposures of the same shots. Many of his negatives are duplicate images of which he'd select the best image to use for printing.
In short, a parent's overreaction caused the school's overreaction. The teacher will get a "slap on the wrist" for including materials without following proper procedure. There will be no criminal charges.
Oh, and the reading of internet stories about prostitutes was a complete fabrication.
No technique ever becomes archaic; it becomes an artistic choice, like black-and-white photography. Same with focus, which probably won't ever go away since it's so intrinsic to how our eyes work. I agree that this could be a huge development once artists figure out what to do with it.
Businesses will offer spaces to the handicapped on their own because it's good for business.
No, they won't. There aren't enough handicapped customers to justify--profit-wise--the reduced number of parking spaces due to the greater width and restrictions of handicapped spaces. When markets forces fail to produce a desired outcome (i.e., allowing the disabled to participate in commerce), legislation can (and sometimes does) correct the failure.
It's not just about being closer to the building. Parking spaces for the disabled also tend to be wider to allow those with wheelchairs, crutches, and other aids to more easily exit their vehicle. If you can't find a space with an empty spot next to it, how is someone in a wheelchair supposed to get out of their car?
That's not a dumb question; I've been thinking about this all day and getting depressed over how much quantum mechanics I've forgotten.
The question the paper asks isn't so much whether the wavefunction is "real" or not, but of how to interpret it. The question the paper attacks is this: Is the wavefunction a representation of physical property of a system ("real")? Or is it a representation of the information we have about the system ("mathematical tool")?
An analogy: I show you a coin. You measure its diameter and find that it is 24 mm across. That number--24--represents a physical property of the coin. Now, I flip the coin and cover it with my hand. You observe that the quarter has a 50% chance of being face up. That number--50--is not really a property of the quarter, but a property of your knowledge about the quarter. To prove this, I can look at the quarter while keeping it hidden from you. From your point of view, the probability of heads is 50%, but for me, it is either 0% or 100%.*
The paper is a proposed proof that the wavefunction of a system is more akin to the diameter of a quarter than to the probability of it being heads up. In short, the wavefunction is a property of a system, not of our knowledge of a system. Given a complete physical description of a system, there must be exactly one wavefunction that corresponds to it. Thus, the wavefunction is the physical description.
* There's an argument to be had here between Frequentists and Bayesians which I am totally uninterested in.
Both of your examples involve a single wavefunction interfering with itself. In a single-photon double-slit experiment, the particles wavefunction spreads out into both slits and interferes with itself. The paper is talking about the wavefunctions of two different systems (e.g., two different photons) communicating non-locally.
Re:They've got a point
on
Happy Tau Day
·
· Score: 2
Stacy Snyder was not denied a teaching credential solely for posting a picture on MySpace. You can read the reasons in the judge's decisions (PDF).
Starting on page 6, Mid-Placement Evaluations, we find Ms. Snyder:
- had “problems with discipline and also with content” - "had difficulty maintaining a formal teaching manner" - was "ignorant of basic grammar, punctuation, spelling, and usage" - on several... would “make up an answer” or “give the wrong answer” to student questions about literature or grammar. - left too many students behind as a result of ineffective lessons. - efforts to “share her personal life” with the students crossed into “unprofessionalism.” - told an English class that her Valentines Day had been “ruined” when she encountered her former husband while dining out with her boyfriend.
As for the MySpace photo, it would have been less of a problem if Ms. Snyder had not directed her students to visit her MySpace page (something else she was instructed not to do (page 8)). The photo, along with a letter of apology featuring many grammar mistakes, was the last straw that led to Ms. Snyder without a teaching credential.
Surely, there are better examples of people being harmed by inadvertent disclosures on the internet.
I've never understood this argument. Listing prices helps a consumer make a choice about what to buy, but in health care, there often isn't a choice. Can it really make a difference to know what an appendectomy costs? It's not like you can opt for a cheaper treatment if you can't afford the one that cures you. Market solutions only work if a consumer has a choice about what to buy.
Slashdot Mirror
How do the NASA scientists know that these pictures are of rivers and not long inlets? In other words, how do they know the hydrocarbons are flowing?
Self-creation is nonsensical (violates non-contradiction and all reason);
In my view the laws of reason are just as empirical as the laws of physics. So you have to be careful with what you dismiss as unreasonable. The universe is not bound by human-created reason. Quantum mechanics puts lie to the rule of non-contradiction. Set up a double-slit experiment and fire one electron at a time. When we observe which slit an electron went through, it either goes through A or B, but not both. And yet, we observe an interference pattern, so we have to conclude that the electron went through both slits. Both slits and not both slits. A contradiction in reality, right?
On another note, there's another possibility in the Creation by Other category besides something God-like: Creation by Other Universes. One possibility is that a black hole is where a piece of spacetime twists off from a universe and inflates into its own universe. Universe Zero begets Universe One and was begotten by Universe Negative One. Every universe has a beginning and an end (big rip, heat death, or big crunch), but the set of all universes is eternal. Perhaps in the physics of the metaverse, the null set of universes is impossible. Or, the actual number of universes is infinite and always has been.
I've worked with many physicists, some who agree with you, some with me. As long as the math works out, either way works.
Yes, I said as much in my second to last post.
I've never looked at the wikipedia articles you mention except to look up the mass of the proton.
In my opinion, the invariant mass-energy of a system should just be called mass. For fundamental particles with no internal structure (as far as we know) like electrons and quarks, this would be the rest mass. By this definition, photons have no mass because they have no invariant mass. For a compound system, like the proton, the invariant mass is its total rest frame energy divided by c^2. The total rest frame energy of a proton is the sum of the invariant mass of the quarks times c^2, the energy of their motion in their ground state, and the energy of the virtual gluons and photons (which themselves have no invariant mass).
You say the quarks and gluons gain extra mass from their kinetic energy; I say the proton gains extra mass from the kinetic energy of the quarks and gluons. This is starting to sound like the difference between 0.999... and 1.
The only difference between your world and mine is linguistic. We're choosing to attach the word "mass" to different parts of equations. The math works out in either case.
Gravity doesn't act on mass directly. A black hole (or any other large mass) warps the space around it. Light travels in a straight line through curved space (a geodesic if you want to be technical about it). It's similar to how, if you walk in a straight line on Earth, you actually walk in a circle due to the Earth being round.
2 kg. However, it is more useful to think of this as the sum of the mass of the beachball and the energy of the photons because both of these can be measured in the rest frame of the beach ball. In the rest frame of a photon, the photon doesn't exist. This is another way of saying that photons do not have a rest frame and that they do not have mass. It is clearer to equate rest mass with mass to keep it separate from measurements different observers will disagree on. All observers will agree on the rest mass of a particle: m^2 = E^2 - p^2 (in natural units).
The concept of relativistic mass would be useful if it allowed us to keep using Newtonian equations, but it doesn't. Sure, relativistic momentum is p = gamma*mv = m_rel*v, but kinetic energy is not K = (1/2)*gamma*mv^2. It's (gamma-1)mc^2.
NASA's page about the eXtreme Deep Field has a picture showing the amount of sky photographed compared to the size of the moon. It looks like all 5500 galaxies could be covered up by a grain of sand held out at arms length.
Discrediting a theory isn't a permanent thing. Any theory can be brought back if evidence warrants it. Even Einstein's "biggest blunder," the cosmological constant, is now the most popular theory to explain the universe's accelerating expansion.
Not true. This from an interview with Adams' son:
Ansel Adams frequently made duplicate photographs of his images when taking them. One thing that I tell people constantly is that it is always a good idea to take more than one shot of an image if you can in the camera. According to Michael, Ansel frequently took multiple exposures of the same shots. Many of his negatives are duplicate images of which he'd select the best image to use for printing.
10 Interesting Things I Learned About Ansel Adams
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/21/south-carolina-teacher-suspended-for-reading-students-enders-game-will-not-face-criminal-charges/
In short, a parent's overreaction caused the school's overreaction. The teacher will get a "slap on the wrist" for including materials without following proper procedure. There will be no criminal charges.
Oh, and the reading of internet stories about prostitutes was a complete fabrication.
No technique ever becomes archaic; it becomes an artistic choice, like black-and-white photography. Same with focus, which probably won't ever go away since it's so intrinsic to how our eyes work. I agree that this could be a huge development once artists figure out what to do with it.
Businesses will offer spaces to the handicapped on their own because it's good for business.
No, they won't. There aren't enough handicapped customers to justify--profit-wise--the reduced number of parking spaces due to the greater width and restrictions of handicapped spaces. When markets forces fail to produce a desired outcome (i.e., allowing the disabled to participate in commerce), legislation can (and sometimes does) correct the failure.
It's not just about being closer to the building. Parking spaces for the disabled also tend to be wider to allow those with wheelchairs, crutches, and other aids to more easily exit their vehicle. If you can't find a space with an empty spot next to it, how is someone in a wheelchair supposed to get out of their car?
He would have formed a crime-fighting team with Ada Lovelace.
I don't know what interfering across time means. What experiment or situation are you referring to?
That's not a dumb question; I've been thinking about this all day and getting depressed over how much quantum mechanics I've forgotten.
The question the paper asks isn't so much whether the wavefunction is "real" or not, but of how to interpret it. The question the paper attacks is this: Is the wavefunction a representation of physical property of a system ("real")? Or is it a representation of the information we have about the system ("mathematical tool")?
An analogy: I show you a coin. You measure its diameter and find that it is 24 mm across. That number--24--represents a physical property of the coin. Now, I flip the coin and cover it with my hand. You observe that the quarter has a 50% chance of being face up. That number--50--is not really a property of the quarter, but a property of your knowledge about the quarter. To prove this, I can look at the quarter while keeping it hidden from you. From your point of view, the probability of heads is 50%, but for me, it is either 0% or 100%.*
The paper is a proposed proof that the wavefunction of a system is more akin to the diameter of a quarter than to the probability of it being heads up. In short, the wavefunction is a property of a system, not of our knowledge of a system. Given a complete physical description of a system, there must be exactly one wavefunction that corresponds to it. Thus, the wavefunction is the physical description.
* There's an argument to be had here between Frequentists and Bayesians which I am totally uninterested in.
Both of your examples involve a single wavefunction interfering with itself. In a single-photon double-slit experiment, the particles wavefunction spreads out into both slits and interferes with itself. The paper is talking about the wavefunctions of two different systems (e.g., two different photons) communicating non-locally.
e^(i*tau) - 1 = 0
That reminds me: how do you tell if you're dating a French horn player?
When you're making out with her, she'll try to stick her hand up your ass.
Correct syntax would be (command1; command2) | command3, which is what was described in Meriahven's post.
The difficulty in truly understanding the genome is that it's both program and data.
Wait, the brain is a LISP machine?
I'll show myself out.
Stacy Snyder was not denied a teaching credential solely for posting a picture on MySpace. You can read the reasons in the judge's decisions (PDF).
Starting on page 6, Mid-Placement Evaluations, we find Ms. Snyder:
- had “problems with discipline and also with content” ... would “make up an answer” or “give the wrong answer” to student questions about literature or grammar.
- "had difficulty maintaining a formal teaching manner"
- was "ignorant of basic grammar, punctuation, spelling, and usage"
- on several
- left too many students behind as a result of ineffective lessons.
- efforts to “share her personal life” with the students crossed into “unprofessionalism.”
- told an English class that her Valentines Day had been “ruined” when she encountered her former husband while dining out with her boyfriend.
As for the MySpace photo, it would have been less of a problem if Ms. Snyder had not directed her students to visit her MySpace page (something else she was instructed not to do (page 8)). The photo, along with a letter of apology featuring many grammar mistakes, was the last straw that led to Ms. Snyder without a teaching credential.
Surely, there are better examples of people being harmed by inadvertent disclosures on the internet.
Do you have any comment on Bayesian statistics? Would using that have better results?
I've never understood this argument. Listing prices helps a consumer make a choice about what to buy, but in health care, there often isn't a choice. Can it really make a difference to know what an appendectomy costs? It's not like you can opt for a cheaper treatment if you can't afford the one that cures you. Market solutions only work if a consumer has a choice about what to buy.