Perhaps I should have said "it is certainly possible to define a frame in which it has no overall angular momentum". In this frame I am (almost) convinced that the apparent superluminal paradox would not arise.
The point that I have been making is that the superluminal "velocity" is fictitious. The only real velocity is the v=r\omega of the rotating frame, which can be shown to be rotating with respect to some "fixed stars" coordinates. While it may not be possible to find the "rest frame" of the Universe, it is certainly possible to show that it has no overall angular momentum.
GR doesn't talk about non-inertial reference frames? That is *all* GR talks about.
Where did I say it didn't? Did I not say non-inertial, non-gravitational reference frame? Anyway, the relevance of your point still remains questionable: you created a fictitious velocity and claimed that the object to which you ascribed this "velocity" was moving faster than the speed of light; I showed that it wasn't and that no information from it was either.
My example does not deal with changing reference frames, as only one reference frame is considered.
But a non-inertial, non-gravitational reference frame. SR and GR don't say anything about that. So your original point was irrelevant.
Your interpretation is, I'm afraid, incorrect. The point about any form of relativity is that information cannot be transmitted faster than c, which usually implies that energy cannot either. Now while from your rotating viewpoint on the Earth, Alpha Centauri appears to be moving at roughly 1 ly/sec, information about the star (i.e. the neutrinos and photons it emits) do not travel any faster than c. Therefore cause and effect is preserved.
Another statement of this apparent paradox is "consider a rocket moving away from you at 0.75c, and another moving in the opposite direction at 0.75c. You see them moving apart at 1.5c, which is a violation of SR."
This can be resolved if you switch to the reference frame of one of the rockets. You are receding at 0.75c, the other rocket is receing at 0.96c. Causality is preserved.
TTBOMK the EPR paradox and the basic definitions of what
exactly constitutes a measurement and when/why/how does the
WF collapse simultaneously (remember "simultaneous" is a
non-existing term in SR) are still unresolved.
Perhaps Copenhagen is wrong?
Then again, the wavefunction isn't a physical observable, but its modulus is. However, as with experiments on entanglement or teleportation, even though spooky action happens at a distance, the measurements still have to be made in such a way that information travel is subluminal. So maybe the wavefunction does instantaneously collapse, but as it is impossible to gain any information directly from the wavefunction relativity is preserved.
Yeah, that had me stumped too. As capybara points out, all of the relativity stuff in the article is about special relativity (light cones, can't go faster than c, etc). Even Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism could combine quantum theory (they turn out to be the wave equation for a photon, though Maxwell didn't know this:-) and relativity. In fact it was the invariance of Maxwell's equations under transformation of velocity (that is, if you boost your frame of reference by a velocity v, light still seems to be travelling at crelative to you) that led Einstein to postulate SR. And as I originally said, there has been a relativistic version of the Schrodinger equation for as long as the classical version.
The juicy bit - and the bit that's worth a Nobel prize or few - is linking General Relativity (GR) with quantum physics. Once this is done, gravitation is unified with the other fundamental forces, physics is complete and I can go and find a proper job:-)
Just like to point out that what she's doing is combining relativistic gravitation with quantum physics to produce the physicist's holy grail - quantum gravity.
Merely mixing relativity and quantum theory has been done for years and years - the form of the strong nuclear force was found by Yukawa to be a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation - which was proposed in 1924. The relativity papers were published in 1905, 1908.
OK, so I haven't actually clarified anything at all, have I?
I work for Apple's East division, there is no such thing as 10.2.2.
Suggestion: Apple should improve their internal information systems. For instance, this comes from http://www.apple.com/macosx (with appropriate copyrightness apols.)...
Astronomers predict that the height of the storm over North America in 2002 could possibly generate 40 meteors every minute -- over 2,400 per hour!
Now, unless the maths they taught me for most of my life is wrong, 40 meteors a minute is not over 2400 meteors an hour. In fact it's conspicuously equal to 2400 meteors per hour.:-)
To this day its hard to argue the Microsoft extend office:
Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Visio, Project, Outlook, Access... is not the best office suite on the market by far.
To be honest I have yet to find any Office software that does what I want completely satisfactorily.
I tend to use OOo mostly, because it's (a) free and (b) the most complete office system Linux has. The only real contenders otherwise are StarOffice (OOo with fonts and price tag), KOffice (buggy) and the various GNOME apps (Abiword etc.), which are not sufficiently integrated. I've also used MSOffice (which *usually* offers the best compatibility with Office, but not always) and Smartsuite - both are more than competent. However much of my work involves equations, and while MSOffice has an equation editor it's much less than satisfactory. I always find myself writing LaTeX with emacs or something.
The one area in which Office does excel (sorry) is presentation management - in the hands of the wise Powerpoint can be an effective tool for communicating information. The lack of any equivalent software on Linux is annoying, but then again LaTeX can produce some top-notch transparencies.
You are correct to point out that copied software makes up a large proportion of the user base, especially in the middle and far East.
However on the point of "their software [being] easier to copy than the others", I beg to differ. This all happened in a time when software copying meant putting the same disk in many different computers. It didn't matter whose software you bought, it could be copied. There was no CD-key, no anti-disk-copying mechanism, and no public network for copied versions to be "sniffed" out.
Basically I don't think that MSs software was easier or harder to copy than anyone else's, so I don't think this mechanism had an impact on the sales of their software or others'.
Re:PDF Files arn't easily modifiable.
on
Microsoft takes on PDF
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But why is Excel the best? Is it because they just made a better product and everybody else gave up because they couldn't innovate? Or is it because Microsoft crushed the opposition by exploiting their monopoly?
The first ever "killer app" for the PC was Lotus 1-2-3, which for a long while was the best spreadsheet on the market. At this point MS didn't have a monopoly, PCs ran SCP-DOS, MD-DOS, OS/2, AIX (yes, even the same). Word processing? Would you like to use AmiPro? WordPerfect? Word?...
In short, there once *was* a point where Microsoft had to stop being a teeny company peddling BASIC interpreters and crappy DOS interfaces and gain a monopoly, which later they could exploit.
In short, yes. People did see Excel as better. Now whether these people were end users or ISVs doesn't matter from MS's point of view. Someone bought their software, and bought it in plentificationaryness.
Actually, to do "nothing but [run] the SETI@home screensaver", a computer also has to load Windows, a VGA (at least) device driver, HDD drivers, etc. So "1250GHz of processing power...dedicated purely to the project" would require somewhere closer to 1300 1GHz computers, IMHO. You've also got to consider the architecture of those computers; PowerPC running at 1GHz!=IA32 running at 1GHz!=Z80 running at 1GHz etc.
Erm, yes. Anyway, you're wrong. The Kelvin is a measure of temperature. The degree Kelvin is a measure of change of temperature. The two systems are calibrated so that a change of temperature from N Kelvin to N(+/-)1 Kelvin is equal to one degree Kelvin. So while you are correct in saying "the temperature of something is referred...." you are incorrect in saying that "a kelvin is a change in....". Because a Kelvin is a measure of temperature defined such that at zero pressure on a constant volume gas thermometer T=0K, and at the triple point of water at standard pressure T=273.16K. Note that these are absolute values, not changes in values.
(To the first person to bring up the Kelvin scale: One does not use the term "degrees Kelvin" or the symbol when referring to the K scale. Thanks though)
Actually - a Kelvin is a unit of temperature. A degree Kelvin is a change in temperature equal to 1/273.16 the difference between absolute zero and the triplepoint of H2O at standard temperature and pressure:-P. So to boil water from room temperature, you have to heat it through 80 degrees Kelvin to 373.15K.
My point was this: the OP didn't specify what temperature scale they were using. South America, Europe, Africa, Canada, Asia, Australasia tend to use the Celsius temperature scale for reporting temperatures within human experience, and the Kelvin (absolute) temperature for scientific purposes. It's only America that routinely uses Fahrenheit, and (America!=World)==TRUE.
At risk of ranting, it should also be pointed out that there are many accepted international standards the Americans choose to ignore. As an example, the most interesting thing to happen on 9/11/01 was an equipment failure at the Hamoaka reactor.
- Being chilled at 33 for a day or two
would probably finish you.
Erm, 33 degrees isn't that cold, what with room temperature usally being quoted as a comfy 20. Note: The Mars Climate Observer crashed into the planet because Americans haven't started consistently using a single set of units.
The new version of WINE is available! It costs a mere $450 per seat, and after an extensive rewrite of the Windows ABI emulation exports NO functionality whatsoever!
BTW for optimum emulation, we recommend running WINE at nice -20.
COMING SOON - WINE SP1.
The all-new WINE Service Pack removes the ability to run MS-DOS programs, and stops you viewing any digital broadcast medium. This is to enhance your computing experience.
AppleWorks (previously called ClarisWorks) pales in comparison to Microsoft Office XP.
No 5h17, given that one's an Office suite, and the other's a Works package. But hey, Appleworks costs $79.00, Office XP costs $239 (Std. Edn.). Someone do a bang-for-buck analysis?
BTW My favourite way to annoy Apple reps/salespeople/visiting developers: refer to "Mac os X" as "OpenSTep v5.0"...
It was starting to feel like SuSE thought we should have one big configuration file containing all the options that could possibly be set in the OS. A kind of Registry of config options. And we all know what happens When Registries Attack...
Sham 69 were formed in 1976, in the white heat of the British Punk scene. The name, famously, came from faded football graffiti on the wall of a public toilet (originally, it had said Walton & Hersham `69).
[...]
The next single, If The Kids Are United became a youth anthem across the country, preaching a more positive message to Punk youth than many of their contemporaries chose.
It seems that Sham 69 (famous sarf Lahndan punk band) were wrong when they said "If the distros are United / They will never be divided". Also, it seems strange that SuSE want in on a UnitedLinux project...it means removing rc.config
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I should have said "it is certainly possible to define a frame in which it has no overall angular momentum". In this frame I am (almost) convinced that the apparent superluminal paradox would not arise.
The point that I have been making is that the superluminal "velocity" is fictitious. The only real velocity is the v=r\omega of the rotating frame, which can be shown to be rotating with respect to some "fixed stars" coordinates. While it may not be possible to find the "rest frame" of the Universe, it is certainly possible to show that it has no overall angular momentum.
Your interpretation is, I'm afraid, incorrect. The point about any form of relativity is that information cannot be transmitted faster than c, which usually implies that energy cannot either. Now while from your rotating viewpoint on the Earth, Alpha Centauri appears to be moving at roughly 1 ly/sec, information about the star (i.e. the neutrinos and photons it emits) do not travel any faster than c. Therefore cause and effect is preserved.
Another statement of this apparent paradox is "consider a rocket moving away from you at 0.75c, and another moving in the opposite direction at 0.75c. You see them moving apart at 1.5c, which is a violation of SR."
This can be resolved if you switch to the reference frame of one of the rockets. You are receding at 0.75c, the other rocket is receing at 0.96c. Causality is preserved.
Then again, the wavefunction isn't a physical observable, but its modulus is. However, as with experiments on entanglement or teleportation, even though spooky action happens at a distance, the measurements still have to be made in such a way that information travel is subluminal. So maybe the wavefunction does instantaneously collapse, but as it is impossible to gain any information directly from the wavefunction relativity is preserved.
Yeah, that had me stumped too. As capybara points out, all of the relativity stuff in the article is about special relativity (light cones, can't go faster than c, etc). Even Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism could combine quantum theory (they turn out to be the wave equation for a photon, though Maxwell didn't know this :-) and relativity. In fact it was the invariance of Maxwell's equations under transformation of velocity (that is, if you boost your frame of reference by a velocity v, light still seems to be travelling at c relative to you) that led Einstein to postulate SR. And as I originally said, there has been a relativistic version of the Schrodinger equation for as long as the classical version.
:-)
The juicy bit - and the bit that's worth a Nobel prize or few - is linking General Relativity (GR) with quantum physics. Once this is done, gravitation is unified with the other fundamental forces, physics is complete and I can go and find a proper job
Just like to point out that what she's doing is combining relativistic gravitation with quantum physics to produce the physicist's holy grail - quantum gravity.
Merely mixing relativity and quantum theory has been done for years and years - the form of the strong nuclear force was found by Yukawa to be a solution of the Klein-Gordon equation - which was proposed in 1924. The relativity papers were published in 1905, 1908.
OK, so I haven't actually clarified anything at all, have I?
Mac OS X Update 10.2.2: run Software Update for enhanced functionality and improved reliability of various applications.
Note that the link above does indeed go to the correct AppleCare article.
Astronomers predict that the height of the storm over North America in 2002 could possibly generate 40 meteors every minute -- over 2,400 per hour!
:-)
Now, unless the maths they taught me for most of my life is wrong, 40 meteors a minute is not over 2400 meteors an hour. In fact it's conspicuously equal to 2400 meteors per hour.
To this day its hard to argue the Microsoft extend office: Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Visio, Project, Outlook, Access... is not the best office suite on the market by far.
To be honest I have yet to find any Office software that does what I want completely satisfactorily.
I tend to use OOo mostly, because it's (a) free and (b) the most complete office system Linux has. The only real contenders otherwise are StarOffice (OOo with fonts and price tag), KOffice (buggy) and the various GNOME apps (Abiword etc.), which are not sufficiently integrated. I've also used MSOffice (which *usually* offers the best compatibility with Office, but not always) and Smartsuite - both are more than competent. However much of my work involves equations, and while MSOffice has an equation editor it's much less than satisfactory. I always find myself writing LaTeX with emacs or something.
The one area in which Office does excel (sorry) is presentation management - in the hands of the wise Powerpoint can be an effective tool for communicating information. The lack of any equivalent software on Linux is annoying, but then again LaTeX can produce some top-notch transparencies.
You are correct to point out that copied software makes up a large proportion of the user base, especially in the middle and far East.
However on the point of "their software [being] easier to copy than the others", I beg to differ. This all happened in a time when software copying meant putting the same disk in many different computers. It didn't matter whose software you bought, it could be copied. There was no CD-key, no anti-disk-copying mechanism, and no public network for copied versions to be "sniffed" out.
Basically I don't think that MSs software was easier or harder to copy than anyone else's, so I don't think this mechanism had an impact on the sales of their software or others'.
But why is Excel the best? Is it because they just made a better product and everybody else gave up because they couldn't innovate? Or is it because Microsoft crushed the opposition by exploiting their monopoly?
The first ever "killer app" for the PC was Lotus 1-2-3, which for a long while was the best spreadsheet on the market. At this point MS didn't have a monopoly, PCs ran SCP-DOS, MD-DOS, OS/2, AIX (yes, even the same). Word processing? Would you like to use AmiPro? WordPerfect? Word?...
In short, there once *was* a point where Microsoft had to stop being a teeny company peddling BASIC interpreters and crappy DOS interfaces and gain a monopoly, which later they could exploit.
In short, yes. People did see Excel as better. Now whether these people were end users or ISVs doesn't matter from MS's point of view. Someone bought their software, and bought it in plentificationaryness.
Actually, to do "nothing but [run] the SETI@home screensaver", a computer also has to load Windows, a VGA (at least) device driver, HDD drivers, etc. So "1250GHz of processing power...dedicated purely to the project" would require somewhere closer to 1300 1GHz computers, IMHO. You've also got to consider the architecture of those computers; PowerPC running at 1GHz!=IA32 running at 1GHz!=Z80 running at 1GHz etc.
Erm, yes. Anyway, you're wrong. The Kelvin is a measure of temperature. The degree Kelvin is a measure of change of temperature. The two systems are calibrated so that a change of temperature from N Kelvin to N(+/-)1 Kelvin is equal to one degree Kelvin. So while you are correct in saying "the temperature of something is referred...." you are incorrect in saying that "a kelvin is a change in....". Because a Kelvin is a measure of temperature defined such that at zero pressure on a constant volume gas thermometer T=0K, and at the triple point of water at standard pressure T=273.16K. Note that these are absolute values, not changes in values.
So I get modded Offtopic, and this doesn't? Oh yeah, it's an American web site.
(To the first person to bring up the Kelvin scale: One does not use the term "degrees Kelvin" or the symbol when referring to the K scale. Thanks though)
:-P. So to boil water from room temperature, you have to heat it through 80 degrees Kelvin to 373.15K.
Actually - a Kelvin is a unit of temperature. A degree Kelvin is a change in temperature equal to 1/273.16 the difference between absolute zero and the triplepoint of H2O at standard temperature and pressure
My point was this: the OP didn't specify what temperature scale they were using. South America, Europe, Africa, Canada, Asia, Australasia tend to use the Celsius temperature scale for reporting temperatures within human experience, and the Kelvin (absolute) temperature for scientific purposes. It's only America that routinely uses Fahrenheit, and (America!=World)==TRUE.
At risk of ranting, it should also be pointed out that there are many accepted international standards the Americans choose to ignore. As an example, the most interesting thing to happen on 9/11/01 was an equipment failure at the Hamoaka reactor.
- Being chilled at 33 for a day or two would probably finish you.
Erm, 33 degrees isn't that cold, what with room temperature usally being quoted as a comfy 20.
Note: The Mars Climate Observer crashed into the planet because Americans haven't started consistently using a single set of units.
Hi folks!
The new version of WINE is available! It costs a mere $450 per seat, and after an extensive rewrite of the Windows ABI emulation exports NO functionality whatsoever!
BTW for optimum emulation, we recommend running WINE at nice -20.
COMING SOON - WINE SP1.
The all-new WINE Service Pack removes the ability to run MS-DOS programs, and stops you viewing any digital broadcast medium. This is to enhance your computing experience.
AppleWorks (previously called ClarisWorks) pales in comparison to Microsoft Office XP.
No 5h17, given that one's an Office suite, and the other's a Works package. But hey, Appleworks costs $79.00, Office XP costs $239 (Std. Edn.). Someone do a bang-for-buck analysis?
BTW My favourite way to annoy Apple reps/salespeople/visiting developers: refer to "Mac os X" as "OpenSTep v5.0"...
The Stochasticks consists of a 5-by-10-inch laptop carried in a backpack, a half-centimeter-by-1-inch long lipstick camera and a headset.
And NASA wonder why their Climate Observer landed a little hard?
Thank god for that.
It was starting to feel like SuSE thought we should have one big configuration file containing all the options that could possibly be set in the OS. A kind of Registry of config options. And we all know what happens When Registries Attack...
From the greatest hits,
[...]
Graham (waiting to be moderated Offtopic)
It seems that Sham 69 (famous sarf Lahndan punk band) were wrong when they said "If the distros are United / They will never be divided".
Also, it seems strange that SuSE want in on a UnitedLinux project...it means removing rc.config