I think you will find that it's the other way around...or do you really have trouble comprehending the spoken word and pictures to give but two examples. Sorry but it is clear from this that you do not understand what 'fundamental' actually means so your confusion with quantum physics, which is tricky at the best of times, is understandable.
"Far right" is TINY government (or possibly no government) with almost no power and no taxes and maximum freedom
By your definition, not mine. The US political spectrum is shifted so far to the right on the non-US spectrum that we need to use our peripheral vision to see it which admittedly does merge things together. The US system works well when you have rapid growth as the US has enjoyed in the past. Regulation tends to get in the way of that and is not required because things are growing rapidly enough that if someone is blocking you or your company in one direction you can easily expand in another.
However where it fails, as we see it doing now, is when growth slows and there is increased competition for limited resources and benefits. In this scenario you need regulation to restrain the largest players becoming bullies. Just look at the US today - it is run by corporations who can practically dictate the laws for their own benefit. Saying that the system gives everyone 'true' freedom is only half the story because those with power can then use their freedom to effective restrict the freedom of others. The end result is that only some actually have true freedom and everyone else is left with a hollow freedom where certain choices can leave them penniless, homeless and without any healthcare. It's the same sort of freedom you have when someone puts a gun to your head and says "do this or I shoot you" - you are free to choose not to do it so hey you must have "true freedom" right?
At the same time the left places far, far too many restrictions on everyone's freedom in some insane drive to produce absolute equality for everyone and I would completely agree that many European countries have gone far too far down the socialism road. I'd also agree that there is a fine balance, perhaps not a knife edge, between straying too far to the right where we lose our freedom to corporations, and too far to the left where we lose it to government. What I would disagree with is that the US is somehow going to escape needing to make the same balance. You are no longer a young nation flush with the exhilaration of youth and if you are going to continue to be successful as a nation you need to find your own balance to maximize everyone's freedom not just those with the most money and power.
elegant solution!... but how do you do it inside the D-wave?
Good question but I simply don't know enough about the D-wave to be able to answer. My point was just that it is possible, in principle, to devise such a measurement but how to do that in practice will depend heavily on the details of the D-wave.
I did not misquote you: a fundamental feature is just one that derives from the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics. That does not mean that it is central to the nature of quantum mechanics. To use an example from my own field of particle physics I could correctly say that kaon oscillations are a fundamental feature of particle physics but it would be ludicrous to say that this are "at the core" of particle physics.
So you might want to take a deep breath and calm down a little. Trying to claim that there are multiple "cores", when core is generally taken to mean "centre", sounds like you are desperately flailing around trying to justify yourself. Massive use of asterisks coupled with claiming that discovery of quantum teleportation of information (which has already been shown) would be "single greatest physics accomplishment of all human history" isn't exactly helping your case either.
I'm letting the community handle this from here (cant mod on my own discussion of course)
No, but going on past experience with comments like this undoubtedly your friends and/or secondary accounts can unfortunately.
Yes, but do you understand it? There is a huge difference between being a "feature of QM" (as your source accurately states) and being "at the core of QM" as you incorrectly state. Entanglement is a feature of QM but there are many other features of QM that have nothing to do with entanglement.
properly understood, Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics [wikipedia.org]
No it is not. It is one of the features of quantum physics which is the hardest to understand and, arguably, we still do not have a good grip on it. However that by no means puts it at the core of all quantum physics: there is far more to QM than quantum entanglement e.g. tunnelling, self interference etc.
Measure correlations between the two systems. If you have entangled, oppositely polarized photons and you simultaneously pass them through aligned polarizers then one will always pass through the filter and one will always fail. It is impossible to recreate this in any classical system without communication between the photons.
If you can perform the same type of measurement with entangled qbits in a manner where it is physically impossible for them to communicate (e.g. make the two measurements simultaneously) you can confirm their quantum nature.
The problem with the NHS system isn't that it doesn't work. It's that at present it's being attacked for ideological reasons
I agree but ultimately we all have a inevitable problem to face with the rising cost of health care. The US system is getting more expensive so fewer and fewer people are covered the UK, Canadian, European etc. national care systems deal with this by consuming an ever increasing fraction of governments' tax income. At some point we are going to have to deal with this and find a way to make ethical and rational decisions about limits on treatment otherwise in the US only the rich will get medical care while for those of us elsewhere the challenge will be living long enough to receive the care we need.
Neither of these 'default' options is an acceptable solution to the spiralling cost of health care. Putting more money into the system may be a fix for now but it is just postponing the inevitable...but like everyone else I don't have a good solution to suggest and can only point out that we all need to find one.
Our government wants to spend £50bn (assuming it's even on budget) on a new train line too which seems to have no financial case judging from impartial and non-partisan scrutiny.
Correction: it has not much of a financial case for those in the south but quite a good financial case for those living 'up north'. But don't worry if HS2 falls through I'm sure their next big project will be to build a new Hadrian's wall just south of Sheffield to us northerners out.
He came to New York for a surgery, balked at the initial price estimate, and negotiated it down significantly.
Good for him. However not everyone in need of medical care is conscious and even if they are they may not be able to wait long enough to go somewhere else. Being told that you might be able to get treatment cheaper at the next hospital but only have a 50% chance of living long enough to make it there probably puts a bit of a damper on your bargaining skills.
I am curious though - what happens in the US if you are unconscious and they give you live saving medical treatment without you agreeing to the price? Can you refuse to pay on the grounds that you did not consent and would have shopped around for a cheaper alternative or is there some government mandated price list they have to follow? If not then exactly how can this be considered even vaguely fair?
Why is the care in the US 2.5x as expensive as the "too expensive" NHS (per person per PPP normalized GDP/capita) if the free market system works so well?
Simple - US health care is run by for profit companies and those companies have to make a profit. Not only that but there is competition, not on the price that patients pay, but on the quality and number of doctors these companies can attract thus driving up medical salaries to insane levels because ultimately they know that people will pay just about anything they can possibly afford if it comes to ensuring their good health. By contrast the NHS is non-profit and being by far the largest provider of healthcare in the UK has no concerns about competition for doctors and nurses: doctors are still well off but get only a fraction of their US counterparts.
So by the time you have finished paying for all these company profits on top of the artificially inflated doctor salaries is it any wonder that it costs you 2.5 times as much as it does in the UK?
Everyone knows that the Tea party is a bunch of comic, laughable clowns with no grounding in reality.
Not at all. From outside the US, particularly from places like Europe where we have suffered when countries like extreme right wing political parties get out of control they look dangerous. The finding that they actually know science and reality but choose to reject it makes them scarier. I'd be far happier if I thought that all they lacked was education instead of medication.
Sorry but how is digitally manipulating a photograph to create a fake effect of parallax shift to imply superluminal motion any different that digitally manipulating a photographic texture by wrapping it onto a sphere to generate a faked computer fly-by? Just because a VFX technique is old does not mean it is not VFX. In fact arguably the 3D model+texture mapping might produce an accurate simulation of a real photo whereas I highly doubt the fake parallax shot accurately calculated the parallax shift based on the true stellar distances involved. In addition there still appears to be an entirely, 100% computer generated explosion with fake ring at 1:15.
That being said some of the images are quite stunning but it seems that there is a lot of digital manipulation going on behind the scenes to make the video so claiming all the images as 100% real is simply not true and, in the case of the fake parallax, they are arguably less real than those from planetarium software which actually uses accurate star positions for nearby stars.
Seems a somewhat dodgy movie if you ask me. It claims that it is "all real, no CGI of VFX". If so I would love to know how they filmed the footage at 1:15 in the video you linked. There is also a brief 2s footage around 1:58-2:00 which appears to show a star field shifting as you move towards a galaxy. If that is real footage I'd love to know where they got it since the parallax shifts appear quite large. I suppose it is possible that they superimposed a star field over the galaxy image and zoomed on on it to give the appearance of parallax but I would count that as a visual special effect.
In the first case the Guardian stood up to its own industry and exposed highly unethical behaviour showing that it met the standard for moral behaviour when dealing with colleagues. In the second case it stood up to its own government and exposed their incompetence and/or complicity in unethical behaviour against their own citizens and friendly nations showing it met the standard for moral behaviour when dealing with those in power.
So yes I would agree that the Guardian has met a "double standard" for moral behaviour. The question is when will he and his government? A good start would be apologizing for invading our privacy and putting their own interests above their public duty not to mention parliamentary expense claims...
Warm up the time machine, people, because we're the government, we make the laws
Fortunately not the laws of physics though otherwise the universe would be in real trouble. Making a time machine to do this is theoretically possible using wormholes but there are a few technical hurdles. First you have to be able to create an energy density great enough to make a wormhole. Next you have to keep the ends from collapsing which needs something with negative mass and nothing like this is know to exist. Lastly you also have to accelerate one end to relativistic speeds. Even if you manage all that there is one final problem: you need to have done all that before the event you wish to go back to...and of course this is all theoretical so it may still not work even if you did all that.
True but well before being turned to plasma induced eddy currents will likely melt parts of the valve and cause it to fail. The point is that other switch technologies may be far less susceptible but if you go around thinking they are completely immune you may get a nasty surprise at some point and, if you are dealing with nuclear weapons, it's probably wise to avoid nasty surprises.
Nothing made of atoms is immune to EMP. A sufficiently large EM field will rip atoms apart and convert the object to plasma. The words you are looking for are "less susceptible".
America represented economic freedom - you could own your own house and even your own business, beholden to no-one. Today half of us dream of punishing "those people" who live that way.
Speaking as a non-american that's not what I as your problem. The people who enjoyed that economic freedom created brilliant innovative companies that then decided that economic freedom did not work so well for their profit margins. Worse they found that it was actually a lot easier to smother new and upcoming competition with either lawyers and court cases or by getting laws changed via lobbying than it was to out compete and innovate new companies.
As a result of that you ended up with a lot of companies who are rich from past glories and now use that to just hold everyone at bay slowing down the pace of progress and innovation to a pace they feel comfortable with. Worse you get some companies - yes banks I'm looking at you - who seem to have completely forgotten their raison d'etre (which was to stabilize and grow the economy by providing valuable financial services) and just go for profit at any cost, no matter how destructive and damaging that is to the economy they are supposed to be serving.
So is it any wonder that people are starting to question whether "those people" should live that way? It's not that people have a problem with successful people making money through clever innovations that benefit society - the problem is that there are lots of people making money for doing nothing useful (or even harmful) to society.
Seriously, unless you're a high-energy physicist and know your shit about fusion, that's a net negative data-point for this project.
Actually I am a high-energy physics professor but that does not make me an expert in fusion because fusion is a far lower energy (by ~6 orders of magnitude) process that those we study in large colliders! I met the guy when he gave a department colloquium. In fact I was even asked to review the project early on and stayed well away from it because, on the basis of the details given, it looked like a crazy cold fusion project. Fortunately it is not - it is hot fusion - and while there are many, many details to be figured out - any one of which may make the project impossible - the basic physics behind the project seems reasonable. At least I can spot no obvious dodgy bits although I am not a plasma physicist and have not looked at the detailed figures and run the calculations myself - but the basic principles look ok. Of course any one of a number of technical issues could kill the project but if I had $1000 I could afford to lose I'd probably invest it with him.
This project relies on hot fusion not crazy cold fusion. Speaking as a physics prof (but not one in plasma physics) the basic physics principles behind the project appear sound - at least I can find no obvious clangers. However that does not mean it is feasible since there are lots of unanswered questions such as will the liquid lead vortex collapse heat the plasma sufficiently to cause fusion etc. etc. The guy in charge is quite realistic about these problems and is quite upfront that there is no guarantee of success but, regardless of the result, this is not some completely nutty cold fusion scheme.
The distinction between the metropolitan police and City of London police is not really relevant here. The important issue is that a police service in a foreign country has attempted to order a foreign company around. The correct response is to politely let them know that Canada has been independent from the UK for a while now and that UK law not apply. Indeed it is somewhat surprising that they do not know this since many Londoners seem to think that anything beyond the M25 is in a foreign land. In addition, as a matter of courtesy, they should really have contacted the RCMP who I'm sure would be delighted to hear from their British colleagues and would love to explain the charter of rights and freedoms to them.
Not only is it potentially recoverable but there is a company here in Canada looking at building a fusion reactor which can recover it. The reactor design is rather radical and by no means proven but having met the guy behind the company if it is at all possible he'll be the one to make it work!
Slashdot Mirror
I think you will find that it's the other way around...or do you really have trouble comprehending the spoken word and pictures to give but two examples. Sorry but it is clear from this that you do not understand what 'fundamental' actually means so your confusion with quantum physics, which is tricky at the best of times, is understandable.
"Far right" is TINY government (or possibly no government) with almost no power and no taxes and maximum freedom
By your definition, not mine. The US political spectrum is shifted so far to the right on the non-US spectrum that we need to use our peripheral vision to see it which admittedly does merge things together. The US system works well when you have rapid growth as the US has enjoyed in the past. Regulation tends to get in the way of that and is not required because things are growing rapidly enough that if someone is blocking you or your company in one direction you can easily expand in another.
However where it fails, as we see it doing now, is when growth slows and there is increased competition for limited resources and benefits. In this scenario you need regulation to restrain the largest players becoming bullies. Just look at the US today - it is run by corporations who can practically dictate the laws for their own benefit. Saying that the system gives everyone 'true' freedom is only half the story because those with power can then use their freedom to effective restrict the freedom of others. The end result is that only some actually have true freedom and everyone else is left with a hollow freedom where certain choices can leave them penniless, homeless and without any healthcare. It's the same sort of freedom you have when someone puts a gun to your head and says "do this or I shoot you" - you are free to choose not to do it so hey you must have "true freedom" right?
At the same time the left places far, far too many restrictions on everyone's freedom in some insane drive to produce absolute equality for everyone and I would completely agree that many European countries have gone far too far down the socialism road. I'd also agree that there is a fine balance, perhaps not a knife edge, between straying too far to the right where we lose our freedom to corporations, and too far to the left where we lose it to government. What I would disagree with is that the US is somehow going to escape needing to make the same balance. You are no longer a young nation flush with the exhilaration of youth and if you are going to continue to be successful as a nation you need to find your own balance to maximize everyone's freedom not just those with the most money and power.
elegant solution! ... but how do you do it inside the D-wave?
Good question but I simply don't know enough about the D-wave to be able to answer. My point was just that it is possible, in principle, to devise such a measurement but how to do that in practice will depend heavily on the details of the D-wave.
So you might want to take a deep breath and calm down a little. Trying to claim that there are multiple "cores", when core is generally taken to mean "centre", sounds like you are desperately flailing around trying to justify yourself. Massive use of asterisks coupled with claiming that discovery of quantum teleportation of information (which has already been shown) would be "single greatest physics accomplishment of all human history" isn't exactly helping your case either.
I'm letting the community handle this from here (cant mod on my own discussion of course)
No, but going on past experience with comments like this undoubtedly your friends and/or secondary accounts can unfortunately.
did you check the source of my claim?
Yes, but do you understand it? There is a huge difference between being a "feature of QM" (as your source accurately states) and being "at the core of QM" as you incorrectly state. Entanglement is a feature of QM but there are many other features of QM that have nothing to do with entanglement.
properly understood, Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics [wikipedia.org]
No it is not. It is one of the features of quantum physics which is the hardest to understand and, arguably, we still do not have a good grip on it. However that by no means puts it at the core of all quantum physics: there is far more to QM than quantum entanglement e.g. tunnelling, self interference etc.
Measure correlations between the two systems. If you have entangled, oppositely polarized photons and you simultaneously pass them through aligned polarizers then one will always pass through the filter and one will always fail. It is impossible to recreate this in any classical system without communication between the photons.
If you can perform the same type of measurement with entangled qbits in a manner where it is physically impossible for them to communicate (e.g. make the two measurements simultaneously) you can confirm their quantum nature.
The problem with the NHS system isn't that it doesn't work. It's that at present it's being attacked for ideological reasons
I agree but ultimately we all have a inevitable problem to face with the rising cost of health care. The US system is getting more expensive so fewer and fewer people are covered the UK, Canadian, European etc. national care systems deal with this by consuming an ever increasing fraction of governments' tax income. At some point we are going to have to deal with this and find a way to make ethical and rational decisions about limits on treatment otherwise in the US only the rich will get medical care while for those of us elsewhere the challenge will be living long enough to receive the care we need.
Neither of these 'default' options is an acceptable solution to the spiralling cost of health care. Putting more money into the system may be a fix for now but it is just postponing the inevitable...but like everyone else I don't have a good solution to suggest and can only point out that we all need to find one.
Our government wants to spend £50bn (assuming it's even on budget) on a new train line too which seems to have no financial case judging from impartial and non-partisan scrutiny.
Correction: it has not much of a financial case for those in the south but quite a good financial case for those living 'up north'. But don't worry if HS2 falls through I'm sure their next big project will be to build a new Hadrian's wall just south of Sheffield to us northerners out.
He came to New York for a surgery, balked at the initial price estimate, and negotiated it down significantly.
Good for him. However not everyone in need of medical care is conscious and even if they are they may not be able to wait long enough to go somewhere else. Being told that you might be able to get treatment cheaper at the next hospital but only have a 50% chance of living long enough to make it there probably puts a bit of a damper on your bargaining skills.
I am curious though - what happens in the US if you are unconscious and they give you live saving medical treatment without you agreeing to the price? Can you refuse to pay on the grounds that you did not consent and would have shopped around for a cheaper alternative or is there some government mandated price list they have to follow? If not then exactly how can this be considered even vaguely fair?
Why is the care in the US 2.5x as expensive as the "too expensive" NHS (per person per PPP normalized GDP/capita) if the free market system works so well?
Simple - US health care is run by for profit companies and those companies have to make a profit. Not only that but there is competition, not on the price that patients pay, but on the quality and number of doctors these companies can attract thus driving up medical salaries to insane levels because ultimately they know that people will pay just about anything they can possibly afford if it comes to ensuring their good health. By contrast the NHS is non-profit and being by far the largest provider of healthcare in the UK has no concerns about competition for doctors and nurses: doctors are still well off but get only a fraction of their US counterparts.
So by the time you have finished paying for all these company profits on top of the artificially inflated doctor salaries is it any wonder that it costs you 2.5 times as much as it does in the UK?
Everyone knows that the Tea party is a bunch of comic, laughable clowns with no grounding in reality.
Not at all. From outside the US, particularly from places like Europe where we have suffered when countries like extreme right wing political parties get out of control they look dangerous. The finding that they actually know science and reality but choose to reject it makes them scarier. I'd be far happier if I thought that all they lacked was education instead of medication.
Sorry but how is digitally manipulating a photograph to create a fake effect of parallax shift to imply superluminal motion any different that digitally manipulating a photographic texture by wrapping it onto a sphere to generate a faked computer fly-by? Just because a VFX technique is old does not mean it is not VFX. In fact arguably the 3D model+texture mapping might produce an accurate simulation of a real photo whereas I highly doubt the fake parallax shot accurately calculated the parallax shift based on the true stellar distances involved. In addition there still appears to be an entirely, 100% computer generated explosion with fake ring at 1:15.
That being said some of the images are quite stunning but it seems that there is a lot of digital manipulation going on behind the scenes to make the video so claiming all the images as 100% real is simply not true and, in the case of the fake parallax, they are arguably less real than those from planetarium software which actually uses accurate star positions for nearby stars.
The power of Perl + the speed of C
Seems a somewhat dodgy movie if you ask me. It claims that it is "all real, no CGI of VFX". If so I would love to know how they filmed the footage at 1:15 in the video you linked. There is also a brief 2s footage around 1:58-2:00 which appears to show a star field shifting as you move towards a galaxy. If that is real footage I'd love to know where they got it since the parallax shifts appear quite large. I suppose it is possible that they superimposed a star field over the galaxy image and zoomed on on it to give the appearance of parallax but I would count that as a visual special effect.
Of course there isn't one.
In the first case the Guardian stood up to its own industry and exposed highly unethical behaviour showing that it met the standard for moral behaviour when dealing with colleagues. In the second case it stood up to its own government and exposed their incompetence and/or complicity in unethical behaviour against their own citizens and friendly nations showing it met the standard for moral behaviour when dealing with those in power.
So yes I would agree that the Guardian has met a "double standard" for moral behaviour. The question is when will he and his government? A good start would be apologizing for invading our privacy and putting their own interests above their public duty not to mention parliamentary expense claims...
Warm up the time machine, people, because we're the government, we make the laws
Fortunately not the laws of physics though otherwise the universe would be in real trouble. Making a time machine to do this is theoretically possible using wormholes but there are a few technical hurdles. First you have to be able to create an energy density great enough to make a wormhole. Next you have to keep the ends from collapsing which needs something with negative mass and nothing like this is know to exist. Lastly you also have to accelerate one end to relativistic speeds. Even if you manage all that there is one final problem: you need to have done all that before the event you wish to go back to...and of course this is all theoretical so it may still not work even if you did all that.
True but well before being turned to plasma induced eddy currents will likely melt parts of the valve and cause it to fail. The point is that other switch technologies may be far less susceptible but if you go around thinking they are completely immune you may get a nasty surprise at some point and, if you are dealing with nuclear weapons, it's probably wise to avoid nasty surprises.
Totally immune to EMP.
Nothing made of atoms is immune to EMP. A sufficiently large EM field will rip atoms apart and convert the object to plasma. The words you are looking for are "less susceptible".
America represented economic freedom - you could own your own house and even your own business, beholden to no-one. Today half of us dream of punishing "those people" who live that way.
Speaking as a non-american that's not what I as your problem. The people who enjoyed that economic freedom created brilliant innovative companies that then decided that economic freedom did not work so well for their profit margins. Worse they found that it was actually a lot easier to smother new and upcoming competition with either lawyers and court cases or by getting laws changed via lobbying than it was to out compete and innovate new companies.
As a result of that you ended up with a lot of companies who are rich from past glories and now use that to just hold everyone at bay slowing down the pace of progress and innovation to a pace they feel comfortable with. Worse you get some companies - yes banks I'm looking at you - who seem to have completely forgotten their raison d'etre (which was to stabilize and grow the economy by providing valuable financial services) and just go for profit at any cost, no matter how destructive and damaging that is to the economy they are supposed to be serving.
So is it any wonder that people are starting to question whether "those people" should live that way? It's not that people have a problem with successful people making money through clever innovations that benefit society - the problem is that there are lots of people making money for doing nothing useful (or even harmful) to society.
That's assuming they have ever heard of Private Eye - although with the amount of litigation they get perhaps they have!
Seriously, unless you're a high-energy physicist and know your shit about fusion, that's a net negative data-point for this project.
Actually I am a high-energy physics professor but that does not make me an expert in fusion because fusion is a far lower energy (by ~6 orders of magnitude) process that those we study in large colliders! I met the guy when he gave a department colloquium. In fact I was even asked to review the project early on and stayed well away from it because, on the basis of the details given, it looked like a crazy cold fusion project. Fortunately it is not - it is hot fusion - and while there are many, many details to be figured out - any one of which may make the project impossible - the basic physics behind the project seems reasonable. At least I can spot no obvious dodgy bits although I am not a plasma physicist and have not looked at the detailed figures and run the calculations myself - but the basic principles look ok. Of course any one of a number of technical issues could kill the project but if I had $1000 I could afford to lose I'd probably invest it with him.
This project relies on hot fusion not crazy cold fusion. Speaking as a physics prof (but not one in plasma physics) the basic physics principles behind the project appear sound - at least I can find no obvious clangers. However that does not mean it is feasible since there are lots of unanswered questions such as will the liquid lead vortex collapse heat the plasma sufficiently to cause fusion etc. etc. The guy in charge is quite realistic about these problems and is quite upfront that there is no guarantee of success but, regardless of the result, this is not some completely nutty cold fusion scheme.
The distinction between the metropolitan police and City of London police is not really relevant here. The important issue is that a police service in a foreign country has attempted to order a foreign company around. The correct response is to politely let them know that Canada has been independent from the UK for a while now and that UK law not apply. Indeed it is somewhat surprising that they do not know this since many Londoners seem to think that anything beyond the M25 is in a foreign land. In addition, as a matter of courtesy, they should really have contacted the RCMP who I'm sure would be delighted to hear from their British colleagues and would love to explain the charter of rights and freedoms to them.
The energy in neutrons is not unrecoverable.
Not only is it potentially recoverable but there is a company here in Canada looking at building a fusion reactor which can recover it. The reactor design is rather radical and by no means proven but having met the guy behind the company if it is at all possible he'll be the one to make it work!