I totally know what you mean. The next thing you know, they are going to tell us that The Force is not mystical, but rather just a high level of midi-chlorians.
Midi-chlorians are outdated. Today we use mp3-chlorians.
To make a simple analogy: Say you have two machines named "psi" and "phi" producing badges with numbers from 1 to 10 on it. Now it happens that the "psi" machine only produces even numbers, while the "phi" one only produces multiples of three. Other than that, the number produced by each of the machines is completely random. Now if you know you have a badge from machine "psi", but can't see the number, you still know that it might be a 2, a 4, a 6, an 8 or a 10, but you don't know it. So if you know the badge is from machine "psi", you call the bedge a "psi badge". "psi badge" is now the "quantum state" of your badge system. Similarly, if the "phi" machine produced it, you know that the badge contains one of 3, 6 or 9. You call that a "phi badge". Now the assumed physical state in this picture is the actual number on those badges. If that happens to be the number lambda=6, the badge could have been produced either by the "phi" machine or by the "psi" machine, you cannot tell just from the number on the badge which machine produced it (while e.g. if the badge contains the number 4, you know for sure it wasn't the machine phi because 4 is no multiple of 6).
Bell's theorem's implication is that their are not "hidden variable" theories that can explain quantum mechanics.
Wrong. Bell's theorem's implication is that there are no local hidden variable theories which can explain quantum mechanics. Non-local hidden variable theories are not excluded by Bell.
To every physicist it is immediately clear that this paper is complete nonsense. I don't want to waste time disproving it here and will simply refer you to this explanation.
Well, I've read a little bit into the blog post, ant it was immediately obvious that the blog writer has no clue what the paper even says. Sorry, if you are going to refute a paper, you should first understand what it says!
So does this support or refute the contention that reality is made up of a very very large number of universes constantly being created at each quantum step?
If the title of the Slashdot story were factually right, one could say that it in some sense support it. But no more than it also supports the notion that there are physical particles guided by the wave function in a single, non-branching universe. Because both interpretations assume that the wave function is physically real (as do some other do, like those with physical collapse). However, what they actually showed is that if quantum physics is right, then it's basically an all-or-nothing: Either the physical state contains all of the wave function, or there's no such thing as a physical state at all (at least not in the sense that the measurement results depend on it).
Isn't that what the Copenhagen interpretation implied?
No. In the Copenhagen interpretation the wave function is not a physical object and universes do not split.
Because if the "wave function" is a real object, then there is no probabilistic nature to quantum shit - it just means we are currently unable to directly measure the "wave function" without "collapsing" it. If it's not probabilistic, all the fuzziness of quantum physics goes away. Schrodinger's cat is dead, Einstein was right when he said God doesn't play dice, entanglement is horse shit, everyone who works with string theory is a moron, etc.
Wrong. (And yes, I am a physicist working in quantum information)
The canonical formalism contains the "collapse" of the wave function on observation, and this collapse is probabilistic. And there are interpretations of quantum mechanics with real wave function and real collapse (e.g. the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory). Now there also exist deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics which also include the wave function as real object (such as Bohmian mechanics). In other words, the wave function being real is completely independent of the question whether the world is fundamentally deterministic or not.
By the way, the paper does not really prove that the wave function is real. What it proves is that if you assume that there is something like a real state of the quantum system at all (and assuming quantum mechanics is actually right) then that real state must include the full wave function. There are some physicists who claim that quantum systems don't have physical states at all (an idea known as Quantum Bayesianism). That assumption is not refuted by this paper.
And entanglement is a property of wave functions, therefore if wave functions are real, then obviously entanglement is real.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I mean, Obama and Bernanke as part of the 99%?
Of course. everyone is part of the 99%. It's just a matter of choosing the remaining 1% accordingly.
Of course not everyone is part of the same 99%.
Re:I propose we Occupy "Occupy"
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 1
Clearly the "Occupy" meme is being abused now.
Why? Every single file I store on an USB stick does occupy Flash.:-)
Anyone who didn't already understand what a machine is needs remedial education far beyond repetitious posts about the inability to write perfect software.
Sorry, but as far as I can see the question whether the ocean could have a consciousness isn't considered in any other post, nor is it equivalent to anything another post contains.
In quantum mechanics, randomness occurs at the fundamental level. That is, not only do you not have the information to predict it, the universe itself does not contain that information.
Wrong. You cannot get true randomness algorithmically, but every computer is connected to several input devices. For example, the noise on your sound card is exacty that: Physical noise of the analog circuit. That's about as random as any physical process can be.
Yes,/dev/random is collecting randomness. It does not employ a pseudo-random number generator (/dev/urandom does so if there's not enough entropy in the pool). I don't know exactly which sources it draws from, but I guess the network is already used for randomness.But not the content, that's not random (unless you stream random data over your network, of course), but things like packet timings.
Sorry, but our sensor recordings tell you have neglected your sports program lately, so unfortunately we cannot pay for your heart attack treatment... ... no, we don't care if a week of no sports has much impact. Our insurance conditions clearly say you have to make sports at least two days a week, right there in page seven of the small-print. And no, the fact that you had the flu that week doesn't matter either.
I think there's also a political aspect: We get newscasts telling us we'll fall without electricity this winter bceause there isn't enough energy.
Did you check that this actually is true? Because, you know, there are people who would want you to believe that.
Added to that, we have one of the highest prices for energy
Despite your nuclear plants? (You must have them, or you couldn't switch them off.) So maybe the high price of the energy isn't really related to the cost of production? But you're right, the energy producers will not let this opportunity to "justify" higher prices pass by.
And, the big electricy companies are actually boycotting the government and threaten with price wars if they get additional taxes.
Belgium plans a tax on not having nuclear power plants?
Belgians are stupid.
A Belgian
Proposition 1: Belgians are stupid. Proposition 2: You are a Belgian. What follows, again?;-)
Think that will matter one motherfucking bit if for some reason we decide to start rolling tanks? Fuck no. It's in the goddamned US. Deal with it, and please seek treatment for that stick up your ass.
Yes, it will. You think the U.S. can live along without the rest of the world? And when I say "the rest of the world", I mean it. An act like that would not be well received even among allies (who then might decide to stop being allies).
It doesn't say that it steals usernames and passwords by taking screenshots, does it? I mean just because it takes screenshots doesn't mean it cannot do other things as well, like watching your keyboard while the input focus is on a password field.
And if the trojan's CPU power represents a significant % then the coins go to the trojan operator. The trojan operator is likely to sell them and the currency devalues even further. That's the point.
And the other miners would just have deleted them, right?
Exactly: The *user* does the locking. Therefore the locking constructs are not in the STL, and therefore it cannot be bloated by them.
And the usage of "not thread safe" in the quoted text is strange: According to that logic an int is also not thread safe, because two threads cannot access it concurrently without locking.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally know what you mean. The next thing you know, they are going to tell us that The Force is not mystical, but rather just a high level of midi-chlorians.
Midi-chlorians are outdated. Today we use mp3-chlorians.
To make a simple analogy: Say you have two machines named "psi" and "phi" producing badges with numbers from 1 to 10 on it. Now it happens that the "psi" machine only produces even numbers, while the "phi" one only produces multiples of three. Other than that, the number produced by each of the machines is completely random. Now if you know you have a badge from machine "psi", but can't see the number, you still know that it might be a 2, a 4, a 6, an 8 or a 10, but you don't know it. So if you know the badge is from machine "psi", you call the bedge a "psi badge". "psi badge" is now the "quantum state" of your badge system. Similarly, if the "phi" machine produced it, you know that the badge contains one of 3, 6 or 9. You call that a "phi badge". Now the assumed physical state in this picture is the actual number on those badges. If that happens to be the number lambda=6, the badge could have been produced either by the "phi" machine or by the "psi" machine, you cannot tell just from the number on the badge which machine produced it (while e.g. if the badge contains the number 4, you know for sure it wasn't the machine phi because 4 is no multiple of 6).
Wrong. Bell's theorem's implication is that there are no local hidden variable theories which can explain quantum mechanics. Non-local hidden variable theories are not excluded by Bell.
To every physicist it is immediately clear that this paper is complete nonsense. I don't want to waste time disproving it here and will simply refer you to this explanation.
Did you intend to link something?
Well, I've read a little bit into the blog post, ant it was immediately obvious that the blog writer has no clue what the paper even says. Sorry, if you are going to refute a paper, you should first understand what it says!
If the title of the Slashdot story were factually right, one could say that it in some sense support it. But no more than it also supports the notion that there are physical particles guided by the wave function in a single, non-branching universe. Because both interpretations assume that the wave function is physically real (as do some other do, like those with physical collapse). However, what they actually showed is that if quantum physics is right, then it's basically an all-or-nothing: Either the physical state contains all of the wave function, or there's no such thing as a physical state at all (at least not in the sense that the measurement results depend on it).
No. In the Copenhagen interpretation the wave function is not a physical object and universes do not split.
It isn't a recasting of Bell's theorem.
Because if the "wave function" is a real object, then there is no probabilistic nature to quantum shit - it just means we are currently unable to directly measure the "wave function" without "collapsing" it. If it's not probabilistic, all the fuzziness of quantum physics goes away. Schrodinger's cat is dead, Einstein was right when he said God doesn't play dice, entanglement is horse shit, everyone who works with string theory is a moron, etc.
Wrong. (And yes, I am a physicist working in quantum information)
The canonical formalism contains the "collapse" of the wave function on observation, and this collapse is probabilistic. And there are interpretations of quantum mechanics with real wave function and real collapse (e.g. the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory). Now there also exist deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics which also include the wave function as real object (such as Bohmian mechanics). In other words, the wave function being real is completely independent of the question whether the world is fundamentally deterministic or not.
By the way, the paper does not really prove that the wave function is real. What it proves is that if you assume that there is something like a real state of the quantum system at all (and assuming quantum mechanics is actually right) then that real state must include the full wave function. There are some physicists who claim that quantum systems don't have physical states at all (an idea known as Quantum Bayesianism). That assumption is not refuted by this paper.
And entanglement is a property of wave functions, therefore if wave functions are real, then obviously entanglement is real.
Of course. everyone is part of the 99%. It's just a matter of choosing the remaining 1% accordingly.
Of course not everyone is part of the same 99%.
Why? Every single file I store on an USB stick does occupy Flash. :-)
He uses a Mandatory Access Code?
Sorry, but as far as I can see the question whether the ocean could have a consciousness isn't considered in any other post, nor is it equivalent to anything another post contains.
Don't belabor the fucking point.
Why? Do you fear the ocean is listening?
Those using quantum effects cannot be predicted even if you had a device to monitor the complete surroundings.
In quantum mechanics, randomness occurs at the fundamental level. That is, not only do you not have the information to predict it, the universe itself does not contain that information.
Wrong. You cannot get true randomness algorithmically, but every computer is connected to several input devices. For example, the noise on your sound card is exacty that: Physical noise of the analog circuit. That's about as random as any physical process can be.
Yes, /dev/random is collecting randomness. It does not employ a pseudo-random number generator (/dev/urandom does so if there's not enough entropy in the pool). I don't know exactly which sources it draws from, but I guess the network is already used for randomness.But not the content, that's not random (unless you stream random data over your network, of course), but things like packet timings.
Sorry, but our sensor recordings tell you have neglected your sports program lately, so unfortunately we cannot pay for your heart attack treatment ...
... no, we don't care if a week of no sports has much impact. Our insurance conditions clearly say you have to make sports at least two days a week, right there in page seven of the small-print. And no, the fact that you had the flu that week doesn't matter either.
Did you check that this actually is true? Because, you know, there are people who would want you to believe that.
Despite your nuclear plants? (You must have them, or you couldn't switch them off.)
So maybe the high price of the energy isn't really related to the cost of production?
But you're right, the energy producers will not let this opportunity to "justify" higher prices pass by.
Belgium plans a tax on not having nuclear power plants?
Proposition 1: Belgians are stupid. ;-)
Proposition 2: You are a Belgian.
What follows, again?
I understand: The only types of power plants in the world are coal and nuclear.
Think that will matter one motherfucking bit if for some reason we decide to start rolling tanks? Fuck no. It's in the goddamned US. Deal with it, and please seek treatment for that stick up your ass.
Yes, it will. You think the U.S. can live along without the rest of the world? And when I say "the rest of the world", I mean it. An act like that would not be well received even among allies (who then might decide to stop being allies).
It doesn't say that it steals usernames and passwords by taking screenshots, does it?
I mean just because it takes screenshots doesn't mean it cannot do other things as well, like watching your keyboard while the input focus is on a password field.
Well, they already have an advanced version using SVGA instead. :-)
And if the trojan's CPU power represents a significant % then the coins go to the trojan operator. The trojan operator is likely to sell them and the currency devalues even further. That's the point.
And the other miners would just have deleted them, right?
Exactly: The *user* does the locking. Therefore the locking constructs are not in the STL, and therefore it cannot be bloated by them.
And the usage of "not thread safe" in the quoted text is strange: According to that logic an int is also not thread safe, because two threads cannot access it concurrently without locking.