The trouble is everything above makes perfect sense
Everything except the one fundamental premise on which the whole argumentation is built:
If you don't work you don't eat, because you haven't earned the right to eat
You must eat in order to live, and to live (and therefore by extension, to eat) is a fundamental human right which you do not have to earn. Since the basis of the argumentation is invalid, the whole argumentation falls down.
Except that if you look closer at it, the utopia isn't a real utopia. If you don't follow the rules, you get re-educated... where did I hear something like this, again? Ah, right, from communist countries. Where people really did not enjoy their re-education. And you get an operation which essentially gives the system complete control over you (the system can control your body for you, cut off your sensory perception and inject arbitrary artificial perceptions. And it is installed operatively, so you cannot just remove it. And apart from the word of a single person (who itself has that system implanted, so how can you trust that person, or even that you are really speaking to the person herself, for which you also have nothing but her word), you have no guarantee that it really will work for your best.
So why would this be set up? Well, to deal with the potential trouble makers, of course. The narrator of the story has several times tried to leave the zone she has to remain in. She's clearly someone who might cause serious trouble sooner or later. So she gets the control system implanted. Like all the other potential trouble makers. And to make sure they don't resist it, they get told this nice story about the Australian paradise. When they notice that they have been tricked, it is too late: They already have that system implanted in their head (and also, they have to remove something from the brain to install it; what function does this removed part normally perform? Maybe something related to critical thinking?).
The system notices that the stress levels of the workers go dangerously high as soon as the boss approaches, and therefore the system doesn't let the boss onto the construction site.;-)
What are quarks made of? I don't know, because I'm not a physicist. Maybe someone else can answer that for me.
Currently, quarks are assumed to be elementary particles, just like electrons.
But what are electrons made of? Science has shown that they are not made of anything, they are elementary particles.
Actually no. Experiments have not shown any evidence for them not to be elementary. However, it is impossible to conclusively show that they are elementary. After all, they might have a substructure which only can be seen at energies beyond those delivered by our current accelerators,
Well, that's just because the NSA doesn't yet have enough surveillance capabilities. Otherwise the collected evidence could easily be used to remove bad drivers and flu-spreading individuals. Furthermore a constant surveillance of hearts could reduce the number of heart attack deaths considerably.
Also thank you for making us aware of the dangers of bathtubs. We will start a bathtub video surveillance program as soon as possible, in order to fight this danger.
Except that with Windows 8, Microsoft did not leverage the fact that people are familiar with their UI, but instead they forced a different UI even on users on the one platform where they are the market leader.
Sounds to me like decoherence. Which certainly explains why the interference disappears, but does not explain why we see a single, definite result. That is, it explains why the stripes in the double-slit experiment vanish, but it doesn't tell us why we get dots.
Anyway, you don't need to have a macroscopic object to destroy interference. Already entanglement with another microscopic object is sufficient to make interference effects disappear. All which macroscopic objects add is that decoherence becomes practically unavoidable, and in addition uncontrollable, so you cannot recover your interference pattern later (as in the quantum eraser setting, where the "erasure" part is possible exactly because the information is in well-controlled degrees of freedom).
Ah, that's what happened. I only noticed that since some time, I get "comments not available" where the comments section was. I guess I'd get to see the comments if I got a Google+ account... well, I can live without the comments; I'm not getting an account just to see them.
No. They observed what we already expected. Our currently best theories predicted it. But then, our then-best theories didn't predict the null result of the Michelson-Moreley experiment, or the photoelectric effect. We don't really know it until we tried.
Note that there are theories which postulate a modification of quantum mechanics for sufficiently large objects as solution to the measurement problem. Therefore measurements like this can indeed differentiate between competing theories. Although I think you'd need to test even larger objects to test those theories.
There are lots of pictures of coherent cats on the internet. Unfortunately as soon as somebody looks at them, they immediately collapse into a picture of a lolcat.
A car is certainly larger than the hypothetical table in this xkcd what-if. A Hubble-like telescope specifically built for earth surface (in other words, a spy satellite) could therefore definitely see a car from space. And as more than just a few pixels.
Gravity seems to not be working as expected on large distances. We call that "dark energy". We have no clue what it is, and therefore cannot really predict what it will do in the future. All we know for sure is that our previous predictions (without dark energy) were wrong.
OK, so I may have been wrong in how the energy saving is achieved, but then, the situation as you described it is even more in line with my actual point. While someone might still cite advantages of CRTs (like viewing angle independence), a more efficient power supply certainly does not make your TV or computer monitor less comfortable or less usable in any way at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything except the one fundamental premise on which the whole argumentation is built:
You must eat in order to live, and to live (and therefore by extension, to eat) is a fundamental human right which you do not have to earn. Since the basis of the argumentation is invalid, the whole argumentation falls down.
Except that if you look closer at it, the utopia isn't a real utopia. If you don't follow the rules, you get re-educated ... where did I hear something like this, again? Ah, right, from communist countries. Where people really did not enjoy their re-education. And you get an operation which essentially gives the system complete control over you (the system can control your body for you, cut off your sensory perception and inject arbitrary artificial perceptions. And it is installed operatively, so you cannot just remove it. And apart from the word of a single person (who itself has that system implanted, so how can you trust that person, or even that you are really speaking to the person herself, for which you also have nothing but her word), you have no guarantee that it really will work for your best.
So why would this be set up? Well, to deal with the potential trouble makers, of course. The narrator of the story has several times tried to leave the zone she has to remain in. She's clearly someone who might cause serious trouble sooner or later. So she gets the control system implanted. Like all the other potential trouble makers. And to make sure they don't resist it, they get told this nice story about the Australian paradise. When they notice that they have been tricked, it is too late: They already have that system implanted in their head (and also, they have to remove something from the brain to install it; what function does this removed part normally perform? Maybe something related to critical thinking?).
The system notices that the stress levels of the workers go dangerously high as soon as the boss approaches, and therefore the system doesn't let the boss onto the construction site. ;-)
I didn't know that working conditions are that hard in Hollywood. :-)
You are making a bold assumption: Just because there will be enough for everyone, it will be distributed in a way that everyone has enough.
The current reality points against that assumption.
Well, the question is: When will the drones get the power to automatically fire an "underperforming" worker?
Currently, quarks are assumed to be elementary particles, just like electrons.
Actually no. Experiments have not shown any evidence for them not to be elementary. However, it is impossible to conclusively show that they are elementary. After all, they might have a substructure which only can be seen at energies beyond those delivered by our current accelerators,
With 3D printers you'll be able to make hours, days or any other unit of time at home, for free!
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you need a 4D printer for that.
And there are definitely people who value bitcoins.
Maybe that the NSA recruits the usual way, instead of approaching selected people with offers they cannot refuse? ;-)
Well, that's just because the NSA doesn't yet have enough surveillance capabilities. Otherwise the collected evidence could easily be used to remove bad drivers and flu-spreading individuals. Furthermore a constant surveillance of hearts could reduce the number of heart attack deaths considerably.
Also thank you for making us aware of the dangers of bathtubs. We will start a bathtub video surveillance program as soon as possible, in order to fight this danger.
Yours sincerely,
the NSA.
Dear applicant,
We are pleased to receive your application and invite you to an interview at our U.S. headquarters. Please come as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
the NSA
Except that with Windows 8, Microsoft did not leverage the fact that people are familiar with their UI, but instead they forced a different UI even on users on the one platform where they are the market leader.
Sounds to me like decoherence. Which certainly explains why the interference disappears, but does not explain why we see a single, definite result. That is, it explains why the stripes in the double-slit experiment vanish, but it doesn't tell us why we get dots.
Anyway, you don't need to have a macroscopic object to destroy interference. Already entanglement with another microscopic object is sufficient to make interference effects disappear. All which macroscopic objects add is that decoherence becomes practically unavoidable, and in addition uncontrollable, so you cannot recover your interference pattern later (as in the quantum eraser setting, where the "erasure" part is possible exactly because the information is in well-controlled degrees of freedom).
Almost. It's a Quantum Logo program. Where you have commands like
Yes.
Ah, that's what happened. I only noticed that since some time, I get "comments not available" where the comments section was. I guess I'd get to see the comments if I got a Google+ account ... well, I can live without the comments; I'm not getting an account just to see them.
No. They observed what we already expected. Our currently best theories predicted it. But then, our then-best theories didn't predict the null result of the Michelson-Moreley experiment, or the photoelectric effect. We don't really know it until we tried.
Note that there are theories which postulate a modification of quantum mechanics for sufficiently large objects as solution to the measurement problem. Therefore measurements like this can indeed differentiate between competing theories. Although I think you'd need to test even larger objects to test those theories.
Have you ever seen a politician that is coherent?
There are lots of pictures of coherent cats on the internet. Unfortunately as soon as somebody looks at them, they immediately collapse into a picture of a lolcat.
Thanks, found it.
A car is certainly larger than the hypothetical table in this xkcd what-if. A Hubble-like telescope specifically built for earth surface (in other words, a spy satellite) could therefore definitely see a car from space. And as more than just a few pixels.
If we pointed Hubble down to earth, what resolution would we get?
In Korea, only old jellyfish sting.
Gravity seems to not be working as expected on large distances. We call that "dark energy". We have no clue what it is, and therefore cannot really predict what it will do in the future. All we know for sure is that our previous predictions (without dark energy) were wrong.
OK, so I may have been wrong in how the energy saving is achieved, but then, the situation as you described it is even more in line with my actual point. While someone might still cite advantages of CRTs (like viewing angle independence), a more efficient power supply certainly does not make your TV or computer monitor less comfortable or less usable in any way at all.