I regularly consume inorganic stuff. I consume quite a lot of an inorganic substance made of hydrogen and oxygen, usually known as water. Actually I drink water which contains some other inorganic stuff, commonly known as minerals. Also I like my food to contain moderate amounts of the inorganic chemical substance sodium chloride, better known as salt.
And proposing an end to criminal responsibility....OOPS sorry i smashed your window i'm not responsible
So you are saying that everyone who accidentally smashed a window is a criminal? Yes, you are supposed to cover the cost of replacing that window. But that's a civil matter, not a criminal one.
There's no way to measure whether a measurement has been performed. However there's a way to determine whether the measurement result has been predetermined by the state before the measurement.
But aren't those the same thing? Say you have two physicists. One does his little quantum teleportation experiment and writes down the states of the photons. Then he hands of the photons to another physicist, but doesn't tell him that the photons come from a teleportation experiment. The second guy now does all those fancy other experiments to check if they have a predefined state. So how can the second guy come out negative, but the first guy can have all the states written down on a piece of paper?
No, those are not the same thing. Maybe I should clarify that first sentence, because if interpreted in a too broad way, it's actually wrong; for example, if we know that we prepared the spin of a set of spin-1/2-particles in positive x direction, and someone might have measured them in z direction, then of course we can find out whether that happened by measuring the spins: Just measure them in x direction again, and if the z measurement had been performed, and only then, half of them will be found to have the spin in negative x direction.
However what we cannot determine is when we do a measurement, whether the same measurement has been performed before (that is, we cannot exclude for sure whether some specific result was predetermined. However we can create states where we can rule out that all possible measurement values had been predetermined (of which I gave an example).
Now for your teleportation scenario, it won't work. The point is that if you look closer, the very mechanism which allows you to to do quantum teleportation at all disables you to draw any conclusions from measurements of your part of the state alone (note that for the Mermin paradox, which proves that you can't have all measurement results predetermined, you also need to access to the measurement results on all subsystems; if you only have access to one or two of them, you cannot make any conclusions, and indeed the measurement results look completely random). Unfortunately I don't know an easy way to explain that without going through the actual maths.
You're not only not a physicist, you're about as far from being one as someone who has seen documentaries about manned space missions is from being an astronaut.
There's no way to measure whether a measurement has been performed. However there's a way to determine whether the measurement result has been predetermined by the state before the measurement. The most striking one is the Mermin paradox: There you measure a certain state (called GHZ state), and get a complete contradiction to predetermined values, no probabilities involved!
Here's how it goes:
You have a system composed of three subsystems, and prepared in a certain way (namely the way which gives that GHZ state). On each of the subsystems you can do one of two measurements, named X and Y, each of which can give either +1 or -1 as result. Now consider the following: We measure X on the first subsystem, and Y on the second and third, and multiply the results together (for brevity, denote that specific measurement as XYY). If we do that on the GHZ state, we find -1 every single time. The same is true for YXY and YYX (which jus thave the X measurements on another subsystem).
Now let's assume that for each single preparation, the measurement result was predetermined. That is, even before measuring e.g. X on subsystem 1, it is either determined that the result will be x1=+1, or x1=-1. Of course for the next preparation, the value of x1 may already be different. However, in each single instance, we would have six pre-determined values, x1, y1, x2, y2, x3 and y3, each one being either -1 or +1.
Now our experiments showed us that our preparation procedure always produces states where measuring XYY gives -1. Now under the assumption that all measurement results are predetermined, the measurement XYY of course gives the result x1*y2*y3. In other words, our preparation procedure obviously generates only systems with x1*y2*y3=-1. Also, the fact that all measurements of YXY give -1 leads to the condition that y1*x2*y3=-1. Finally, since we get always -1 for the YYX measurement, we also have y1*y2*x3=-1. Now, let's multiply all three equations together, to get x1*y2*y3*y1*x2*y3*y1*y2*x3=-1*-1*-1=-1. Note that each of y1, y2 and y3 occurs twice in the product. But since each of them can only be either +1 or -1, those cancel out and you are left with x1*x2*x3=-1 (note that this is pure mathematics; no physical assumptions go into that calculation). So you'd conclude that if you measure XXX, you shoul get, unconditionally, the value -1.
Now let's get back to our laboratory, and do that measurement. What do we get? We get +1, unconditionally. So where in the above have we been wrong? Well, the only assumption we've put in the above calculation is that the values are predetermined by the system's state (that is, the values x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3 actually exist). All the rest is either pure mathematics (and quite elementary mathematics, at that), or something you can measure (and which have been measured; and while in real live you'll always have some noise, it's not hard to see that for sufficiently low noise, you still get a contradiction). So the only way where our argumentation can be wrong is the assumption that the values are predetermined by the system we prepared.
As Feynman explained very well in that video, you will always end up at some place where you just have to stop and accept that it is so without being able to say why it is so. At the moment, the fundamental forces, space, time and the particles are those ultimate points. But if we would find e.g. a principle which would unify (and clearly "explanation" in physics is always unification; having a single principle describing things whose description needed separate principles before) some of these aspects (say, find an unifying principle which gives us the properties of all particles, or unify the forces, or even find the theory of everything, unifying all aspects), then we'd still have no explanation about why that principle holds. And that's fundamental. You simply cannot build on nothing; therefore there will never be a full answer to the question of "why". We can reduce the number of "why"s, but we cannot eliminate them.
Well, most people in Democrat states want to vote either zero times or one time. Those who want to vote zero times basically always vote as many times as they want, and most of those who want to vote exactly once also vote as many times as they want. Thus the majority of people in Democrat states vote as often as they want. End of proof.
But if you improve of it, you still infringe on it. Only if you specifically circumvent it, you don't. But then, the energy you spend on circumventing cannot be spent on improving.
Also, company A had good idea X and patented it. Company B had good idea Y and patented it. It would be desirable to have a product featuring both X and Y. But if the companies don't license their patents, you don't get that.
Water and air are not inventions and thus not patentable, even by that theory. However, fire (as controlled fire), the English language and the wheel clearly are.
"Socialism," like I stated earlier, is an economic regime under which the means of production are owned by the government. [...] You can have socialist countries in which there is great personal freedom (i.e., most countries in Europe), [...]
So you are saying that in Europe the means of production are owned by the government? That must be a different Europe than the one I'm living in...
Well, they'll sell special robots that enjoy to be beaten, I think they are called "Masobot". Since those robots like to be beaten, to beat them will not be a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
I regularly consume inorganic stuff. I consume quite a lot of an inorganic substance made of hydrogen and oxygen, usually known as water. Actually I drink water which contains some other inorganic stuff, commonly known as minerals. Also I like my food to contain moderate amounts of the inorganic chemical substance sodium chloride, better known as salt.
So you are saying that everyone who accidentally smashed a window is a criminal?
Yes, you are supposed to cover the cost of replacing that window. But that's a civil matter, not a criminal one.
There's no way to measure whether a measurement has been performed. However there's a way to determine whether the measurement result has been predetermined by the state before the measurement.
But aren't those the same thing? Say you have two physicists. One does his little quantum teleportation experiment and writes down the states of the photons. Then he hands of the photons to another physicist, but doesn't tell him that the photons come from a teleportation experiment. The second guy now does all those fancy other experiments to check if they have a predefined state. So how can the second guy come out negative, but the first guy can have all the states written down on a piece of paper?
No, those are not the same thing. Maybe I should clarify that first sentence, because if interpreted in a too broad way, it's actually wrong; for example, if we know that we prepared the spin of a set of spin-1/2-particles in positive x direction, and someone might have measured them in z direction, then of course we can find out whether that happened by measuring the spins: Just measure them in x direction again, and if the z measurement had been performed, and only then, half of them will be found to have the spin in negative x direction.
However what we cannot determine is when we do a measurement, whether the same measurement has been performed before (that is, we cannot exclude for sure whether some specific result was predetermined. However we can create states where we can rule out that all possible measurement values had been predetermined (of which I gave an example).
Now for your teleportation scenario, it won't work. The point is that if you look closer, the very mechanism which allows you to to do quantum teleportation at all disables you to draw any conclusions from measurements of your part of the state alone (note that for the Mermin paradox, which proves that you can't have all measurement results predetermined, you also need to access to the measurement results on all subsystems; if you only have access to one or two of them, you cannot make any conclusions, and indeed the measurement results look completely random). Unfortunately I don't know an easy way to explain that without going through the actual maths.
Well, the pdf link goes to arXiv, which is accessible by anyone. For quantitative results, see esp. figure 4.
You're not only not a physicist, you're about as far from being one as someone who has seen documentaries about manned space missions is from being an astronaut.
Well, their answer actually is: "Just don't look too closely." (Or in more standard terms: Make only weak measurements.)
...that socks aren't different for left and right feet?
Bertlmann's socks are.
There's no way to measure whether a measurement has been performed. However there's a way to determine whether the measurement result has been predetermined by the state before the measurement. The most striking one is the Mermin paradox: There you measure a certain state (called GHZ state), and get a complete contradiction to predetermined values, no probabilities involved!
Here's how it goes:
You have a system composed of three subsystems, and prepared in a certain way (namely the way which gives that GHZ state). On each of the subsystems you can do one of two measurements, named X and Y, each of which can give either +1 or -1 as result. Now consider the following: We measure X on the first subsystem, and Y on the second and third, and multiply the results together (for brevity, denote that specific measurement as XYY). If we do that on the GHZ state, we find -1 every single time. The same is true for YXY and YYX (which jus thave the X measurements on another subsystem).
Now let's assume that for each single preparation, the measurement result was predetermined. That is, even before measuring e.g. X on subsystem 1, it is either determined that the result will be x1=+1, or x1=-1. Of course for the next preparation, the value of x1 may already be different. However, in each single instance, we would have six pre-determined values, x1, y1, x2, y2, x3 and y3, each one being either -1 or +1.
Now our experiments showed us that our preparation procedure always produces states where measuring XYY gives -1. Now under the assumption that all measurement results are predetermined, the measurement XYY of course gives the result x1*y2*y3. In other words, our preparation procedure obviously generates only systems with x1*y2*y3=-1. Also, the fact that all measurements of YXY give -1 leads to the condition that y1*x2*y3=-1. Finally, since we get always -1 for the YYX measurement, we also have y1*y2*x3=-1. Now, let's multiply all three equations together, to get x1*y2*y3*y1*x2*y3*y1*y2*x3=-1*-1*-1=-1. Note that each of y1, y2 and y3 occurs twice in the product. But since each of them can only be either +1 or -1, those cancel out and you are left with x1*x2*x3=-1 (note that this is pure mathematics; no physical assumptions go into that calculation). So you'd conclude that if you measure XXX, you shoul get, unconditionally, the value -1.
Now let's get back to our laboratory, and do that measurement. What do we get? We get +1, unconditionally. So where in the above have we been wrong? Well, the only assumption we've put in the above calculation is that the values are predetermined by the system's state (that is, the values x1, x2, x3, y1, y2, y3 actually exist). All the rest is either pure mathematics (and quite elementary mathematics, at that), or something you can measure (and which have been measured; and while in real live you'll always have some noise, it's not hard to see that for sufficiently low noise, you still get a contradiction). So the only way where our argumentation can be wrong is the assumption that the values are predetermined by the system we prepared.
As Feynman explained very well in that video, you will always end up at some place where you just have to stop and accept that it is so without being able to say why it is so. At the moment, the fundamental forces, space, time and the particles are those ultimate points. But if we would find e.g. a principle which would unify (and clearly "explanation" in physics is always unification; having a single principle describing things whose description needed separate principles before) some of these aspects (say, find an unifying principle which gives us the properties of all particles, or unify the forces, or even find the theory of everything, unifying all aspects), then we'd still have no explanation about why that principle holds. And that's fundamental. You simply cannot build on nothing; therefore there will never be a full answer to the question of "why". We can reduce the number of "why"s, but we cannot eliminate them.
I learned about it on the factual science TV show (currently honored on Google.com), Star Trek. They need a Heisenberg compensator.
Well, why not? Heisenberg did say it was incertain.
If Heisenberg really said "incertain" his relation to the English language must have been uncertain. ;-)
Ballmer, Vogon High Commander in exile? Quick, someone get him to recite poetry!
How did you think he gets other companies to bend in his way?
Well, most people in Democrat states want to vote either zero times or one time. Those who want to vote zero times basically always vote as many times as they want, and most of those who want to vote exactly once also vote as many times as they want. Thus the majority of people in Democrat states vote as often as they want. End of proof.
SCNR :-)
He wrote "Conservative", not "religious". While there's some correlation, the two are absolutely not synonymous.
It does. At least modulo 2, modulo 4, modulo 5, modulo 10 and modulo 20. Pick your choice.
But if you improve of it, you still infringe on it. Only if you specifically circumvent it, you don't. But then, the energy you spend on circumventing cannot be spent on improving.
Also, company A had good idea X and patented it. Company B had good idea Y and patented it. It would be desirable to have a product featuring both X and Y. But if the companies don't license their patents, you don't get that.
The anti-murder law definitely is a huge government interference on the market of paid killers, to the point of making it illegal.
Water and air are not inventions and thus not patentable, even by that theory. However, fire (as controlled fire), the English language and the wheel clearly are.
Apparently you need a history lesson. Since you are repeating it stupid.
Who invented the telephone first and who patented it first? If you do it and dont patent it doesn't count as prior art.
Really? I don't think anyone has yet patented the wheel. I really should apply for a patent; I think it could make me rich!
It's in the apocalypse. However the correct quote is: "Socialism is slightly above 25.8". :-)
I've been doing voluntary political activism for forty years, and I still have yet to see any mythic "free market" anyplace.
There are many places where it comes up. However any truly free market is called "black market" and fought against.
So you are saying that in Europe the means of production are owned by the government? That must be a different Europe than the one I'm living in ...
Well, they'll sell special robots that enjoy to be beaten, I think they are called "Masobot". Since those robots like to be beaten, to beat them will not be a crime.
Robots who cannot do harm to people cannot fight for their rights, therefore they'll not get then.
And probably cars also have rights, because after all it's forbidden to drive them without driving license.
Don't forget: They are android penguins. Probably they dream of electric fish!