Eclipses and transits are fairly common in the solar system. If you recall, a few years ago there was a somewhat rare transit of Venus across the sun. There was quite a bit of excitement about observing it because the information could be used to tune some of the models of exoplanet discovery.
When a star starts to run out of hydrogen in it's core fusion slows and the core contracts, and gets hotter. If it gets hot enough, it will start fusing helium, then carbon. The core ends up small, hot and producing a lot of energy. That energy causes the outer layers of hydrogen and helium to expand and the star becomes a red giant. Material from the outer layers eventually gets blown entirely off the star to form a nebula. That's where the mass goes.
I guess it's fairly rapid in the context of a star's lifetime, but it's not like it happens overnight. Unless you're talking about a big star, where the core finds itself suddenly exceeding what can be supported by electron degeneracy pressure and collapsing. IIRC that process happens very quickly, and the energy produced blows the outer layers off in a supernova.
Read the article. They tested a relativistic version of MOND that DOES say things about spacetime. It failed. Modifications of gravity also fail to explain things like the bullet cluster.
Actually, like all the planets. And all the stars. We've never actually weighed any of them, but we know their masses because of their gravitational interaction.
It sounds like you're splitting hairs. Regardless of what a particle is, it's a measurable phenomenon. By any reasonable definition, quantum particles exist and exhibit behaviour we'd like to explain.
Sorry, I'm too busy trying to write papers and get a position with more than two weeks job security that pays enough to support a retirement. Maybe someone else will do it. Except they don't care whether the barrier to reading a paper is clicking a link or sending an e-mail.
The impression on the silly putty is "hidden." Quantum particles appear to exist in a superposition of states. In some sense, they exist simultaneously in every possible state. When they interact with another system that's big enough (they're "observed") they behave as if they were in only one possible state. A "hidden variables" theory postulates that the quantum particle was really in that state all along, you just couldn't see it (it was hidden).
The hidden variables explanation is very compelling, because it seems so obvious. The problem is, it doesn't really agree with observations, and Bell's inequality suggests that if it is true, even weirder things are also true.
In this experiment, for example, two electrons were created in two different labs. There wasn't any pressing of silly putty, they were completely independent. These electrons were then caused to emit a photon each. Those photons were sent to a third lab and entangled. And the consequences of that entanglement were then observed in the *original* electrons.
If everyone just publishes whatever they want, where's the quality bar set for research? Don't the journals curate content submissions? This would also force academics to be graded on a different scale for tenure, etc. if "number of accepted submissions" doesn't mean anything anymore.
Ugh. It's already too easy to publish things. You just work your way down until someone accepts it. The literature, including the good journals, is full of crap, forcing everyone to have to spend a lot of time wading through it.
That's true. If the universe is a figment of my imagination, which is likely, then the particles do not need to communicate because their existence could not be other than I imagine it.
I don't really get it. In the Days With Computers you take ten seconds to send an e-mail to the corresponding author asking for the paper. I send papers to people, mostly in China and India, who ask all the time. This seems like someone just wanted to use Twitter.
In my field, open access journals charge $2000-$3000 per paper. Do you want to go to an international conference? Fund the top up for a trainee for a year? Collect some pilot data for that next grant? Or publish a single open access article?
Did you read the article? It gives a pretty good description of the experiment.
They create two electrons, A and B, completely independently, in two different, widely separated labs. They use those electrons to produce a photon each (Ap and Bp), and send those photons to a third lab. The properties of the photons will depend on the properties of the electrons, but the electrons were created independently so the properties of the photons should not be correlated with each other. In fact, if at this stage you test the electrons and photons, you find that A and B and Ap and Bp are not correlated.
That third lab entangles the photons. Then the two original labs test their electrons. Now they discover that the properties of A and B ARE correlated.
You've essentially described a hidden variable theory (the particle is + or -, you just can't see it). This guy named Bell proved that if that's the way the universe actually works then it implies some even spookier things.
Information IS exchanged. Absent a hidden variable that is carried along with both entangled particles, they have to communicate their state when observed. We cannot use that process to communicate arbitrary information of our choosing faster than light.
Entanglement IS communication, in the proper sense of the word. You cannot use it to send a message, but entanglement without hidden variables implies that information is exchanged between particles.
The holographic universe hypothesis is so named because of it's relation to the principle of holography. Also, your assertion that "real holograms occupy three dimensions" is incorrect. A hologram encodes two dimensional interference patterns, which can be used to create a 3D (appearing) image when properly lit. The encoding medium itself may technically be 3D (as in, the thinnest possible film is still technically 3D) but the holographic information is two dimensional.
You know, the many PhD physicists who work on the holographic hypothesis might know a thing or two you don't.
Unless you're planning to be a merchant or military navigator, the certificate is only for your own satisfaction, and you can probably get a much cheaper one from your national sail training organization. I have a celestial navigation certification but it's highly unlikely I'll ever use it. Celestial navigation, on the other hand, I use periodically to stay in practice, and may be a lifesaving skill at some point.
You're really nitpicking. The important part is that you sail to a line of latitude and then sail along it until you get where you're going. If you want to hit an island, or you know your landfall (or transit) has to be precise because of reefs, shoals or other hazards, you're likely to make very sure you get on your parallel as quickly as possible. Also, sailing "in a diagonal" isn't quite as straightforward as it sounds when you're travelling long distances. Since the earth is curved, you need to sail in a curve as well, following a different compass heading each day.
You might be particularly likely to head straight north or south if you were lost, as is implied in the OPs post, to minimize the amount of time you were sailing through unknown waters.
Slashdot Mirror
Eclipses and transits are fairly common in the solar system. If you recall, a few years ago there was a somewhat rare transit of Venus across the sun. There was quite a bit of excitement about observing it because the information could be used to tune some of the models of exoplanet discovery.
When a star starts to run out of hydrogen in it's core fusion slows and the core contracts, and gets hotter. If it gets hot enough, it will start fusing helium, then carbon. The core ends up small, hot and producing a lot of energy. That energy causes the outer layers of hydrogen and helium to expand and the star becomes a red giant. Material from the outer layers eventually gets blown entirely off the star to form a nebula. That's where the mass goes.
I guess it's fairly rapid in the context of a star's lifetime, but it's not like it happens overnight. Unless you're talking about a big star, where the core finds itself suddenly exceeding what can be supported by electron degeneracy pressure and collapsing. IIRC that process happens very quickly, and the energy produced blows the outer layers off in a supernova.
But very Darwinian.
Lots of little coffins. One for each crazy idea that didn't survive contact with science.
Yup. You might even say that another nail has been pounded into the lid of it's "can't be true" box.
Read the article. They tested a relativistic version of MOND that DOES say things about spacetime. It failed. Modifications of gravity also fail to explain things like the bullet cluster.
Because the defining characteristic of science is that you test your crazy ideas and figure out which ones might be true.
Like Neptune!
Actually, like all the planets. And all the stars. We've never actually weighed any of them, but we know their masses because of their gravitational interaction.
It sounds like you're splitting hairs. Regardless of what a particle is, it's a measurable phenomenon. By any reasonable definition, quantum particles exist and exhibit behaviour we'd like to explain.
Sorry, I'm too busy trying to write papers and get a position with more than two weeks job security that pays enough to support a retirement. Maybe someone else will do it. Except they don't care whether the barrier to reading a paper is clicking a link or sending an e-mail.
The impression on the silly putty is "hidden." Quantum particles appear to exist in a superposition of states. In some sense, they exist simultaneously in every possible state. When they interact with another system that's big enough (they're "observed") they behave as if they were in only one possible state. A "hidden variables" theory postulates that the quantum particle was really in that state all along, you just couldn't see it (it was hidden).
The hidden variables explanation is very compelling, because it seems so obvious. The problem is, it doesn't really agree with observations, and Bell's inequality suggests that if it is true, even weirder things are also true.
In this experiment, for example, two electrons were created in two different labs. There wasn't any pressing of silly putty, they were completely independent. These electrons were then caused to emit a photon each. Those photons were sent to a third lab and entangled. And the consequences of that entanglement were then observed in the *original* electrons.
Ugh. It's already too easy to publish things. You just work your way down until someone accepts it. The literature, including the good journals, is full of crap, forcing everyone to have to spend a lot of time wading through it.
My field is medical imaging. I have to maintain an expensive scanner and deal with sick patients.
Must be awesome to have to just type some stuff into a search engine to get data. And you think somebody should make it even easier for you?
Quite often this is not the case. All IEEE journals, for example, require copyright assignment.
That's true. If the universe is a figment of my imagination, which is likely, then the particles do not need to communicate because their existence could not be other than I imagine it.
I don't really get it. In the Days With Computers you take ten seconds to send an e-mail to the corresponding author asking for the paper. I send papers to people, mostly in China and India, who ask all the time. This seems like someone just wanted to use Twitter.
In my field, open access journals charge $2000-$3000 per paper. Do you want to go to an international conference? Fund the top up for a trainee for a year? Collect some pilot data for that next grant? Or publish a single open access article?
Did you read the article? It gives a pretty good description of the experiment.
They create two electrons, A and B, completely independently, in two different, widely separated labs. They use those electrons to produce a photon each (Ap and Bp), and send those photons to a third lab. The properties of the photons will depend on the properties of the electrons, but the electrons were created independently so the properties of the photons should not be correlated with each other. In fact, if at this stage you test the electrons and photons, you find that A and B and Ap and Bp are not correlated.
That third lab entangles the photons. Then the two original labs test their electrons. Now they discover that the properties of A and B ARE correlated.
You've essentially described a hidden variable theory (the particle is + or -, you just can't see it). This guy named Bell proved that if that's the way the universe actually works then it implies some even spookier things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Information IS exchanged. Absent a hidden variable that is carried along with both entangled particles, they have to communicate their state when observed. We cannot use that process to communicate arbitrary information of our choosing faster than light.
Entanglement IS communication, in the proper sense of the word. You cannot use it to send a message, but entanglement without hidden variables implies that information is exchanged between particles.
The holographic universe hypothesis is so named because of it's relation to the principle of holography. Also, your assertion that "real holograms occupy three dimensions" is incorrect. A hologram encodes two dimensional interference patterns, which can be used to create a 3D (appearing) image when properly lit. The encoding medium itself may technically be 3D (as in, the thinnest possible film is still technically 3D) but the holographic information is two dimensional.
You know, the many PhD physicists who work on the holographic hypothesis might know a thing or two you don't.
Unless you're planning to be a merchant or military navigator, the certificate is only for your own satisfaction, and you can probably get a much cheaper one from your national sail training organization. I have a celestial navigation certification but it's highly unlikely I'll ever use it. Celestial navigation, on the other hand, I use periodically to stay in practice, and may be a lifesaving skill at some point.
You're really nitpicking. The important part is that you sail to a line of latitude and then sail along it until you get where you're going. If you want to hit an island, or you know your landfall (or transit) has to be precise because of reefs, shoals or other hazards, you're likely to make very sure you get on your parallel as quickly as possible. Also, sailing "in a diagonal" isn't quite as straightforward as it sounds when you're travelling long distances. Since the earth is curved, you need to sail in a curve as well, following a different compass heading each day.
You might be particularly likely to head straight north or south if you were lost, as is implied in the OPs post, to minimize the amount of time you were sailing through unknown waters.
With polaris or the sun and a straight edge and a string (or your hand at arms length), you can make a reasonable landfall.
Have some real fun. Make your own. THEN buy one off Amazon.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa....