I think the GP was saying that it's sad that there aren't other shows that are as intellectual as Futurama, not that it was sad how intellectual Futurama was.
Although the summary of the article is unclear, TFA indicates that this thing only generates the heat. You still need a water source and turbine (or something else that can convert heat to electricity). So no power cable is necessary (on their end).
Actually it seems more like the opposite (unfortunately): quantum effects tend to ruin any hopes of a 100% anything. In a classical system, you can construct something that is trapped within a "potential energy well", but in quantum mechanics, tunneling means that there will always be a non-zero probability of the "thing" escaping from the trap by tunneling through the barrier (this is, for example, how radioactivity works: by nucleons tunneling out of the strong binding in the nucleus). You can make a trap good (low probability of escape) but never perfect (zero probability of escape). I don't really agree with this, or rather I don't agree with what you seem to be implying. While the performance of everything is going to be limited by quantum uncertainties, in many real world applications (including high precision optics and nanotechnology), the effect can be several orders of magnitude less than we would ever notice. I see no reason why storing light with 99.999999% transmission for several years would be impossible due to quantum uncertainties.
But it's not that there is a quantum level that matches the wavelength of the light, but rather the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle basically allows for "blurring" of everything (the wavelength, the energy gap, etc.). So there is always a non-zero probability of interaction/absorption. Of course, the probability can be made very small. Impurities, as you note, tend to provide a wider range of possible absorption bands, so that the probability of one being close enough to the wavelength of the light is higher. (It's also worth remembering that absorption doesn't only occur because of energy levels associated with electrons bound to atoms: the degrees of freedom for molecular translation, rotation, and vibration also have quantum levels that can absorb light.) I'm pretty sure this is not the dominant effect causing absorption in, say, a fiber optic. Rather, the effect that causes lower transmission is Rayleigh scattering from the glass, which will be present even in an absolutely pure fiber. Without actually doing the calculations, I'm guessing the "non-zero probability of absorption" in a significantly mismatched energy level is going to be so absurdly small you would never see it. Rayleigh scattering can be mitigated by using hollow core fibers, though I think those bring their own set of problems.
Some people are working on things like this. As another poster said, you can set up two mirrors, and have a beam of light bounce of them up to maybe a thousand times or so. With 99.99% reflectivity mirrors (which is close to as good as you can get, and can cost several thousand dollars) this gives you 90% overall transmission. If the distance between the mirrors is, say, 2 meters, than you have the light stored for 6 microseconds. Certainly not long on human time scales, but plenty long for computing time scales. Even DRAM needs to be refreshed every 50 ms or so. In fact I'm working on a project that involves doing just this:)
Though since you ask about crystals, I don't think that any current material can match that timescale. Light just travels too fast without slowing it down to stay in a small material like that for a long time.
German communications was so bad that not only were all of their tactical communications read by the allies, the Germans didn't even realize that they were being read, despite obvious failures.
I'm no expert, but I thought the Enigma encryption was generally considered to be excellent (for the time), and that it was an amazing feat that the Allies were able to decrypt German communiques.
Well we could always go back to a Federalist system, so if one state wants to have high taxes and social welfare and another wants to have no gun control, they can do that without everyone else getting their panties in a bunch.
I understand that can often be a tricky decision, but for this case, isn't the decision to have an MRI not exactly one you need to make quickly? I don't generally think of having an MRI or not as an on-the-spot decision.
No. An buoyancy (ie, helium), electric field, magnetic field, or some other exotic system could suspend an object like that. The only thing known to engineering would be airfoil or rocket/jet, but that was my point.
No you don't. You need to expend energy to lift something up high, but not to keep it up there. You need to spend energy to haul yourself up a flight of stairs, but once you're there you can stay there without expending energy. Of course you don't have a building to stand on at 30,000 feet, but theoretically a force could keep it up there without using any energy (just an engineering challenge to find that force).
it takes a relatively huge amount of energy to keep a vehicle off the ground
That's really only true currently from an engineering perspective, not a physics perspective. A significant force needs to be applied, but since the force is being applied perpendicular to the direction of motion, it does no work. For example, a balloon filled with helium doesn't use any energy to stay in the air.
You can't afford to put in better insulation...so you want the government to pass a law forcing you to do so???
Man I really don't understand some people asking for more government intrusion in their lives. I haven't seen a single post on this topic saying the government should buzz off, and let me use what devices I want that I'm both paying for and paying to power. And if you're going to spew some line about the CO2 being emitted, then build nuclear power plants (which we should have been doing for decades, thank you Jimmy Carte and environmentalists).
My guess is that is because the electronics controlling the power are 5V DC, so the transformer has to be getting some current, and every transformer has loss.
Yeah, the same thing with fat people who overeat. We need the government to regulate all meals and all food, and then we'll have no more fat people! We can also have mandatory exercise for 30 minutes a day. We'll be a nation of healthy, fit people.
Good thing we all have this nanny to tell us what to do, since we clearly can't make decisions on our own. I hope they start telling me when I have to go to the doctor soon too! Oh wait, that's going to happen.
Spitting on the floor is hardly a disease incubator (nice straw-man though!). And there is little to no evidence that there are any longterm effects of second-hand smoke. And if you think there are, then don't go to privately owned public places that allow people to smoke. No ones forcing you.
You're missing the point. Of course a bar should be able to make an enforceable rule banning spitting or smoking. But what if I want to open a bar where people can spit on the floor or smoke? You don't have to come to it if you don't want to.
As the other poster said, carbon can be created from hydrogen through solar nucleosynthesis. I suppose it would also be possible to produce it in a lab here, but that'd be pretty pointless (and expensive). Kinda like the fact that we can, in fact, turn lead into gold, but it's only a few atoms at a time so there's no point to it.
From your original post: There is no such thing as "instantaneous velocity" - as velocity is a function of time.
I showed this is wrong, and that radar in fact does measure instantaneous velocity via the doppler shift. I did acknowledge that the measurement takes time, but not because of any need to take several measurements and get a derivative like you seem to think, but rather because any measurement, including detecting the bounced signal in some radar applications, takes time.
You again demonstrate your ignorance. I was talking about the quantum uncertainty in an energy measurement made over a small period of time. I'm not going to address the rest of your nonsense, but I will say that the time necessary to measure the energy is going to be on the same level as the time necessary to measure the reflected signal that you think most radar relies on.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond since you are either obstinate, clueless, or both, but I will. In one sense, measuring the frequency or energy of light does of course take time. But any measurement takes time in that sense. I don't know exactly the method used in, say, a radar gun, but measuring the energy or frequency of light is a direct, essentially instantaneous measurement.
Mod parent down. There is such a thing as instantaneous velocity. It can be directly measured using the Doppler shift of light bouncing off a moving object. This is exactly how a radar gun works. Your point about the problem with radar guns in nonsense, you clearly have no idea how they work. And the distance they use them is irrelevant (at least for the physics involved, of course it is harder to aim at something small from so far away). Measuring the Doppler shift of the signal from a GPS satellite would be no more difficult, though I'm not sure if a GPS receiver directly measures instantaneous velocity or not. And yes, IAAP.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the GP was saying that it's sad that there aren't other shows that are as intellectual as Futurama, not that it was sad how intellectual Futurama was.
Although the summary of the article is unclear, TFA indicates that this thing only generates the heat. You still need a water source and turbine (or something else that can convert heat to electricity). So no power cable is necessary (on their end).
Some people are working on things like this. As another poster said, you can set up two mirrors, and have a beam of light bounce of them up to maybe a thousand times or so. With 99.99% reflectivity mirrors (which is close to as good as you can get, and can cost several thousand dollars) this gives you 90% overall transmission. If the distance between the mirrors is, say, 2 meters, than you have the light stored for 6 microseconds. Certainly not long on human time scales, but plenty long for computing time scales. Even DRAM needs to be refreshed every 50 ms or so. In fact I'm working on a project that involves doing just this :)
Though since you ask about crystals, I don't think that any current material can match that timescale. Light just travels too fast without slowing it down to stay in a small material like that for a long time.
German communications was so bad that not only were all of their tactical communications read by the allies, the Germans didn't even realize that they were being read, despite obvious failures.
I'm no expert, but I thought the Enigma encryption was generally considered to be excellent (for the time), and that it was an amazing feat that the Allies were able to decrypt German communiques.
Well we could always go back to a Federalist system, so if one state wants to have high taxes and social welfare and another wants to have no gun control, they can do that without everyone else getting their panties in a bunch.
OK I see what you're saying
I understand that can often be a tricky decision, but for this case, isn't the decision to have an MRI not exactly one you need to make quickly? I don't generally think of having an MRI or not as an on-the-spot decision.
No. An buoyancy (ie, helium), electric field, magnetic field, or some other exotic system could suspend an object like that. The only thing known to engineering would be airfoil or rocket/jet, but that was my point.
Uh...you could always choose not to have/pay for them then.
No you don't. You need to expend energy to lift something up high, but not to keep it up there. You need to spend energy to haul yourself up a flight of stairs, but once you're there you can stay there without expending energy. Of course you don't have a building to stand on at 30,000 feet, but theoretically a force could keep it up there without using any energy (just an engineering challenge to find that force).
Well you could always go back to the 19th century and avoid hospitals if you don't like modern medical advances (which are quite expensive).
it takes a relatively huge amount of energy to keep a vehicle off the ground
That's really only true currently from an engineering perspective, not a physics perspective. A significant force needs to be applied, but since the force is being applied perpendicular to the direction of motion, it does no work. For example, a balloon filled with helium doesn't use any energy to stay in the air.
You can't afford to put in better insulation...so you want the government to pass a law forcing you to do so???
Man I really don't understand some people asking for more government intrusion in their lives. I haven't seen a single post on this topic saying the government should buzz off, and let me use what devices I want that I'm both paying for and paying to power. And if you're going to spew some line about the CO2 being emitted, then build nuclear power plants (which we should have been doing for decades, thank you Jimmy Carte and environmentalists).
My guess is that is because the electronics controlling the power are 5V DC, so the transformer has to be getting some current, and every transformer has loss.
Yeah, the same thing with fat people who overeat. We need the government to regulate all meals and all food, and then we'll have no more fat people! We can also have mandatory exercise for 30 minutes a day. We'll be a nation of healthy, fit people.
Good thing we all have this nanny to tell us what to do, since we clearly can't make decisions on our own. I hope they start telling me when I have to go to the doctor soon too! Oh wait, that's going to happen.
Spitting on the floor is hardly a disease incubator (nice straw-man though!). And there is little to no evidence that there are any longterm effects of second-hand smoke. And if you think there are, then don't go to privately owned public places that allow people to smoke. No ones forcing you.
You're missing the point. Of course a bar should be able to make an enforceable rule banning spitting or smoking. But what if I want to open a bar where people can spit on the floor or smoke? You don't have to come to it if you don't want to.
So if this is anything like our State of the Union address, none of this will ever happen?
As the other poster said, carbon can be created from hydrogen through solar nucleosynthesis. I suppose it would also be possible to produce it in a lab here, but that'd be pretty pointless (and expensive). Kinda like the fact that we can, in fact, turn lead into gold, but it's only a few atoms at a time so there's no point to it.
From your original post: There is no such thing as "instantaneous velocity" - as velocity is a function of time.
I showed this is wrong, and that radar in fact does measure instantaneous velocity via the doppler shift. I did acknowledge that the measurement takes time, but not because of any need to take several measurements and get a derivative like you seem to think, but rather because any measurement, including detecting the bounced signal in some radar applications, takes time.
You again demonstrate your ignorance. I was talking about the quantum uncertainty in an energy measurement made over a small period of time. I'm not going to address the rest of your nonsense, but I will say that the time necessary to measure the energy is going to be on the same level as the time necessary to measure the reflected signal that you think most radar relies on.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond since you are either obstinate, clueless, or both, but I will. In one sense, measuring the frequency or energy of light does of course take time. But any measurement takes time in that sense. I don't know exactly the method used in, say, a radar gun, but measuring the energy or frequency of light is a direct, essentially instantaneous measurement.
Mod parent down. There is such a thing as instantaneous velocity. It can be directly measured using the Doppler shift of light bouncing off a moving object. This is exactly how a radar gun works. Your point about the problem with radar guns in nonsense, you clearly have no idea how they work. And the distance they use them is irrelevant (at least for the physics involved, of course it is harder to aim at something small from so far away). Measuring the Doppler shift of the signal from a GPS satellite would be no more difficult, though I'm not sure if a GPS receiver directly measures instantaneous velocity or not. And yes, IAAP.