The bells and whistles in those cases are perhaps more to generate buzz among non-nerds..
I don't believe that for a second. Non-nerds want an attractive page to look at and a design that works well. Most AJAX I see looks to me like someone is padding his or her réumé.
The paper isn't really about how an astronaut would die. It is about the nature of the interface between the inside and the outside of the black hole.
This is interesting because it has applications to cosmology in general. In fact, many (perhaps even most) of our cosmological models have their origins in the study of the theory of black holes and, particularly, the study of event horizons. This makes them fundamentally more interesting to study than neutron stars and the like to many cosmologists.
A black hole would eventually stretch a person into spagetti, but not necessarily near the event horizon. For a small black hole the effect might be well outside the event horizon while for a supermassive black hole the effect would be well inside of it.
This is because the event horizon of a super-massive black hole is so large that while the gravitational pull there is enormous, the variation in the graviational forces in a human-sized volume is quite small. It's the variation in the forces that stretches you.
Likewise, while the total gravitation pull well outside the event horizon of a small black hole is much less than the total gravitational pull near the event horizon of a super-massive one, the variation is much higher.
If time is an emergent phenomenon, then how does the first event happen? If time does not yet exist, then there is no was to distinguish an event. By the parent's suggestion, time can only be propelled forward when already in motion, by the contribution of each new event.
All I can say is that the Page-Wooters paper suggests that time does not, in fact, work this way and this current paper, if correct, provides evidence that Page and Wooters may have been right about it.
The paradox comes about because I used the word "observe" in two different contexts. From the abstract: "We implement this mechanism using an entangled state of the polarization of two photons, one of which is used as a clock to gauge the evolution of the second: an "internal" observer that becomes correlated with the clock photon sees the other system evolve, while an "external" observer that only observes global properties of the two photons can prove it is static."
The Schrödinger equation does evolve over time. But the Schrödinger equation is a non-relativistic approximation which does not even attempt to incorporate gravity. This story is about the Wheeler-DeWitt equation which is much more fundamental than the Schrödinger equation.
The theory requires no outside, God-like, observer, nor does it propose one. The point is that time is measured by "events" and "events" occur when the quantum states of two systems become entangled, but only to the systems that became entangled. To an "observer" that has not become entangled, a system is static and no event has occurred.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, one would say that according to the entangled observer the "wavefunction has collapsed" whereas according to the unentangled observer, it hasn't.
We have a place in town that advertises on the radio to hurry in and buy your new computer from them because they are still selling Windows 7 but won't be able to do so for long. Given all the airtime they are buying, I have to assume their are a lot of people who don't want Windows 8. I wonder what makes Microsoft think they are going to want it on their Xbox.
Computation is essentially the same process. A computation uses the evolution of a physical system to model an abstract theory. But this only works when the link between the real and abstract worlds is clear and well understood.
Yet strangely I can work computations using pen and paper using only the evolution of the poorly understood system consisting of my brain, arm, hand and eyes.
Exactly correct. The most important reform our government needs is district-drawing reform so they're ALL swing districts. I just don't know how to accomplish this.
"STOP THE GERRYMANDERING!" isn't a very inspirational campaign slogan.
In what way did he not "pull it off"? He never said he was going to do it alone. Right in the post he asks for lots of help. His goal was to have a free operating system and that's what he got.
If you mean that he didn't pull it off in precisely the order he announced he would, I guess that would be correct.
For example, doctors in remote regions could use the technique to measure HIV viral loads in patients' blood samples, allowing the doctors to easily monitor disease progression and determine the best course of treatment."
The ability to sense and avoid — common on all manned aircraft that fly the national airspace — is one of the trickier issues for drones which do not support such technology.
It's common all manned aircraft? But you can't stick the same thing in a drone? Why not, exactly?
Here's an example: The Pi has a video connector that cannot be used because it is not possible to write a driver to talk to it. Presumably the Pi Foundation will release a video display to connect to it, but the community will not be able to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
The bells and whistles in those cases are perhaps more to generate buzz among non-nerds. .
I don't believe that for a second. Non-nerds want an attractive page to look at and a design that works well. Most AJAX I see looks to me like someone is padding his or her réumé.
The escape velocity of a neutron star is about 1/3 the speed of light --- and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible.
Actually, you can get mass to within a whisker of the speed of light right on your desk:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/desktop-sized-atom-smasher-demonstrated/
The paper isn't really about how an astronaut would die. It is about the nature of the interface between the inside and the outside of the black hole.
This is interesting because it has applications to cosmology in general. In fact, many (perhaps even most) of our cosmological models have their origins in the study of the theory of black holes and, particularly, the study of event horizons. This makes them fundamentally more interesting to study than neutron stars and the like to many cosmologists.
A black hole would eventually stretch a person into spagetti, but not necessarily near the event horizon. For a small black hole the effect might be well outside the event horizon while for a supermassive black hole the effect would be well inside of it.
This is because the event horizon of a super-massive black hole is so large that while the gravitational pull there is enormous, the variation in the graviational forces in a human-sized volume is quite small. It's the variation in the forces that stretches you.
Likewise, while the total gravitation pull well outside the event horizon of a small black hole is much less than the total gravitational pull near the event horizon of a super-massive one, the variation is much higher.
Years of study no doubt required in order to even attempt to understand what that's all about!
For someone who understands the time-dependent Schrödinger equation? Not so many years more years.
If time is an emergent phenomenon, then how does the first event happen? If time does not yet exist, then there is no was to distinguish an event. By the parent's suggestion, time can only be propelled forward when already in motion, by the contribution of each new event.
All I can say is that the Page-Wooters paper suggests that time does not, in fact, work this way and this current paper, if correct, provides evidence that Page and Wooters may have been right about it.
Maybe, but I don't think so. I did some work in this area for my MS.
The paradox comes about because I used the word "observe" in two different contexts. From the abstract: "We implement this mechanism using an entangled state of the polarization of two photons, one of which is used as a clock to gauge the evolution of the second: an "internal" observer that becomes correlated with the clock photon sees the other system evolve, while an "external" observer that only observes global properties of the two photons can prove it is static."
The Schrödinger equation does evolve over time. But the Schrödinger equation is a non-relativistic approximation which does not even attempt to incorporate gravity. This story is about the Wheeler-DeWitt equation which is much more fundamental than the Schrödinger equation.
The theory requires no outside, God-like, observer, nor does it propose one. The point is that time is measured by "events" and "events" occur when the quantum states of two systems become entangled, but only to the systems that became entangled. To an "observer" that has not become entangled, a system is static and no event has occurred.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, one would say that according to the entangled observer the "wavefunction has collapsed" whereas according to the unentangled observer, it hasn't.
I like their space labelled "Recombobulation Area" just beyond the screening. Almost makes up for everything smelling like stale beer.
We have a place in town that advertises on the radio to hurry in and buy your new computer from them because they are still selling Windows 7 but won't be able to do so for long. Given all the airtime they are buying, I have to assume their are a lot of people who don't want Windows 8. I wonder what makes Microsoft think they are going to want it on their Xbox.
Worst? Depends on definition.
Ahead in the numbers? Yes.
http://www.examiner.com/article/atheist-vs-christian-whose-killed-more-and-who-will-survive
More to the point, it's not Java. It's Scala.
Computation is essentially the same process. A computation uses the evolution of a physical system to model an abstract theory.
But this only works when the link between the real and abstract worlds is clear and well understood.
Yet strangely I can work computations using pen and paper using only the evolution of the poorly understood system consisting of my brain, arm, hand and eyes.
Exactly correct. The most important reform our government needs is district-drawing reform so they're ALL swing districts. I just don't know how to accomplish this.
"STOP THE GERRYMANDERING!" isn't a very inspirational campaign slogan.
Why is this modded a zero? It's bang on!
Outside the US, they send drones...
Interesting. Google is completely unusable in this emulator, but IBM's website renders like it was made for it.
In what way did he not "pull it off"? He never said he was going to do it alone. Right in the post he asks for lots of help. His goal was to have a free operating system and that's what he got.
If you mean that he didn't pull it off in precisely the order he announced he would, I guess that would be correct.
But perhaps they want to regulate devices such as this:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/09/21/1341212/turning-a-smart-phone-into-a-microscope
From the article:
For example, doctors in remote regions could use the technique to measure HIV viral loads in patients' blood samples, allowing the doctors to easily monitor disease progression and determine the best course of treatment."
The ability to sense and avoid — common on all manned aircraft that fly the national airspace — is one of the trickier issues for drones which do not support such technology.
It's common all manned aircraft? But you can't stick the same thing in a drone? Why not, exactly?
Here's an example: The Pi has a video connector that cannot be used because it is not possible to write a driver to talk to it. Presumably the Pi Foundation will release a video display to connect to it, but the community will not be able to do so.
Yeah. But driving ability probably is.
Robotopunado!!