I can't imagine why this HDD would be any different from other hard drives in terms of sensitivty to B fields just because of its size. All drives are, of course, sensitive in some degree to EM fields as they can cause the bits of material in the drive to flip spin, effectively garbling the data. But the big factor in sensitivy is areal density, I imagine, and judging by the capacity, the areal density of this drive can't be too high. That having been said, I haven't RTFA.
You might find Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose interesting. He basically uses Godel's theorem to show that consciousness is not Turing computable, hence not implementable on current hardware. And before anyone waves the quantum computing flag, Penrose also points out that the problem with understanding consciousness is that the physical effects like on the border of quantum and macroscopic measurements, one of the most poorly understood aspects of physics.
Yes, I'm familiar with Orion. But when you speak of "modern nuclear engines" I assumed you were speaking of existing technology. I certainly agree that nuclear rockets are a good idea, but the current designs floating around are a far cry from an Orion type vehicle. An NTR could lift a bit more than our current chemical rockets (~200 tons I believe) and do it much more efficiently. But I digress.
If you really want to move tonnage into orbit, a space elevator is the way to go.
A) There are no modern high-velocity nuclear engines. Unless by nuclear engine you mean radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which are currently powering Voyager and other long-range probes.
B) It's not that scientists aren't willing to take the next big leap. It's the sad fact that apparently we haven't developed sufficient telekinetic powers to assemble space probes with our minds. So, until we can manage that, how about lobby the people with the pursestrings, since it's the scientists with the dream but the buraeucrats with the money.
The same quantum effects that allow said quantum computer also allow for unbreakable encryption. If information is transmitted via quantum entangled pairs, any interception between source and receiver will cause the wavefunction to collapse and can be detected quite speedily on the receiving end of the transmission, at which point transmission will be cancelled and the feds called. There is no getting around this; a tapped line will be detected. So, while one could ostensibly understand the few bits of information one intercepted, it wouldn't do any good.
No one did, but you'd have really appreciated Mao's Cultural Revolution where intellectuals were rounded up and sent to brutal labor camps.
Mao: Let's see if you can think naughty thoughts... WHILE YOU'RE FROZEN IN CARBONITE!!! Mwa ha ha ha hah asdflh *cough rasp choke
While wrong, the "orbiting/spinning electron" picture gives surprisingly valid results. For instance, the magnetic moment of an electron can be easily calculated by assuming it is spinning (even though if this were the case, areas on the surface of the electron would be traveling faster than c!), and the orbital angular momentum of an electron about its nucleus (in the simple case of hydrogen) can likewise be simply calculated using an orbital picture. This was essentially the method Bohr used when he first proposed quantization of angular momentum in the atom and calculated it. Since hydrogen doesn't have any complex orbitals, the results were surprisingly good. It wasn't until more complex systems were examined that the "classical" picture of orbiting electrons really broke down.
On how far your station wagon is going. Since CERN and Caltech are, oh, approximately 10,000 miles apart, it would take your station wagon a good, long time to cover that distance, so I hope you have some dense media to make up for it.
It's hardly just to break the record. CERN will need that capacity when LHC goes online and begins to generate its petabytes of data that CERN needs to farm out to second- and third-tier computing centers.
Well, the LHC has many things it is supposed to find, extra dimensions among them. Honestly, I'm not terribly familiar with the Kaluza-Klein theory. Basic physical laws would still hold, so no energy could be created. Furthermore, in order to have the extra gravity at small dimensions, you first have to accelerate your particles enough so that they overcome any Coulombic (or strong force) repulsion, more than offsetting any gains you might get from gravitational potential. So nah, I don't think so.
Considering that Newton effectively invented calculus in order to solve problems, I would tend to think he could handle these things. Hell, I can, and I'm not even brilliant. Although having just worked through four pages of integration and still not having finished my quantum problem, I'm not thrilled about it.
Physicists can get hidebound, just like anyone. However, provided a physicist is willing to listen to a new concept, it's almost certain they'll grasp it. I never cease to be amazed at how much an older physicist knows.
Black holes can only be created at the LHC if extra (Kaluza-Klein) dimensions exist on the microscopic scale. It is gravity acting through these extra dimensions that will give the extra oomph needed to create black holes in a proton/proton collision. If Kaluza-Klein dimensions do not, in fact, exist, the LHC's center-of-mass energy is far too low to make even such small black holes.
First, let me give a vote to the TI-89. It served me well in a physics/computer science double major.
Second, though, let me recommend Mathematica or a similar mathematics package. Unless you're having to carry around your calculating power, a full-blown computer package is more powerful than your calculator can ever hope to be, and working with software like that will often give you further insights into problems. You can say "What if..." and do something funky like graph imaginary parts of a function on their own axes, letting you see how phase is affecting your results.
Just some thoughts!
Slashdot Mirror
Negative Ghostrider--Darl can't have my seat on the way to where no one has gone before! How about a one-way ticket straight to hell instead?
It reminds me of the Ultimate Ninja Power gig. Great post :)
Yes, we see it. But it's Christmas morning and this is Slashdot; no one is in his or her respective right mind.
I can't imagine why this HDD would be any different from other hard drives in terms of sensitivty to B fields just because of its size. All drives are, of course, sensitive in some degree to EM fields as they can cause the bits of material in the drive to flip spin, effectively garbling the data. But the big factor in sensitivy is areal density, I imagine, and judging by the capacity, the areal density of this drive can't be too high. That having been said, I haven't RTFA.
You might find Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose interesting. He basically uses Godel's theorem to show that consciousness is not Turing computable, hence not implementable on current hardware. And before anyone waves the quantum computing flag, Penrose also points out that the problem with understanding consciousness is that the physical effects like on the border of quantum and macroscopic measurements, one of the most poorly understood aspects of physics.
Yes, I'm familiar with Orion. But when you speak of "modern nuclear engines" I assumed you were speaking of existing technology. I certainly agree that nuclear rockets are a good idea, but the current designs floating around are a far cry from an Orion type vehicle. An NTR could lift a bit more than our current chemical rockets (~200 tons I believe) and do it much more efficiently. But I digress. If you really want to move tonnage into orbit, a space elevator is the way to go.
B) It's not that scientists aren't willing to take the next big leap. It's the sad fact that apparently we haven't developed sufficient telekinetic powers to assemble space probes with our minds. So, until we can manage that, how about lobby the people with the pursestrings, since it's the scientists with the dream but the buraeucrats with the money.
The same quantum effects that allow said quantum computer also allow for unbreakable encryption. If information is transmitted via quantum entangled pairs, any interception between source and receiver will cause the wavefunction to collapse and can be detected quite speedily on the receiving end of the transmission, at which point transmission will be cancelled and the feds called. There is no getting around this; a tapped line will be detected. So, while one could ostensibly understand the few bits of information one intercepted, it wouldn't do any good.
No one did, but you'd have really appreciated Mao's Cultural Revolution where intellectuals were rounded up and sent to brutal labor camps.
Mao: Let's see if you can think naughty thoughts... WHILE YOU'RE FROZEN IN CARBONITE!!! Mwa ha ha ha hah asdflh *cough rasp choke
While wrong, the "orbiting/spinning electron" picture gives surprisingly valid results. For instance, the magnetic moment of an electron can be easily calculated by assuming it is spinning (even though if this were the case, areas on the surface of the electron would be traveling faster than c!), and the orbital angular momentum of an electron about its nucleus (in the simple case of hydrogen) can likewise be simply calculated using an orbital picture. This was essentially the method Bohr used when he first proposed quantization of angular momentum in the atom and calculated it. Since hydrogen doesn't have any complex orbitals, the results were surprisingly good. It wasn't until more complex systems were examined that the "classical" picture of orbiting electrons really broke down.
On how far your station wagon is going. Since CERN and Caltech are, oh, approximately 10,000 miles apart, it would take your station wagon a good, long time to cover that distance, so I hope you have some dense media to make up for it.
It's hardly just to break the record. CERN will need that capacity when LHC goes online and begins to generate its petabytes of data that CERN needs to farm out to second- and third-tier computing centers.
I think they used my home directory :/
Easy, Trigger. Sense of humour? Or at the very least, enough apathy to not be incensed by trivial things?
Well, the LHC has many things it is supposed to find, extra dimensions among them. Honestly, I'm not terribly familiar with the Kaluza-Klein theory. Basic physical laws would still hold, so no energy could be created. Furthermore, in order to have the extra gravity at small dimensions, you first have to accelerate your particles enough so that they overcome any Coulombic (or strong force) repulsion, more than offsetting any gains you might get from gravitational potential. So nah, I don't think so.
You know, I get that all the time.
Considering that Newton effectively invented calculus in order to solve problems, I would tend to think he could handle these things. Hell, I can, and I'm not even brilliant. Although having just worked through four pages of integration and still not having finished my quantum problem, I'm not thrilled about it. Physicists can get hidebound, just like anyone. However, provided a physicist is willing to listen to a new concept, it's almost certain they'll grasp it. I never cease to be amazed at how much an older physicist knows.
SPOILERS Didn't you see T3? A particle accelerator saved the day! 5.76 TeV baby! Hello to any Summer Students who may be reading this.
Black holes can only be created at the LHC if extra (Kaluza-Klein) dimensions exist on the microscopic scale. It is gravity acting through these extra dimensions that will give the extra oomph needed to create black holes in a proton/proton collision. If Kaluza-Klein dimensions do not, in fact, exist, the LHC's center-of-mass energy is far too low to make even such small black holes.
Yes, I did miss that. My brain probably fritzed when he said he enjoyed RPN.
First, let me give a vote to the TI-89. It served me well in a physics/computer science double major. Second, though, let me recommend Mathematica or a similar mathematics package. Unless you're having to carry around your calculating power, a full-blown computer package is more powerful than your calculator can ever hope to be, and working with software like that will often give you further insights into problems. You can say "What if..." and do something funky like graph imaginary parts of a function on their own axes, letting you see how phase is affecting your results. Just some thoughts!