The alternative was to treat the wave function as a purely mathematical object, and to interpret it purely in that way.
The difficulty here is what happens when you measure the position/momentum of an object? Does the wave function "collapse" to a point? What happens after you measure? Does it become a wave function again? What?
If the quantum spectral representation or orbitals something real, or is it just a mathematical convention analogous to Fourier series, or decimal digits? Should we see an electron as something like 0.333333333... or 1/3? This study suggests that we should see the wavefunction as we see 1/3, and not as the collection of place value numerals which we see in 0.33333....
Like, you give your dog up, they promise to find it a new home, they drive off, they euthanize it while driving, dump it in a a fast food restaurant's dumpster, then drive to the next pickup.
Who gives their dog up to people in a pick up van and expects it to somehow just "find" a happy home. It sounds to me like PETA are just providing a hand washing service to irresponsible owners.
Those terms describe the great ideological and political conflicts of the last century. They are essentially not as important today, just as the rhetoric of the French Revolution became less important in the 20th century.
Our society hasn't yet collectively come up with terms, words, and theories to describe the problems we face today. However, such blind graspings at older terms reflect a real desire on the part of the public to name and describe what is actually going on.
The main difference between the Soviet Union and the US was that the US (at the time) was an improving country, whereas the SU was content to stand still or even decline.
The main difference between the US and China today is that the China is an improving country, whereas the US is content to stand still or even decline.
The Soviet Union eventually became so rotten and decayed that it collapsed from within.
If the problem is no corresponding disincentive for failure, it doesn't make sense to remove the incentive for success.
Instead, should unwarranted bonuses be given that later turn out to be fraudulent, the bonuses should be clawed back.
You are implying a fallacy here. How can someone be rewarded for a success, if that success is later revealed to be a failure. The root cause of much (all?) of the financial crisis was that people were being encouraged, financially, to make trades that would cause their firms to fail.
It is pointless(and futile) to try to claw back the bonuses after the damage has already been done. You have to prevent damage in the first place, and that means not incentivising people to cause it.
You cannot even hope to get credit in the science/history books unless you happened to be at the top of the pile at the time, with powerful friends to validate you as the "discoverer".
Actually, the Fukushima Accident has shattered the credibility of nuclear power more than any of us could ever do, so we'll just let the details speak for themselves.
These past few years have been the zenith of Chinese civilization.
They have been a zenith for the Chinese economy. As for Chinese civilisation, after what happened recently to a small girl in Guangdong, many Chinese people believe that has reached its nadir.
If your institution is not properly supporting your ability to do research by providing you with sufficient library access you should probably find out what they are doing with all the grant money that you give them.
Actually, they spend quite a lot of it on access to papers. The trouble is that they cannot possibly afford complete access to all papers, which, in the digital age they should reasonably have.
The only barrier to universal, free access to academic papers for all citizens, is the copyrights granted to academic publishers. These barriers serve only to generate private profit and are thus not in the public interest. As such, the public should withdraw these copyright privileges immediately.
As an academic researcher beset by paywalls, I am downloading this entire collection at the earliest opportunity. As a professional, I need free and open access to knowledge in order to do my job effectively.
Content producers can argue about threats to their livelihoods. Well, this is about my livelihood; and moreover the ability of my society to improve itself through scientific and technological development. You can depreciate my agitation if you like, but I am not going to sit around wasting time waiting for the system to change on its own, and neither should society.
If the profit motive and existing copyright regime restricts access to information, then I see no difference between it and the censorship systems of the old Soviet Union and modern China. As such I see no reason to abide by it, and every reason to circumvent it. Ironically, as those countries now do not currently respect copyrights, researchers there have better access to journal articles, books, and material now than I have ever enjoyed in my entire life (Plus ca change..?). My actions merely put me on the same level as people living in totalitarian states.
I'm looking forward to reading historical and seminal papers from the past, and I hope they will benefit my future contributions to the literature. I would encourage and implore others who have access to similar archives to make them freely available to the public at the earliest opportunity. Mankind as a whole will benefit from your altruism.
Given the current state of the world, I estimate 50 years in space tops before humanity, say, sends mercury or the moon hurtling headlong into the sun.
Slashdot Mirror
The alternative was to treat the wave function as a purely mathematical object, and to interpret it purely in that way.
The difficulty here is what happens when you measure the position/momentum of an object? Does the wave function "collapse" to a point? What happens after you measure? Does it become a wave function again? What?
If the quantum spectral representation or orbitals something real, or is it just a mathematical convention analogous to Fourier series, or decimal digits? Should we see an electron as something like 0.333333333... or 1/3? This study suggests that we should see the wavefunction as we see 1/3, and not as the collection of place value numerals which we see in 0.33333....
Who gives their dog up to people in a pick up van and expects it to somehow just "find" a happy home. It sounds to me like PETA are just providing a hand washing service to irresponsible owners.
So all we need to do is make every place someones property and we'll be able to take away the right to protest too.
Those terms describe the great ideological and political conflicts of the last century. They are essentially not as important today, just as the rhetoric of the French Revolution became less important in the 20th century.
Our society hasn't yet collectively come up with terms, words, and theories to describe the problems we face today. However, such blind graspings at older terms reflect a real desire on the part of the public to name and describe what is actually going on.
Lets try rephrasing that.
The main difference between the Soviet Union and the US was that the US (at the time) was an improving country, whereas the SU was content to stand still or even decline.
The main difference between the US and China today is that the China is an improving country, whereas the US is content to stand still or even decline.
The Soviet Union eventually became so rotten and decayed that it collapsed from within.
Because most Americans are actually pretty OK with everything he did and don't actually consider it as wrong.
Correction:
apt > yum
dpkg > rpm
Edit an ini file?! In 2011?
And people wonder why consoles are on the rise.
You are implying a fallacy here. How can someone be rewarded for a success, if that success is later revealed to be a failure. The root cause of much (all?) of the financial crisis was that people were being encouraged, financially, to make trades that would cause their firms to fail.
It is pointless(and futile) to try to claw back the bonuses after the damage has already been done. You have to prevent damage in the first place, and that means not incentivising people to cause it.
Bonus have to go.
Yes, but they won't upset it systemically in the way they do now.
Counterexample: Niels Henrik Abel.
Killer bees, Lazlow...
I don't know. I mean, how much faith can you have in the justice system after you've been beaten by a judge in your own home?
Actually, the Fukushima Accident has shattered the credibility of nuclear power more than any of us could ever do, so we'll just let the details speak for themselves.
Supervolcano? Is this like one of those... what did they used to call 'em,... caldera's?
They have been a zenith for the Chinese economy. As for Chinese civilisation, after what happened recently to a small girl in Guangdong, many Chinese people believe that has reached its nadir.
Here's a good article by a senior theologian outlining the parallels between modern "free market" economics and religion.
The article was written in 1999.
Actually, they spend quite a lot of it on access to papers. The trouble is that they cannot possibly afford complete access to all papers, which, in the digital age they should reasonably have.
The only barrier to universal, free access to academic papers for all citizens, is the copyrights granted to academic publishers. These barriers serve only to generate private profit and are thus not in the public interest. As such, the public should withdraw these copyright privileges immediately.
As an academic researcher beset by paywalls, I am downloading this entire collection at the earliest opportunity. As a professional, I need free and open access to knowledge in order to do my job effectively.
Content producers can argue about threats to their livelihoods. Well, this is about my livelihood; and moreover the ability of my society to improve itself through scientific and technological development. You can depreciate my agitation if you like, but I am not going to sit around wasting time waiting for the system to change on its own, and neither should society.
If the profit motive and existing copyright regime restricts access to information, then I see no difference between it and the censorship systems of the old Soviet Union and modern China. As such I see no reason to abide by it, and every reason to circumvent it. Ironically, as those countries now do not currently respect copyrights, researchers there have better access to journal articles, books, and material now than I have ever enjoyed in my entire life (Plus ca change..?). My actions merely put me on the same level as people living in totalitarian states.
I'm looking forward to reading historical and seminal papers from the past, and I hope they will benefit my future contributions to the literature. I would encourage and implore others who have access to similar archives to make them freely available to the public at the earliest opportunity. Mankind as a whole will benefit from your altruism.
Absolutely. After all, just look at what the free market has done for our banking system.
Millions of people pay $15 a month to do that. It's a business model.
Given the current state of the world, I estimate 50 years in space tops before humanity, say, sends mercury or the moon hurtling headlong into the sun.
While I think their attitude towards women is disgraceful, it's clear that these men have future in banking.
There is no Market. There is only a generation of car salesmen, making a complete mess of everything they administrate.
Declare bankruptcy. Remain as a ward of the court for ~3 years. Emerge without your degree and qualifications and without crippling levels of debt.
Think of it as further study in the field of debt dynamics.