Sure, let's be pragmatic. The permanent copyright argument is a strawman.
And so is the "artists should be paid" argument. If I buy a CD from a major I don't effectively support the artist. So if you want to support people that profit on the work from real artists just because they have a quasi monopoly on distribution, do it.
Never claim it's for the artists, though. You know it's not true.
For the record, I have bought self-prouced CDs and from Magnatune. I know the artist will get paid.
Except that you're totally incorrect. Let's now replace the word Content (and replace "Services" again in that definition):
It should be clear that we have to replace the word "the"! Like this:
7.3 Google reserves Google's products, software, services and web sites right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service. For some of Service, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include Google's products, software, services and web sites SafeSearch preference settings (see google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.
If that doesn't make it clear that Google lawyer have terrible grammar, I don't know what will.
It's hard to deny that allowing them to do so would make for great fun.
Why didn't you allow them then?
All you have said is "because it's absurd", "because it's absurd", "because it's absurd". Care to backup you ideas with something more than this? Mentioning the current scaremongers and calling it a day, are we?
What if they suggested *UN* control the elections (which is what they probably did)?
The simple answer is that 2H + 2H --> 4He doesn't happen.
Maybe this experiment means that It actually happens. If this phenomenon is confirmed, it seems a good reason to change relevant wikipedia articles on the subject. You seem to think the contrary. It is not how science is supposed to work.
All correct, except that in Italy we have Civil Law, instead of Common Law. We do not change the laws by court decision, and the concept of precedent has no meaning. So the only way to change this is by approving a new law correcting the first.
But this is not even civil disobedience, he was calling for law enforcement instead. Which makes the whole issue quite grotesque, as it should have been a lot more straightforward than Rosa Parks' fight...
Yes, but not in the sense he states. Simply the first measurement has changed the state of the second particle, so that he simply cannot do what he wants to the second particle.
Moreover the frst measurement has destroyed the entanglement completely (a property of entanglement he does not know of perhaps? or maybe he knows and that's why he does not point out that the first measurement consumes the entanglement), so the two particles are now uncorrelated, and the second result has no bearings on the first.
no, you could not. measurement B will collapse wave A instead, destroying entanglement.
Then result of A will be either casual or fixed depending on how the actual measurement is done. Which the guy did not describe in a physically complete manner.
If the experiment is the following (I guess, the guy's lacking in description) then the results are simple.
double slit is placed on path B reachable in t second after slit. double slit on A path, reachable in T>t time after split.
All the slits are small with respect to the wave length of the photon (depends on frequency) and a screen is placed after the B one so that double slit makes photons interfere. After double slit A the distance can or cannot allow for inteference. This is decided at time \tau > t, \tau T.
If this is the pattern, the observed results are that in B he will see interference, in A he will see interference or not depending on whether he did allow for it or not.
This is why:
The single photon travelling in B is projected in screen B on one position at time t. The probability distribution for it on screen B is the one with interference. At the same time the corresponding photon in A is projected in the symmetrical position (to be simple, actually it is projected in the position it should have been in if it was to end in the symmetrical position after a symmetrical double slit).
Then it starts again to spread with the usual diffusion constant depending on mass. when it arrives at the slit A either it will have spread enough to make self interference, or not (depending on the difference T-t).
In the first case it will or will not do interference based on where the screen A is actually placed.
In the second case it won't do interference, but it will probably not even get to the screen, as it will not be spread enough and the probability of it pointing to one of the slits is actually small (and it depends on the probability of the first particle to have interacted in a suitable position on screen B).
This is a quick prevision a physicist can get from the incomplete description of the experiment. Not so astonishing result, is it?
The wrong points are so many, I will name just a few.
The idea that photons (and electrons) are both waves and particles have nothing to do with quantum entanglement.
The "being a particle or a wave" property is not a physically observable one. It's not like spin, position or momentum.
All photons are waves. period. They can be counted due to indetermination principle, which provides that the electromagnetic field moves around orbits in the configuration space that are quantized. This has nothing to do with slits.
Moreover every "particle" is just a field which evolves like a wave. The particle-like behaviour comes in some particular conditions, under which the field has a compact spike in one position and is quite absent in any other position. This provides that it can be seen as a single point moving.
Still its equations are those of a wave.
Saying "a superposition of it being a particle or a wave" is just like saying that we can choose whether it will follow Galilei's or Einstein's relativity. It will follow Einstein's. In some cases it will seem it is following Galilei's, it is still following Einstein's.
This is nothing but a sign of how badly the experiment is explained. Yet it gives some suspects.
To confirm that this is not science I could point out that even if he will use spin (a much simpler and precise measure, and it is even a proper observable) he will demonstrate nothing.
Or that no energy transport will happen, so it's not really violation of causality.
Or that the two photons start together so that they interacted while causality violation require they did not.
Or that he will not be able to choose which result to get from signal A after signal B will be measured, so no paradox is involved (RTFA for definitions).
Or that he failed to provide calculations of how this thing works. Physics is not done with buzzwords. That's interpretation. You can't do physics by reading divulgative works nor understand how it really works. A good divulgative work explains nothing but the thing it speaks of and cannot be used as a source for experiments. Nothing can be logically deduced from buzzwords. E.g. the "ball over cloth" explaination of general relativity does not suggest that you can "cut the cloth". This guy is doing this kind of things.
Instead I will just point out one of the first lines in the article: "thanks in part to tens of thousands of dollars in contributions sent in by his fans".
AFAY DNA testing is made against 13 well identified DNA sequences with low rate of corruption. It is done on DNA from two individuals, to see if they can belong to the same genetic tree.
Given that at each generation each sequence has 50% probability to be passed on, in n generations the probability of having at least one original gene is 1-(1-2^-n)^13.
If I am not wrong, this gives 34% probability of having 1 gene left after 5 generations; in 10 generations it's about 1%.
I strongly laughed when a biologist friend told me this, just after seeing Da Vinci Code...
OTOH maybe we are not talking of the same test, the article doesn't explain.
I agree. But I find hard to justify this point of view. If one thinks that the earth is 15000-years old, I wouldn't think of him as a good geologist, and I'd not want my house to be built following his advices.
there's a time to stop questioning without good evidence... Hard to say what could be good evidence, I admit.
Toolkits (both for GUI and other tasks) are very often ported to Windows, think of Qt. There are just few problems.
1) not everyone uses them. If they did everything would be highly portable.
2) non-portable application (i.e. not using tk / without custom ports) are more often Windows-only than the contrary. Not always, just mostly.
3) last and worst (I think): Microsoft pushes heavily for non-portable software, especially with its own software.
Summing up, I think standard application interface is there, it just have to be used (which you probably meant for "commonly accepted"), but there is people working against this.
BTW, DirectX is not a standard application interface. It just works with windows, XboX and XboX360.
There's also the inverse procedure: everyone thinks something is obvious then comes One that says "it is not!" then patents it, despite the fact that he did not invent it and it is common practice or technology.
Quindi come puoi capire non sono laureato in informazione quantistica, ma in fisica teorica e la tesi era di informazione quantistica... Troppo lungo da spiegare!:P
ciao!
There's no easy way of understanding what really happens when you apply local operations to an entangled state, because - as QM says - the state of that one single particle is not correctly described by just its local observables.
I mean that while the photons are entangled, there's no such concept as "polarization" for the single one, as it can depend from the other one's. For any of the particles the state is randomly chosen 50% left 50% right (or colors, or spins), and so it is for anyone which looks at only one, if you can observe the two you see that one is always opposite to the other.
The simple answer to the question is no, anyway. Local operation are local only and they cannot change anything but the correlation of the experiment's result. I know I'm not so clear, I'll try an example:
In the colored ball experiment you say that you look at ball one if it is black then you change its color to red, if its white you change it to blue. You can now clearly correlate its being blue or red to the other one being black or white. This is not an ACTUAL example of how it works, for it is classical. It should give an idea, though.
Last thing: as you said "looking" screws things up: measurement destroys entanglement.
As many readers have said you cannot fix the color (or polarization) to be communicated, because you cannot look at it and anyway cannot change it for the other particle
I actually graduated in quantum information, this is no news and it is wrong.
I explain my opinion:
- Entanglement has been observed, pairs of fotons and spin of electrons can be correlated in a manner impossible to describe in classical physics.
- The experiment described does not even measure entanglement, as you could achieve the same result classically:
Say I have a black ball and a white ball, I put one at random in a closed box, the other one in another box. Say the boxes are put 1000 miles away from each other, from the content of one of the boxes I can predict which ball is in the other one, as I can check later.
The point is that they are not choosing in which state (of polarization) the light will be in the moment they measure the first time. So they aren't going to send any message ever this way. To do it they would require a classical channel wich works as we expect...
For the proof of entanglement one must implement physically the Bell's system or the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger one (I have no link), and SURPRISE! it has already been done.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, let's be pragmatic. The permanent copyright argument is a strawman.
And so is the "artists should be paid" argument. If I buy a CD from a major I don't effectively support the artist. So if you want to support people that profit on the work from real artists just because they have a quasi monopoly on distribution, do it.
Never claim it's for the artists, though. You know it's not true.
For the record, I have bought self-prouced CDs and from Magnatune. I know the artist will get paid.
And now to replace the word "Service"
...
Except that you're totally incorrect. Let's now replace the word Content (and replace "Services" again in that definition):
It should be clear that we have to replace the word "the"! Like this:
7.3 Google reserves Google's products, software, services and web sites right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service. For some of Service, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include Google's products, software, services and web sites SafeSearch preference settings (see google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.
If that doesn't make it clear that Google lawyer have terrible grammar, I don't know what will.
It's hard to deny that allowing them to do so would make for great fun.
Why didn't you allow them then?
All you have said is "because it's absurd", "because it's absurd", "because it's absurd". Care to backup you ideas with something more than this? Mentioning the current scaremongers and calling it a day, are we?
What if they suggested *UN* control the elections (which is what they probably did)?
The simple answer is that 2H + 2H --> 4He doesn't happen.
Maybe this experiment means that It actually happens. If this phenomenon is confirmed, it seems a good reason to change relevant wikipedia articles on the subject. You seem to think the contrary. It is not how science is supposed to work.
All correct, except that in Italy we have Civil Law, instead of Common Law. We do not change the laws by court decision, and the concept of precedent has no meaning. So the only way to change this is by approving a new law correcting the first.
With Stallman only it would have never started either.
Nothing more stupid than following blindly someone, which is what brings together you and the OP. Much more stupid if you are talking about Freedom.
Imagine you buy a car, then Pirate Bay sues Big Media for harassing their site systematically with the help of mercenary hackers.
Phew, it was easy...
Much more clear now, don't you think so?
You didn't read the announcement, did you? It says that it only works with Internet Explorer.
True, you should at least tell him which one you are.
Because he wanted to keep what he bought, and not need to rebuy it somewhere else, maybe?
But this is not even civil disobedience, he was calling for law enforcement instead. Which makes the whole issue quite grotesque, as it should have been a lot more straightforward than Rosa Parks' fight...
Yes, but not in the sense he states. Simply the first measurement has changed the state of the second particle, so that he simply cannot do what he wants to the second particle.
Moreover the frst measurement has destroyed the entanglement completely (a property of entanglement he does not know of perhaps? or maybe he knows and that's why he does not point out that the first measurement consumes the entanglement), so the two particles are now uncorrelated, and the second result has no bearings on the first.
no, you could not. measurement B will collapse wave A instead, destroying entanglement.
Then result of A will be either casual or fixed depending on how the actual measurement is done. Which the guy did not describe in a physically complete manner.
If the experiment is the following (I guess, the guy's lacking in description) then the results are simple.
double slit is placed on path B reachable in t second after slit. double slit on A path, reachable in T>t time after split.
All the slits are small with respect to the wave length of the photon (depends on frequency) and a screen is placed after the B one so that double slit makes photons interfere. After double slit A the distance can or cannot allow for inteference. This is decided at time \tau > t, \tau T.
If this is the pattern, the observed results are that in B he will see interference, in A he will see interference or not depending on whether he did allow for it or not.
This is why:
The single photon travelling in B is projected in screen B on one position at time t. The probability distribution for it on screen B is the one with interference. At the same time the corresponding photon in A is projected in the symmetrical position (to be simple, actually it is projected in the position it should have been in if it was to end in the symmetrical position after a symmetrical double slit).
Then it starts again to spread with the usual diffusion constant depending on mass. when it arrives at the slit A either it will have spread enough to make self interference, or not (depending on the difference T-t).
In the first case it will or will not do interference based on where the screen A is actually placed.
In the second case it won't do interference, but it will probably not even get to the screen, as it will not be spread enough and the probability of it pointing to one of the slits is actually small (and it depends on the probability of the first particle to have interacted in a suitable position on screen B).
This is a quick prevision a physicist can get from the incomplete description of the experiment. Not so astonishing result, is it?
The wrong points are so many, I will name just a few.
The idea that photons (and electrons) are both waves and particles have nothing to do with quantum entanglement.
The "being a particle or a wave" property is not a physically observable one. It's not like spin, position or momentum.
All photons are waves. period. They can be counted due to indetermination principle, which provides that the electromagnetic field moves around orbits in the configuration space that are quantized. This has nothing to do with slits.
Moreover every "particle" is just a field which evolves like a wave. The particle-like behaviour comes in some particular conditions, under which the field has a compact spike in one position and is quite absent in any other position. This provides that it can be seen as a single point moving.
Still its equations are those of a wave.
Saying "a superposition of it being a particle or a wave" is just like saying that we can choose whether it will follow Galilei's or Einstein's relativity. It will follow Einstein's. In some cases it will seem it is following Galilei's, it is still following Einstein's.
This is nothing but a sign of how badly the experiment is explained. Yet it gives some suspects.
To confirm that this is not science I could point out that even if he will use spin (a much simpler and precise measure, and it is even a proper observable) he will demonstrate nothing.
Or that no energy transport will happen, so it's not really violation of causality.
Or that the two photons start together so that they interacted while causality violation require they did not.
Or that he will not be able to choose which result to get from signal A after signal B will be measured, so no paradox is involved (RTFA for definitions).
Or that he failed to provide calculations of how this thing works. Physics is not done with buzzwords. That's interpretation. You can't do physics by reading divulgative works nor understand how it really works. A good divulgative work explains nothing but the thing it speaks of and cannot be used as a source for experiments. Nothing can be logically deduced from buzzwords. E.g. the "ball over cloth" explaination of general relativity does not suggest that you can "cut the cloth". This guy is doing this kind of things.
Instead I will just point out one of the first lines in the article: "thanks in part to tens of thousands of dollars in contributions sent in by his fans".
People, please...
AFAY DNA testing is made against 13 well identified DNA sequences with low rate of corruption. It is done on DNA from two individuals, to see if they can belong to the same genetic tree.
Given that at each generation each sequence has 50% probability to be passed on, in n generations the probability of having at least one original gene is 1-(1-2^-n)^13.
If I am not wrong, this gives 34% probability of having 1 gene left after 5 generations; in 10 generations it's about 1%.
I strongly laughed when a biologist friend told me this, just after seeing Da Vinci Code...
OTOH maybe we are not talking of the same test, the article doesn't explain.
I agree. But I find hard to justify this point of view. If one thinks that the earth is 15000-years old, I wouldn't think of him as a good geologist, and I'd not want my house to be built following his advices.
there's a time to stop questioning without good evidence... Hard to say what could be good evidence, I admit.
Windows supports POSIX: look here.
In any case you have a point in that Microsoft does not really encourages programming for POSIX-compliant OSs, but just for Windows.
Toolkits (both for GUI and other tasks) are very often ported to Windows, think of Qt. There are just few problems.
1) not everyone uses them. If they did everything would be highly portable.
2) non-portable application (i.e. not using tk / without custom ports) are more often Windows-only than the contrary. Not always, just mostly.
3) last and worst (I think): Microsoft pushes heavily for non-portable software, especially with its own software.
Summing up, I think standard application interface is there, it just have to be used (which you probably meant for "commonly accepted"), but there is people working against this.
BTW, DirectX is not a standard application interface. It just works with windows, XboX and XboX360.
There's also the inverse procedure: everyone thinks something is obvious then comes One that says "it is not!" then patents it, despite the fact that he did not invent it and it is common practice or technology.
Am I the only one who remembers an attemp to patent the wheel?
Or Microsoft patenting desktop pager and XML?Most patents do not even come from the guy that invented the technology, funded research, or at least used it!
Quindi come puoi capire non sono laureato in informazione quantistica, ma in fisica teorica e la tesi era di informazione quantistica... Troppo lungo da spiegare! :P
ciao!
Before the simple answer there is one disclaimer.
There's no easy way of understanding what really happens when you apply local operations to an entangled state, because - as QM says - the state of that one single particle is not correctly described by just its local observables.
I mean that while the photons are entangled, there's no such concept as "polarization" for the single one, as it can depend from the other one's. For any of the particles the state is randomly chosen 50% left 50% right (or colors, or spins), and so it is for anyone which looks at only one, if you can observe the two you see that one is always opposite to the other.
The simple answer to the question is no, anyway. Local operation are local only and they cannot change anything but the correlation of the experiment's result. I know I'm not so clear, I'll try an example:
In the colored ball experiment you say that you look at ball one if it is black then you change its color to red, if its white you change it to blue. You can now clearly correlate its being blue or red to the other one being black or white. This is not an ACTUAL example of how it works, for it is classical. It should give an idea, though.
Last thing: as you said "looking" screws things up: measurement destroys entanglement.
As many readers have said you cannot fix the color (or polarization) to be communicated, because you cannot look at it and anyway cannot change it for the other particle
I am italian as you correctly guessed
I actually graduated in quantum information, this is no news and it is wrong.
I explain my opinion:
- Entanglement has been observed, pairs of fotons and spin of electrons can be correlated in a manner impossible to describe in classical physics.
- The experiment described does not even measure entanglement, as you could achieve the same result classically:
Say I have a black ball and a white ball, I put one at random in a closed box, the other one in another box. Say the boxes are put 1000 miles away from each other, from the content of one of the boxes I can predict which ball is in the other one, as I can check later.
The point is that they are not choosing in which state (of polarization) the light will be in the moment they measure the first time. So they aren't going to send any message ever this way. To do it they would require a classical channel wich works as we expect...
For the proof of entanglement one must implement physically the Bell's system or the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger one (I have no link), and SURPRISE! it has already been done.
What's the use of relying on a site been taken down?
You should patch your software in any case, otherwise the exploit still works if it is put somewhere else.