In particular I find a great number of Scandinavians take a large portion of August off work, every year as a matter of course. Both my customers and my suppliers, every year.
Writing code in Arabic would be fascinating. Code in a right-to-left natural language with the maths and logic in left-to-right would confuse me to death.
Yeah, but that (Linux pre-installation) doesn't happen. And the topic is why Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop, so the differences are relevant, even if they're not equal or fair.
Now, your point just extends the question to why Linux hasn't begun to be pre-installed on retail computers?
"anything with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light with an infinite amount of energy."
Except e = mc2 suggests that were you to do so the object being accelerated would acquire an infinite mass.
And would so consume the universe.
"Anything without mass has a maximum speed of the speed of light."
Also, anything without mass would have a minimum speed of the c. The slightest force it received would cause it accelerate at maximum (infinite) acceleration.
f = ma, so a = f/m, so possibly it would cause infinite acceleration, or cause a universal "division by zero" error.
I think it is one of the deepest questions of today:
1) if particles really do not have well defined properties until they're measured (i.e. they exist as a probabilistic waveform until they are measured and that waveform collapses to a definitive set of values) then yes, presumably the two entangled particles have communicated faster than light.
2) If however, the probability aspect of quantum physics represents the fact that we are still nowhere near the truth, and that our current theories are approximations, then all that is happening is just maths. The particles had a set of values from the beginning whether we measured them or not.
Answer 1) could be summarised as the Copenhagen Interpretation, and inevitability leads to the question of what constitutes a measurement? If a wave function doesn't collapse until measure then at what point does that happen? Human involvement? Machine measurement? Affecting other atoms? (if so, and other atoms are also waveforms until measured, then how does that work?)
"Why would it be impossible to entagle more than two particles and send two of them to a receiver and destroy the entaglement from the third at a time previusly decided upon to transfer information"
I don't think you've understood what entanglement means. I just means that a set number if particle have been created, and one of their properties (spin, mass, charge, etc.) must together add up to some know amount.
I.e. a charge +1 proton decays and spews out some particles, and these particle must add up to having +1 charge (so as to maintain conservation of charge).
You could have 3 entangled particles, no problem. But how could you transfer info with this?
If you have 2 entangled particles, you have particle a and your friend has particle b. You measure particle a and find it has charge 1/3. So you know that particle b must have charge 2/3 (to make +1). But your friend doesn't know this. And if they measure their particle they can't tell that you've measure yours. The only info you know is the charge of the other particle, but that doesn't allow you to transmit info to your friend.
Neither of you know if the other has measure their particle (even after you've measure yours).
None of this changes if you have three entangled particles.
If you have three entangled particles and send two of them to a detector, the owner of the third doesn't know anything about it. And if they measure theirs they could tell whether you sent yours to the detector or not.
(It is odd, this argument is getting nearly a hundred years old, since the EPR paper was put out)
I haven't ever read that a two slit type situation is applicable to an entangled particle pair. Entangled particles will exhibit interference patterns because all particle are also waves, I don't know that it's a function of them being entangled.
Also, if one particle was subject to a two-slit scenario, then the other could not possibly react with an interference situation in absence of its own pair of slits - what if both particles were going through two different pairs of slits at the same time, they would have two different mutually exclusive sets of diffraction and interference patterns.
Plus, all waves suffer diffraction and interference from other waves, so all particles would have the same by interacting with other particles - all particles are also waves after all - so it cannot be that an entangled particle adopts the wave interference of its partner unless both exist in a vacuum.
This whole conversation is based on a misunderstanding of entanglement.
Entanglement is where two (or more, but let's keep it at two) particles are created in such a way that a conservation law must be maintained - say for example a particle of spin 0 decays and emits two electrons, then these 2 electrons must have spin -1/2 and spin +1/2 (or something like that, I can't remember how conservation of angular momentum works in quantum physics, but the principle is there).
Anyway, you have two particles, whose spin must equal that of the parent particle to converse angular momentum.
So, if you measure one, you will by necessity know the spin of the other.
Quantum theory, at least in the controversial Copenhagen Interpretation, says that the particular spin values of a particle are not an inherent property of that particle, they instead are a function of its probabilistic (Schrodinger) wave function.
When you measure the particle (i.e. observer it) it then take on a spin value. To fulfil the conversation law, at the very same time the other (entangled) particle must adopt the relevant spin value that balances out.
It must take this balancing spin value immediately, even if the particles are many light years apart, otherwise there would be a creation or destruction of energy. This will happen instantly, i.e. faster than light.
So, the cliché about entanglement transmitting info is just that it tell the other particle which value to take on for one of its properties.
But, all you can do is measure the first particle. You cannot force it to have a certain spin. It will have whatever spin it is measured to have. So you cannot communicate any info. All you can do is measure you particle and know that its entangled partner will have a corresponding value.
And you can't tell that you other particle has been measured. If you measure your particle you cannot tell if you measured it first. You would get the same result if you measured it first or not.
So, entanglement does imply faster than light, but it does not allow any information to travel that we can use.
Hello, I'm a man who opposes totalitarianism. I suspect I oppose 'unity' too, but I need it to be defined.
I think you are making a serious point, so I ask if you could elaborate on your first sentence "Totalitarianism is a politically loaded synonym for 'Unity'". What does Unity mean in this context?
"The words "conservative" and "liberal" mean different things in different contexts"
One thing definitely to keep in mind, in Britain and most of Europe 'liberal' means a different thing than it does in America - It focuses on the John Stuart Mill version: it tends to mean a focus on individual liberty, freedom from state interference, 'that government governs best which governs least' type of thing..
Well, you've just made the decision for everyone that the only relevant source of truth is empirical observable scientific data.
Please take a crash course of philosophy from around 1500 onwards (with a brief detour via Plato) and then come back and justify your position. (also, please read some philosophy of science.. Popper, Kuhn, etc.)
Point 1 seems to be an issue of pure data. The only objections would be those about how it is measured.
Point 2 is just a statement, which is fine. It might be true or it might not be, but it hasn't been presented with any evidence, just as a statement.
Point 3 follows the same arguments as point 2.
For the sake of this debate let's assume point 1 is true, according to some universally accepted method of measuring average temperatures.
For the rest to be a proper scientific theory, in the typically accepted use of the term, it would need to mathematically model the observed data such that is can describe events in terms of the theory. It should then also make predictions about non-observed events, so that the theory can be proved not-completely-wrong.
The prediction thing is vital, because there are an almost infinite (x?) number of theories that can be invented that do describe the observable data, but not many that can predict new data. I can make up anything I want that can't be disproved (almost all of which would be complete nonsense - "evolution happens because a special magic in-detectable high-tec alien manipulates the DNA of every animal at birth to be every so slightly different from its parents in a way that appears to be consistent with natural selection": stupid, but not necessary possible to prove false) , but there are a very few number of theories I can invent that can make accurate predictions.
Ahh, please stop using this argument. The theory of gravity is wrong, in so far as it does not accurately describe observed data. This has been know for over a hundred years, and it has been replaced by the Theory of Relativity, which describes an entirely different model of what is happening.
We see an object moving towards the earth (or, more generally, any object moving towards any other without any obvious outside force). Newtons ToG says that the bodies exert invisible forces on eachother.
Einstein's ToR says that the space in which the object reside is warped by their mass and this causes the observed motion.
More modern explanations seem to hinge on some form of quantum force carrier, a Graviton, that mediation the energy transfer and causes the motion.
Each model has a different physical explanation, but all lead to the same observation that we see as "two object start moving towards eachother without any obvious outside interaction" that we call gravity.
If I jump off a roof I am sure I will fall to the ground and die. That doesn't tell me anything about the physical reasons for this.
The evolution thing is slightly different, as a lot of it seems to hinge of disputing the data, not the theory. If anti-evolutionists dispute the validity of fossils, carbon-14 dating, DNA mutation, etc. then the argument is not at the level of the theory, but rather the evidence that supports it.
Well given that the Law of Gravity is wrong, and has been superseded by the General Theory of Relativity, which is in itself probably wrong and needs replacing with something better, it does suggest that its status as a theory is correct.
Scientific theories present a model to explain observed data. They are valid in so far as they explain all known applicable data. If new data is found that voilates the theory then the theory needs replacing.
The general guiding principal is that a theory should also make testable predictions. Of central importance though, is that the predictions only go so far as to prove that the theory is now yet wrong, they can't (logically) prove that it is true.
This, incidentally, is were the theory of evolution has more difficulty than most, because the nature of the theory is such that it is hard for it to make too many predictions, which lends ammo to those who oppose it.
150 years ago, how much do you think it would have cost you to have a written discussion from the comfort of your own home with people from all over the world, as you're doing now?
Own a car?
Do you have a general expectation that can use electricity, running water, telephone and internet bandwidth pretty much wherever you are?
I think you're correct that people have much higher expectation nowadays than are realistic, but imagine a world without washing machine, vacuum cleaners, microwaves, computers, and then thin about living standards.
"As products get cheaper and cheaper, people at the lower end can afford less and less of them"
Which suggests that hiring contractors is more efficient for the company than hiring full time employees.
Like with all these issues the better solution is to address the reasons for the supply/demand imbalance, rather than just pass a law banning things. Why are companies preferring contractors, why are they not valuing FTEs, and what can be done to increase the demand for FTEs?
Can someone give me a useful definition of what a 'wealth' tax would mean? What would be taxed, at what rates? How often?
I get that an income tax applies to money a person receives, and a sales tax applies to goods and services they buy, and presumably a wealth tax is a tax on assets, but how are the assets values assessed and how is the tax applied?
Slashdot Mirror
In particular I find a great number of Scandinavians take a large portion of August off work, every year as a matter of course. Both my customers and my suppliers, every year.
...or how 'America' now usually means the United States of....
Writing code in Arabic would be fascinating. Code in a right-to-left natural language with the maths and logic in left-to-right would confuse me to death.
Who would pay it?
Yeah, but that (Linux pre-installation) doesn't happen. And the topic is why Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop, so the differences are relevant, even if they're not equal or fair.
Now, your point just extends the question to why Linux hasn't begun to be pre-installed on retail computers?
"anything with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light with an infinite amount of energy."
Except e = mc2 suggests that were you to do so the object being accelerated would acquire an infinite mass.
And would so consume the universe.
"Anything without mass has a maximum speed of the speed of light."
Also, anything without mass would have a minimum speed of the c. The slightest force it received would cause it accelerate at maximum (infinite) acceleration.
f = ma, so a = f/m, so possibly it would cause infinite acceleration, or cause a universal "division by zero" error.
I think it is one of the deepest questions of today:
1) if particles really do not have well defined properties until they're measured (i.e. they exist as a probabilistic waveform until they are measured and that waveform collapses to a definitive set of values) then yes, presumably the two entangled particles have communicated faster than light.
2) If however, the probability aspect of quantum physics represents the fact that we are still nowhere near the truth, and that our current theories are approximations, then all that is happening is just maths. The particles had a set of values from the beginning whether we measured them or not.
Answer 1) could be summarised as the Copenhagen Interpretation, and inevitability leads to the question of what constitutes a measurement? If a wave function doesn't collapse until measure then at what point does that happen? Human involvement? Machine measurement? Affecting other atoms? (if so, and other atoms are also waveforms until measured, then how does that work?)
"Why would it be impossible to entagle more than two particles and send two of them to a receiver and destroy the entaglement from the third at a time previusly decided upon to transfer information"
I don't think you've understood what entanglement means. I just means that a set number if particle have been created, and one of their properties (spin, mass, charge, etc.) must together add up to some know amount.
I.e. a charge +1 proton decays and spews out some particles, and these particle must add up to having +1 charge (so as to maintain conservation of charge).
You could have 3 entangled particles, no problem. But how could you transfer info with this?
If you have 2 entangled particles, you have particle a and your friend has particle b. You measure particle a and find it has charge 1/3. So you know that particle b must have charge 2/3 (to make +1). But your friend doesn't know this. And if they measure their particle they can't tell that you've measure yours. The only info you know is the charge of the other particle, but that doesn't allow you to transmit info to your friend.
Neither of you know if the other has measure their particle (even after you've measure yours).
None of this changes if you have three entangled particles.
If you have three entangled particles and send two of them to a detector, the owner of the third doesn't know anything about it. And if they measure theirs they could tell whether you sent yours to the detector or not.
(It is odd, this argument is getting nearly a hundred years old, since the EPR paper was put out)
I haven't ever read that a two slit type situation is applicable to an entangled particle pair. Entangled particles will exhibit interference patterns because all particle are also waves, I don't know that it's a function of them being entangled.
Also, if one particle was subject to a two-slit scenario, then the other could not possibly react with an interference situation in absence of its own pair of slits - what if both particles were going through two different pairs of slits at the same time, they would have two different mutually exclusive sets of diffraction and interference patterns.
Plus, all waves suffer diffraction and interference from other waves, so all particles would have the same by interacting with other particles - all particles are also waves after all - so it cannot be that an entangled particle adopts the wave interference of its partner unless both exist in a vacuum.
This whole conversation is based on a misunderstanding of entanglement.
Entanglement is where two (or more, but let's keep it at two) particles are created in such a way that a conservation law must be maintained - say for example a particle of spin 0 decays and emits two electrons, then these 2 electrons must have spin -1/2 and spin +1/2 (or something like that, I can't remember how conservation of angular momentum works in quantum physics, but the principle is there).
Anyway, you have two particles, whose spin must equal that of the parent particle to converse angular momentum.
So, if you measure one, you will by necessity know the spin of the other.
Quantum theory, at least in the controversial Copenhagen Interpretation, says that the particular spin values of a particle are not an inherent property of that particle, they instead are a function of its probabilistic (Schrodinger) wave function.
When you measure the particle (i.e. observer it) it then take on a spin value. To fulfil the conversation law, at the very same time the other (entangled) particle must adopt the relevant spin value that balances out.
It must take this balancing spin value immediately, even if the particles are many light years apart, otherwise there would be a creation or destruction of energy. This will happen instantly, i.e. faster than light.
So, the cliché about entanglement transmitting info is just that it tell the other particle which value to take on for one of its properties.
But, all you can do is measure the first particle. You cannot force it to have a certain spin. It will have whatever spin it is measured to have. So you cannot communicate any info. All you can do is measure you particle and know that its entangled partner will have a corresponding value.
And you can't tell that you other particle has been measured. If you measure your particle you cannot tell if you measured it first. You would get the same result if you measured it first or not.
So, entanglement does imply faster than light, but it does not allow any information to travel that we can use.
Hello, I'm a man who opposes totalitarianism. I suspect I oppose 'unity' too, but I need it to be defined.
I think you are making a serious point, so I ask if you could elaborate on your first sentence "Totalitarianism is a politically loaded synonym for 'Unity'". What does Unity mean in this context?
"The words "conservative" and "liberal" mean different things in different contexts"
One thing definitely to keep in mind, in Britain and most of Europe 'liberal' means a different thing than it does in America - It focuses on the John Stuart Mill version: it tends to mean a focus on individual liberty, freedom from state interference, 'that government governs best which governs least' type of thing..
Speaking as an evil white man, hmmm, sounds interesting.
If we're really being pedantic, it should be touché (with the acute accent on the final é)
Well, you've just made the decision for everyone that the only relevant source of truth is empirical observable scientific data.
Please take a crash course of philosophy from around 1500 onwards (with a brief detour via Plato) and then come back and justify your position. (also, please read some philosophy of science.. Popper, Kuhn, etc.)
Point 1 seems to be an issue of pure data. The only objections would be those about how it is measured.
Point 2 is just a statement, which is fine. It might be true or it might not be, but it hasn't been presented with any evidence, just as a statement.
Point 3 follows the same arguments as point 2.
For the sake of this debate let's assume point 1 is true, according to some universally accepted method of measuring average temperatures.
For the rest to be a proper scientific theory, in the typically accepted use of the term, it would need to mathematically model the observed data such that is can describe events in terms of the theory. It should then also make predictions about non-observed events, so that the theory can be proved not-completely-wrong.
The prediction thing is vital, because there are an almost infinite (x?) number of theories that can be invented that do describe the observable data, but not many that can predict new data. I can make up anything I want that can't be disproved (almost all of which would be complete nonsense - "evolution happens because a special magic in-detectable high-tec alien manipulates the DNA of every animal at birth to be every so slightly different from its parents in a way that appears to be consistent with natural selection": stupid, but not necessary possible to prove false) , but there are a very few number of theories I can invent that can make accurate predictions.
Ahh, please stop using this argument. The theory of gravity is wrong, in so far as it does not accurately describe observed data. This has been know for over a hundred years, and it has been replaced by the Theory of Relativity, which describes an entirely different model of what is happening.
We see an object moving towards the earth (or, more generally, any object moving towards any other without any obvious outside force). Newtons ToG says that the bodies exert invisible forces on eachother.
Einstein's ToR says that the space in which the object reside is warped by their mass and this causes the observed motion.
More modern explanations seem to hinge on some form of quantum force carrier, a Graviton, that mediation the energy transfer and causes the motion.
Each model has a different physical explanation, but all lead to the same observation that we see as "two object start moving towards eachother without any obvious outside interaction" that we call gravity.
If I jump off a roof I am sure I will fall to the ground and die. That doesn't tell me anything about the physical reasons for this.
The evolution thing is slightly different, as a lot of it seems to hinge of disputing the data, not the theory. If anti-evolutionists dispute the validity of fossils, carbon-14 dating, DNA mutation, etc. then the argument is not at the level of the theory, but rather the evidence that supports it.
Well given that the Law of Gravity is wrong, and has been superseded by the General Theory of Relativity, which is in itself probably wrong and needs replacing with something better, it does suggest that its status as a theory is correct.
Scientific theories present a model to explain observed data. They are valid in so far as they explain all known applicable data. If new data is found that voilates the theory then the theory needs replacing.
The general guiding principal is that a theory should also make testable predictions. Of central importance though, is that the predictions only go so far as to prove that the theory is now yet wrong, they can't (logically) prove that it is true.
This, incidentally, is were the theory of evolution has more difficulty than most, because the nature of the theory is such that it is hard for it to make too many predictions, which lends ammo to those who oppose it.
a) why don't you post from a username, so we can engage in proper discourse.
b) "I would expect, that ... a higher probability of picking profitable investments" - why?
150 years ago, how much do you think it would have cost you to have a written discussion from the comfort of your own home with people from all over the world, as you're doing now?
Own a car?
Do you have a general expectation that can use electricity, running water, telephone and internet bandwidth pretty much wherever you are?
I think you're correct that people have much higher expectation nowadays than are realistic, but imagine a world without washing machine, vacuum cleaners, microwaves, computers, and then thin about living standards.
"As products get cheaper and cheaper, people at the lower end can afford less and less of them"
This is logically inconsistent.
So the owner of café employing 3 people is a 1-percenter? And you think a 4 person café spend 50%+ of its outgoings on marketing?
Which suggests that hiring contractors is more efficient for the company than hiring full time employees.
Like with all these issues the better solution is to address the reasons for the supply/demand imbalance, rather than just pass a law banning things. Why are companies preferring contractors, why are they not valuing FTEs, and what can be done to increase the demand for FTEs?
So what if the users are less competent, doesn't make the software any worse just cos its used by less competent people.
Surely, half of all people are of average intelligence or below, otherwise "average intelligence" needs re-defining.
Can someone give me a useful definition of what a 'wealth' tax would mean? What would be taxed, at what rates? How often?
I get that an income tax applies to money a person receives, and a sales tax applies to goods and services they buy, and presumably a wealth tax is a tax on assets, but how are the assets values assessed and how is the tax applied?