Perpetual motion, FTL communications and FTL transportation, time travel, cold fusion, anti-gravity and artificial gravity would all have tremendous implications and be hugely profitable to whoever invents them.
Scientists have ZERO motivation to pretend they're impossible if they are, indeed, possible. Indeed, some scientists are even working on research that may potentially lead to their discovery.
But I'll repeat this again, to be clear: All anyone has to do, to prove that they are possible, is to produce a working, repeatable demonstration. With QE if you want but you have to transmit *real information* and it has to be recoverable in FTL time. Think you can do that? Without those pesky theories of physics to get in your way?
They've been trying to make perpetual motion work for thousands of years.
At one time they thought the sound barrier was impenetrable too!
Dude, STUDY the material, don't just cherrypick to support your faith in the impossible.
QE *cannot* be used to transmit information faster than light; even the paper you cite admits this. Even QT requires conventional transmission of data.
If you look at the quantum state of a particle as the sum result of actions that have been performed on it, it's no different than a man becoming a father the instant his wife has a baby even if he's five light years away.
No, not everything that can be discovered has already been discovered. But some things, get this, *actually have*.
For example. We KNOW you cannot just keep accelerating and eventually get past the speed of light. We KNOW QE cannot be used for FTL communications.
We do not know anything, presently, that can achieve faster-than-light communications or travel, and physics does not preclude it. As I said before, the moment researchers discover something that does achieve *true* faster-than-light communication or travel is the moment we should start taking it seriously.
It's not as if it's an imminent technology that BIG SCIENCE is standing in the way of. If it is ever discovered, science and *real* physics are going to be what get us there.
Journal: Theoretical and Experimental Chemistry Article title: Effect of nonvalence interactions on the orientation of the phenyl ring at the tricoordinated phosphorus atom Article date: 28 December 1981
You'll notice I said don't appear to exist, not don't exist.
I do agree that carrier particles are the most parsimonious theory available. But that doesn't change the fact that nobody has yet observed gravitons. Until then they remain a hypothetical particle.
Also, general relativity does not preclude all superluminal travel, just the possibility of achieving it by continuously applying more and more speed.
GR is not at all difficult to grasp once you can train your mind to think in four dimensions. As it turns out, c is the rate at which *everything* (yes, everything) travels; "slower" and "faster" are actually relative angles in spacetime. With this in mind, going "faster" is mathematically silly.
The second scientists publish verifiable results of achieving superluminal speeds, or artificially producing gravitational fields, or discovering objects with negative mass, is the second I will grant plausibility to what is currently the stuff of science fiction.
You do realize the continued use of an "incomplete" theory like this is getting in the way of things like interstellar travel and artificial gravity.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that accelerating past the speed of light is impossible, or that gravitons and exotic matter do not, in fact, appear to exist...
Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the
on
R.I.P Usenet: 1980-2008
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Wouldn't using quantum computing in the AI field more closely simulate actual physical brains (strong-AI) then modern processors that only have 2 values?
A neuron has only two "values" -- signal or don't. Damn primitive technology...
That's great if you want programmers with absolutely zero insight into the code they're asked to write. So many managers complain that they ask their developers to do a "simple task" and it doesn't get done because the developers get "uppity". Get a clue. We wouldn't be "uppity" if the task you were asking us to perform truly were simple. Usually what you are asking us to do is impossible, impractical, will probably break something you previously asked us to do, or is vague and we need more information. But you don't want to be bothered with pesky details. No, developers that hate their jobs so much that they'll churn out shitty code without a word are a stronger asset than developers that will alert you to potential problems with their "emotional/philosophical bullshit".
Look, programming simply isn't assembly-line work, and managers like you just don't get that. It takes insight, wisdom, planning, years of experience, and a love of the craft to code well. It's NOT a nose-to-the-grindstone, clock-in-clock-out, don't-disturb-the-water skill, or they'd have built robots to do it already.
Three crazy people set up a bizarre love triangle/business. One murders his wife, the second kills eight others and maybe a ninth, and the third is dead. Who is the more guilty?
Slashdot Mirror
"Now there's a wave of destruction that's easy on the eyes!"
How good will he be about responding to comments?
As if you needed further evidence that George Lucas's "leave well enough alone already" detector is totally hosed...
That was the first thing I thought of too.
quasiquasicrystals, then quasiquasicrystalcrystals, then quasicrystalcrystalquasicrystalquasis...
You're dealing with forces beyond your understanding....
And the planetary orbits are slowly but steadily declining. It's been measured.
Go back to college you crackpot.
lol... last I checked the solar system had a gigantic nuclear power plant in the center.
Perpetual motion, FTL communications and FTL transportation, time travel, cold fusion, anti-gravity and artificial gravity would all have tremendous implications and be hugely profitable to whoever invents them.
Scientists have ZERO motivation to pretend they're impossible if they are, indeed, possible. Indeed, some scientists are even working on research that may potentially lead to their discovery.
But I'll repeat this again, to be clear: All anyone has to do, to prove that they are possible, is to produce a working, repeatable demonstration. With QE if you want but you have to transmit *real information* and it has to be recoverable in FTL time. Think you can do that? Without those pesky theories of physics to get in your way?
They've been trying to make perpetual motion work for thousands of years.
At one time they thought the sound barrier was impenetrable too!
Cite source, please, or you are blowing smoke.
Dude, STUDY the material, don't just cherrypick to support your faith in the impossible.
QE *cannot* be used to transmit information faster than light; even the paper you cite admits this. Even QT requires conventional transmission of data.
If you look at the quantum state of a particle as the sum result of actions that have been performed on it, it's no different than a man becoming a father the instant his wife has a baby even if he's five light years away.
No, not everything that can be discovered has already been discovered. But some things, get this, *actually have*.
For example. We KNOW you cannot just keep accelerating and eventually get past the speed of light. We KNOW QE cannot be used for FTL communications.
We do not know anything, presently, that can achieve faster-than-light communications or travel, and physics does not preclude it. As I said before, the moment researchers discover something that does achieve *true* faster-than-light communication or travel is the moment we should start taking it seriously.
It's not as if it's an imminent technology that BIG SCIENCE is standing in the way of. If it is ever discovered, science and *real* physics are going to be what get us there.
Oh, right, everything is possible if you can dream it.
Got a perpetual motion machine you want to show me?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/7m14576m226l30j7/
Journal: Theoretical and Experimental Chemistry
Article title: Effect of nonvalence interactions on the orientation of the phenyl ring at the tricoordinated phosphorus atom
Article date: 28 December 1981
And no, I'm not trolling. I just happen to find the whole "screw physics" wannabe-pioneer attitude exhausting and detrimental to scientific progress.
You'll notice I said don't appear to exist, not don't exist.
I do agree that carrier particles are the most parsimonious theory available. But that doesn't change the fact that nobody has yet observed gravitons. Until then they remain a hypothetical particle.
This paper provides only a single example. Quantum entanglement is not the same thing as superluminal transport.
Also, general relativity does not preclude all superluminal travel, just the possibility of achieving it by continuously applying more and more speed.
GR is not at all difficult to grasp once you can train your mind to think in four dimensions. As it turns out, c is the rate at which *everything* (yes, everything) travels; "slower" and "faster" are actually relative angles in spacetime. With this in mind, going "faster" is mathematically silly.
The second scientists publish verifiable results of achieving superluminal speeds, or artificially producing gravitational fields, or discovering objects with negative mass, is the second I will grant plausibility to what is currently the stuff of science fiction.
You do realize the continued use of an "incomplete" theory like this is getting in the way of things like interstellar travel and artificial gravity.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that accelerating past the speed of light is impossible, or that gravitons and exotic matter do not, in fact, appear to exist...
A metaphor is a cool breeze on a hot summer day.
Or is that a cliche?
I don't think I'm so convincing that I can induce mass hallucinations at the drop of a hat.
I can.
Wouldn't using quantum computing in the AI field more closely simulate actual physical brains (strong-AI) then modern processors that only have 2 values?
A neuron has only two "values" -- signal or don't. Damn primitive technology...
Of course, no mention of the Wii.
Another slap in the face to the company that *made* Squenix who they are today.
Sorry, Nintendo fans, guess you have to go and buy another 3D remake for the DS.
I believe that's called "je ne sais quoi". Yeah, we had to steal it from the French.
That's great if you want programmers with absolutely zero insight into the code they're asked to write. So many managers complain that they ask their developers to do a "simple task" and it doesn't get done because the developers get "uppity". Get a clue. We wouldn't be "uppity" if the task you were asking us to perform truly were simple. Usually what you are asking us to do is impossible, impractical, will probably break something you previously asked us to do, or is vague and we need more information. But you don't want to be bothered with pesky details. No, developers that hate their jobs so much that they'll churn out shitty code without a word are a stronger asset than developers that will alert you to potential problems with their "emotional/philosophical bullshit".
Look, programming simply isn't assembly-line work, and managers like you just don't get that. It takes insight, wisdom, planning, years of experience, and a love of the craft to code well. It's NOT a nose-to-the-grindstone, clock-in-clock-out, don't-disturb-the-water skill, or they'd have built robots to do it already.
Three crazy people set up a bizarre love triangle/business. One murders his wife, the second kills eight others and maybe a ninth, and the third is dead. Who is the more guilty?
MU.
I'm confused. Is it VM-executed-compiled C or C-like code interpreted on the fly?
If it's compiled C, what platform is the VM emulating? Operating system matters!
If it's interpreted... I just want to know: In what world is interpreted C a good thing?
Why did it have to be snakes??