So, apparently the scientists managed to succesfully teleport the states of the qubits, but fuck me, i have only very very misty idea, what that means and no idea, what are the implications of this discovery...
heres the link:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/first-light-wave-quantum-teleportation-achieved-opens-door-to-u/#disqus_thread
can somebody in laymans terms explain what happened and what it means for the future? Did they basically dicovered the Heisenbergs compensator from Star Trek?
...the thing with the electron is because it's a fallacy to say it is in one place unless you make a measurement (at which point, there is not an infinite number of positions. There is exactly 1). As for the multiverse bit, the vibe I'm getting from you reminds me of the 'one electron theory'. The idea with this theory is that there is only 1 electron in the whole universe, but it is sort of a 'time traveler'. That is why there appears to be more than 1. The reasoning is that electrons don't directly interact with each other and every electron is basically the same (spin is the only difference between them, which can have only 2 values. I'm not sure how the theory handles that). The math also seems to suggest this.
Heres the thing with that (and I have a similar stance for your multiverse ideas, which is why I brought this up): Information is not carried from when the electron behaves as if it is electron A and at the same time behaves as if it is electron B. It is this lack of conservation of information that, in my mind, means they should be treated as seprate particles. And everything works out fine if you assume theres more than 1 electron. If you were to take a base ball, erase an autograph from it, re-string it, redo the filler or whatever (ie erase the history), and then send it back in time so that they were both on the field at the same time... I would say they are different balls. You might have started with the same ball, but you destroyed it and rebuilt it and erased the histroy from it. At that point, it is a new ball.... to me.
I was careful to qualify my "infinite" statement there. It is both--an infinite possibility and a single possibility--simultaneously.
I also think when terms like "universe" and "dimension" and "multiverse" are things we really don't/can't understand right now.
We are essentially "feeling the elephant's trunk" and then describing it as an entire elephant. Dogmatic arguments by scientists about what "is and isn't possible" inter-dimensionally and inter-universally are statements of hubris--not genuine complete "understanding".
When I grew up we were in a "steady state" universe--finely balanced, settled down and highly predictable. Scientists were very certain then that they had a good understanding of how things worked and they turned out to not even realize that there were areas that had never occurred to them.
I think we are understanding more of the "real" universe today but I'm willing to bet that if we could peel back the cover we would find we were so incomplete in what we were able to see. We are becoming real experts in the "trunk" now but that doesn't make us really understand elephants.
No, it's not. It's infinite when it has a wave function. When it doesnt, there is a single possibily. There is no both. It is one or the other at any point in time.
I still dont get the whole "We didn't know Z before, but now we know Z. Therefore, J could/could not be true." thing.
It all is a matter of perspective--even though I believe there are things that are literally "true" and "factual"--it doesn't preclude a differing set of facts and truths co-existing in a different sphere of influence.
Schrodinger's cat is neither dead or alive--until a specific and limited observation is made of it but that doesn't mean the cat wasn't actually dead in the box...or alive.
We see light from stars as they were billions of years ago and experience the past of those stars as our present--yet many of those stars will be long dead by now.
I think what we see about reality through math and science may not be much different than how we see stars optically. We think we are seeing it as it is but it may be we aren't capable yet of even knowing what is "is" and only see a slice of what's real--with no idea what it is tied to or the context of what its entwined with beyond our ability of observation.
I think this is what a lot of the newer physics is starting to peel the edges of and no one is prepared to see what's under the wallpaper yet. We're still arguing if there is anything beyond wallpaper.
btw, I did some calculations for my neutrino+quantum tunneling idea: if I'm right, 1.1% of the distance is being 'skipped' via quantum tunneling, which is low enough that I think it could have escaped notice until now (though I can't be sure). It might just be late, but I can't think of a reason why the chance for the neutrino to tunnel wouldn't also be about 1.1%.
As to your post;
The above is true. What you are saying when you say:
The reason is that when the cat is both dead and alive; that means there is a wave function for both possibilities. The electron has 'infinite' possibilites due to the nature of space and the possibilities of the cat's 'aliveness' has to do with the nature of life. Until an observation is made (note: persons need not be involved), the object is in a superposition of all possibilities. At this point there is no 'single possibility'. When you open the box, the superpostition drops and a single possibility remains. At this point, there is no 'infinite possibility'.
As for the rest... I don't do philosophy.
Love the last line.
That's exactly the crux of what's happening in modern physics right now. Lines are being drawn as to what constitutes "real science".
My point is that if we dogmatically confine ourselves to that view we may never be capable of thinking enough outside the box to even know there is anything outside it.
The greatest advancements didn't come from thinking over safe and easy speculations--it came when we explored possibilities that defied accepted thinking.
I think scientists with that quality are the ones who take the research others have done and imagine larger possibilities of what can be done with it than have the hordes of rank and file number crunchers before them.
You need a mayor to declare a drainage project, you need an architect to design it and then you need ditch diggers to make the hole. Most scientists fall into one of those categories.
You say "philosopher" I say tomato.
That's really interesting on the neutrino tunneling. What's even more interesting is we have had a little more time pass and no scientist has "dismissed" anything yet.
Think about it--two weeks ago if you had posted, "I believe neutrinos may routinely travel in space faster than light" you would have been laughed at.
Analog is infinite, digital is finite.
That is why phonograph records and tapes will always be superior to CD/DVD's. Too bad the latest generation has no experience with analog realities.
With each 'advancement' of technology that moves away from the analog, there is a definite loss in quality.
They would have been right to laugh. Science is about evidence; without it, everything is just a fantasy. And that's dangerous because as more people believe the fantasy, it takes on religous elements. Look at Trekkies: Sure, Star Trek is awesome.... there's no denying that, but the level that some take people take it to is damn near religous. And they teach this religion to others because it's fun and why wouldn't you share something fun with others? Then, when Star Trek says theres 'Red Matter' or something, and facts dispute this, they reject reality because the fantasy is more fun. This is destroying the very thing Star Trek is supposed to value most: Scientific truth.
Now, I'm not trying to say imagination is bad. Please don't take it that way. It has its place, but it must be kept seperate from facts and the pursuit of truth. Take string theory; it has alot of good ideas, but no evidence. I think it started off fairly innocently and grew wildly out of control. I'm okay with it being taught in schools, but not to the single-mindeness that we see today. I can partly understand the reason for it's pervasiveness: it will predict something eventually. It will stand on firm scientific ground or be the gateway to something else. But not today. So, go ahead and show people what might be possible with the crazy math, but always show how it might be wrong. Otherwise, we might be repeating the mistakes of the past, such as when Newton proposed light was a particle and everyone else said, "No! It must be a wave!". It is a fact that the math will eventually reach a point where there will be a prediction. I can't say the same for multiverse theories. In fact, I don't see a single theory that shows a testible prediction can be made (today or tomorrow) directly from the theory.
The day science and philosophy are combined is the day science dies.
To each his own, I guess. I look at the greatest achievements as people realizing that no one has done the experiment to prove/disprove the dogma of the day. Look at the measurment of type Ia supernovae in 1999 that found the universe was accelerating. Look at Special Relativity; the experiment was done first, and still no one believed it. It took Einstein to sit everyone down and say "Look, facts are facts. Now, given the facts, heres why".
So, to sum this up: I say, go out and do experiments. At any point, if you stop and look back at your results you will start to understand the why. Philosophy should trail the facts, otherwise it builds up a dogma that takes brilliant minds to break in the 'greates achievements' you spoke of. I will say that there are some people who can philosophize ahead of the results (for instance Einstein and General Relativity), but they should be outcast from the mainstream. That's not the way truths should be discovered. Look at Einstein's view on quantum mechanics, the thing he invented.
As for analog/digital, I have this to say: Spintronics.
There has to be a balance--but there also has to be an openness to new ideas. "Pure" Science can (and has) become a religion of its' own to many of its practitioners. I'm not talking about scientists vs. the layman but about scientists within their own community.
Look at the global warming issue where some facts were stretched and some viewpoints were censured and kept from being published. It's true that nothing seems to have been purely fabricated or error introduced so grievously to have derailed previous scientific examination of climate data...but on the other hand, many scientists were completely unapologetic because they were certain they were right. Their certitude led them to allow a lot of slack in their professional behavior that wouldn't be tolerated in many other fields or industries. The safeguards of integrity really softened in a big way--even though no serious harm was done...all because a group of peers had dismissed their opponent's views.
Many a good experiment and theory has been rejected out of hand by the scientific community at large only to years (or even decades) later come back and be proven true. But in the years between, the holder's of the established view blocked publication or even discussion of the new ideas and made real efforts to derail the credentials and careers of those holding those views. This has happened in the fields of fractals, string theory and Mars exploration not to mention many other situations.
So adherence to a self-proclaimed scientific dogma is no guarantee of unbiased truth in research and openness.
I'll disagree on Einstein-- I think he was handled well. He was not opposed by the entire scientific community--just a handful of very prominent figures and he was given a chance to air and defend his views--which he was able to do and then his views were acceptable for presentation. Other scientists have not fafed as well and we'll never know how many walked away with ideas that were right because their careers and reputations were threatened--not the strength of their arguments.
Hawkings, Einstein's, Bohr's and the like should not have their ideas instantly accepted as fact but neither should they have to fight for their lives for having them and wanting them published.
I had a roomate once with an off-the-charts IQ. He had taught himself Mandarin Chinese at the age of four (in an English-only household) and had a photographic memory along with an intuitive understanding of math. His Achilles heel however was that he was absolutely unbending in his interests and completely disregarded others who did not share his exact studies with the same level of intellectual ability. The end result was he could not function in life. He could not form meaningful relationships, he was incapable of considering anything in fields that did not interest him and all these things were justified in his mind by the supremacy of his own intellect. His intelligence was useless because he was incapable of integrating any benefit from it into the rest of the world.
Professional science can be like him sometimes and their needs to be a humility in the process that allows some experimentation and consideration of "improbables".
I agree on your views regarding experiments and "philosophizing"...yet sometimes a philosophic insight can lead to scientific investigation--that is in fact how much early science was advanced. You need to be able to have both views together.
I'm sorry but I think you are wrong. Philosophy should have no part in science. Now, when teaching someone the things that science has found, the philosophical insights gained through science are often the best method. People want to know why the ball moved, not the series of measurements that proved how it moved. And that's understandable. Nature is strange, the experiments are abstract, and the math can be difficult; but if I tell you the ball behaves this way, you get it and can focus on that all the way through the strangeness, the abstractness, and the difficulties.
My point about Einstein was that he was an exception. He first sat down and said: "Gravity should work like this. Here are the side effects", and was right. What I was saying was that he should not have been so widely beleived before there was any proof. In fact, he called it into question a number of times when other theories, not based on his, showed difficulties with his gravity ideas. That is the correct response to theories that have no experimental evidence. It doesnt matter who the person is or what the idea is, you should always be skeptical until there is proof. Just so I'm clear: that doesnt mean that people shouldnt work on these ideas. You can go off in a corner and play with your "The sky is plaid colored" theory. You can even submit articles, no problem. No one will believe a word of it, until something in the theory can be proven, and is proven. The number of people who can do what Einstein did, are very, very few. And even he was wrong about things, so what does that tell you about the "acceptance first, testing later" approach? Now, I guess I should say that the reason Einstein thought up with General Relativity was due to Newton's Gravity theory contradicting his Special theory of Relativity. And Special Relativity did have a firm scientific basis, so from a certain perspective his ideas did flow from evidence, but GR had a huge number of possible mathematical basis. What Einstein did was think about the theory, and went seeking math that 'fit' his idea. Look at the whole cosmological constant issue. He didnt see a need for it when he was choosing the math formulas, and only threw it in later when he understood the implication that his theory predicted a non-static universe. Then the universe was shown not to be static, so he took it out of his theory. Why? Because it made the formulas cleaner. Not due to truth. Only just recently has it been found to be needed afterall.
Now, I think I've run that viewpoint into the ground, so let me try a different tact: Skepticism is the heart and soul of scientific progress. It is not the enemy. It should be welcomed, as it can only make a theory stronger. The Big Bang is now a complex and well-established theory because of the skepticism it received. It acquired new ideas to make it a better theory, it got experimental evidence; and one after another, every hole that was poked in the theory was filled and the theory got stronger. The same is true of Quantum Mechanics. And both of those are the results of people sticking to the facts, when everyone else went looking for reasons why the facts or their interpretations were wrong. The only case where skepticism does not make a theory stronger is when the theory is wrong. For example, the skeptic might say "But the sky is blue, so your 'the sky is plaid' theory must be wrong". And he's perfectly right, unless I can find a loophole, and say that maybe it's plaid when no one is looking at it (though, of course, because this is a bad theory on purpose the rationalizatin here is leading away from testable predictions) or something.
I think we're actually agreed mostly on the above but philosophy sometimes presents the concept that prompts science to proceed to investigate (as Einstein's thinking prompted him).
It shouldn't be a theocracy of idealists dictating to scientists what to and not investigate for any reason or whim but science should always be willing to consider looking at the speculations of philosophers if they may have merit and are in some way genuinely examinable.
Here's a good example:Dr. Bem's ESP Experiment
A large segment of society claimed to believe in having had or witnessed examples of extrasensory perception and many have claimed for centuries to have had the same experiences. So a scientist investigated and tested some aspects with research.
This is not a direction that would have been produced as an outcome of continually developed research already at work--it's a direct example of non-scientists directing science to investigate.
Science needs some openness to this sort of prompt. Now if it had involved spending 40% of the gdp and stalling cancer research for the next five years it would be a different proposition. So--of course--there needs to be some compelling interest but the fact that people are interested is sometimes enough to justify some effort.
Another example of how science can miss something is here: New Way to make Steel Stronger
Steel manufacturing is considered a mature science and it was presumed there were no further major breakthroughs possible within the industry--it had reached it's technological limits (barring new materials being used). Researchers would never have looked for this but the manufacturer's experience and intuition led him to figure it out--something a methodical and regimented experimenter would never have done.
Both those examples serve to prove my point. Just saying that ESP is real or that flash heating steel makes it stronger is fantasy. The experiments, the evidence is what makes it real/imaginary. The ESP one especially; it provides evidence of a certain statistical effect. That doesnt make ESP fact. It does make a stronger case for ESP now, but there are many more tests to go before that can be said.
But what I'm getting at is the guy who asks "has anyone tried heating steel for a very short time?" is being scientific when he goes and trys it and tests the results against high-grade steel. However, this can lead to things like that article that are not scientific. There is not, at this time, a great deal of evidence behind this new method. Sure, it's easy to produce samples and I'm sure he's sent many for testing. But all the steel mills might not be able to get the same results. For example, maybe the climate that his foundry is at is just right for prepping the steel for this process. Maybe theres a by-product in his furnace that facilitates a chemical reaction in just the right way to harden the steel better. Maybe this flash process works well on the small scale, but with thicker steel, the heat doesnt have time to permeate and therefore flaws are introduced. Maybe the whole idea was actually 'discovered' and he just figured out how to reproduce it. Maybe one of his employees is secretly a ninja master swordmaker and has had this technique for awhile.
The article is not scientific (which I'm sure you knew) because, while it describes a scientific achievement and a scientific result, it does not go and point out the things that havent been tested, and the ways this new process is not superior to the current process.
Btw, if you havent heard/read Feynman's speech on Cargo Cult Science, I recommend it. That is some of what I'm getting at here.
I just grabbed the first article I found on the steel but as a follow up, his process was taken out of state to Ohio I believe and duplicated there at a university. I had read a brief followup where they described what they thin k is happening and it does appear to be effective as a principle--not as a fluke. (He doesn't have magic ore or a enchanted furnace--he buys ore on the market like everyone else).
Methods similar to his (but not the same) had been tried a few times but it was determined they were scientifically "not possible" for producing an effect so no one tried anymore.
And you're right, the guy was being scientific when he tested and measured his results--but he initiated the test based on his gut--not evidence and despite the fact that all the experts at that time said what he was doing wouldn't matter.
I actually am not a "believer" in the ESP stuff but I'm not a disbeliever either. No problem with me if someone wants to work at proving its true and seemingly positive results don't threaten me. Would everyone who believes in telekinesis please raise my hand right now.
I am familiar with Feynman's speech and agree with both you and he there. But there are counterpoints to that as well. The American medical scene for decades dismissed all forms of herbal and holistic remedies--such as Chinese herbal medicines, aloe vera testimonials and chiropractic patient's endorsements. Turns out, all of them had something to them. Sure, there were quacks, and superstitions and ridiculous beliefs as to how or why the worked but mixed within were some efficacious treatments and medicines.
I can testify to aloe vera for example. When it first began to be touted, the AMA called it a placebo and cautioned against using it on wounds and burns for fear of infection or allergic reaction. They did nothing to really study it at first and then the first studies were simply to "prove they didn't work"--they were bad science.
I had just come back from overseas and knew none of this...not to mention I didn't even know what aloe vera was at the time. I was cooking bacon and grease splattered very badly on my hand leaving a half-dollar sized blister. My aunt snapped the tip off a plant and smeared sap from it onto the burn--while I called her crazy and tried to jerk my hand away. The burn vanished almost instantly. How did professional medical doctors miss that? Bias and presumption influenced by the "accepted thinking of the day". Afterwards, I heard an interview with an AMA representative cautioning people about trying things like aloe vera "just because someone said it worked". I nearly fell from my chair laughing.
This sort of thing is the result of too much unquestioning skepticism. The sort that dismisses the need to examine or test because they "know it can't be right". Scientific groups have a record of building heavy institutional beliefs that just need someone to come along every now and then and whack at with a sledgehammer.
At the end of WWII the Russians were playing catch-up with the US technologically. They began by stealing and copying anything from us they could get their hands on. In areas where they lacked infrastructure or experience, they'd often tell their scientists, "Find a way to do that!"--whether it was possible or not. The Soviets developed several things out of necessity that we had assumed couldn't be done any way than how we had learned to do them. A notable example is the supersonic torpedo. their's didn't steer well and wasn't practical but until in just the last few years their torpedoes had twice the speed and warhead of our own here in the US. The science they discovered is now just starting to be used practically and will revolutionize undersea warfare--all with "impossible" technology.
There has to be a venue somewhere for the intuitive or desperate guess theory. Without this, stagnation occurs or you have to wait for a lab accident someone notices the results of.
Think about why so many breakthroughs occur during wars--experimenters are willing to try things in peacetime they would never do.
Well, medicine is a bad example. It's hard to do good science in medicine, and it often doesn't work right. The reason there has been such strong opposition in the medical fields to 'home remedies' is because they've been trying to push medicine into a scientific light. Before the scientific approach in medicine, people believed all kinds of crazy thing, and a huge database of nonsense was developed. Seperating fact from fiction is difficult when theres so much 'knowledge' already there. Walling off the great majority of it is the quickest way to rebuild with pure facts. But even with a scientific approach, medicine has it's troubles. Things dont always work. For example, we had a cat that was diabetic. We had to give him insulin shots every day. Until the day he decided to not be diabetic. The insulin overdose put him in a coma and he eventually died. How is it the body can not work correctly for years, and then get up and running 100% so fast?
I also had an aloe plant when I was a kid. The thing was, I was told it healed cuts. I've never heard about burns until now. I would break the tips off all the time for cuts. And after awhile, I realized they weren't doing a damn thing to speed up the healing of cuts. The only thing it did was seal the cut so it didnt bleed so much. But a bandaid does that too. As a result, I've had the exact opposite reaction to aloe plants. I dont think they heal at all. But, if you show me someone applying aloe plant juice to a burn and it seems to work, I would have to try it out for myself and I might change my mind.
My point is this: there is a reason to not take these home remedies at their word. And while some things may work, the proper response is doubt. If someone shows you evidence to the contrary, you should double check the results under your own conditions, and only then can you start to believe them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The smart people who have good ideas that counteract/run counter to the currently accepted theory require the skepticism of their peers. If they don't, they wont get as far with their theory. They might not have the interest to pursuit a path so easily taken. And in the meantime, this would invite the loons into the field and slow the steady, methodical approach.
FYI, I dont think we're going to get anywhere here.
I was just waiting to get the last word...
It's ok--it's been fun and it gives me something to do when I am waiting on software to do it's stuff.
By the way--everything you said about medicine being cobbled together over time is true of science as well--and there is medical science.
I can attest to aloe vera. I was trying to knock my aunt's hand away becasue I thought she was nuts--no placebo effect there. The blister literally disappeared within several seconds.
I'll close with this: In the movie Contact with Jodie Foster, she meets aliens in a spaceship and spends time on an alien world with them--but to everyone on earth it looks like she went nowhere. At congressional hearings investigating why so much money was spent and nothing happened, she describes her experience--and then when questioned admits she wouldn't believe it either if it hadn't happened to her.
There are times when individuals discover or realize the truth of something before pure science can. Science tells you basically, "Experiments or it never happened!". Science is content to glance at a claim and decide based on how plausible it seems to "science" whether or not to investigate it. An individual who has had the experience will know it needs investigating--whether science gets it or not. Those individuals are usually the ones who bring breakthroughs--not always, but often enough to be important and worth consideration.
FYI--I'm a straight medical prescription kind of guy. No new age-y stuff for me.
Haha..,had to resurrect this one last time. I saw "The Big Bang Theory" last night and thought of our dialogue here SithLord. Here's the clip (ignore the "gossip" part and enjoy the rest).
Thanks for bumping this thread Sinperium! I hadn't before had the privilege of witnessing this astounding spectacle of debating and different but possibly mutually-true viewpoints. Btw: I didn't know that you were colour-blind either.
Hi there!
Well in your case, they can make you better, faster and stronger--they have the technology.
In this case, I was Brian Greene and Sith was Sheldon
He's more interested in the doable, provable, testable certain and I am more interested in the possibilities--detail versus concept.
I think it's useful to be able to shift between skepticism and creativity-based thinking, and evidence and "what if?" based theories. It is very useful to be able to do both, and shift as necessary, or when it seems fun , but this thread is the most fun I have enjoyed on debating for a long time.
Cool--it was much nicer and more polite than the SW vs. ST one
Did we have a SW vs. ST debate? I dont remember that...
In any case, I think we can both agree that there is sound in space.
Now, if you'll excuse me... my Star Wars: The Old Republic launcher just finished updating
Lol--not you. It's a good thing sound exists in space and inertia is always negated to no more than the level we can throw ourselves about a room.
Probably more like 'feeling the elephant's trunk' and describing it as a well endowed camel. .... ....
My religion forbids the touching of camel parts or entering into spitting contests with llamas and alpacas unless they have been through the purification rituals and are present in the temple on "Spitting Day".
I don't mean to restart the conversation, but I stumbled here from recent posts and have to point out that for example that steel hardening discovery could've just as well been eventually discovered once we understand the fundamentals of material sciences down to the molecular level better.
Same goes for medicin; the reason why medicin has a tough time being scientific is that biologial systems are still much too complex for us to dissect with deterministic accuracy with scientific theory. We're not there yet. And that's the only reason why the more philosophical approaches can be useful; they can be used to cut corners, but they are hardly a requirement for discoveries and often work against science.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
