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?
Good points. Of course, if biological systems are far too complex to model with deterministic accuracy, we can still model them with stochastic accuracy, and that would still be regarded as scientific. The philosophic arguments serve well to formulate good hypotheses. But you still have to collect experimental data, and if that can be put on a histogram, you can reasonably argue some conclusions from it (and better recognize where your grey areas are).
Allowing human creativity as an input serves the same purpose as statistical sampling or techniques used in genome sequencing...by skipping large parts of the repetitious and time intensive processes, a reliable result can be obtained much more quickly and even allow for solutions that are faster and better than what would have been provided by a complete and through analysis.
Not to mention, huge numbers of breakthrough discoveries happened by accident and were only recognized because an intuitive human was there to jump to a conclusion after witnessing the accident. Orange mold anyone?
You can post here anytime--we stole this thread from Timmaigh.
"Intuition" is an interesting mathematical topic in itself. That's what AI and neural nets are all about. Of course that is also something we are not very good at because that, too, is another extremely complex biological phenomenon. I would venture that it may even surpass biology and start getting into where biology meets the soul, in which case mathematics will never be able to touch it completely. I'm just a little incredulous that mere potassium ions are capable of producing gut feelings which often turn out to be right.
That was my point about the possibility that we may have quantum minds-- not just mere "material" ones. Makes you think.
Nothing makes me think....
I'm a vegetable.....and proud......
True; most simulations run on computers run a very simple calculation billions of times, even when more accurate formulas/methods are available. the reason being, that the 'simple' calculation is close enough and runs through the computer much faster.
But I do fancy quantum computers which could radically change this approach. I kind of see running programs on one of those as less like simulations on a computer and more like flying a test flight in an actual airplane.
As I said earlier in the post, the people who can do this, who can just get the idea in their head, rationalize it with mathmatics and be proven correct are very, very rare. Having people attempt to go down this path en masse will only result in a horde of wrong theories, and I can only see this as being a hinderance to scientific progress.
Those few that do have it right... yes, they will have to fight tooth and nail for recognition. It only makes their theory better. It only serves to reduce the dissention as the theory refines and the holes get plugged.
I'm not advocating some kind of Scientific Theory Sweatshop... There's plenty of room for creativity and plenty being wielded by those making theories. But there should never ever be a theory published/accepted/advocated that has no justification
Russian "science" is a good illustration of that. Some of the most absurd "scientific" things have been published there but even with that, look at the numbers of brilliant Russian scientists and unique breakthroughs many of them have made.
It takes a balance (as I have continually advocated). But encouraging creativity has rewards--it just has to be backed with solid work.
What's the biggest issue though is whether the overall approach to science within a community encourages or discourages innovation.
For a more practical evaluation, go through and remove all the intuitive breakthroughs--the discoveries made as flukes, with intuitions, etc., etc.--and see how many things get debited out. It's something to stay cognizant of.
*sigh*... epic post in coming...
Pretty much all of science is innovation. This, I think, gets to the heart of the disconnect between our respective views of science. So let's take, for example, graphene. This is a very conductive material that many think will replace silicon in computer chips. The trouble is, it's so conductive that any nearby graphene transistor that is 'on' will bleed through and turn 'on' surrounding graphene transistors and burn out the chip very fast. So, with that as a starting point, how does science innovate?
To truely make a detailed list, I would have to work in the field. Even then, no one can read all the papers published. There are simply too many. That's how much innovation is going on.
See, because most of science is the refinement of other ideas... I say that if you remove all the fluke discoveries and 'intuition' discoveries, you are still left with pretty much everything. The Big Bang theory is an extremely good example of this. The original idea is that all the atoms of the universe were originally all grouped together in a 'primordial atom'. We now know, that originally there was no matter. It condensed as the universe expanded, gouping up to form particles and eventually hydrogen. We know that there was a burst of expansion known as inflation that helped smooth out the distribution of the universe. We know that all other atoms are the result of star's lifes and deaths, not the birth of the universe. You may wish to fight me on some of this knowlege, but know that there are thousands of papers on the Big Bang theory. Take away 10 or 20, and theres still an incredible wealth of knowledge.
So, what's missing then? The idea, the simplification. Teaching people would be about 20 times harder. Even with this, the idea amalgamates new theories and simplifications. For instance, it was more difficult for people understand that space itself was expanding before someone thought up the clever idea of putting dots on a balloon and blowing it up. Would new ideas be harder without the fluke discoveries and intuitions? Yes, because with out the simplification in mind, it makes it difficult to juggle the possibilities.
Like you, I'm saying there should be both. I think we disagree on the proportions. What I'm saying is ~95% of science is refinement to existing ideas and systematic testing, the rest is people jumping to an idea first and trying to justify it. I think the proportions is nearly right, but most of that 5% are, in my opinion, too unhappy that their ideas and justifications have not been widely accepted (see things like Ancient Aliens on the History channel. oy). The vibe I get from you is that you think it should be 50/50 or so, and that just aint gonna fly (awesome pun if you think about how flight was developed).
You realize of course that I'm always right don't you? It will save you a lot of time replying.
We really need a tiered scientific review/acceptance system--a sort of "Supreme World Science Council" that has the final say on issues of validity, etc. But then we need to have lower ranked but distinct and universally authoritative groups that allow for fringe *cough* sciences and really theoretical investigations.
Using the BBC channel structure as an example, you have four primary channels with the best shows on the upper channels and shows that appeal to lesser numbers moved down to lower channels. if rating go up or down for a show it can move up or down the scale. BBC has one "bottom" channel that has some really brilliant shows on once and awhile. Ones made with low budgets because they has les funding or that have quirky concepts etc.
Something similar for science would be great--and I don't mean the current mish-mash of universities and governmet agencies and the like (which are fine in and of themselves).
I think proportions are pretty good now to actually--and I don't put "Ancient Aliens" in the category of science. that's a good example where someone would have to find some substantive evidence first to even look that way. But I do think the "bottom 5% is sometimes worth much more official interest.
Krypton had it right all along--except for the Jor-El thing.
P.S. I just used the "fringe" science comment to rile you. Me so bad. It's also impossible to fly to the moon because the explosive propellant needed to fly there would destroy the ship and crew. Then a WW happened, some desperate Nazi's came along and go figure. See? That's one of those quirky shows that would never have made it onto Channel One.
P.S.S. You realize some of that normal innovation is done by dedicated fanatics who believe and unproven concept and work at it using student interns and sticks and rocks for years in underfunded labs to get their acceptable breakthroughs?
Trial and error has always been the way to go. For example ... an article I found the other day on yahoo news relates the story of an adventurer lets call him, who is going up in a balloon to the very edge of space wearing a state of the art pressure suit and jumping out for a free fall that could take him up to speeds beyond supersonic. This is the kind of innovation that makes or breaks an idea. Someone willing to do the extreme in the name of science. It also helps that this guy has jumped before from on high.
On a more personal level ...... when I was about ten or twelve I decide to build a wind tunnel to test the airworthiness of the model airplanes i was building. I took an old Hasbro toy and stripped it down. It had a large fan that was pretty strong. It was used to control the Lunar Excursion Module or LEM, the toy was a replica of the Apollo 11 moon lander. I made a cardboard tunnel, taped it up to keep air from leaking out and mounted the fan on one end then took a small model of an F-5 Freedom Fighter and suspended it by a thread in the center of my wind tunnel. To my surprise when I turned the fan on to full speed the model turned into the wind and held its position. At first I thought it was a fluke but after trying other planes that wobbled, jerked and otherwise went nuts in the wind and trying again with the F-5 that did the same thing as before, held its position, I realized that yes, it can be done. Not too shabby from a snot nosed kid. The point being I wanted to see if I could do it and I did. Trial and error. If you don't know, ask. Then look for ways to make it happen.
What you said Uvah is sort of what I am thinking. It's not a one-issue area so I'm not advocating eliminating what we have at present but a part of it is a creating a climate for science that makes pursuing it something scoiety values--not just academics and corporations. Going to the moon is an example of a project that had little practical purpose but enormous benefits for decades after.
There should be peer review and sound principles overall but there should also be incentives to take risks in research as well.
Exactly. Risk taking comes with the territory. The Manhattan Project was a prime example. No one at the time knew what an atom bomb could do. Some thought it would ignite the atmosphere and end all life on the planet. Others believed it to be too much of an overkill and not necessary. Turns out the latter was true. Japan was on the verge of surrender before the bomb was dropped but the PTB's wanted their fifteen minutes of fame and they got it. It doesn't matter or rather it didn't at the time, matter that the bomb would kill some 60,000 more people, all civilians. The first test at Alamagordo showed them what power it possessed yet they used it anyway. Harnessing the power is an excellent idea but using it ......... the development ended somewhat with the advent of the Neutron bomb. Designed to kill organic matter, people, but leave the machines, weapons, intact. The good with the bad.
Having a governing counsel or whatever for science would be the end of science. You would have to call it something else because science is about going out and finding what the truth is, not a bunch of people sitting around deciding what it is. NO
What you really want, I think, is better education. I was going to write a long rant explaining this, but I let it go.
Yep. What's your point?
I think you got what I was saying, but just to clarify: I didnt mean the show itself to be science (that's pretty much impossible). I was referring to the 'scientists' on the show. They think the world should see their point of view, and they dont really have any evidence. They can't convince other scientists, and become.... deluded (I really dont want to sound this dismissive of their ideas, but there is a sense that they are building interia in a certain direction and wont look back. I can't think of another word for that). Such ideas held by people who have argued their views over time make for very compelling television shows. And these are the 'scientists' held up to the spot light for all the world to see?!
That is actually what I meant Sith (and I agree about the death of science statement).
Councils recognized as authoritative for "speaking for science" to world governments and the like--not to control for all scientists what gets investigated and whats acceptable or not but simply to give attention and emphasis and aid to worthy ideas--not close all other avenues for them.
These could be tied into coordinated educational and promotional efforts which is actually what I meant to get to. They could also serve as a bridge with commercial ventures--providing them advisement and direction without having to take them over or delegate them to not-always-qualified governments to handle.
Sort of a UN of science. Doesn't mean their aren't other states and non-members (and hopefully it would work better).
Instead of waiting for politicians or generals to decree the next big push, have internationally recognized scientists who could do so.
I think there is room in all of this more modest allowances of "Hmmm" investigations so long as some progress can be demonstrated in the efforts.
Oh, we do, do we?
And how, pray tell do we know?
Some HG Wells type flitted back there and looked maybe?
Epic post is right....epic fail [as they say]....
Perhaps you meant.... "we now THINK that originally there was no matter...."
Does it really matter? I just don't have enough energy to argue about it.
I agree that "THINK" is always an important part of a discussion and always needed for clarity. We "think" a lot of things. We aren't always "right"...except for me, of course.
So, when our ancient, very ancient ancestors negan banging rocks together, was this because of a 'thought?' And were they right to do so?
So basically, the "Catholic church" of science?
Lol--scary. I'm not sure that's an apt analogy. Don't want an organization to control or forbid research--just one that can advocate and assist with it.
So an example, the Science Council watches the politics going on in Washington or wherever and sees the need to create jobs. It circulates amongst it's members a request for solutions. Members send in their proposals and all are reviewed by all members. A vote is held and it's decided that "orbital solar power" is a viable solution to energy needs, environmental concerns and job creation.
Funds taken from member's annual membership fees are then allocated and made available to government and private firms/individuals who can develop and produce the most effective practical means to advance these goals--or the council itself might begin research if no other entities were..
Just a thumbnail sketch.
The "authoritative" part would simply be so the council would be acknowledged by participating member nations as valid and autonomous. Think of it like the W3C for science in the sense that members would agree to work together on common goals.
Maybe it was just one caveman--driven out of his own community because they thought banging rocks was heretical or a waste of energy--who created his own tribe and then the other one went extinct because they didn't have rock banging technology.
If only they had been open to that rock banging research before it was too late.
Well, whenever you take matter and compress it into a tiny space it turns into a more energetic form. Atoms lose their electrons and the whole thing becomes a plasma. Quarks become less bound and it turns into a quark gluon plasma. The extrapolation of this simple idea shows that when you have a bunch of energy in one tiny place, matter cannot form. This is because it breaks down to simpler and simpler objects the hotter/more energetic the situation. As it cools, particles can form. Theres also some complicated math that supports this idea better, but I'm not going to get into that.
Now, we know that space was small at one point because of the imprint left in the cosmic background radiation. It, combined with hubbles' law shows that the universe is expanding. Overall, this points to a time when all the energy of the universe was concentrated in a tiny space in such a tremedous amount that matter could not form.
Now, I do admit that no one has successfully observed the creation of a universe, so there is a bit of conjecture involved. That being said, there's alot more weight behind this than most people are willing to give it credit. It's just not easy to explain the mathematics and the tests.
Okay, I guess I did mis-understand you then. I still say no, though (just not as strongly). The issue here is that the scientific method doesnt work for everything. There is no scientific way to teach people, for instance. So, in the end, you're asking scientific people for non-scientific advice. The only way I could agree would be if the advisors were there to point out what is not scientific.
For example, if some guy does a study on teaching methods and claims his method works better for teaching people, and wants it adopted nation-wide; a scientist could look at it and say, 'you cant draw such conclusions from this data'. I can agree to this, because I think scientists know best where the science stops. There are a good chunk of scientists that dont, of course, but having this additional responsibility will help develop/practice such an essential scientific skill.
Not to mention there's no way you can convince politicians to listen to anyone over what they already think. They'll just find a 'scientist' who agrees with them and make them an advisor.
And any sort of centalized funding for scientific research won't work well either. less people will donate when they dont know where it's going for one. #2, since most projects are underfunded, it stands to reason that if a central group was behind the decision making for which research should be funded, the 'fringe' science you want funded would receive less because the central group would have more authority to give the 'big' projects everything they want. this would also result in alot less macgyyver'n on the main projects, which i think would have numerous implications.
In the end though, it'd be impossible to overhaul the current situation to resemble anything like your idea. I still say 'fix education'. while that is a big request as well, it's much more manageble then attempting to push science into arenas that are traditionally political. For example, if you could manage to teach everyone the true scientific spirit, haven't you accomplished what you envisioned (since everyone is, in effect, a scientist)?
Sigh...
Again, 'think', not 'know'.
Try not to postulate supposition as fact. One way or another it totally fucks with reality/argument/debate.
And while you're at it....define what YOU understand as 'the universe is expanding' because apart from a funny show... The Big Bang Theory is STILL a 'theory'.
If you make a single scientific authority, you will plague academia with more politics than the Politburo in a teacher's lounge on Capital Hill...I really don't think we want that, and any group that claims to be the authority of anything is going to become very political very fast...
I use the word in the common everyday sense. I know that I have a hand even when I put it behind my back or put a glove over top of it. I know that to adjust the dps of a ship in Sins based on the amount of armor on the ship, you divide the damage by (1+ .5*a), where a=the amount of armor.
Is it possible these 'facts' are wrong? Of course. And in a real sense, they are completely false. When I take off my glove, I'm not looking at the same atoms that my hand was made of before, so therefore, it is a different hand. I'm also sure that if we were to get down to the code of Sins, the formula for armor wouldnt be so cut and dry (though it is possible).
Along these same lines, I'm sure there is a ton of additional details to the begining of our universe to the extent that someone in the know would conisder our theories false. The truth of the matter is that Inflation theory (our currently most detailed version of the Big Bang theory) is a summary of the events that occured at the birth of the universe, and as such never could be 'fact' in the way you describe. This is compounded by the way nature is not even sure of itself. For instance, you can summerize the super bowl by saying 'the Giants won', but nature is never that succinct. An analogy would be that Inflation theory is like describing which team played the best during the super bowl, without considering the score of the game. One of the main flaws in this analogy though is that Inflation theory uses math to characterize it's different pieces. Sports analysts, on the other hand, use alot of opinions to characterize the key plays of the game.
So, I'm sticking with the word 'know'. I used it how I meant it. I dont think of it as something that can never be changed, and that's the final word; that's just silly. To clarify, though, I use the word 'know' when it's supported by facts. I use the word 'think' when logic supports it, but there is a gap in the facts. I use the word 'guess' when there is possibly a few different logical conclusions.
To answer your question though... (what I understand about 'the universe is expanding'):
Did this cover the question to your satisfaction?
Yes, but it's STILL only a theory.
Conclusions from observations....
You feel an elephant's trunk and describe....maybe NOT an elephant....but a camel which is overly-well endowed.
You CANNOT juxtapose 'know' with 'think'. They are not synonyms.
You destroy ALL credibility in your 'argument' with poor word choice.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
