Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Speaking of Quantum. > Scientists zap atom across room > That story is wrong. They zapped atomic properties across the room from one entangled atom to another. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:55 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of Quantum. > > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:13 PM > Subject: Speaking of Quantum. > > > > Scientists zap atom across room > > > > That story is wrong. They zapped atomic properties across the room from > one entangled atom to another. > Dan, have you a link to a better description of what exactly was accomplished? TIA! Actually, I expected someone to shoot down this story. This proves 2 things: 1 That people don't understand QM very well. (Talking about public knowledge here) 2 People *are* somewhat predictable xponent One For Me Yahoo Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
At 07:13 PM 6/17/04, Robert Seeberger wrote: --===2097341068== Scientists zap atom across room http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3816000/3816551.stm Scientists say that they have teleported an atom across a room for the first time. Teleporting is when something is taken apart and sent to another place without any physical contact. ...snip... 'Beam me up' Teleporting was first made famous is an old TV show called Star Trek. Astronauts could be beamed down from the spaceship to a planet's surface. What is really bad is that _Star Trek_ is considered an *old* television show . . . So What Does That Make Its Viewers? Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
Ronn! wrote: What is really bad is that _Star Trek_ is considered an *old* television show . . . So What Does That Make Its Viewers? Maru Turning fifty in about 32 days? -- Doug The Final Frontier Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of Quantum. > > - Original Message - > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:55 PM > Subject: Re: Speaking of Quantum. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:13 PM > > Subject: Speaking of Quantum. > > > > > > > Scientists zap atom across room > > > > > > > That story is wrong. They zapped atomic properties across the room > from > > one entangled atom to another. > > > > Dan, have you a link to a better description of what exactly was > accomplished? TIA! Well, I found one that was better, but still very wrong. It was better in that it said "transfer of characteristics from one atom to another. But, it talked about transporting humans, which is impossible without transporting information; which violates the known laws of physics. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
Doug Wrote: > Turning fifty in about 32 days? -- Ah, you're still a puppy :-) George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:08:29 +0900, G. D. Akin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Doug Wrote: Turning fifty in about 32 days? -- Ah, you're still a puppy :-) George A Woof (cough) woof. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
At 11:19 PM 6/17/04, Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn! wrote: What is really bad is that _Star Trek_ is considered an *old* television show . . . So What Does That Make Its Viewers? Maru Turning fifty in about 32 days? Was your father a lot older at that age, or was it only mine? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
Ronn! wrote: Was your father a lot older at that age, or was it only mine? Way, way, way older. Ancient. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
On 18 Jun 2004, at 2:49 pm, Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn! wrote: Was your father a lot older at that age, or was it only mine? Way, way, way older. Ancient. Mine was already ancient when he was younger than I am now. Another odd thing is how the young tend to be shallow and ill-informed about the past, and the old tend to be dogmatic and ill-informed about the present. I've been noticing that for the past thirty years... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Misuse of IMPs leads to strange, difficult-to-diagnose bugs. - Anguish et al. "Cocoa Programming" ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Dan, have you a link to a better description of what exactly was > accomplished? TIA! > > Actually, I expected someone to shoot down this story. > > This proves 2 things: > > 1 That people don't understand QM very well. (Talking about public > knowledge here) > > 2 People *are* somewhat predictable > > > xponent > One For Me Yahoo Maru > rob > > Well, as Neils Bohr said, "Anyone who thinks they understand quantum physics is wrong." I'm also told he followed that with "And anyone who does understand quantum physics is insane."(Or some such statement.) Here's the article from Physics Web: http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/10 They generally have the actual science rather than the sensationalized half-understood version, though some of their articles can be heavy going if you aren't up on the background. The basic problem here is that what quantum physicists are calling teleportation isn't really the same thing that Star Trek calls teleportation. If we ever reach the point where we could use this particular method on people, my understanding is that it would be more like making a copy of you somewhere else than sending you somewhere else. Maybe that's how dittoing works, come to think of it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Amanda Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: Re: Speaking of Quantum. > > > Well, as Neils Bohr said, "Anyone who thinks they understand quantum physics > is wrong." I'm also told he followed that with "And anyone who does > understand quantum physics is insane."(Or some such statement.) That's not so true now. We've had 80 years to think about it. While I'm no expert, I've been thinking about the ramafications of QM for a few years nowmore than I care to admit. :-) It is valid statement if one equates "understands" with "provides a realistic explaination of." If one does not require a realistic philosophy, then understanding comes a lot easier. I tend to like a Kantiant philsophy as a foundation. > Here's the article from Physics Web: > http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/10 > Thanks. That does explain it accurately, if not fully. I don't fault the lack of a full explaination, but it means that the article is open to misinterpretation from those who do not understand QM. > > The basic problem here is that what quantum physicists are calling > teleportation isn't really the same thing that Star Trek calls teleportation. True. > If we ever reach the point where we could use this particular method on > people, my understanding is that it would be more like making a copy of you > somewhere else than sending you somewhere else. Maybe that's how dittoing > works, come to think of it. The limitations on this physics are so strict that they prohibit the transferring of humans. One good rule of thumb to use is that it is impossible to transfer information from A to B. The reason for this is, for spacelike events A & B, there are an infinity of reference frames in which A is before B and an infinity for which B is before A. Thus, while it is acceptable to know at B what the state is at A, it has to be in a manner that makes as much sense to say B is after A and A is after B. Lets say, for example, the 3004 Master's golf tournament is played, and our brave colonists at a star system 30 light years away are avid golfers. Given the present laws of physics, there is no way to have quantum entanglement allow them to know the results before 3034. If we could send a person from earth to that colony, or make a copy of a person at the colony, we could do it right after someone watches the 3004 Masters and then copy that person so he could tell the avid golfers who won. We could then copy them send someone back to earth in 2990 and have them place a bet on that golfer. :-) BTW, I don't recognize you as a regular poster. If you are new, welcome. If you are an infrequent poster, my apologies for not remembering you. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:26:09PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > If you are an infrequent poster, my apologies for not remembering you. > :-) Amanda has posted several times before, but infrequently. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 1:31 PM Subject: Re: Speaking of Quantum. > On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:26:09PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > If you are an infrequent poster, my apologies for not remembering you. > > :-) > > Amanda has posted several times before, but infrequently. > Thanks for the info Erik, hello again and sorry Amanda Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That's not so true now. We've had 80 years to think about it. While I'm > no expert, I've been thinking about the ramafications of QM for a few years > nowmore than I care to admit. :-) Well, I expect once the quantum revolution is truly underway, we'll never really know what hit us. Some of the things we can do already, like sculpting electron orbitals (however briefly) totally boggles my mind. > It is valid statement if one equates "understands" with "provides a > realistic explaination of." If one does not require a realistic > philosophy, then understanding comes a lot easier. I tend to like a > Kantiant philsophy as a foundation. How would you define "understanding" qm then? I've had several classes in qm in my past, and I am pretty sure I don't "understand" it in any way that makes real sense to me. I was once able to solve homework problems and such in qm, but they were more exercises in mathematics to me than any meaningful sort of thing. I could (and probably will have to) give a simplistic description of some of the basic concepts, but don't think I'll ever understand it in the same way I understand, for example, Newton's laws. > While I'd never say never when it comes to quantum mechanics, I'd agree the "teleportation" of humans is probably not going to happen. I do wonder, however, if it's what Dr Brin had in mind when he was creating the dittos in Kiln People, and if dittoing is done using a kind of entanglement. > BTW, I don't recognize you as a regular poster. If you are new, welcome. > If you are an infrequent poster, my apologies for not remembering you. :-) Thanks. As has been mentioned, I'm not new, but I don't say much. Mostly due to time constraints, partly due to the fact I tend to stay out of emotionally loaded internet conversations, which most of the ones here are. Not that they aren't fun to read, though--I just don't have much to say about them except the odd thing or two I'd probably regret saying later, so I don't say anything. I do like to pipe up on the science and computer-related threads occasionally as time permits, particularly if I have a possible answer or potential resource that hasn't been mentioned yet. I don't really expect folks to remember me every single time, especially given my sparse posting level. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
At 11:34 PM 6/20/04, Amanda Marlowe wrote: From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That's not so true now. We've had 80 years to think about it. While I'm > no expert, I've been thinking about the ramafications of QM for a few years > nowmore than I care to admit. :-) Well, I expect once the quantum revolution is truly underway, we'll never really know what hit us. Some of the things we can do already, like sculpting electron orbitals (however briefly) totally boggles my mind. > It is valid statement if one equates "understands" with "provides a > realistic explaination of." If one does not require a realistic > philosophy, then understanding comes a lot easier. I tend to like a > Kantiant philsophy as a foundation. How would you define "understanding" qm then? I've had several classes in qm in my past, and I am pretty sure I don't "understand" it in any way that makes real sense to me. I was once able to solve homework problems and such in qm, but they were more exercises in mathematics to me than any meaningful sort of thing. I could (and probably will have to) give a simplistic description of some of the basic concepts, but don't think I'll ever understand it in the same way I understand, for example, Newton's laws. Who was it who responded to that type of objection to QM with something like "Just shut up and calculate!", meaning that if it "provides a realistic explanation of" what is observed during experiments in the real world, it doesn't matter if no one understands how it works . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Quantum.........
- Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 12:20 AM Subject: Re: Speaking of Quantum. > > Who was it who responded to that type of objection to QM with something > like "Just shut up and calculate!", meaning that if it "provides a > realistic explanation of" what is observed during experiments in the real > world, it doesn't matter if no one understands how it works . . . > Feynman? xponent Richard Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
