quantum physics and sci-fi movies.
Rotifer
whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
theory?
Stephen Cooke
It all comes down to the fact that Marilyn Monroe was really Scott Bakula.
Stephen
Geoff
<rotife...@cesspool.com> deposited this nugget in this
here newsgroup
>>what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis or
>>whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
>>theory?
Birds of a feather flock together.
And, yes.
Regards,
Geoff "Mr. Hitchcock took care of that one."
"Words, words. They're all we have to go on."
--Guildenstern, in Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead"
Bill Steele
<rotife...@cesspool.com> wrote:
> what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis or
> whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
> theory?
The universe is digital, not analog.
There have been a zillion sci-fi movies owing something to various
misintepretations.
impr...@my-deja.com
Remember, just because it isn't "sci-fi" doesn't mean it can't
demonstrate QM theories.
In article <9i_a5.1622$gho7.1...@news.xtra.co.nz>,
"derek" <der...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> I'm not aware of an film that explores QM, although some of the
activity in
> The Matrix could be explained by the ability to manipulate QMal
properties.
> However, it's an ambitious direction to head in. Something for this
> century's Kubrick perhaps ... the REAL sequel to 2001.
>
> regards,
> derek
>
> ----------
> In article <hlZa5.54552$dF.21...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, "Rotifer"
> <rotife...@cesspool.com> wrote:
>
> > what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or
mechancis or
> > whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something
to that
> > theory?
>
--
-Imp
Theatre is life,
Film is art,
Television is furniture.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
AT
<rotife...@cesspool.com> wrote:
>what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis or
>whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
>theory?
>
>
That movie Pi explains it all.
It all has to do with the number 236.
After you crack into the code, you will have decoded G_d's name from
the Torah, be able to manipulate the New York Stock Exchange, and
figure out how to win every time in the Japanese board game of "Go".
You will need a Pentium 4 chip to do the decoding though...
Andy
AT <at7000...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:396cc8b4...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> That movie Pi explains it all.
>
> It all has to do with the number 236.
>
Gee, I thought it was all about the number 3.1415926536(etc)
AT
wrote:
One would have thought....
But...The film explains why 236 is really the key to the universe and
not Pi as such.
In fact they came up with that number whilst trying to unravel the
mysteries of Pi. I can't remember what actual number they used in the
film, but 236 is as good a guess as any. Pretty good film too if you
like things on the off-beat side.
Capt Walt
>
> what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis or
> whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
> theory?
On occasion, I find myself not knowing enough about a subject to form an
intelligent question. I have found that the best thing to do in such a
case is to close my mouth, open my eyes, and take a trip to the library.
..Capt Walt
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/walthome
BTW, if you can formulate one grand all-encompasing theory of physics,
you will certainly be considered a brilliant, brilliant intellect.
Rick Howard
Rotifer <rotife...@cesspool.com> wrote in message
news:hlZa5.54552$dF.21...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis or
> whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
> theory?
"This is the atom. We don't know much about it except that it is very
small."
- "The Giant Claw"
derek
According to the leading phycisists who specialise in the field of quantum
mechanics, anybody who says they know what quantum mechanics is about
simply doesn't understand it. I can't tell you what the essential theory is
because thar would give the game away, but you can rest assured that if you
begin to understand where it leads, it will scare the amalgam out of your
fillings. Where you want to venture is into the realm of string theory,
which essentially resolves - or attempts to resolve - the incompatibility
between special relativity and the (Newtonian) laws of gravity and quantum
mechanics, which describes the behaviour of particles at sub-atomic levels.
I'm not aware of an film that explores QM, although some of the activity in
The Matrix could be explained by the ability to manipulate QMal properties.
However, it's an ambitious direction to head in. Something for this
century's Kubrick perhaps ... the REAL sequel to 2001.
regards,
derek
----------
In article <hlZa5.54552$dF.21...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, "Rotifer"
<rotife...@cesspool.com> wrote:
leon...@my-deja.com
"Rotifer" <rotife...@cesspool.com> wrote:
> what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis
or
> whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to
that
> theory?
>
>
is contained in its wavefunction. This leads to some rather bizarre
behavior at the atomic level. For example, it is impossible to
precisely specify the motion of a particle; the best you can do is
predict the probability that a particle will be in a certain state at a
certain time. Another example is that light, once thought to behave
exclusively like a wave, is now known to behave like a particle under
the right circumstances. Conversely, a particle has been shown to act
as a wave if the right experiments are performed. Thus we have the idea
of wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics, where both particles and
waves have the properties of each other.
Physicists can use mathematics to calculate wavefunctions quite
accurately, thus gaining much insight into the behavior of physical
systems. However, no one really knows how to interpret the wavefunction
in terms of the behavior of the system. The standard interpretation
taught in universities is called the Copeghagen Interpretation, named
after the Danish physicist Neils Bohr, who first formulated it. This
interpretation says that a system can behave in any one of an infinite
number of states until the system is measured. Then the wavefunction of
the system collapses to one definite value, the reading of the
measuring instrument. But this is only one interpretation. There is a
good book, written for the layman, that has good descriptions of many
other possible interpretations. It is Quantum Reality by Nick Herbert.
ZippoNiner
<rotife...@cesspool.com> wrote:
>what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis or
>whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
>theory?
>
A major part of quantum physics is that observation changes what is
observed.
This is why all science-fiction movies have really bad science; in
fact, they had really _good_ science, it's just that as soon as the
movie was made it 'observed' the existing science and in doing so
changed it.
--
ZippoNiner
Mooncalf
>from Einstein's relativity? It's the basis for several good SF
>novels, such as Robert Heinlein's _Time for the Stars_.
>
I can't remember exactly, but wasn't that paradox sort of used as a
tacet explanation for the events in Planet of the Apes? That is,
explaining how a crew could return to Earth which had had enough time
for apes to evolve into what they became in that film?
- M
AT
<gor...@white-crane.com> wrote:
>Quantum Mechanics is a sort of cobbled-together bunch of rules for
>calculating the physics of small-scale objects. For example, why do
>atoms absorb and emit light at distinct wavelengths instead of
>continuously? It's distinguishing features are the Wave/Partical
>duality, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the Superposition
>Principle. (Some would also include the Correspondence Principle.)
>
Not asking you for a term paper, but could you elaborate a bit on
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
Ruth
> To extend your question, have any movies made use of the Twins Paradox
> from Einstein's relativity? It's the basis for several good SF
> novels, such as Robert Heinlein's _Time for the Stars_.
That was one of my favorite books when I was a kid.....(lonnnnng time ago)
Is it still in print?
Ruth
book....The Dancing Wu Li Masters...
Mooncalf
>the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
>
I'm probably not the best one to explain this, so hopefully someone
will correct me if I've got it absolutely wrong...
I think the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle came from an experiment
which tried to determine where certain sub-atomic particles were at a
given time, and their velocity (ie, their direction and speed). It
was soon learned, however, that one could not be determined without
affecting the other. That is to say, we can tell where a sub-atomic
particle is located at a given time, but in observing that, we have
changed its velocity (or maybe trajectory?). The same goes for the
other way around. Thus, we are always doomed to miss half of the
information that, ostensibly, should be available about a particle:
it's location, and it's speed and direction.
Like I said, I could be way off, but I think this is the phenomenon
which Heisenburg recognized. Though I can't explain further than
that, the Principle has far-reaching implications in the world of
quantum mechanics.
- M
Derek Janssen
>
> > Not asking you for a term paper, but could you elaborate a bit on
> >the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
>
> I'm probably not the best one to explain this, so hopefully someone
> will correct me if I've got it absolutely wrong...
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 1999 edition:
mooncalf (n) - A foolish, or simpleminded person, someone easily
deceived
(syn: SIMPLETON)
(And now, we sit back and watch, as the Gaza lame-troll-heckling posts
give way to the newbie, "Gosh, what a thoughtful and important question,
posted on the Real Internet!--Let me contribute my detailed answer to
the world!" posts...)
Derek Janssen (here endeth the lesson, AMK, AM and ACM)
dja...@ultranet.com
leon...@my-deja.com
at7000...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:18:12 -0400, Guy Gordon
> <gor...@white-crane.com> wrote:
>
> >Quantum Mechanics is a sort of cobbled-together bunch of rules for
> >calculating the physics of small-scale objects. For example, why do
> >atoms absorb and emit light at distinct wavelengths instead of
> >continuously? It's distinguishing features are the Wave/Partical
> >duality, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the Superposition
> >Principle. (Some would also include the Correspondence Principle.)
> >
>
> the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
In classical mechanics it is in principle possible to measure both the
position and velocity of an object with essentially infinite precision.
If you also know all the forces that act on the object, you can predict
all the future motions of the object. A great example of this is
planning the trajectory of an interplanetary spacecraft; it is possible
to pedicts the motions of the planets so accurately that even after a
multi-year voyage a spacecraft will end up at a certain point in space
within a few seconds of the predicted time.
To understand why quantum mechanics is different, it helps to
understand a little about how a measurement is made. Basically, we
measure the properties of an object by bouncing electromagnetic energy
off of it. This energy can be pictured as made up a great number of
small chunks of energy called photons. For large objects like
airplanes, planets or baseballs, many photons can be bounced off them
with out affecting their motion.
At the atomic level, where quantum mechanics applies, the situation is
different. If we want to measure the properties on an electron, say its
position or velocity, we still need to bounce energy off of it. This
means we need to have an electron and photon collide. Since these two
objects have about equal energy, the photon-electron collision will
alter the state of the electron. For example, if we want to measure the
position of the electron, we hit it with a photon, which will change
its velocity. Conversely, when we try to determine the velocity of the
elctron, we introduce an uncertainty in the electron's position. Thus,
it is impossible to map the precise trajectory of an electron.
It also turns out the more precisely we measure the position of an
electron, the less precisely we know its velocity, and the more
precisely we measure the velovity the greater the uncertainty in the
position is . Heisenberg made this concept more precise with his
Uncertainty Principle, which states that the product of the uncertainty
in the velocity and the uncertainty in the position is proportional to
a constant. Specifically, the constant is called Planck's constant, and
in SI units has the value 6.634 X 10^-34 J-s. This principle does apply
to macroscopic objects, but because Planck's constant is so small we
would need to be able to measure a position or velocity with far more
precision thatn we can now in order for the uncertainty to show up.
Well, this kind of did turn into a term paper didn't it? Unfortunately,
quantum mechanic is kind of like that; most concepts evolved through a
long chain of reasoning, so it takes a bit to explain something.
Hope this helps,
-Leon
Helen & Bob
Ruth wrote:
At some time or another, all of Heinleins books are in print. There's been
nobody better, yet.
Bob
AT
<dja...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>Mooncalf wrote:
>>
>> > Not asking you for a term paper, but could you elaborate a bit on
>> >the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
>>
>> I'm probably not the best one to explain this, so hopefully someone
>> will correct me if I've got it absolutely wrong...
><snip>
>
>From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 1999 edition:
> mooncalf (n) - A foolish, or simpleminded person, someone easily
>deceived
> (syn: SIMPLETON)
>
>(And now, we sit back and watch, as the Gaza lame-troll-heckling posts
>give way to the newbie, "Gosh, what a thoughtful and important question,
>posted on the Real Internet!--Let me contribute my detailed answer to
>the world!" posts...)
>
What was that ridiculous diatribe all about?
Steve Hilby
It would appear to be someone ridiculing anyone who asks questions and
anyone who answers them.....
Steve H
Icewind Chip
>
> "Rotifer" <rotife...@cesspool.com> wrote:
>
> >what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis or
> >whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
> >theory?
> >
> acceleration, gravitational attraction, light waves that obey
> Maxwell's equations (electromagnetism). It turns out that none of
> this works when you examine mater on the scale of the atom.
It doesn't exactly work on the scale of humans, either, but the error is
so small for most situations that it can be assumed to work.
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
<rufie710-130...@207-172-127-220.s220.tnt1.fmt.nj.dialup.rcn.com>,
rufi...@rcn.com (Ruth) wrote:
> check out...
>
> book....The Dancing Wu Li Masters...
...or, if you want lighter reading, "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra
is worth a go...
--
"The music becomes more and more abstract sounding
like a syncopated barnyard button factory."
- David Lynch, "Ronnie Rocket"
Jimmy
has a goddamn clue what it is. The important issue in physics, however, is
that the unviverse, according to quantum mechanics, is no longer
predictable. Things cannot be interpreted in binaries anymore; things can
only be expressed in probabilities, and this is disquieting to an awfully
large number of physicists.
The word quantum means a small, discrete particle. The word mechanics
means, obviously, the dynamics of a physical system. But mechanics is a
misnomer, because, as I said, at such excruciatingly small levels, things
only occur probabilistically. There is a probability, although slight, that
you will turn into a toad right now. By quantum mechanics, this is
possible. So you can see why people are pissed off; scientists don't
especially like something like that to be possible, but the mathematics says
that it is.
I seriously doubt there are any movies which discuss real world quantum
mechanics.
And also, it is general relativity that they can't get to mesh with quantum
physics, not special relativity. General relativity incorporates special
relativity and accounts for gravity, making the laws of physics
indistinguishable in ALL reference frames, not just inertial, or special,
ones. String theory is interesting, because where space tears at about
10^-34 meter or whatever it is, string theory would render such sizes moot,
because the strings would be bigger. And general relativity says nothing
about any tear, so that is why they don't mesh.
impr...@my-deja.com
Trilogy."
In article <rufie710-1307001141030001@207-172-127-
220.s220.tnt1.fmt.nj.dialup.rcn.com>,
rufi...@rcn.com (Ruth) wrote:
> check out...
>
> book....The Dancing Wu Li Masters...
>
--
-Imp
Theatre is life,
Film is art,
Television is furniture.
M4RV1N
writes:
>> What was that ridiculous diatribe all about?
>
>It would appear to be someone ridiculing anyone who asks questions and
>anyone who answers them.....
I think someone is offended about the fact that this is OT (though I'm not...
yet). What matters is that SK films appear not to change due to observation.
This is quantum mechanics:
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/people/jenkins/mbody/mbody2.html
This is your mind on quantum mechanics:
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html
Any questions?
M3E
Luis Carruthers
> > Not asking you for a term paper, but could you elaborate a bit on
> >the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
> >
>
> I'm probably not the best one to explain this, so hopefully someone
> will correct me if I've got it absolutely wrong...
>
> I think the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle came from an experiment
> which tried to determine where certain sub-atomic particles were at a
> given time, and their velocity (ie, their direction and speed). It
> was soon learned, however, that one could not be determined without
> affecting the other. That is to say, we can tell where a sub-atomic
> particle is located at a given time, but in observing that, we have
> changed its velocity (or maybe trajectory?). The same goes for the
> other way around. Thus, we are always doomed to miss half of the
> information that, ostensibly, should be available about a particle:
> it's location, and it's speed and direction.
>
> Like I said, I could be way off, but I think this is the phenomenon
> which Heisenburg recognized. Though I can't explain further than
> that, the Principle has far-reaching implications in the world of
> quantum mechanics.
>
> - M
That's the most I'm ever able to get out of anyone. I've never seen
anyone explain why observing the particle's location effects its
velocity. Is it something to do with the means of observation? Because
usually, when I see somebody mention the Uncertainty Principle, they use
it to say that it's impossible under any circumstance to know the
particle's velocity and location simultaneously. Does... whatever
reason there is for the UP... justify that statement?
Gil Drury
>
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:57:51 +0100, "Andy" <us...@globalnet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >AT <at7000...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:396cc8b4...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> It all has to do with the number 236.
> >>
> >Gee, I thought it was all about the number 3.1415926536(etc)
>
> One would have thought....
>
> But...The film explains why 236 is really the key to the universe and
> not Pi as such.
>
> In fact they came up with that number whilst trying to unravel the
> mysteries of Pi. I can't remember what actual number they used in the
> film, but 236 is as good a guess as any. Pretty good film too if you
> like things on the off-beat side.
i think it was a 216 DIGIT number - not 216 (or 236) as a number itself
regards, nic.
Mooncalf
>anyone explain why observing the particle's location effects its
>velocity. Is it something to do with the means of observation? Because
>usually, when I see somebody mention the Uncertainty Principle, they use
>it to say that it's impossible under any circumstance to know the
>particle's velocity and location simultaneously. Does... whatever
>reason there is for the UP... justify that statement?
>
At the risk of being blasted again (for some reason I'm not even
understanding)... I believe the method of observation is "shining
light" onto the particle, so to speak. The thing is that, with
particles so small, "shining light" means shooting one single photon
(the "atoms" of light, if you want to think of it that way) at the
particle--the two of which are essentially the same size, or at least
comparable enough to affect one another. Imagine a billiard ball
rolling across a pool table, and the only way you could determine
where it was was to roll another billiard ball against it. Doing that
would change the direction and speed of the original ball.
Though we're constantly being pummelled with billions upon billions of
photons at every moment, they don't affect us because we are so
massive compared to them. On those incredily small scales, though,
the masses easily affect one another, and so "observing" something
about a tiny particle becomes very difficult.
(by the way, as I write this, I realize that this only accounts for
testing the location of a particle... though I don't know the method
for testing its velocity, I'm pretty sure that it has similar
consequences..... I'm not a science person at all, so hopefully this
is somewhat both correct and sufficient for a lay-person's
understanding)
(I'm sure I'll be corrected anyway if I've said anything wrong or
misleading... and I welcome such corrections, as long as they
acknowledge that I'm only trying to help, eh?)
- M
Ranman
>
> In article
> <rufie710-130...@207-172-127-220.s220.tnt1.fmt.nj.dialup.rcn.com>,
> is worth a go...
Also, "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality" has
a nice history of chemistry and physics leading up to quantum mechanics,
as well as some interesting paradoxes that evolved from quantum theory.
And, don't forget Hawking's "A Brief History of Time".
RGF
:On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:18:12 -0400, Guy Gordon
:<gor...@white-crane.com> wrote:
:
:
:>Quantum Mechanics is a sort of cobbled-together bunch of rules for
:>calculating the physics of small-scale objects. For example, why do
:>atoms absorb and emit light at distinct wavelengths instead of
:>continuously? It's distinguishing features are the Wave/Partical
:>duality, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the Superposition
:>Principle. (Some would also include the Correspondence Principle.)
:>
:
: Not asking you for a term paper, but could you elaborate a bit on
:the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
Basically it says that it is impossible to passively measure
something at the quantum level. The act of observing (measuring) a
thing changes the thing your are measuring.
Before quantum mechanics, It was thought that if you were to
accurately measure the state of every particle in the universe, then
you could predict everything that would ever happen from then on.
Quantum physics says that it is inherently impossible to accurately
measure the state of things at the quantum level.
While it is obviously completely impractical to measure the state of
the entire universe, there is a big difference between impractical and
impossible.
Another part of quantum theory is that waves/particles exist only as
a probability until measured. Thus a photon might go 60% through this
hole and 40% through that hole, only by observing which hole the
photon goes through does the 60/40 probability get resolved into one
hole or the other.
This implies that the true answer to the question "If a tree falls in
the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?" is maybe!
Howard Brazee
>
> That's the most I'm ever able to get out of anyone. I've never seen
> anyone explain why observing the particle's location effects its
> velocity. Is it something to do with the means of observation? Because
> usually, when I see somebody mention the Uncertainty Principle, they use
> it to say that it's impossible under any circumstance to know the
> particle's velocity and location simultaneously. Does... whatever
> reason there is for the UP... justify that statement?
The stuff we use to look at tiny particles are in themselves tiny
particles. This is like having an invisible billiard ball, which we
learn about by hitting at it with a cue ball. When the cue ball bounces
away from the invisible ball, we know where that ball must have been -
but it is now somewhere else.
T. "Rufus" Frazier
>check out...
>
>book....The Dancing Wu Li Masters...
Ah, yes. Yet another pretentious attempt to make a
straightforward science into a religion. At the beginning of
this century, physics was on the knee of the curve. Discoveries
were coming so often of such profound magnitude that physicists
became self appointed wizards or priests. At the end of the
century, with still no field unification and fusion power still on the
distant horizon, physicists now appear more like the blind
men they always have been, all trying to describe the elephant and
reconcile their differing descriptions. The Dancing Wu LI Masters
was written when the legend was at it's height. It's been slipping
ever since. The next priests will be the bio tech boys.
Gary Jones
and/or Karen Rouse <ro...@teleport.com> writes
>In article
><rufie710-130...@207-172-127-220.s220.tnt1.fmt.nj.dialup.rcn.com>,
>is worth a go...
>
Both of these books present QM in a way that tries to link it to eastern
mysticism. That approach was always a lot of hooey in my view, but was
fashionable for a while a couple of decades ago.
A much better book for an interested newcomer is Where Does The
Weirdness Go? (Why Quantum Mechanics Is Strange But Not As Strange As
You Think) by David Lindley.
--
Gary Jones
Avoid normal situations.
:> > Not asking you for a term paper, but could you elaborate a bit on
:> >the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
:>
:> I'm probably not the best one to explain this, so hopefully someone
:> will correct me if I've got it absolutely wrong...
: From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 1999 edition:
: mooncalf (n) - A foolish, or simpleminded person, someone easily
: deceived
: (syn: SIMPLETON)
: (And now, we sit back and watch, as the Gaza lame-troll-heckling posts
: give way to the newbie, "Gosh, what a thoughtful and important question,
: posted on the Real Internet!--Let me contribute my detailed answer to
: the world!" posts...)
: Derek Janssen (here endeth the lesson, AMK, AM and ACM)
Lesson being, "What a thoughtless and rude person Derek Janssen is".
--
alt.flame "grateful for the signal posted earlier" Special Forces
"To put their research into action, the Green researchers developed a
prototype device called the Star7, a remote control-like gadget that could
communicate with others of its own kind. The original idea was to develop the
Star7 operating system in C++, the hugely popular object-oriented programming
language developed by Bjarne Stroustrup. However, Green project member James
Gosling became fed up with how C++ was performing on the task, so he
barricaded himself in his office and wrote a new language to better handle
the Star7. The language was named Oak, in honor of a tree Gosling could see
out his office window."
-- Laura Lemay and Roger Cadenhead, _Teach Yourself Java 2 in 21 Days_
code...@my-deja.com
m...@talon.org (Mooncalf) wrote:
> I think the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle came from an experiment
> which tried to determine where certain sub-atomic particles were at a
> given time, and their velocity (ie, their direction and speed). It
> was soon learned, however, that one could not be determined without
> affecting the other. That is to say, we can tell where a sub-atomic
> particle is located at a given time, but in observing that, we have
> changed its velocity (or maybe trajectory?). The same goes for the
> other way around. Thus, we are always doomed to miss half of the
> information that, ostensibly, should be available about a particle:
> it's location, and it's speed and direction.
>
That's functionally correct, but Heisenberg realized (early on) and
explicitly said (later on) that it's not a "fat fingers phenomenon" so
much as it is a emergence of reality. That sounds cosmic, but here is
what it means...
You can't measure two conjugate variables (properties) of a particle.
Say these two are position and velocity (don't groan, I'm
simplifying)... The reason you "obviously" cannot is because to find
the position, you must, in some way, alter the other variable (velocity)
and vice-versa.
What it really meant is that conjugate pairs of variables have no mutual
absolute meaning at a given time. So the more you force the particle to
show you one variable, the other variable becomes fuzzier. And if you
absolutely determine one variable, then you've destroyed the existence
of the other variable.
The velocity or momentum only "exists" when the position variable is
destroyed. You can only partially approximate the position by partially
destroying some measure of knowability of the velocity or momentum.
Tim...
derek
In article <8l2780$3t1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, code...@my-deja.com wrote:
> What it really meant is that conjugate pairs of variables have no mutual
> absolute meaning at a given time. So the more you force the particle to
> show you one variable, the other variable becomes fuzzier.
Is this a breach of their conjugal rights?
I've been taking my car to a quantum mechanic so I can drive to two
destinations at once.
Sorry.
derek
Rick Ackerman
> what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis or
> whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
> theory?
The following is about computers, but it yields some very interesting insights
into quantum theory that are comprehensible to the layman:
Quantum PCs:
Data in a flash
By Kevin Maney - USA TODAY
7-29-00
Around 2030 or so, the computer on your desk might be
filled with liquid instead of transistors and chips. It
would
be a quantum computer. It wouldn't operate on anything
so mundane as physical laws. It would employ quantum
mechanics, which quickly gets into things such as
teleportation and alternate universes and is, by all
accounts, the weirdest stuff known to man.
This quantum computer would be a data rocket. It
probably would do calculations a good 1 billion times
faster than a Pentium III PC. It would be able to search
the entire Internet -- imagine how much will be on the
Net in 2030 -- in a blink, and could break any
cryptographic security code ever invented, no doubt
making the CIA very, very nervous.
Sound like science fiction? It's not. Over the past year,
quantum computers have become a serious contender for
What Comes Next -- after Moore's Law takes the current
architecture of transistors mounted on microprocessors as
far as it can go in increasing processing power.
Quantum computers do calculations using atoms instead
of computer chips. The first quantum computers are still
rough, expensive, one-shot science experiments. But
since last year they have been built and have shown that
the science works. Labs at places like the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and Oxford University are
pumping up quantum computer projects. Companies
such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard are leaping in. The
federal government, which is both worried about and
intrigued by quantum computing, has set up one of the
most well-funded quantum computing labs at Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
"This area has gone off like a big bang. It's
breathtaking,"
says Stan Williams, head of Hewlett-Packard's labs. "The
potential is so huge and it would be so disruptive, it
could
completely change the way at least some computing is
done."
The caveat, though, is that quantum computing is
tremendously hard in practice and in theory. In practice,
creating a situation where atoms do calculations and give
results challenges even the best scientists.
On the theory side, quantum mechanics delves deep into
areas that are nearly unthinkable. For instance, it's
possible that a quantum computer holds an infinite
number of right answers for an infinite number of
parallel
universes. It just happens to give you the right answer
for
the universe you happen to be in at the time. "It takes a
great deal of courage to accept these things," says
Charles Bennett of IBM, one of the best-known quantum
computing scientists. "If you do, you have to believe in
a
lot of other strange things."
The result is that practical quantum computing is still
decades away. Scientific efforts today are the quantum
computing equivalent of Ben Franklin flying his kite in a
lightning storm to test theories of electricity. The next
step for the labs is to figure out how to control and
bottle
this incredible force.
Quantum basics
For a non-scientist, understanding how quantum
computing works is darn near impossible. But the basics
are worth taking a stab at.
Quantum computing's starting point came when
physicists realized that atoms are naturally tiny little
calculators. "Nature knows how to compute," says MIT's
Neil Gershenfeld, who with IBM's Isaac Chuang built the
most successful quantum computer yet. "We just didn't
know how to ask the right questions."
Atoms have a natural spin or orientation, in the way a
needle on a compass has an orientation. The spin can
either be up or down. That coincides nicely with digital
technology, which represents everything by a series of 1s
and 0s. With an atom, a spin pointing up can be 1; down
can be 0. Flipping the spin up or down could be like
flipping the switch on and off (or between 1 and 0) on a
tiny transistor.
So far so good. But here's one of the weird parts, which
also is the source of quantum computing's great power.
An atom, which is not visible to the naked eye, can be
both up and down at the same time until you measure it.
The act of measuring it -- whether using instruments or a
powerful microscope -- forces it to choose between up or
down.
Don't ask why it works that way. It's part of quantum
mechanics, which is a set of laws -- like Einstein's
theory
of relativity -- that govern the universe. In this case,
the
laws govern the tiniest objects in the universe. Quantum
mechanics is entirely unlike anything in the world of
ordinary experiences. The laws are so bizarre they seem
made up. Yet they've been proven time and again.
Since an atom can be up and down at once -- called
putting it into a superposition -- it's not just equal to
one
bit, as in a traditional computer. It's something else.
Scientists call it a qubit. If you put a bunch of qubits
together, they don't do calculations linearly like
today's
computers. They are, in a sense, doing all possible
calculations at the same time -- in a way, straddling all
the possible answers. The act of measuring the qubits
stops the calculating process and forces them to settle
on
an answer.
Forty qubits could have the power of one of today's
supercomputers. A supercomputer trying to find one
phone number in a database of all the world's phone
books would take a month, Chuang says. A quantum
computer could do it in 27 minutes.
Different kind of spin
Another aspect of quantum mechanics could prove
important to computing. It's called entanglement. An
outside force acting on two atoms can cause them to
become entangled. Wherever they are in the universe --
even light-years apart - - they will stay entangled.
Their
spins are in all positions at once. But the instant one
entangled particle is observed its spin goes one way. At
that same instant, the spin of the other particle, or
atom,
locks in the opposite way.
In a sense, it's communication. If you see an entangled
particle lock in an up position on this end, you know it
is
down on the other end. And since it happens
instantaneously, it seems to defy laws about the speed of
light. In fact, theories about entanglement have led
scientists to believe there are ways, however improbable,
to do Star Trek-style teleportation.
More realistically, entanglement could be a way to speed
up computing. Even today's computers are nearing a
point at which their speed is being limited by how fast
an
electron can move through a wire -- the speed of light.
Whether in a quantum or traditional computer,
entanglement could blow past that limit.
The concept of programming the software for a quantum
computer isn't any less strange.
To program a quantum computer, you wouldn't use the
step-by-step logic of today's computers. You'd want logic
that used the peculiar properties of qubits. That's what
Lov Grover of AT&T's Bell Labs did when he invented
an algorithm, or mathematical program, that uses
quantum computing to search databases. He describes it
as similar to dropping multiple pebbles in a pond so that
the waves cross and interact in a particular way.
Grover's algorithm sets up multiple paths of
computations, so that waves of results -- all happening
at
the same time -- start interfering with each other. "You
get the undesired answers to cancel out," Grover says.
"The right answers interfere constructively and add up."
It's kind of backward computing: You assume the
computer already knows all possible answers and it has
to find the right one.
For most of the 1990s, people like Grover, Bennett and
Gershenfeld have operated in a world of only theory.
The tough question, though, has been: How do you make
a quantum computer work? Lately, there have been
some answers.
The Gershenfeld-Chuang quantum computer looks
nothing like a computer. It looks more like a nuclear
toaster. The most intractable problem of quantum
computing is that the inner workings of the device, the
actual calculating atoms, have to be completely isolated
from their surroundings. Any interaction with even a
single other atom or particle of light makes the
particles
choose a spin direction, polluting the results.
And yet, if you're going to program a quantum computer,
put in data and get out a result, you have to interact
with
the atoms somehow.
Dancing chloroform atoms
A year ago, Gershenfeld and Chuang, along with
scientists at Oxford and the University of California at
Berkeley decided to use a nuclear magnetic resonance
machine, or NMR, often used for brain scans. They filled
a test tube with chloroform fluid, which is made of
molecules composed of carbon and hydrogen atoms. The
scientists lowered a test tube filled with chloroform
within
a magnetic coil that emits controlled magnetic pulses.
The atoms in the chloroform do a dance with their spins
according to a pattern dictated by nature. The NMR
pulses nudge some atoms in the dance, indirectly
affecting the spins of other atoms. That way, the carbon
spins can be programmed without any contact, allowing
them to perform as quantum computers.
The dancing produces a slight warbling in the magnetic
field. By measuring that warble, scientists can read the
result of the quantum calculations. "NMR kicks the spins
at precise intervals," Chuang says. "The sequence of
flips
is the program."
The program contained Grover's algorithm. It did a
simple search, finding one item out of four in a single
step. (A regular computer would take two or three tries.)
Gershenfeld and Chuang ended up creating the first
2-qubit quantum computer. It cost about $1 million.
They have since created a 3-qubit computer.
There are other ways to make quantum computers. A
group in Australia is trying to make one that doesn't use
liquid. Another group has tried something called ion
traps,
which essentially makes one quantum computing particle
at a time.
The labs around the world are pushing the science hard.
"Everyone wants to be the first group to add the next
qubit to the system," says H-P's Williams. "The group
that comes up with four -- that'll be a big deal."
For a long time, quantum computing will be a big deal
only to scientists. Yet computer companies have more
than a passing interest. As Gershenfeld explains, if the
transistors on computer chips keep getting smaller and
more packed together at the same pace as over the past
25 years, by about 2020 the width of a wire on a
computer chip will be the width of a single atom. "Every
physical parameter you can think of hits bottom," he
says. "It may even come sooner."
At that point, computers using today's chip designs would
stop getting rapidly better, faster and cheaper.
Something
will have to take up the slack. Quantum computing looks
like an attractive option -- because of its potential
power,
because it seems to work and because the supply of raw
material is more endless than silicon. "It's the biggest
untapped resource in the universe," Gershenfeld says.
Another group watching closely is the cryptography
crowd. "It has the potential of making a lot of our stuff
obsolete," says Bruce Schneier of computer security
experts Counterpane Systems.
Cryptography, he says, is based on extremely hard
factoring problems, which are nearly impossible to do on
a traditional computer in any reasonable amount of time.
"Quantum computing allows you to use an infinite
number of hammers at the same time" to whack apart a
cryptographic code, Schneier says. "Then it's no longer a
hard problem."
A new can of worms
In that sense, quantum computing could be a can of
worms. Credit card transactions, stock trades, military
messages, government communication -- all depend on
cryptography to stay secure. The CIA, the military and
the Department of Energy have been funding research
and keeping tabs on other work in the field. They don't
want to be caught flat. "Any technology like this has the
potential for great benefit and great harm," Williams
says.
Will it become an everyday product? Maybe someday.
H-P envisions a quantum computing attachment. Most of
your PC would be of the traditional variety, but you
might plug in a quantum device when it's time to do the
things quantum computing does best, such as search or
cryptography. Other experts, including Gershenfeld, see a
day when you could walk into Wal-Mart and pick up a
liquid- filled desktop quantum machine.
The only outlook that's clear is that quantum computing
keeps getting more plausible and electrifying. "Things we
thought were limits are not," IBM's Bennett says. "In
some ways, we've been overly pessimistic."
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
This Site Served by TheHostPros
T. "Rufus" Frazier
<ric...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Quantum PCs:
> Data in a flash
> By Kevin Maney - USA TODAY
> 7-29-00
> Around 2030 or so, the computer on your desk might be
> filled with liquid instead of transistors and chips. It
>would
> be a quantum computer. It wouldn't operate on anything
> so mundane as physical laws. It would employ quantum
> mechanics, which quickly gets into things such as
> teleportation and alternate universes and is, by all
> accounts, the weirdest stuff known to man.
This is garbage on the level of 1930s predictions where we inhabitants
of the year 2000 all fly around in air cars. Either that, or the
author ran into a physicist desperate to increase government funding.
Neil Cudd
Mooncalf wrote in message <396df880....@news.uswest.net>...
>I think the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle came from an experiment
>which tried to determine where certain sub-atomic particles were at a
>given time, and their velocity (ie, their direction and speed). It
>was soon learned, however, that one could not be determined without
>affecting the other. That is to say, we can tell where a sub-atomic
>particle is located at a given time, but in observing that, we have
>changed its velocity (or maybe trajectory?). The same goes for the
>other way around. Thus, we are always doomed to miss half of the
>information that, ostensibly, should be available about a particle:
>it's location, and it's speed and direction.
That's what I understood it to be. A funny quote I heard from one of the
Star Trek scriptwriters after they introduced a fictional "techie" component
into the Enterprise's transporter systems : The Heisenberg Compensator, was
that they were phoned the next day by a team of scientists at MIT asking how
it worked.
I thought it was funny .....
..... I've been ill ....
Neil C.
Geoff
<ne...@cudd.demon.co.uk> deposited this nugget in this here
newsgroup
>>Fashionably late on this thread .... I've been on holiday ...
Neil, how DARE you have a life...
>>
>>I thought it was funny .....
>>
>>..... I've been ill ....
On behalf of all the other voices on this group, we hope
you're feeling better.
Regards,
Geoff "On with the show."
"Uncertainty is the normal state.
You're nobody special."
--Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, Tom Stoppard
Arthur
"T. \"Rufus\" Frazier" <rufu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 05:18:42 GMT, Rick Ackerman
> <ric...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Data in a flash
> > By Kevin Maney - USA TODAY
> > 7-29-00
>
> > Around 2030 or so, the computer on your desk
might be
> > filled with liquid instead of transistors and
chips. It
> >would
> > be a quantum computer. It wouldn't operate on
anything
> > so mundane as physical laws. It would employ
quantum
> > mechanics, which quickly gets into things such
as
> > teleportation and alternate universes and is, by
all
> > accounts, the weirdest stuff known to man.
>
> of the year 2000 all fly around in air cars. Either that, or the
> author ran into a physicist desperate to increase government funding.
>
>
Clever! - I was going to recall 1950 predictions on cars with nuclear
engines by 2000, when I read your reply.
Even so, to be honest I think any prediction for future computer
technology will fail.
a) more advanced digital circuits ?? (pentium XXIVI) - probably this
will NOT the way computers develop on future
b) molecular computers? I dont think so
c) quantum computers? it sounds ridiculous
d) proteinic computers? it is nonsense
e) hybrid computers? (mix of silicon and bio) - it sounds too much SciFi
Some keywords probably will be: evolutionary hardware and software,
genetic algorithms and genetic programming. Probably engineers will be
able to put in silicon the same rules that our brains use, to create new
circuits when required for solving some task. Today this is performed on
neural nets (software), but someday this will move to hardware and I
think 30 years from now is enough for this technology.
--
Seeking a good SF book? http://www.50megs.com/aalembert
Garner Miller
> > This is garbage on the level of 1930s predictions where we inhabitants
> > of the year 2000 all fly around in air cars.
> Clever! - I was going to recall 1950 predictions on cars with nuclear
> engines by 2000, when I read your reply.
I think Avery Brooks' latest IBM commercial is very appropriate here:
http://www.adcritic.com/content/ibm-why-no-flying-cars-why-why-why.html
Fred
subatomic structures CAN be examined without altering their
position, direction, or velocity. They use energized tachyons
that travel faster than light and don't exist in our space/time,
yet are affected by things that happen in our space/time. They
do not alter the subatomic particles while, at the same time,
can be used to measure them. Well, anyway, that's how my
college physics instructor explained it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Fred
the most brilliant minds in the world have yet to come up with a
stable supercomputer. And thats using tried and proven
technology. Now you are suggesting that we will have
multi-teraflop machines utilizing an entirely new technology
within the next 30 years? Sorry, but for it to be a reality,
there has to be some kind of interest in it. The supercomputer
world is dead right now. There is no money in it, and the
situation looks to get bleaker as time goes on. As it stands,
supercomputer manufacturers actually lose money on every one that
they build. Only large diversified companies are still in the
business because of the publicity they get from the media- no
other reason. The only ones even interested in faster
supercomputers is the federal government, and even they can only
afford to buy a new one every 6 or 7 years, and they certainly
aren't going to gamble on machines based on unproven technology.
Here's what is really going to happen in the next thrity years:
Engineers are going to perfect advanced mesh networking designs,
allowing millions of personal computers and servers to work
together in a massively paralleled node redundant
self-configuring network. If they need to solve a problem,
they'll just download it to all the individual nodes and have
them work the problem simultaneously. If the entire internet was
pooled together in this way, you'd already have the power of
"billions" of Pentium IIIs at peoples fingertips. This power
will be available to anyone on the network who needs it.
Necessity is the mother of invention. No ones going to front the
cash to develop something that there isn't even a need for.
snow falling on damon
Arthur wrote:
>
> In article <ev2dos8767p60gc5m...@4ax.com>,
> "T. \"Rufus\" Frazier" <rufu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 05:18:42 GMT, Rick Ackerman
> > <ric...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Quantum PCs:
> > > Data in a flash
> > > By Kevin Maney - USA TODAY
> > > 7-29-00
> >
> > > Around 2030 or so, the computer on your desk
> might be
> > > filled with liquid instead of transistors and
> chips. It
> > >would
> > > be a quantum computer. It wouldn't operate on
> anything
> > > so mundane as physical laws. It would employ
> quantum
> > > mechanics, which quickly gets into things such
> as
> > > teleportation and alternate universes and is, by
> all
> > > accounts, the weirdest stuff known to man.
> >
> > This is garbage on the level of 1930s predictions where we inhabitants
> > of the year 2000 all fly around in air cars. Either that, or the
> > author ran into a physicist desperate to increase government funding.
> >
> >
>
> Clever! - I was going to recall 1950 predictions on cars with nuclear
> engines by 2000, when I read your reply.
>
> Even so, to be honest I think any prediction for future computer
> technology will fail.
>
> a) more advanced digital circuits ?? (pentium XXIVI) - probably this
> will NOT the way computers develop on future
the problem being that tech is already at about the minimum limits
sizewise-
they already make transistors so small quantum effects
interfere.
> b) molecular computers? I dont think so
> c) quantum computers? it sounds ridiculous
yes and no.
they can get some nifty stuff with them,
but i don't think the cpacity for making personal computers l
ike that will ever exist-
youneed magnetic fielkds etc,
and what's more quantum mechanics is not
digital, it's statistical.
> d) proteinic computers? it is nonsense
nonsense.
again, not for personal computers, but supercomputers
might well be composed of prortein/dna tech.
> e) hybrid computers? (mix of silicon and bio) - it sounds too much SciFi
>
> Some keywords probably will be: evolutionary hardware and software,
> genetic algorithms and genetic programming. Probably engineers will be
> able to put in silicon the same rules that our brains use, to create new
> circuits when required for solving some task. Today this is performed on
> neural nets (software), but someday this will move to hardware and I
> think 30 years from now is enough for this technology.
>
> --
> Seeking a good SF book? http://www.50megs.com/aalembert
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Republican presidential candidates unclear on the concept:'Now one of
the things is we're not going to allow ourselves to be dragged down
into the mud in this campaign. We are going to counterpunch.'
[paraphrased]
Perhaps one should also refrain from such comments when one's central
campaign theme is implicitly calling their opposition a liar.
Howard Brazee
Fred wrote:
>
> I hate to break this to you, but after over 20 years of trying,
> the most brilliant minds in the world have yet to come up with a
> stable supercomputer. And thats using tried and proven
> technology.
While I agree with you in spirit, I disagree with this statement. They
have produced lots of stable supercomputers - most of which were sold
for scrap a few years later as it was cheaper to replace them with the
next generation of computers than to run them. It isn't that they
weren't as advertised, it is that technology changed. Kind of like
having a super tank (put an average tank of today in WWII).
I wonder if they could make a good movie out of >> Guns of the South <<
?
Arthur
Fred <nernieN...@uswest.net.invalid> wrote:
> self-configuring network. If they need to solve a problem,
> they'll just download it to all the individual nodes and have
> them work the problem simultaneously. If the entire internet was
> pooled together in this way, you'd already have the power of
> "billions" of Pentium IIIs at peoples fingertips. This power
> will be available to anyone on the network who needs it.
> Necessity is the mother of invention. No ones going to front the
> cash to develop something that there isn't even a need for.
>
Yes, it could be happen, but to solve problems using distributed
hardware, you first should be able to break down the problem into tiny
tasks so each machine will care on corresponding piece of task.
This is performed today with seti@home project and also to break large
numbers into prime factors, but only after someone discovered the
necessary algorithms (I think Lenstra for breaking factors and don't
remember who was for seti@home Fourier decomposition)
I think very few problems are suitable to be broken in this way, only
problems which are too 'math' could be broken. There are problems people
think are 'intractable' and I don't know how a big net could solve them.
People now are working with 'ant colony' algorithm to solve these
problems, but even so all solutions are not 'best solutions' but rather
'useful solutions'.
Edward Negus
> have produced lots of stable supercomputers - most of which were sold
> for scrap a few years later as it was cheaper to replace them with the
> next generation of computers than to run them. It isn't that they
> weren't as advertised, it is that technology changed. Kind of like
> having a super tank (put an average tank of today in WWII).
Actually, the record for the longest run without a hardware or software
interrupt (a little over four months) is held by a modern supercomputer, the
second fastest in the world, in use at Sandia National Labs. It is still
using advanced technology (PII Xeon core). Four months is ample time for
any one problem, but there is no guarantee that it will run that long.
Older supercomputers were simpler in design than modern ones, and were more
stable hardware-wise because of it. But the old software lacked a lot of
bells and whistles that made longer, uninterrupted runs possible
(hot-swapping, node redundancy, automatic re-routing around bad nodes, etc.)
.
ca314159
The 'ant colony' or agent theory is popular because it
allows for individual errors as long as there is overall
success. Something a large corporation would appreciate
from outsourcing to telecommuters say.
"Quantum" computers have existed for a long time. They're
a source of embarassment for science, having more in common
with astrologic than logic. The conjunction of planets is
no less a conjunction of qubit states; when size is discarded
the end result is the same.
Map 'true' and 'false' onto the sides of a Moebius strip and
explain the logic of it. Quantum computers are hybrid
analog-digital machines. Analog while its working, digital
when one makes the measurement to get the result. The truth
is "out there" and "in there" (Klein bottles). One really needs
to work both directions between the functional domains of
complementary variables (dualities). So time series analysis
is supplemented with spectral analysis and vice versa.
Analogic and logic best used, supplementing each other in
the same manner. Right brain, left brain. Parallel, serial. etc.
Ultimately its all the mind-body stuff you see Hollywood
pushing.
I suspect Robert Hamner and other screenwriter/directors
started this trend to introduce the Jungian variant: George
Lucas and Joseph Campbell, Eranos foundation. Matrix, Pi,...
Star Wars is about propaganda wars, linguistic wars and
political and economic wars. Memetics supplies the programs
to societies addictions to synthetics, naturals and personals,
the most surreptitious being the addictions to one's own
brain chemicals: endorphins, dopamines and their associated
brain states. Programmable biocomputers once you get hang
of putting these "quantum computers" into a state of
superposition suitable for brain washing and idiot savant
exploitation.
The western supercomputers are no less practical 'sculptures'
than the eastern kivas. These 'sculptures' are both built using
material matter, yet they communicate to their builders
orthogonally different forms of information. It all depends
on what the question is whether you use one technique or another.
The west looks outward to the stars for its cosmology,
the east looks inward to the earth for its cosmogony.
The extremes are never stable so the whole thing is put on
a moebius strip to keep things together. Any paradoxes
left over are a matter of aesthetic education.
Arthur
ca314159 <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> The 'ant colony' or agent theory is popular because it
> allows for individual errors as long as there is overall
> success. Something a large corporation would appreciate
> from outsourcing to telecommuters say.
>
instructions, to execute very complex tasks when these robots acting
together. The keyword here is 'pheromones', a kind of alcoholic hormone
produced by ants and having a precice rate for evaporation. Ants just
know how to follow pheromone tracks, when more strong is pheromonic
smell, more probably ant will follow this track, reinforcing this way
the previous track. This ridiculous algorithm is incredible efficient
for searching and marking best way for food sources, or best way for
transporting sand to build the nest. People are using 'electronic
pheromones' and 'electronic ants' to re-route network connections and to
classify customers in financial institutions.
Just to see how it optimizes food sources search, lot of ants will leave
the nest in randomic way, the first ant to find food and returning to
nest, will have the strongest 'pheromone smell' because it took less to
return and pheromone is not very evaporated. Other ants will follow this
strongest smell and then a long string of ants are connecting the food
with the nest. The same algorithm also solves these cases when obstacles
break the string ant ants need to rebuilt it. Now you see how these
algorithms solves network connections.
> The extremes are never stable so the whole thing is put on
> a moebius strip to keep things together. Any paradoxes
> left over are a matter of aesthetic education.
>
The rest of your message appears more a mix of philosophy and religious
- zen. To be honest, I liked it but I didn't understand very much.
Seeking a good SF book? http://www.50megs.com/aalembert
Sean LeBlanc
The only problem is the comparison can go both ways. We've all seen the
predictions of the past, and how far they were surpassed: Popular
Mechanics claiming that one day we'd have computers under one ton
in weight, someone else made prediction that there were at the
most only a demand for x amount of computers, and of course,
Bill Gates saying 640K is more than enough RAM for anyone. Then there
is this kind of research being done:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,11077,00.html
I'm sure there were naysayers of
transistors when they were first being proposed, and I'm sure there
were naysayers of silicon when it was first proprosed. I think the
best rule of thumb when it comes to technology is never say never,
unless you are an absolute authority on the subject, and even then,
it might be possible to be way off. A few years ago, music execs
were poo-poo'ing digital music as something the general public
would have any interest in...as we can see, that was shown to be
pure bollocks.
If you were to go back thirty years and tell people that the average
household would have access to the kinds of MIPS that we now do,
I'm sure you would be told that you were off your nut, and that there
is no need in the market, and other such things.
The article mentions that quantum computers won't replace desktops or
supercomputers, but I for one remain skeptical of that claim.
gar...@netstreet.net (Garner Miller) writes:
> Arthur <alem...@mypad.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is garbage on the level of 1930s predictions where we inhabitants
> > > of the year 2000 all fly around in air cars.
>
> > Clever! - I was going to recall 1950 predictions on cars with nuclear
> > engines by 2000, when I read your reply.
>
lionha...@gmail.com
MickeyMoop
>
> > what is the essential theory underlying quantum physics or mechancis or
> > whatever it is and has there been any sci-fi movie owing something to that
> > theory?
>
>
> Stephen
WRONG - All visible twerking are but pasteboard twerks. Pakula, Coppola, Kubricka, Gabaganushka, all all are reflections in a quantum-weevil-Alpharetta secret service baiting bulldog's eye. The rest is fluidtry. Get some, Gen, BY G U M, or we'll get some for U.