Prove that they were right by making the same attitude yours.
That's the best gratitude to be received. Especially when you are not young anymore.
Proving that what you did was not in vain but it had a good impact on people and it will outlast you.
What about going logarithmic with time?
The more it's in the past the more errors are forgiven.
Explained in another way use the relative time difference (diff/(now-value)) to compute the score and not the absolute time difference
Starship can be used to release a probe with gigantic fuel reserve and a bigger than usual energy source (solar or nuclear).
Then the probe can use a VASMIR or other electric propulsion to gradually accumulate a vast amount of delta-v
"The payload is data." Elon
The data they get from the test and they focus on getting the most and most valuable data.
This is an explicit choice.
A physical payload at this stage would reduce the overall value that they are able to get from a flight.
Our knowledge is incomplete, but we can put boundary boxes around what is possible. Just because our theories are incomplete doesn't mean that what we know is wrong. Our knowledge has been extensively tested over the past 100 years.
Newton was wrong, Einstein has provided us a better, more accurate, theory of gravity. Guess what? We still teach Newton in high school and college physics! Why? Because though it's wrong it's only wrong in the most extreme circumstances. Generally speaking it works quite well. The only observation we made contradicting Newton was Mercury's perihelion precession. But Einstein didn't change how fast apples fall to the ground.
Likewise, we know, or at least strongly suspect, Einstein is wrong. That doesn't mean everything we've observed the past 100 years corroborating General Relativity goes out the window with a new theory. No, instead that's what makes creating a new theory hard: you have to account for a century's worth of observations validating GR and reconcile with QFT (otherwise why bother).
But it wouldn't change anything about what we already know and what we've observed. That's why it's a boundary box. This is science, not magic.
I've read the article. It exposes a well-known point of view in philosophy of science that has been debated at least a hundred years. It doesn't begin to cover that question at all.
Notably, the idea that a new theory simply takes existing "observations" and adds to them is historically unfounded. Indeed, many theories start as thought experiments that contradict observation and later turn out to be better models, not the other way around.
You also may or may not be familiar with the concepts of theory-ladenness and the commensurability of theories. If not, I suggest doing some reading about that so you can appreciate why those questions aren't as straightforward as you seem to believe.
A new theory isn't going to contradict your observations. It may provide an alternate explanation and allow you to understand the phenomenon a different way, but the phenomenon leading to the observation is unchanged.
This is important in this discussion because we've never observed anything traveling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. That would appear to rule-out faster-than-light travel, which for practical reasons would make traveling to other solar systems impossible.
- Distributed, low-scale production with high efficiency. So no need for high consumes to keep high production efficiency.
- Implementing renewable energy and the concepts listed above from the ground up in every aspect of life. That's scarcity, harsh environments and need for you together with bright minds.
- And many many things that we can't even imagine from here.
> “war is over, if you want it”
The problem is the "if you want it". That's for most of the unsolved problem we have on earth.
If you keep failing generation after generation maybe you need to change your point of view to understand how small we are and as we are not much different each other and from other living things.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
It wluld be interesting to send one beam alternatively throught a linear or circular polarizer. Then you can check the polarization on the other beam and see if you have faster than light information transmission. With all the implications about causality.
Unfortunately you can't transmit information this way, even in theory. The polarizer has a 50-50 chance of testing one way or another, and the other beam will has the opposite polarization.
Well, yes and no. In certain games you do gain an advantage this way over a classical opponent, it's called quantum pseudo-telepathy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy. It sounds like quackery but it's a real thing.
If I understand it correctly, that's a really obtuse name for what is actually quite simple and has nothing to do with telepathy or information transfer. Basically the fact that both parties have access to the SAME random number generator can be useful in some schemes.
As an even simpler example, let's say Alice and Bob need to solve a really hard problem that can be cleanly split into two parts, A and B. In round 1 Alice and Bob can't communicate but they have access to an entangled photon. In round 2 they meet and compare notes. If they choose which part to work on randomly, then in only 50% of the outcomes are both parts A and B solved when round 2 starts. If, on the other hand, they use the polarity of the entangled photon to decide which part to solve, then quantum mechanics guarantees that they both solve different parts. It's random and unpredictable which part gets assigned to whom, but in 100% of outcomes when round 2 starts, Alice has solved one of A or B, and Bob has solved the other one.
I’m not sure if the simple example is faulty, but to me it seems like this can easily be done with a classical physics system. For example a white light beam passing through a randomly oriented prism and using mirrors to either send the purple or red light beam to Alice/Bob, don’t really need entanglement
The correlations achieved by separated measurements on entangled particles measurably exceed what is classically achievable. That's what's meant by "Bell inequality violations".
We can't transmit information instantaneously, but there are nevertheless certain distributed tasks we can do better at when we have a source of entangled states.
To paraphrase, Alice, Bob and Carol play a game where they can't communicate (after deciding on a strategy) and the referee shows each of them a bit. After being shown the bit they must reply with 0 or 1. The four possible combinations the referee chooses uniformly from is:
If the first combination was shown, the answers must have an even sum, otherwise the answers must have an odd sum.
First, without using probability, if A0 is the answer Alice gives when shown 0 and A1 when shown 1 (and similarly for Bob and Carol), you get the following set of equations needed to win always:
However, each term occurs twice on the left hand side, so when you add all equations up (mod 2) you would find the left hand side is even. However the right hand side sums to an odd number, thus all four equations can't hold simultaneously.
Now, probability doesn't help here, because any mixed strategy can be shown to be equivalent to a combination of pure strategies, none of which can guarantee a win.
Yet with a shared entangled state, it can be won 100% of the time. This isn't a probability thing - you can actually guarantee a win using the quantum strategy, even over arbitrarily large distances.
It depends on what you mean by transmit information. It is possible for one party to read a true random number generator (the state of the photon) and transmit that reading faster than the speed of light to another party (the receiver of the entangled pair photon).
The physicist won’t call this transmitting information, but the information scientist has no qualms about acting on random data. And once you give data meaning, it is information. Maybe both parties pre-agree that N zero bits in a row from the digitized reading of the entangled photons is a start signal, and the bits that follow are used to make choices in whatever action is carried out. Now the first party has “sent” an instantaneous message informing of their actions.
To be clear I don’t think there is a clever gotcha here. But it is helpful in constraining what is meant by information locality here.
There are several exciting applications that rely on a source of entangled particles. Super dense coding and quantum teleportation to name a couple. This is a step towards achieving those.
The CHSH experiment measures more pairs of entangled photons passing through two similarly oriented polarizers than two orthogonal ones, regardless of the source's angle of polarization, though the effect is small enough that it can only be seen statistically. Rotating one observing polarizer should then cause an immediate change in the number of photons passing the other observing polarizer, regardless of distance. It seems absurd, but that's the current understanding.
In the standard CHSH experiment, there is one detector on side A and one on side B, each with two possible settings. No matter what settings are used, the partial probability distribution for each side is uniformly random. However, the correlations between the two sides' outcomes are dependent on which settings are used.
That's not it if you discriminate between linear and circular polarization. You can use a phase inversion mirror to do it.
That's the point of the experiment.
There's a result called the no-signaling theorem; the choice of measurement on side A has no effect on the reduced quantum state on side B, therefore does not influence the outcome statistics of any measurement on side B: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
A might know exactly what B is going to measure, after he's done his part, but that doesn't mean any information can be transmitted.
They did an experiment like this called the Quantum Eraser Experiment. The outcome is quite strange and I still don't know if I fully understand the result. It suggests potential retro-causality or at least superdeterminism or some kinds of weird time independent action. People will claim I'm just misinterpreting the experiment but I've yet to hear any explanation that doesn't hand wave some critical things away.
