Comment Re: Well, test the interpretations. (Score 1) 111
Since we're not taking about infinitesimals, I fail to see the relevance.
Since we're not taking about infinitesimals, I fail to see the relevance.
From the ebay auction
Just park it down at Cape Kennedy or in Vegas and you will be making a constant and continuous 150,000-200k++ a year. This vehicle will outproduce any rental property you can buy for a million dollars. It's an investment. Not only that it's a smart investment because no one's ever going to be able to compete with you. Or use it to promote you company products, or rent it for events for $10k a pop. There are tons of possibilities
Yea, right... You claim someone can easily make $150k+/year renting this out but couldn't even find a starting bidder at $50k.
Real "used car salesman" vibes here...
"I get the impression these kinds of batteries don't scale down well"
Go look at the picture in TFA and note that it is literally 8 individual packs tall and 4 packs wide in a box.
1/8 of this thing could sit in your garage and power your house for a few days flat.
Since when does private party A doing something "unlawful" compel private party B to take some action?
Ever since the first time someone pointed a loaded gun as B's face and said "do what I say or else I'll kill you" and B did as ordered, instead of accepting their death.
I think it was sometime around 1234567 BC.
You are correct. That's precisely how MWI is thought to work.
The premise of the argument is that, to conserve superposition information, you would necessarily need to prove that it would be grouped with information QM requires to be conserved, when viewed in a space that permitted it to be conserved. If it isn't, then there's no mechanism to preserve it, so no MWI.
No, because the paradox relies on infinitesimals, which have no cogmate in the material world.
Not strictly correct. You would be correct for all consequences over any statistically significant timeframe, but (a) I've purposefully included things that aren't actually outcomes, and (b) over extremely short timeframes (femtoseconds and attoseconds), differences would emerge very briefly, because different mechanisms take different routes.
Remember, the maths only concerns itself with outcomes, not the path taken, so identical maths will be inevitable for non-identical paths.
I would contend that it should be possible to find an implication of each interpretation that only exists in that interpretation. If, for example, Many Worlds is true, then it necessitates that any sort of information cannot be destroyed and vice versa, when considering the system as a whole. If Many Worlds is false, then superposition information is lost when superposition collapses, you cannot recover from the collapsed wave a complete set of all superposition states that existed. I'm sure that someone will point out that superposition isn't information in some specific sense, but that is the whole point. Many Worlds is impossible if you can show that superposition ISN'T the sort of information that IS conserved, because Many Worlds requires, by its very nature, that it is.
This gives us a test that does not require us to look into other universes and can be done purely by theoreticians. If you regard the system as a 5D system, then is that information conserved or not? Yes or no. If yes, then that does not "prove" Many Worlds, but it does mean that only interpretations that preserve that information in some form are viable. If no, then Many Worlds, and all other interpretations that preserve that information in some form, are ergo impossible. Instead of filling out questionaires on what you think is likely, try to prove that it can't be possible and see if you succeed.
I would also argue that physicists thought that the Lorenz contraction was a neat bit of maths by mathematicians that had nothing to do with reality, until Einstein cottoned onto the fact that it actually did. You cannot trust physicists who have an innate dislike of mathematics. This doesn't mean that maths always represents reality, but it does mean that it does so unreasonably often and unreasonably well.
Having a wimpy direct path that just goes from Airport - Downtown - Convention center is perfect for a huge number of cities.
So many places it can be really rough to get from the airport to the downtown area any time around rush hour (which in a lot of cities is around a 3-4 hour window).
Some places with rail kind of have this - like the train that goes from Midway into Chicago. But even THAT has a lot of stops and is not great for travelers, even if it's nice for residents.
I also have to say that a system where you are riding in smaller vehicles I am a big fan of because it eliminates the problem where homeless people are just handing up on the train which create danger, nasty messes, and of course awful smells. Though awful smells is not restricted to the homeless of course, that can be any other passengers also so nice to be removed from them too.
Bad analogy, because science has no choice but to use the lanes that the signals are emitted on. You, on the other hand, can use absolutely any frequency you please. That won't affect you.
I disagree. First, the bands used for astronomy are regularly used by others, which is one reason why radio telescopes have radio silence zones. Second, astronomy certainly trumps the need for cat videos or porn. Thirdly, you really really don't need all the frequencies that are currently being used for domestic purposes, because they're being used very inefficiently. You can stack multiple streams onto far fewer lanes and use multiplexing. Fourthly, whingers lost any sympathy they might have got from me by voting in twits who keep cutting the science budget. If we had space radio telescopes, you could do what the F you wanted on Earth, but because of the current lunatic situation, you're not only grabbing what scientists need, you're stopping them from alternative solutions as well.
A long time ago...
Seriously the site with the most potential so poorly run that those in power imposed zero tolerance for anybody trying to solve a problem different than the way they would solve a problem and would nuke your karma to the point where you couldn't participate if you disagreed with them.
Ever have difficulty disconnecting an RJ45 cable? Well, here was our opportunity to just cut the damn things off instead of figuring out why the little tab wouldn't release the plug."
Sums up in two sentences, the general intellectual capacity of a Stack Overflow admin.
Seriously, I've never encountered such a toxic "help environment" as Stack Overflow. If you search for solutions you'd get 10 year old answers that no longer apply. If you ask a new question, their admins admonish you because the question was asked already (10 years ago).
If the moon is split in two and we are living through Thundarr the Barbarian I can first shot at wooing the princess!
Being a huge fan of the original cartoons, I was really sad to hear the whole story of Coyote vs Acme being canned. So while I am not sure how good the actual movie is, I'm really glad it gets a chance to exist and I will probably see it just to support the pushback effort.
There's not much other stuff I am really waiting for but am cautiously hopeful about Tron, and actually will try to see Alien: Earth which looks like more fun than a lot of SF Horror has been recently. But I am keeping expectations low for both.
A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos