List of Emotions posted on 05/06/2008 4:30 PM by PredictionBoy [Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post] [Not MindX Material] Acceptance Affection Anger Annoyance Apathy Anxiety Awe Boredom Compassion Confusion Contempt Curiosity Depression Desire Disgust Disappointment Doubt Ecstasy Empathy Envy Embarrassment Euphoria Fear Frustration Gratitude Grief Guilt Happiness Hatred Hope Horror Hostility Hysteria Interest Jealousy Pity Pride Rage Regret Remorse Revenge Sadness Shame Suffering Surprise Wonder Worry The globalization has proven to be increasingly harmful to US. That much Kissinger admits indirectly, by suggesting "improvements". None of them will be able fix the disruptions to the industry and society that far outpace any benefits of globalization. None of those will be able fix the disruptions to the security and to long term international stability, that far outpace any benefits of globalization. The Physics is hard science, and education is dismal. Majority is able only to reshavel "established" things, and are unable to critically analyze them. Majority are worthless and must not have been in Physics at all. @@@ thought Galileo Galilei was an idiot @@@ Exactly what I am saying - we have lost to the crooks, so that they now define what is true. Galilei was standing up to the powers, risking his life. Those who claim to be current "Galileis" - are in power, they are samelessly lying without being in any danger. eS Here is the design of nuclear fusion electricity reactor, that works, and is safe. The reaction used is: Boron-11 + Hydrogen => 3 He4 Yield = 2.46 * 3 MeV No dangerous neutrones and gamma rays! Produces electricity directly, no termal intermediate steps! [IMG]http://www.extrascience.com/fusion/BoronH-fusion.JPG[/IMG] eS [QUOTE=Enmos;1879832]Don't you need.. a reactor ?[/QUOTE] The thing is a "reactor". It is a large vacuum tube. One electrode is made of boron, say 1kG of it, connected to negative. Other electrode is made say of palladium, connected to positive, and connected to hydrogen under pressure , and heated - so it is a source of protons H+. The voltage applied is 0.6 MegaVolt. So the protons are accelerated toward the boron, and reach it at energy 0.6MeV, which is optimal for the intended reaction between Boron and proton, which produces three alpfa particles He4+, with total energy 7.4 MeV No heat is generated, alpha particles reach the enveloping output electrode, producing charge of +6e on it, by capturing six electrons from the output electrode . It is not shown, but resulting helium must be removed, for continious process to occur. 1kG of boron, will produce total of 17.7 GWh of energy. In other words, for 17 hours it can substitute for a standard gigawatt nuclear power reactor. In other words, with 516 kg of boron, it can substitute for a standard gigawatt nuclear power plant reactor for a year. e:)s [QUOTE=draqon;1879834]were's input on that system of yours?[/QUOTE] Initial start uses the 600kV "battery". Then the thing consumes Hydrogen and Boron, and produces electricity. eS [QUOTE=draqon;1879844]...thermal losses associated with this system are clearly none of course[/QUOTE] The termal losses will be small - some heating of the boron electrode will occur because not 100% of protons will react with boron as intended. Cooling of the boron electrode must take care of that. It is like with your x-ray tube. eS PB, get a clue. May I have some fun with this stubborn believe, that unless it is on TV it does not exist. TV is a kingdom of idiots, and you worship it. Just open eyes on the real World. :):):) eS QUOTE=Enmos;1872997]Thanks, but I'm still doubtful about the QM approach. There must be a less fairyworld-like explanation. QM seems to resort to pure imagination to explain what's not understood [/QUOTE] I agree with this. That some conclusions are in agreement with the experiment, does not guaranty that interpretation is correct, or that the agreement will hold for all other experiments. QUOTE=Reiku;1870299]You must all understand, the photon is in a wave of probability..[/QUOTE] Well, this is what is in question here. Probability wave implies nonlocality. The question "what will happen" must be answered directly by measurement, not by "thought experiment" that inevitably depends on assumptions. Integration of wave and particle view in a theory, might require unification of General Relativity and QM. If it is the case, a thought experiment can not work correctly. eS If you repeated the experiment many times, without changing the screen, the pattern would devellop[/QUOTE] This is what apparenly happening. However, the part about probabilities is pure speculation. What is happening to a single photon, we have not observed experimentally. eS [QUOTE=Billy T;1873853] as you have under specified the system, it could be anything between zero and 100%. [/QUOTE] OK, the photon stream is very low intensity, say single photon a second. The counter relaxation time is much lover than a second, say 0.1 second. We observe correlation event, when counters' counting signals are less than 0.2 sec apart. That seems to be all. e:)S [QUOTE=CptBork;1874637]...[/QUOTE] As I have told, I let you define everything that you want. You might have missed, but no slits there are in the experiment I am talking about now. Just two counters, no magnetic fields, photons of approximately same frequency. In your answer you must take into account the kind of counter detector, zero current etc. My point is, that it is impossible to calculate the answer, the result must be obtained through actual experiment. e:)S [QUOTE=CptBork;1872240]the current prevailing interpretation of quantum mechanics, the probability wave model, says that this is physically impossible[/QUOTE] If you refuse even to try moving beyond this "prevailing" interpretation, this is your choice. I do not think it is correct to oppose such attempt by others. What are you afraid of? As you have said, you are currenly just are studying the Physics. You do not understand yet what crap is going around the Physics, which makes a theory "prevailing". Check out this, for example: [URL="http://www.extrascience.com/Quantum/Quantum_Projection_Postulate_Enigma-azeltsman2.pdf"]Quantum Projection Postulate Enigma[/URL] es QUOTE=CptBork;1871788] The double slit experiment has been done with individual electrons, protons, atoms and even large molecules. There are many different tricks available for eliminating the possibility of two different particles interacting and interfering with each other, and most of these tricks have been known for decades.[/QUOTE] Thanks for your message, I had to think before answering, hence the delay. I did look at experiments, surely just some of them. The problem I have with them, is that they make assumptions. In case of photons, they miss the fact that photons are bose particles, so the only way for you to differentiate group of coherent photons from one, is the energy of group. Also, they count the number of photons that have passed the slit(s), instead of the photons that are approaching the slit(s). It is quite possible, that one photon passes the slit, but it cannot be identified with a particular approaching photon. You might say, that such kind of detail is immaterial. Yes, the interference is there. But, if you want to be able to differentiate between interpretation by "amplitude of probability" and interpretation as physical field, you have to do better. And if you will do better, you might be able to modify experiment in a way that it will show to what extent the projection postulate is valid. Wich is really importent. eS [QUOTE=Enmos;1872119]How can you [I]see[/I] a single photon interfering with itself ?[/QUOTE] In the Quantum Mechanics, and in the Maxtell Electodynamics, the equations are linear. So, a summ of two solutions is also a solution. Which is all that there is underlying, mathematically, the interference. When you are talking about single photon, the equations are the same. The difference is there only when we have to remind ourself that it is a particle. Why we need to do it? Because we do not have yet the general way that would express both the particle and the quantum equation properties of matter. In my humble opinion :) es I agree. I want an unambiguous experiment to be performed, that would show this to be true or not true for a single photon. The experiment can be modified then, to test supposed nonlocality of projection postulate. [QUOTE=CptBork;1870850]My understanding is that the experiment was already performed many decades ago, with only a single photon travelling through the apparatus at a time. ...... I believe that this problem is largely resolved by Quantum Field Theory, which is the union of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity. I'm not 100% sure on this last one because I've only just started learning Quantum Field Theory myself, but that's what I've heard.[/QUOTE] I would not believe that, if i were you. See, it is really hard to get expected result of double slit experiment based on Quantum Fields Theory. In fact, nobody has been able of such a feat, this is why the QM is used there. QFields most likely, even if the calculations have been performed, is not able to give the answer that is in accordance with experiment. In my opinion, you need to integrate QM+GR(General Relativity) to get there. If it is the case, and since we have not integrated QM+GR, a real experiment is the only way to go - no amount of thought experimentation and calculations will help. Best, es Dear Dr. Sowell, For conservatism to be most valuable, the changes proposed must be bad. Is not it a rotten arrangement, that guarantee absence of positive change ideas? Best regards, AZ good points. If one thinks about it, the problem can be traced to globalization idea, the suggestion that we all wil be happy together in this world. It has run into the deminishing returns, but people do not realize that. This does not preclude "singularity" occurance, just adds some not expected twist to it - in case we invest little money in it, not just complain. eS PB, as somebody've said, my other car is M1 Abrams. This hilights the problem with people "owning" robots, does not it? How would you police such population? You would have to restrict what kind of robots and who can "own". What about robots owning other robots/ Pretty much confusing, is not it? eS Ok, there might be a number of definitions of singularity. One of them is arrival of human level or over human level intelligence, and resulting socio-political change. That can be compared to arrival of capitalist economy, that resulted in rapit techological progress. No intelligence acceleration is needed for that, and such singularity/revolution probably awaits for us. The superior intelligence that is coming, will be achieved by combining several types of specialized processors. The singularity that I suggest to be impossible after 2050, is one that would be a result of intelligence acceleration, which was expected by Ray, Eldras, etc. eS @@@ much of the work we do now is not necessarily destructive to the environment, at least in the developed world @@@ The bigger question that is escaping you, is: can things be done that everyone is happy? If you look at the reality of oil mess or elsewhere, it seems obvious that they cannot. So, you are living in a smog of Utopia. eS You probably think modern civilization is secure in its dominance over the Earth. It ain't. It is, actually, an incredibly fragile infrastructure. Increasing complexity produces diminishing returns. To keep growing, societies must keep solving problems as they arise. Yet each problem solved brings more complexity. Success generates a larger population, more kinds of specialists, more resources to manage and more information to juggle. You reach a point where all the energy and resources available to a society are required just to maintain its existing level of complexity. According to Yaneer Bar-Yam (expert in complexity theory), 'complexity leads to vulnerability in many ways. The intricate networks that tightly connect us together- and move people, materials, information, money and energy- amplify and transmit any shock. A financial crisis, a terrorist attack or a disease outbreak has almost instant destabilising effects, from one side of the world to another. A networked society behaves like a multicellular organism. Whether or not such an organism survives depends on which chunk is lost. And while we are pretty sure which chunks an animal needs, it isn't clear- it may not even be predictable- which chunks of our densly networked civilization are critical, until it's too late'. Western civilization got to be as big and as complex as it is today, thanks largely to exploiting energy sources that are limited, namely coal and oil. The law of diminishing returns is becoming more aparrent with each passing year. The energy required to get each new joule of oil is mounting, and although global food production is still increasing, constant innovation is needed to cope with environmental degradation and evolving pests and diseases- the yield boosts per unit investment in innovation are shrinking. One way or the other, our civilization will not last forever. It will either transcend itself beyond recognition, thanks to GRIN technologies, or it will use up the resources that support it and thereafter collapse. Do not be fooled into thinking the latter possibility cannot happen. Hillary and Obama are Marxists, not chypto-Marxists. The thing is that Marxist ideology was not defeated properly, in the realm of iseas - just its practice was defeated. It must be defeated as an idea, if we do not want to fight it in practice over and over again. @@ humans are no longer required to work to survive @@ So, they would not produce anything, at that point - just consume. Robots will produce everything, providing for the own consumption and for the human consumption. Clearly, the best way for them to cut the humans off, to get rid of them as parasites? eS It is not what I mean. The different specialised processors must be combined in the single system, like the floating point and the regular processors are combined now. @@@ I would also be surprised if the human brain really was a perfect example of an information processor @@@ Ex, I doubt that Schopenhauer would side with you, he hated women :) I am not saying, that human brain is "a perfect example". It is too homogenous for that - the hardware is not proper specialized, in other words. This allowes for dramatic performance improvement by a way of specialization - like using different specialized processing components for different tasks: arithmetics, math, language, imaging, etc. The actual brain performance is mediocre, in spite of large overhead of total internal computational ability used to get even there. This means, that SAI design must not follow the brain hardware architecture, but be reflective of the problem domain architecture. eS those estimates are tentitive, so attempts to get into more detail, cannot be relied upon. My comment was mainly pointed at the Myth, that resurrection-like simulation of brain may be possible sometimes(Eldras), and at the Myth that computer some day might have power that is comparable to the brain power of Humanity(Kurzweil). The computational power of the brain estimates being constantly revised upwards, and limits of computer performance now established, the computer can be expected to reach human level general AI, but not dramatically more. eS Again, you have to go from 50000 < 10^6, to 10^12 neurons of the brain, to simulate the whole brain. It would require million times faster than gene/L. This gives you estimate of brain simulation requirements of at least 3*10^12 X 10^6 = 3*10^18 = 3000 PetaFLOP It is 1000 times more than Kurzweil and Co use in their projections. :) eS [QUOTE=andbna;1866524]I found an experiment set up similar to yours -Andrew[/QUOTE] Thanks a lot, it is very close. However, they seem to be mistaken, when they attest single photon situation. They measure the number of photons/second, using FMU count. But, they do not take into account the fact that only small portion of the photons passes through measurement slit. This makes for about 1000x mistake in the number of photons that participate in the interference after passing the main slits. Even worse, the number of photons that are approaching the main slits is probably another 1000x underestimated. So, the apparatus must be tuned up differently, if we want to see what happens to a single photon, that is approaching double slit. Best, eS [QUOTE=fadingCaptain;1865653]A slit narrower than the wavelength does not prevent the photon from going through the slit.[/QUOTE] That would be consistent with each photon going through one of the slits OR another. But if so, when both windows are open, how the interference picture is formed in case of the single photon stream? es Robotics might be the shortest road, since robot NEEDS the AI. And robots are getting real investments all over the world. eS Here is the experiment: [IMG]http://www.extrascience.com/Photon.JPG[/IMG] Distance between windows must be not too large, maybe 2000 - 3000 nm. Initially the attenuator is neutral, door is open, removable screen is off, wavelingth selector is at 600. The counter shows no photons, since window is smaller than wavelength. We decrease wavelength, until counter just starts clicking. We set the scrren on. We use the attenuator, to make interference picture visible on the screen. We set the scrren off. We use the attenuator, to make counter count single photon evens, say ones in a second. We close the door. If counter stops clicking, we must conclude that photon does not go through a single open window, but does go through two of them. On other hand, if counter continues clicking with half of frequency, that would support the assumption that each photon goes through single window. I would like to see such an experiment done. es It would be possible, on pure logic, to go back. However, what I was saying just above that, we cannot simulate the physical processes, it is computationally infeasible and will remain so. Neither future no past can be calculated from present, even if we knew present exactly,and knew the laws exactly. Since we do not, and never will be, all this simulation idea is mute. eS Is it possible that a photon CANNOT pass through single slit, as it is too narrow? Is it possible that the same photon CAN pass through two slits of same width? PB, you do not use any estimates, but are inclined to jump to the assumptions. You must come up with some meaningful etimate, in order to doubt the existing estimates that refute your idea. You are correct about the fact that increasing complexity of Universe, in particular appearance of computers, make the idea unfeasible. eS Very good thread. You all are at your best here! @PB:@they should be able to evince(simulate) emotion, but be controlled by a rational engine at all times@@ The emotions in the animals are at the lower level than rationality, they predate rationality in the evolution process. The control of them by the rational is being done through combining of mutually influencing emotions. So, having emotions and simulating emotions are apparently different issues. eS @@@Given sufficient computing power much of the future must be predictable@@@ The big if is right there. In fact, you can be sure that such power will not ever be available. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8&NR=1 The success of intelligent life, might be the very reason why it inevitably self-distructs. The population grows is sustained by succeses in agriculture and technology, to the level at which you can not turn off them without terrible disruption and mass extinction. So you have to continue draining the resources, which are in most cases limited. Hence, you end up anyway with the terrible disruption that you wanted to avoid. The problem may be that humanity becomes wimpy, trying to avoid wars, which are the only way to have ultimately sustainable in long run development. eS ... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them. A Einstein