Science hijacked by pseudo

bobvanx · Nov 18, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm sure you don't, as always, know what you are talking about. Clearly your knowledge of the sciences is so rudimentary, that your opinions about the sciences are as worthwhile as a 3 years old's regarding the state of the Chinese Economy. Go back to the SETI rooms where your ignorant nonsense will be more appreciated by your ilk.<hr /></blockquote>Steve, an ad hominem is any attack, whether you use obsenity or not. Tread lightly, please.

Saiph · Nov 18, 2004

However those reactions that don't run into problems with Heisenberg Uncertainty can and do operate at speeds much faster than any current transistor based computation. Yes it's a limitation that'll put a practical and theoretical cap on the speed of quantum computing. That doesn't kill the possibility however. Especially since we can detect small changes, like electron spin flip transitions. Also, the speed isn't necessarily the goal of quantum computing. The sheer volume of information that can be processed by converting the current binary system of information storage to .... it's not trinary, I think it's quadrary... system, with 4 distinct states. Anyway, I still don't see how "Science" has been overwhelmed by Psuedoscience. I've seen a lot fo psuedoscience crop up, sure. However the amount of good solid science also has risen. I'd also wager that the percentage of psuedoscience has actually dropped compared to historical levels (remember, most physics and engineering pre-1800's was on the "hobby" level practiced by middle class men with spare time). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

extrasense · Nov 18, 2004

There is nothing, that is except of quantum uncertainty. For example, electron spin flip can be only as fast, as the energy change in the magnetic field. "Quantum computing" is a way to steal from the public, no doubt about it. ES

extrasense · Nov 18, 2004

--- I've seen a lot fo psuedoscience crop up, sure. However the amount of good solid science also has risen. --- The last I've checked, US is losing its leadership position in every area of science fast. Keep in mind, that data is actually lagging, so it is even worse than it looks. --- I'd also wager that the percentage of psuedoscience has actually dropped compared to historical levels (remember, most physics and engineering pre-1800's was on the "hobby" level practiced by middle class men with spare time). --- Exactly, there was no pressure to misrepresent anything, like food fight for grants etc.

thechemist · Nov 18, 2004

Since this discussion is practically useless, let me provide an interesting link to make it worthwhile for all those who clicked on this thread and now they are sorry they did. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> "Exact uncertainty" brought to quantum world "Exact uncertainty sounds like a contradiction in terms, but that is what governs the quantum world, according to a theoretical physicist who has created an improved version of the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle." NewScientist.Com <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I feel better than James Brown. </div>

extrasense · Nov 18, 2004

Yea, this one is really, really crapy example of the pseudo <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

thechemist · Nov 18, 2004

You should not complain. The more scientists spend their time with crappy pseudoscience like quantum mechanics, less are available to research truly important scientific projects like martian flowers and statues. This increases the possibility you'll get a grant to study these subjects yourself <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I feel better than James Brown. </div>

Saiph · Nov 18, 2004

wow, you didn't catch what I said, did you? Quantum computing isn't necessarily about the speed the processes can occur at. It's about the ability to store infomormation in a form other than binary. Having an 8 bit code for a letter in binary is reduced to less than 3 bits in a trinary system. You gain more than 2x speed merely from having to shuttle less overhead in the form of information packets. Use a quadrary system (quantum computing) and you're down to 2. Now, say you're using a more complecated document, that speed boost only gets bigger. 2^4 = 16 4^4 = 256 it's an exponential increase. Thus by merely being able to represent a lot more information in a lot less notation you get a huge boost in speed. Same process goes on in non-computer based fields. Caculus is a field where a large amount of information is represented differently to achieve the same result in less time. You're still dealing with areas and volumes, it's just more abstract. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

arobie · Nov 18, 2004

Continuing chip development advances and IBM just created a system which can do 70 TRillions operations a second. This is on top of NASA's record a few weeks ago at half that. That is not pseudoscience, of which your beliefs are a good example. It's good, solid science. Actually it's good, solid technology <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />, but technology is based of science, so for technology to advance our science behind it has to advance. Sorry for being a smart*ss. I'm out.

Saiph · Nov 18, 2004

so, the US losing it's edge in scientific research means the entire world is falling to psuedo-science? Or could it possibly mean that other country's scientific endeavors are growing at a rate greater than the united states? Everyone can continue to grow, and yet positions within the Heirarchy can change. So, giving people money to do research, and thereby requiring in writing or expectation practical, verifiable, justified results, and this from better trained individuals, means we get worse results? Remember a LOT of research is done that doesn't garner public attention. And it works. Look at the computers around you, the new electronic devices comming out this holiday season. All of those started from basic research, and a whole lot of wrong and contrary ideas. And some are also quite crazy sounding. And yet...they work. Well enough to do some amazing feats. Like I can punch on this plastic and metallic pad, and have recognizable letters appear on a screen before me, created by magnetically altering the trajectories of billions of electrons in to a precise pattern, at astonishing rates (like 70 hertz refresh rate for most monitors). We can set up experiments where mono-chromatic light is put into a standing wave, and reinforced so much, and on small enough scale, that electrons passing through the beam diffract, exhibiting their wave properties. That's right, deflecting electrons, via light. Oh, and solid matter being acting like a wave, not a particle. We can cool material down to hundreds of a thousandth of a degree above absolute zero, and watch entire conglomerations of atoms behave as a single superatom (bose-einstein condensates). We can create materials that conduct electricity and heat flawlessly (superconductors). And it's bunk? Sure it's wierd. Sure, most people don't understand it. But that doesn't mean it's psuedo science. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

extrasense · Nov 18, 2004

--- so, the US losing it's edge in scientific research means the entire world is falling to psuedo-science? --- No, instead, it shows that US is bogged down in the pseudo science. You must see the bigger picture, not only the lab you work at. ES

bobvanx · Nov 18, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />That you don't see it right at this moment, well, I'll give you about a few more days with this ES nonsense and then even YOU will see what's going on.<hr /></blockquote>No need to wait, my perception is clear. What I'm attempting to help YOU to do is to seperate attacking the idea from attacking the person. If one is endlessly patient, then one can address the endlessly unsupported and nonsensical comments. However, we're all merely human, right?

extrasense · Nov 19, 2004

--The Aussies put a QC on a chip last year.. -- aussies, italians,.. There the big scientists <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Why not Japaneese? They do not play along with the hoaxes, this is why. Get a grip.

extrasense · Nov 19, 2004

--we are expected to believe-- The reality does not care what you believe or do not believe. Quantum Computing is parasitic pseudoscience. Get a grip. ES

nacnud · Nov 19, 2004

The idea behind quantum computing is that if a problem is encoded correctly into a physical system then is will decay into the correct answer without having to examine all the different possibilities, it will just know. The advantage of this is that is will be able to tackle PN hard problems where the time of calculation increases exponentially with the size of the problem i.e. determining how a protein will fold if given just the peptide sequence is PN hard. Being able to do this with quantum systems is a very hard problem and I doubt that quantum systems will ever really be practical for non PN hard problems but I have not heard that it is impossible. Do you have any references for that or is it just something that was once mentioned in a lecture?

extrasense · Nov 19, 2004

--- The idea behind quantum computing is that if a problem is encoded correctly into a physical system then is will decay into the correct answer without having to examine all the different possibilities, it will just know. --- Thank you! This is a correct representation of the "idea" behind quantum computing. To make actually an analog machine, that does the job. In some specific cases it might be possible. Since quantum equations are linear, only the linear problems can be represented as quantum systems. So, the "quantum computing" is analog computing for a narrow class of problems, and even as such, any practical results are absent. It has nothing to do with universal digital computing - but public is being made to believe it does! A hoax that worked for so long, and probably will feed the parasites for another hundred years <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ES

thermionic · Nov 19, 2004

"quantum equations are linear"... Quantum phenomena can be strikingly nonlinear of course. We try to find math models that we can linearize around some operating point so we can solve them. That doesn't mean the phenomenon is linear. But I remember grinding through nonlinear math even to solve kindergarten quantum problems, so I don't think your statement is on target. Don't you remember using calculus to solve the hydrogen atom before you dropped out? Going on to imply that there is a fundamental connection between quantum computing and analog computing is odd. Quantum, the very word, means discrete. Analog means continuous. Quantum phenomena are natural processes that are quantized into discrete states, rather than the continuum that classical dynamics works in. Although I think your position about science is wrong, I agree that quantum computing is a fringe technology without any near term reward for the average joe. But that's no reason to not study it. I hardly think there is a big enough investment from public funds to justify your complaint.

extrasense · Nov 19, 2004

--- Quantum, the very word, means discrete. --- Do not make things up, please. Quantum means in latin "how much". Analog(ous) means "proportional". Any way, you are out of your league on this <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> "Quantum computing" is a hoax, as it exists and professes itself now. This is all you need to know. ES

Saiph · Nov 19, 2004

I doubt that extrasense. Since his response was more coherent and supported than most of yours. You make a blanket statement, back it up with one example (which only applies cause it's a long term academic technology that may not pan out, not cause it's "psuedoscience") and say that it's always true. Then you just state your postion: QC is a hoax. The end! How enlightening. BTW your definition is incomplete. From Dictionary.com quan·tum ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kwntm) n. pl. quan·ta (-t) A quantity or amount. A specified portion. Something that can be counted or measured. Physics. The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation. This amount of energy regarded as a unit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

thermionic · Nov 19, 2004

Ha! Touche'! But we are not speaking Latin... Just below your definition, I see 2 a : any of the very small increments or parcels into which many forms of energy are subdivided b : any of the small subdivisions of a quantized physical magnitude (as magnetic moment) We can debate whether my use of 'discrete' describes the same meaning as does increments, parcels, subdivisions. So I quote the dictionary again: 1 : constituting a separate entity : individually distinct 2 a : consisting of distinct or unconnected elements : NONCONTINUOUS b : taking on or having a finite or countably infinite number of values <discrete probabilities /> <a discrete random variable> So I am satisfied of my usage, and that my meaning is clear and accurate. As for analog, I find in the dictionary: 2 a : of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is represented by continuously variable physical quantities So once again I think even a pedantic and pedagogical reader would accept my word usage and understand my meaning. But I bow out of this conversation now. Etymology is tangential to the subject of the thread and boring to other readers. Besides, I am in fear of your mighty intellect, since I am out of my league.

Maddad · Nov 19, 2004

"as a PhD dropout in theoretical physics I am beginning to see why you dropped out.

extrasense · Nov 20, 2004

So, "quantum computing" has been proven to be a hoax, that belongs where "perpetuum mobile" and "philosophical stone" are being kept. Next example would be "NASA scientists" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, or "Marxist theory", or "Creationism", etc., etc., all taught at the Universities, and paid for by the students, parents and public . e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s

Saiph · Nov 20, 2004

nasa scientists...really? I'd like to see this. Marxist science? Where'd you here that? and how often? It probably is a topic (marxism that is) in the political science field (a bit of a misnomer, but they know it). Creationism...yeah, that's an area rife with poor reasoning. But I haven't seen it at any university I've attended. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

extrasense · Nov 20, 2004

The purpose of NASA, the government space agency, is to povide space flight capabilities and to perform space missions. Where the real priorities are, you can see from the fact that they wanted to dump Hubble, the single most successful scientific getter, to save money. ES

Saiph · Nov 20, 2004

right, they want to dump hubble. Have you actually looked at the reasons for and against saving the hubble? 1) Its really expensive to save. It may be cheaper to divert fund to the next generation of space telescopes that will outperform Hubble. 2) Its not "safe" for a shuttle mission to do it, and an remote repair via a robot is tricky and not garaunteed. 3) There are other satellites currently in orbit that have also made huge advances in astronomy 4) It has to end sometime. 5) Ground based telescopes, with the advent of adaptive optics, can approach hubble's resolution limits in the optical wavelengths. They can match it in the IR as well. These scopes can be bigger, cheaper, and last longer for a fraction of the cost. reasons to save it: 1) Sentimental reasons 2) It can observe UV and certain IR wavlengths that don't even get to the ground. 3) Losing it will mean a gap in time where no satellite with these capabilities are operational. Nasa would like to keep the hubble, as they like to keep any instrument they have. However they are faced with financing concerns, and practical issues. Sometimes its just better to spend the money elsewhere. anyway, how's that psuedoscience? They're making a decision, one way or another, to stop a science program. One that they've funded, and by your own words a very sucessful one (i.e. they did real science). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Science hijacked by pseudo

bobvanx

Guest

Saiph

Guest

extrasense

Guest

extrasense

Guest

thechemist

Guest

extrasense

Guest

thechemist

Guest

Saiph

Guest

arobie

Guest

Saiph

Guest

extrasense

Guest

bobvanx

Guest

extrasense

Guest

extrasense

Guest

nacnud

Guest

extrasense

Guest

thermionic

Guest

extrasense

Guest

Saiph

Guest

thermionic

Guest

Maddad

Guest

extrasense

Guest

Saiph

Guest

extrasense

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page