post #93110 perhaps? Though thankfully it got deleted.
And meh Schrödinger's Cat is either alive or dead. Like a half full glass of milk is half full or half empty. I prefer to think "Just fill the damned glass already". Of course whether that means I prefer the cat alive or dead... uhm. Yeah see what I meant in earlier posts with headaches. Ow.
And meh Schrödinger's Cat is either alive or dead. Like a half full glass of milk is half full or half empty. I prefer to think "Just fill the damned glass already". Of course whether that means I prefer the cat alive or dead... uhm. Yeah see what I meant in earlier posts with headaches. Ow.
Technically, since the bacteria in the cat are observers it would have to be either dead or alive.
Also, some argue the sensor would act as observer so the wave form would collapse to particle.
/reads too much newscientist
Also, some argue the sensor would act as observer so the wave form would collapse to particle.
/reads too much newscientist
Thought Experiment! Any bacterium is right out!
A sensor would be an observer. It would influence the outcome. There are plenty of ways to get a 50/50 kill on the cat without a sensor. It's also why this does not work in real life. You'd need to put the cat in circumstances it couldn't possibly survive to begin with to take out all random factors, thereby dooming it anyway.
That's kind of the idea of a thought experiment. Anything not defined isn't there. -.-
I stopped reading newscientist when its news feeds turned into partial articles. It can go stick its bloated head in the nearest black hole, all it ever did was state the obvious anyway. Diseases make you sick, quantum computing will be fast and people believe in things that don't exist. So I chose not to spend my time lounging around on the poop deck of the S.S. Obvious. The magazine... is too bloody expensive over here :P
Besides most scientists publish their things for free anyway.
A sensor would be an observer. It would influence the outcome. There are plenty of ways to get a 50/50 kill on the cat without a sensor. It's also why this does not work in real life. You'd need to put the cat in circumstances it couldn't possibly survive to begin with to take out all random factors, thereby dooming it anyway.
That's kind of the idea of a thought experiment. Anything not defined isn't there. -.-
I stopped reading newscientist when its news feeds turned into partial articles. It can go stick its bloated head in the nearest black hole, all it ever did was state the obvious anyway. Diseases make you sick, quantum computing will be fast and people believe in things that don't exist. So I chose not to spend my time lounging around on the poop deck of the S.S. Obvious. The magazine... is too bloody expensive over here :P
Besides most scientists publish their things for free anyway.
Like non-signed scans...Chrissues said:
Besides most scientists publish their things for free anyway.
The admin2s of science have bigger budgets though.. :-Paoie_emesai said:
Like non-signed scans...
edit: and probably less bandwidth / storage concerns
What I've heard is that researches are not very well paid...Chrissues said:
The admin2s of science have bigger budgets though.. :-P
Unless they discover something really extraordinary.
Well, being a researcher must be pretty awesome. It definitely is something to think about.
.........
Science pèople should remember, once in a while, that science should be used for the sake of mankind.
Being in a very critical situation now (specially with the necessity of new energy sources... a matter that apparently not a lot of scientifics care abut) and they come with stuff just that seems to be done just for the sake of a certain group's curiosity. I suddenly remembered the LHC.
Being in a very critical situation now (specially with the necessity of new energy sources... a matter that apparently not a lot of scientifics care abut) and they come with stuff just that seems to be done just for the sake of a certain group's curiosity. I suddenly remembered the LHC.
Any discoveries, not just scientific ones, can come at you from any direction. Restricting yourself to a limited field seems about the worst idea possible. And why are you worried about energy exactly? Fossil fuels, maybe but mostly an uninteresting dieing market where companies, lobbies and countries are holding on for dear life while doing their best to block everything that has nothing to do with their business.
You bring up particle research as if it's uninteresting. And yet you probably have your computer hooked up to a power grid that is backed up by more than one nuclear power station. That's just one example of converting mass to energy very efficiently. Investigate it more and you might just find a very very efficient way.
The LHCs slogans generally focus on "recreating the big bang", the media frenzy prefers to falsely assume "black holes". And why would the big bang's basics not be interesting to an energy question? When something the size of everything and smaller than nothing+1 pumped out such an ungodly amount of energy to blow itself up to the size of what the universe is now... only to expand more for now. To create suns that run for billions of years... how is this not related to energy? It's all about energy and a damn sight more useful than building a few pansy-assed windmills.
Or for those who don't want to read all that:
You should never stop looking for new things or new ways to look at things. Ever.
You bring up particle research as if it's uninteresting. And yet you probably have your computer hooked up to a power grid that is backed up by more than one nuclear power station. That's just one example of converting mass to energy very efficiently. Investigate it more and you might just find a very very efficient way.
The LHCs slogans generally focus on "recreating the big bang", the media frenzy prefers to falsely assume "black holes". And why would the big bang's basics not be interesting to an energy question? When something the size of everything and smaller than nothing+1 pumped out such an ungodly amount of energy to blow itself up to the size of what the universe is now... only to expand more for now. To create suns that run for billions of years... how is this not related to energy? It's all about energy and a damn sight more useful than building a few pansy-assed windmills.
Or for those who don't want to read all that:
You should never stop looking for new things or new ways to look at things. Ever.
Something to think about right?
>>You bring up particle research as if it's uninteresting
I never said that. And my comment was NEVER intented in that way.
I just wanna say that scientists should focus on inmediate necessities. It's a shame that most people in the world is stll interested in drilling and petroleum extraction technologies, while there are other alternatives of less-polluting energy (including research to use corn, ethanol and stuffs) that no one wants to invest on because those are potential treats to a lot of economical interests.
Same for materials. Everyone's now like crazy because some of steels' main components are becoming harder and harder to produce / find, instead of trying to recycle most of the steel used (no, most steel companies don't give a rat's ass about that) or finding substitutes like the aluminium (which, I greatly bet, will pass through the same problems steel is right now because of industrial irresponsability).
So there.
Oh, and scientific community should try becoming more centered and stop with all that "zomg everything can be explained objectively". Our 3rd Dimension perception of things is far from being enough to understand a lot of things in this universe.
Even if the media doesn't tell it, I've heard from some professors and people from here that the LHC project thing has been put into a halt a lot of times because it has some problems (including security issues), and even some people don't really believe the experiment they're planning is safe. Of course, official media will tell the opposite but heh...
I never said that. And my comment was NEVER intented in that way.
I just wanna say that scientists should focus on inmediate necessities. It's a shame that most people in the world is stll interested in drilling and petroleum extraction technologies, while there are other alternatives of less-polluting energy (including research to use corn, ethanol and stuffs) that no one wants to invest on because those are potential treats to a lot of economical interests.
Same for materials. Everyone's now like crazy because some of steels' main components are becoming harder and harder to produce / find, instead of trying to recycle most of the steel used (no, most steel companies don't give a rat's ass about that) or finding substitutes like the aluminium (which, I greatly bet, will pass through the same problems steel is right now because of industrial irresponsability).
So there.
Oh, and scientific community should try becoming more centered and stop with all that "zomg everything can be explained objectively". Our 3rd Dimension perception of things is far from being enough to understand a lot of things in this universe.
Even if the media doesn't tell it, I've heard from some professors and people from here that the LHC project thing has been put into a halt a lot of times because it has some problems (including security issues), and even some people don't really believe the experiment they're planning is safe. Of course, official media will tell the opposite but heh...
Energy conservation is about rethinking how we go about using our energy sources we already have not trying to figure out obsessive alternatives. I think we should go about with energy preservation 1st and new alternative energy 2nd. It's a whole lot cheaper to reevaluate already existing energy we have now and change the way we go about doing them rather than introduce a new energy, ie fuel cell into a country like the USA which is dominated by fossil fuels such as petro.
I can't exactly peddle my bike 15miles to work though >.>
I can't exactly peddle my bike 15miles to work though >.>
Well, I have nothing against windmills, hydroelectrics energy plants, solar panels and all those :v
Cheap, clean and practical energy. Only if they were more efficient...
Cheap, clean and practical energy. Only if they were more efficient...
They are cheap and clean, but the energy they produce are too miniscule for a entire nation to run upon. So according to the info i can find 80-90% of the world's energy source is created but fossil fuel combustion, which the big 3 are: Coal, Oil and Natural gas. So of the 15% or so remaining: Nuclear, Biomass, Hydro, Solar, Geo Thermal and Biofuel.
Yeah, you're gonna need a lot of windmills :)
Yeah, you're gonna need a lot of windmills :)
Don't forget lotsa corn!
In any case, it's imperative to find new energy sources. Or... well, the race will suffer consequences not necessarily related to petroleum.
In any case, it's imperative to find new energy sources. Or... well, the race will suffer consequences not necessarily related to petroleum.
That's the case with a lot of seemingly interesting techs. Be they wind, water, solar, whatever. It helps. And if it's cost effective that's obviously great. Still, if you can unlock the near infinite power of converting mass to energy... it's still sci-fi for now though but so were cellphones (ugh I hate that example) and the very medium you're using. And in theory...
While I'm a fan of nuclear, mostly because the tech is there and it's been developed to the point that well it works pretty damn decently, you could also get a very easy amount of energy out of something like hydrogen.
Those of us who took chem classes know that it's easily produced with some electricity (windmill, solar cell, hydro whatever, comes in handy here). There seem to be other ways to produce it, makes sense. I don't know which is best, but I think electrolysis would be an easy way to do it locally. Of course the H is also pretty damn potent. A bit too potent for some (crash safety / storage problems). But I don't think any "too" ever stopped us from trying >.>
I suppose the current preference for electricity in cars is ease of delivery of fuel. It seems to have killed the H-car a bit. We have the network for electricity available. Much like that of gas and to some extent oil. Easy choice for say cars would be electricity. Fine, just generate it the right way then :P
It being the most abundant element in the universe makes it a fun choice too ^.^ It just gets angry when it goes boom.
While I'm a fan of nuclear, mostly because the tech is there and it's been developed to the point that well it works pretty damn decently, you could also get a very easy amount of energy out of something like hydrogen.
Those of us who took chem classes know that it's easily produced with some electricity (windmill, solar cell, hydro whatever, comes in handy here). There seem to be other ways to produce it, makes sense. I don't know which is best, but I think electrolysis would be an easy way to do it locally. Of course the H is also pretty damn potent. A bit too potent for some (crash safety / storage problems). But I don't think any "too" ever stopped us from trying >.>
I suppose the current preference for electricity in cars is ease of delivery of fuel. It seems to have killed the H-car a bit. We have the network for electricity available. Much like that of gas and to some extent oil. Easy choice for say cars would be electricity. Fine, just generate it the right way then :P
It being the most abundant element in the universe makes it a fun choice too ^.^ It just gets angry when it goes boom.
The problem with Nuclear is simply the depleted uranium rods. Dumping them in the ocean and hiding them away under mountains is only a temporary solution.
It's stored pretty safely though and in places nobody would want to be anyway. Leak, bomb, crash, fireproof container? They should just label those things "WTF-proof".
You can always apply a bit of Futurama logic "Okay let's fail to shoot it at the sun" heh. I wonder what would happen if you shot a container of that stuff into a dense atmosphere. Let's say Venus. It's a bloody deathrap, it doesn't care about a bit of a long term radiation problem, being the dense hell hole that it is. And we're not likely to clean it up even if it is Earth-sized.
It'll have people going all apeshit over launches I suppose. The containers can take quite a serious royal beating though. What bomb explosions and freight train impacts at god knows how fast followed by a plane crash right on top of it? Yeah I'm not worried, as long as the math is done first.
The buzzwords here are "think out of the box" ugh. I can't believe I typed that. Besides I didn't go that far out of the dvd-box.
You can always apply a bit of Futurama logic "Okay let's fail to shoot it at the sun" heh. I wonder what would happen if you shot a container of that stuff into a dense atmosphere. Let's say Venus. It's a bloody deathrap, it doesn't care about a bit of a long term radiation problem, being the dense hell hole that it is. And we're not likely to clean it up even if it is Earth-sized.
It'll have people going all apeshit over launches I suppose. The containers can take quite a serious royal beating though. What bomb explosions and freight train impacts at god knows how fast followed by a plane crash right on top of it? Yeah I'm not worried, as long as the math is done first.
The buzzwords here are "think out of the box" ugh. I can't believe I typed that. Besides I didn't go that far out of the dvd-box.
I was too lazy to read everything you'd written, but recently some scientists managed to combine bacteria DNA in a new bacteria trans type (sounds like it was Synechococcus elongatus), and it can produce isobutanol (I wonder what's the name of it in English) using CO2. It's like a substitute to gasoline. Very useful, it seems.
Yup, it's isobutanol.
Somewhere in the future, there will be something...evil.........
Sorry to get off what ever the topic is but are you the same ppl that I know? o_O
[edit]
Well it looks like I'm new here so hi everyone and me. ^^
EDIT by Radioactive
Do not post ANY personal information here please.
[edit]
Well it looks like I'm new here so hi everyone and me. ^^
EDIT by Radioactive
Do not post ANY personal information here please.
Um...I'm in favor of scientists researching what they WANT to research. Even if you ignore the whole issue of "doing what I actually like doing makes me feel happy" that applies to every single human being on the planet, ANY research (provided it, yannow, actually follows the scientific method) is meaningful in some way. Studying bees? Maybe you can stop them from dying off en masse. Digging for dead things? Mayhap you can help us figure out whether we should even be worried about the global climate AT ALL. Blowing shit up? You might find a new source of energy, or, if nothing else, a better bomb. Researching the cell division of bacteria? Could be the next miracle drug for all you know.
As for the energy "crisis", the sad fact is that there are no perfect answers. Wind power can't be placed everywhere simply because the wind doesn't blow strong and consistent everywhere, and besides, a little thing called "conservation of energy" means that with a big enough wind farm, you get some pretty major climate changes downhill. Solar power only works well when it's cloudless, and not at all when it's night. Hydro only works if you have rivers nearby. Geothermal works best only in areas with active volcanoes/geysers/hot springs, and from what I know of the delivery mechanisms I have to wonder how it's even maintained. Fossil fuels are what we're trying to STOP using, and nuclear's PR still hasn't gotten over Chernobyl. As for "green energy," people keep ignoring the fact that the conversion rates, even at their most optimistic, mean we'd have to convert most or all of our fields to fuel farms just to have the bare minimum power we require. Which would mean we'd have to destroy homes/bulldoze forests just to feed ourselves. Which hurts the environment more than it helps.
...Wow, did I really rant that much? Well, tl;dr free research FTW, energy answers aren't.
Also, hi Greenhorn.
As for the energy "crisis", the sad fact is that there are no perfect answers. Wind power can't be placed everywhere simply because the wind doesn't blow strong and consistent everywhere, and besides, a little thing called "conservation of energy" means that with a big enough wind farm, you get some pretty major climate changes downhill. Solar power only works well when it's cloudless, and not at all when it's night. Hydro only works if you have rivers nearby. Geothermal works best only in areas with active volcanoes/geysers/hot springs, and from what I know of the delivery mechanisms I have to wonder how it's even maintained. Fossil fuels are what we're trying to STOP using, and nuclear's PR still hasn't gotten over Chernobyl. As for "green energy," people keep ignoring the fact that the conversion rates, even at their most optimistic, mean we'd have to convert most or all of our fields to fuel farms just to have the bare minimum power we require. Which would mean we'd have to destroy homes/bulldoze forests just to feed ourselves. Which hurts the environment more than it helps.
...Wow, did I really rant that much? Well, tl;dr free research FTW, energy answers aren't.
Also, hi Greenhorn.
I read that.
I'll read any long thing to get a sense of where the person is coming from...as long as it's readable (Paragraphs and such).
I'll read any long thing to get a sense of where the person is coming from...as long as it's readable (Paragraphs and such).
I agree with you 100%, kyoushiro. Actually I must say I'm a lot impressed! I thought you were that "MAH-MAYA-INCHO-WAIFU" type of guy, but I was so wrong. Sorry for judging you, lolz. Really, forgive me please. I do support your point of view.kyoushiro said:
I just wanna say that scientists should focus on inmediate necessities. It's a shame that most people in the world is stll interested in drilling and petroleum extraction technologies, while there are other alternatives of less-polluting energy (including research to use corn, ethanol and stuffs) that no one wants to invest on because those are potential treats to a lot of economical interests.
>>Um...I'm in favor of scientists researching what they WANT to research.
Sadly, it's not that easy. Researchers usually work hired for companies (call it a university, a corporate, etc). They can't research whatever they please.
Unfortunately... these "clients" have lost the point and they've done some questionable stuff without considering ethical / commercial reasons (transgenic food is one of the most popular nowadays, specially because it hurts the economy of certain economies including my country's ;( ). Or worse: having them researchers to make some reverse engineering to create "national" technology, they'd rather use them as just maintenance technicians.
So yeah.
And I just call Maya iincho Maya iincho coz of his AV <.<
Sadly, it's not that easy. Researchers usually work hired for companies (call it a university, a corporate, etc). They can't research whatever they please.
Unfortunately... these "clients" have lost the point and they've done some questionable stuff without considering ethical / commercial reasons (transgenic food is one of the most popular nowadays, specially because it hurts the economy of certain economies including my country's ;( ). Or worse: having them researchers to make some reverse engineering to create "national" technology, they'd rather use them as just maintenance technicians.
So yeah.
And I just call Maya iincho Maya iincho coz of his AV <.<
It is hard to see the importance of basic research until someone is clever enough to transfer the knowledge to everyday life. When fluorescent dye was first produced, who could imagine it might be used for cancer surgery? Who knows if one day we will be using bacteria instead of fossil fuel to power our homes?
Researchers in the academia are not well paid at all. Graduate students get about 25k USD annually. After six years getting a PhD degree, the salary goes up to 50k for a post-doc or a college lecturer. I believe the starting salary for a full time professor is about 90k.Debbie said:
What I've heard is that researches are not very well paid...
Professors in universities have some kinds of freedom of what they want to do, but funding agents (eg. NIH, wellcome trust) have lots of influences on their research directions. There is always a debate on how to allocate money between basic and medical research.kyoushiro said:
Sadly, it's not that easy. Researchers usually work hired for companies (call it a university, a corporate, etc). They can't research whatever they please.
Why do you think transgenic food is bad? Even before modern science arose, people started engineering rice by crossing different rice species. I heard that transgenic rice have a higher nutrient value, so that poor countries can feed their people better.
It'd be awesome, if those poor countries had access to that technology / transgenics at reasonable prices so they could produce them.
They don't.
They don't.
AZD-A9S