Author Topic: Uobičajena interpretacija Hajzenbergovog principa neizvesnosti pogrešna?  (Read 38418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.730
Quote
A new experiment shows that measuring a quantum system does not necessarily introduce uncertainty
  By Geoff Brumfiel


 Contrary to what many students are taught, quantum uncertainty may not always be in the eye of the beholder. A new experiment shows that measuring a quantum system does not necessarily introduce uncertainty. The study overthrows a common classroom explanation of why the quantum world appears so fuzzy, but the fundamental limit to what is knowable at the smallest scales remains unchanged.
 At the foundation of quantum mechanics is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Simply put, the principle states that there is a fundamental limit to what one can know about a quantum system. For example, the more precisely one knows a particle's position, the less one can know about its momentum, and vice versa. The limit is expressed as a simple equation that is straightforward to prove mathematically.
 Heisenberg sometimes explained the uncertainty principle as a problem of making measurements. His most well-known thought experiment involved photographing an electron. To take the picture, a scientist might bounce a light particle off the electron's surface. That would reveal its position, but it would also impart energy to the electron, causing it to move. Learning about the electron's position would create uncertainty in its velocity; and the act of measurement would produce the uncertainty needed to satisfy the principle.
 Physics students are still taught this measurement-disturbance version of the uncertainty principle in introductory classes, but it turns out that it's not always true. Aephraim Steinberg of the University of Toronto in Canada and his team have performed measurements on photons (particles of light) and showed that the act of measuring can introduce less uncertainty than is required by Heisenberg’s principle. The total uncertainty of what can be known about the photon's properties, however, remains above Heisenberg's limit.
 Delicate measurement
 Steinberg's group does not measure position and momentum, but rather two different inter-related properties of a photon: its polarization states. In this case, the polarization along one plane is intrinsically tied to the polarization along the other, and by Heisenberg’s principle, there is a limit to the certainty with which both states can be known.
 The researchers made a ‘weak’ measurement of the photon’s polarization in one plane — not enough to disturb it, but enough to produce a rough sense of its orientation. Next, they measured the polarization in the second plane. Then they made an exact, or 'strong', measurement of the first polarization to see whether it had been disturbed by the second measurement.
 When the researchers did the experiment multiple times, they found that measurement of one polarization did not always disturb the other state as much as the uncertainty principle predicted. In the strongest case, the induced fuzziness was as little as half of what would be predicted by the uncertainty principle.
 Don't get too excited: the uncertainty principle still stands, says Steinberg: “In the end, there's no way you can know [both quantum states] accurately at the same time.” But the experiment shows that the act of measurement isn't always what causes the uncertainty. “If there's already a lot of uncertainty in the system, then there doesn't need to be any noise from the measurement at all,” he says.
 The latest experiment is the second to make a measurement below the uncertainty noise limit. Earlier this year, Yuji Hasegawa, a physicist at the Vienna University of Technology in Austria, measured groups of neutron spins and derived results well below what would be predicted if measurements were inserting all the uncertainty into the system.
 But the latest results are the clearest example yet of why Heisenberg’s explanation was incorrect. "This is the most direct experimental test of the Heisenberg measurement-disturbance uncertainty principle," says Howard Wiseman, a theoretical physicist at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia "Hopefully it will be useful for educating textbook writers so they know that the naive measurement-disturbance relation is wrong."
 Shaking the old measurement-uncertainty explanation may be difficult, however. Even after doing the experiment, Steinberg still included a question about how measurements create uncertainty on a recent homework assignment for his students. "Only as I was grading it did I realize that my homework assignment was wrong," he says. "Now I have to be more careful."
 This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on September 11, 2012.
 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=common-interpretation-of-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-is-proven-false
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/is-death-an-illusion-evidence-suggests-death-isnt-the-end/
Is Death An Illusion? Evidence Suggests Death Isn’t the End

After the death of his old friend, Albert Einstein said “Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us … know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

New evidence continues to suggest that Einstein was right – death is an illusion.

Our classical way of thinking is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence. But a long list of experiments shows just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of carbon and an admixture of molecules – we live awhile and then rot into the ground.

We believe in death because we’ve been taught we die. Also, of course, because we associate ourselves with our body and we know bodies die. End of story. But biocentrism – a new theory of everything – tells us death may not be the terminal event we think. Amazingly, if you add life and consciousness to the equation, you can explain some of the biggest puzzles of science. For instance, it becomes clear why space and time – and even the properties of matter itself – depend on the observer. It also becomes clear why the laws, forces, and constants of the universe appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of life.

Until we recognize the universe in our heads, attempts to understand reality will remain a road to nowhere.

Consider the weather ‘outside’: You see a blue sky, but the cells in your brain could be changed so the sky looks green or red. In fact, with a little genetic engineering we could probably make everything that is red vibrate or make a noise, or even make you want to have sex like with some birds. You think its bright out, but your brain circuits could be changed so it looks dark out. You think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. This logic applies to virtually everything. Bottom line: What you see could not be present without your consciousness.

In truth, you can’t see anything through the bone that surrounds your brain. Your eyes are not portals to the world. Everything you see and experience right now – even your body – is a whirl of information occurring in your mind. According to biocentrism, space and time aren’t the hard, cold objects we think. Wave your hand through the air – if you take everything away, what’s left? Nothing. The same thing applies for time. Space and time are simply the tools for putting everything together.

Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. But if you don’t watch, it acts like a wave and can go through both slits at the same time. So how can a particle change its behavior depending on whether you watch it or not? The answer is simple – reality is a process that involves your consciousness.

Or consider Heisenberg’s famous uncertainty principle. If there is really a world out there with particles just bouncing around, then we should be able to measure all their properties. But you can’t. For instance, a particle’s exact location and momentum can’t be known at the same time. So why should it matter to a particle what you decide to measure? And how can pairs of entangled particles be instantaneously connected on opposite sides of the galaxy as if space and time don’t exist? Again, the answer is simple: because they’re not just ‘out there’ – space and time are simply tools of our mind.

Death doesn’t exist in a timeless, spaceless world. Immortality doesn’t mean a perpetual existence in time, but resides outside of time altogether.

Our linear way of thinking about time is also inconsistent with another series of recent experiments. In 2002, scientists showed that particles of light “photons” knew – in advance – what their distant twins would do in the future. They tested the communication between pairs of photons. They let one photon finish its journey – it had to decide whether to be either a wave or a particle. Researchers stretched the distance the other photon took to reach its own detector. However, they could add a scrambler to prevent it from collapsing into a particle. Somehow, the first particle knew what the researcher was going to do before it happened – and across distances instantaneously as if there were no space or time between them. They decide not to become particles before their twin even encounters the scrambler. It doesn’t matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge is the only thing that determines how they behave. Experiments consistently confirm these observer-dependent effects.

Bizarre? Consider another experiment that was recently published in the prestigious scientific journal Science (Jacques et al, 315, 966, 2007). Scientists in France shot photons into an apparatus, and showed that what they did could retroactively change something that had already happened in the past. As the photons passed a fork in the apparatus, they had to decide whether to behave like particles or waves when they hit a beam splitter. Later on – well after the photons passed the fork – the experimenter could randomly switch a second beam splitter on and off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle actually did at the fork in the past. At that moment, the experimenter chose his past.

Of course, we live in the same world. But critics claim this behavior is limited to the microscopic world. But this ‘two-world’ view (that is, one set of physical laws for small objects, and another for the rest of the universe including us) has no basis in reason and is being challenged in laboratories around the world. A couple years ago, researchers published a paper in Nature (Jost et al, 459, 683, 2009) showing that quantum behavior extends into the everyday realm. Pairs of vibrating ions were coaxed to entangle so their physical properties remained bound together when separated by large distances (“spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein put it). Other experiments with huge molecules called ‘Buckyballs’ also show that quantum reality extends beyond the microscopic world. And in 2005, KHC03 crystals exhibited entanglement ridges one-half inch high, quantum behavior nudging into the ordinary world of human-scale objects.

We generally reject the multiple universes of Star Trek as fiction, but it turns out there is more than a morsel of scientific truth to this popular genre. One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that observations can’t be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation, the “many-worlds” interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the ‘multiverse’). There are an infinite number of universes and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them.

Life is an adventure that transcends our ordinary linear way of thinking. When we die, we do so not in the random billiard-ball-matrix but in the inescapable-life-matrix. Life has a non-linear dimensionality – it’s like a perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse.

“The influences of the senses,” said Ralph Waldo Emerson “has in most men overpowered the mind to the degree that the walls of space and time have come to look solid, real and insurmountable; and to speak with levity of these limits in the world is the sign of insanity.”

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.173
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Opet neki pesnik izlaže sebe nauci.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Kako je nauka definisala život?

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.173
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Najbolje je početi od vikipedije.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

Znači, dva atoma vodonika i jedan atom kiseonika nemaju potrebu za samoodržanjem? Pa onda bi se sva voda raspala istoga časa.
Takođe, kako bismo znali da postoji molekul vode kad se on ne bi oglašavao?


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Self-sustaining podrazumeva proaktivnost u potrazi za, jelte, hranom, energijom itd. Nisam siguran kako bi ovo pripisao atomima kiseonika i vodonika.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
To je samo jedan lavirint reči i tumačenja, jer oni zaista ne mogu da odrede tačnu definiciju života. Prilično sam siguran da je uopšte nema, nego se radi o konvenciji.

A šta im ono znači reprodukcija? Ima živih bića koja se uopšte ne reprodukuju.

Drugo, organizmi - tu je mnogo toga propušteno. Sada se zna da je čovečiji organizam sastavljen od 90% DNK koja uopšte nije ljudska, nego živimo u simbiozi s bakterijama.

Nema šanse da NAUKA smisli bolju definiciju života od pesnika.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Pa u korenu svega je uvek konvencija ili aksiom, to nije neka specijalna tajna. Ne možeš definisati stvari preko drugih stvari do beskonačnosti, treba ti prauzrok, jelte, a ako nisi religiozan onda se dogovoriš lepo oko stvari koje se podrazumevaju i gotovo.
 
I koja su to živa bića koja se ne razmnožavaju?
 
I šta zaboga znači da DNK nije ljudska nego da živimo u simbiozi sa bakterijama (recimo onim što nam stanuju u crijevima?)???
 
I valjda je jasno da nauka, filozofija i poezija definišu stvari u različite svrhe, pa tako i na različite načine.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Pa, radi se o tome da to nisu definicije nego opisi.
Nauka primenjuje "toleranciju", kao kad praviš neku mašinu. Za primitivnu mašinu dovoljna je tolerancija od 1mm a za satni mehanizam ti treba mikrometarska tolerancija.

Ustvari, osnovna osobina života je razmena. Tamo gde nema razmene nema života. A mi vidimo da razmena postoji još na atomskom nivou, a verovatni i dalje od toga.

Ta "razmena" je uslovljena osobinama materije i okruženja.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Ako bi iz ljudskog organizma odstranio sve bakterije i ono što one čine, čovek bi umro najdalje za 24 sata. Doživeo bi potpuni raspad sistema.

Naš stomak nije organ koji vari hranu, on je organ u kojem bakterije vare hranu.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Pa, radi se o tome da to nisu definicije nego opisi.
Nauka primenjuje "toleranciju", kao kad praviš neku mašinu. Za primitivnu mašinu dovoljna je tolerancija od 1mm a za satni mehanizam ti treba mikrometarska tolerancija.

Ustvari, osnovna osobina života je razmena. Tamo gde nema razmene nema života. A mi vidimo da razmena postoji još na atomskom nivou, a verovatni i dalje od toga.

Ta "razmena" je uslovljena osobinama materije i okruženja.
Pa sad si ti dao definiciju/ opis koja tebi odgovara. Sa onom drugom se barem slaže neki širi krug učenjaka!!! I, pretpostavka je, na njoj grade stvari poput medicine, farmacije itd., sve stvari koje ti proglašavaš prevarantskim biznisima a koje mnogi drugi vide kao načelno korisne i u službi spasavanja/ poboljšanja života. Nepomirljive su te razlike, no, u praktičnom smislu, dakle u smislu da li ću sutra moći da dobijem antibiotik koji će me spasti smrti od infekcije, možda bih prednost radije dao onima drugima.   :lol:
 
Ako bi iz ljudskog organizma odstranio sve bakterije i ono što one čine, čovek bi umro najdalje za 24 sata. Doživeo bi potpuni raspad sistema.

Naš stomak nije organ koji vari hranu, on je organ u kojem bakterije vare hranu.

Ali kakve to veze ima sa sastavom DNK??? Pritom, ni to nije naravno sasvim tačno, naš organizam ima žlezde koje luče enzime koji razgrađuju namirnice i iz njih uzimaju energetske i gradivne materije koje naš organizam koristi. Ne rade baš sav posao bakterije.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.173
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Ima živih bića koja se uopšte ne reprodukuju.

To nisam znao. Daj neki link, ako može.

Uzgred, ako pročitaš vikipedijin članak u kompletu videćeš da ima više od jednog načina da se definiše život. Kako god da definišeš život nešto mora da bude izvan definicije, jer bi u suprotnom sve bilo život, a trenutno smatramo da je sve priroda, ali ne i život. Trenutno su virusi izvan definicije života, to jest na granici definicije. Pročitaj članak.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Pa, radi se o tome da to nisu definicije nego opisi.
Nauka primenjuje "toleranciju", kao kad praviš neku mašinu. Za primitivnu mašinu dovoljna je tolerancija od 1mm a za satni mehanizam ti treba mikrometarska tolerancija.

Ustvari, osnovna osobina života je razmena. Tamo gde nema razmene nema života. A mi vidimo da razmena postoji još na atomskom nivou, a verovatni i dalje od toga.

Ta "razmena" je uslovljena osobinama materije i okruženja.
Pa sad si ti dao definiciju/ opis koja tebi odgovara. Sa onom drugom se barem slaže neki širi krug učenjaka!!! I, pretpostavka je, na njoj grade stvari poput medicine, farmacije itd., sve stvari koje ti proglašavaš prevarantskim biznisima a koje mnogi drugi vide kao načelno korisne i u službi spasavanja/ poboljšanja života. Nepomirljive su te razlike, no, u praktičnom smislu, dakle u smislu da li ću sutra moći da dobijem antibiotik koji će me spasti smrti od infekcije, možda bih prednost radije dao onima drugima.   :lol:
 
Ako bi iz ljudskog organizma odstranio sve bakterije i ono što one čine, čovek bi umro najdalje za 24 sata. Doživeo bi potpuni raspad sistema.

Naš stomak nije organ koji vari hranu, on je organ u kojem bakterije vare hranu.

Ali kakve to veze ima sa sastavom DNK??? Pritom, ni to nije naravno sasvim tačno, naš organizam ima žlezde koje luče enzime koji razgrađuju namirnice i iz njih uzimaju energetske i gradivne materije koje naš organizam koristi. Ne rade baš sav posao bakterije.

Naše žlezde ne luče sve enzime koji su potrebni. Daleko od toga.

Mi smo u simbiozi s bakterijama i njihov DNK ima prevagu u odnosu na čisto ljudski, u tom simbiotskom organizmu kojim mi pogrešno smatramo sebe.
Mnoge stvari koje radimo, činimo jer nam bakterije tako nalažu.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Ima živih bića koja se uopšte ne reprodukuju.

To nisam znao. Daj neki link, ako može.

Uzgred, ako pročitaš vikipedijin članak u kompletu videćeš da ima više od jednog načina da se definiše život. Kako god da definišeš život nešto mora da bude izvan definicije, jer bi u suprotnom sve bilo život, a trenutno smatramo da je sve priroda, ali ne i život. Trenutno su virusi izvan definicije života, to jest na granici definicije. Pročitaj članak.

Evo, na primer - ja!  8-)

Amebe se ne reprodukuju. One se prosto dele. Ameba na taj način živi milijardu godina. Ako se ne fokusiramo na "individue" onda možemo da vidimo da postoje mnogo složeniji organizmi, čitava biosfera može da se shvati kao jedan organizam.

Sve zavisi od toga kako posmatramo i tumačimo to što vidimo.

Definicija života i nema mnogo smisla, ako ćemo pravo.

Ja zato i kažem da je sva materija živa - ali šta se tu zapravo podrazumeva. Rekao sam ono najprostije do čega sam mogao da dođem dedukcijom - tamo gde ima razmene ima i života. Razmena je život. To je osnovno za svu materiju, za elemente i za sva živa bića koja poznajemo. Ja samo ne želim da mistifikujem, to je sve.


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Pa, radi se o tome da to nisu definicije nego opisi.
Nauka primenjuje "toleranciju", kao kad praviš neku mašinu. Za primitivnu mašinu dovoljna je tolerancija od 1mm a za satni mehanizam ti treba mikrometarska tolerancija.

Ustvari, osnovna osobina života je razmena. Tamo gde nema razmene nema života. A mi vidimo da razmena postoji još na atomskom nivou, a verovatni i dalje od toga.

Ta "razmena" je uslovljena osobinama materije i okruženja.
Pa sad si ti dao definiciju/ opis koja tebi odgovara. Sa onom drugom se barem slaže neki širi krug učenjaka!!! I, pretpostavka je, na njoj grade stvari poput medicine, farmacije itd., sve stvari koje ti proglašavaš prevarantskim biznisima a koje mnogi drugi vide kao načelno korisne i u službi spasavanja/ poboljšanja života. Nepomirljive su te razlike, no, u praktičnom smislu, dakle u smislu da li ću sutra moći da dobijem antibiotik koji će me spasti smrti od infekcije, možda bih prednost radije dao onima drugima.   :lol:
 
Ako bi iz ljudskog organizma odstranio sve bakterije i ono što one čine, čovek bi umro najdalje za 24 sata. Doživeo bi potpuni raspad sistema.

Naš stomak nije organ koji vari hranu, on je organ u kojem bakterije vare hranu.

Ali kakve to veze ima sa sastavom DNK??? Pritom, ni to nije naravno sasvim tačno, naš organizam ima žlezde koje luče enzime koji razgrađuju namirnice i iz njih uzimaju energetske i gradivne materije koje naš organizam koristi. Ne rade baš sav posao bakterije.

Naše žlezde ne luče sve enzime koji su potrebni. Daleko od toga.

Mi smo u simbiozi s bakterijama i njihov DNK ima prevagu u odnosu na čisto ljudski, u tom simbiotskom organizmu kojim mi pogrešno smatramo sebe.
Mnoge stvari koje radimo, činimo jer nam bakterije tako nalažu.

Pa i ne tvrdim da sve radimo sami, samo velim da ne rade sve bakterije, to je poenta simbioze.
 
No, šta znači da DNK bakterija ima prevagu? Da u kubiku prostora koji zauzima nasumično odabrani deo mog organizma imaš više različitih DNK setova bakterija nego mene? Naravno, kao što u kubiku prostora koji zauzima nasumično odabrani deo mačke imaš više različitih DNK setova buva nego mačke. Ipak mislim da bi bilo previše tvrditi da buve upravljaju mačkom. Tako i mislim da "mnoge" stvari koje radimo jer bakterije tako nalažu nisu tako strašne mnoge stvari.  :lol:  Svakako ne da bismo sad mogli da tvrdimo da nemamo uobičajeno shvaćenu slobodnu volju zbog prisustva bakterija.
 
 

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Amebe se ne reprodukuju. One se prosto dele. Ameba na taj način živi milijardu godina. Ako se ne fokusiramo na "individue" onda možemo da vidimo da postoje mnogo složeniji organizmi, čitava biosfera može da se shvati kao jedan organizam.

Sve zavisi od toga kako posmatramo i tumačimo to što vidimo.

Definicija života i nema mnogo smisla, ako ćemo pravo.

Ja zato i kažem da je sva materija živa - ali šta se tu zapravo podrazumeva. Rekao sam ono najprostije do čega sam mogao da dođem dedukcijom - tamo gde ima razmene ima i života. Razmena je život. To je osnovno za svu materiju, za elemente i za sva živa bića koja poznajemo. Ja samo ne želim da mistifikujem, to je sve.



Ali ovo je opet jedno insularno diskutovanje. Amebe se ne reprodukuju već se samo dele? Ali u praktičnom smislu, daj jednoj amebi dovoljno hrane i prostora i posle određenog vremena imaš mnogo ameba. Dakle, reprodukuju se u praktičnom smislu koji se može iskoristiti za dalje teoretisanje o reprodukciji koje će dovesti do teorija i praksi koje omogućuju da imamo reproduktivnu medicinu.

"Razmena je život" ne deluje kao dovoljno precizna osnova za lekara koji treba da odluči je li njegov pacijent mrtav ili još uvek živ.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Ne misli se na masu DNK nego na raznovrsnost.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
To kod ameba nije reprodukcija nego produkcija jednog te istog genetskog materijala.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Uostalom, izraz reprodukcija uopšte nije adekvatan.
Kad se proizvode nove jedinke dolazi do ukrštanja genetskog materijala i porod je uvek malo drugačiji od roditelja, tako da nije reč o reprodukciji u smislu da se ponavlja i održava jedno te isto.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Pa ja i pričam o raznovrsnosti DNK a takođe pričam da joj ti oovde sad pridaješ jednu važnost koja nije intuitivno očigledna niti značajna, rekao bih. Takođe, ovo za amebe je meni upravo primer mistifikacije i semantičkog zamagljivanja. Amebe se de fakto reprodukuju - gde je bila jedna sada su dve itd. Dele isti buprint, naravno, pa šta, reprodukcija ne podrazumeva samo seksualno razmnožavanje (sa kombinovanjem gena).

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.173
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Aseksualna reprodukcija je i dalje reprodukcija. Ne možeš ti da daješ svoje definicije koje se razlikuju od postojećih, samo zato što ne znaš ili ne prihvataš postojeću definiciju.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Nisam video nikakvu preciznu definiciju života na wikipediji. Video sam svašta, samo to ne. To je obična katalogizacija, nema nikakve definicije. I izraz reprodukcija, koji znači razmnožavanje je neadekvatan. Reprodukcija je kada štampaš nešto jednom te istom matricom. Kada se kod svake kopije desi mutacija, a to je pravilo kod razmnožavanja živih bića, onda tu nema nikakve reprodukcije, već nešto samo približno tome, u skladu s odgovarajućom tolerancijom.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Kufer, a da ti nama napišeš storiju o životu jednog kiseonika? Sa uvodom, zapletom i raspletom.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Kad mi objasniš koliko se puta dnevno razmnožiš  :roll:

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
To je lako. Razmnožavamo se svaki dan. Kožu, valjda, presvučemo potpuno svake dve nedelje, ako ne sikćemo. Ako sikćemo i češće, a ako oberemo kožu na šiljak može da bude i fatalno. Ako nas ufate. Daj, ne davi više Mehu, ne može na vreme da se virtualno reprodukuje.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
Sto se tice bakterija, jako mi je tesko, ali moram da stanem na kuferovu stranu...
Ja sam svoje rodjene sjebao, verovatno antibioticima, i sada imam puno problema...


U poslednjem broju Economista ima dobar clanak o tome...


[size=78%]http://www.economist.com/node/21560523[/size]





Mica

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
I ja sam, ako se skupno nazivaju imunitetom. Samo se pravim blesav, da me potpuno ne napuste.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Bio jednom jedan atom kisika.
Živeo je srećno u srećnoj bračnoj zajednici s dve vodikteljice.
Onda se pojavio sumpor, koji je živeo u nesrećnoj bračnoj zajednici s dva kisika.
Za srećniji brak trebao mu je još jedan kisik.
Utom tuda naiđe i srećni brak dve vodikteljice i jednog sumpora.
Ove dve vodikteljice odmah požele da se presele kod kisika, jer je sumpor od ovoga, malo težeg karaktera i ruke.
Prve dve vodikteljice se utom uplaše i pobegnu, a sumpor-A ugrabi priliku i veže za sebe kisika-A, pa stvori neraskidivu zajednicu s tri kisika.
Dođe tu do prave drame i jurnjave.
Ne lezi vraže, pojavi se još jedan srećni brak, kisika-C i dve vodikteljice.
Sumpor-A predloži ovoj zajednici da se udruže i tako odbrane od viška vodikteljica pretvarajući ih u temperaturu.
Tako je nastala sumporna kiselina i topla geštalt-okolina.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Fali ti provodadžika inače od srećnog braka ništa.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Ma, da sam Krleža, ja bi napiso Glembajeve od ovoga, al mrzi me...

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Ovo, o bakterijama je mlogo zanimljivo.
Šta ako imamo potrebu da se međusobno žvalavimo (ljubimo) samo zbog toga da bi se dobavile nove vrste bakterija?
Zvuči realistično, tako mi sto znojavih oktopoda!

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Sto se tice bakterija, jako mi je tesko, ali moram da stanem na kuferovu stranu...
Ja sam svoje rodjene sjebao, verovatno antibioticima, i sada imam puno problema...


U poslednjem broju Economista ima dobar clanak o tome...


[size=78%]http://www.economist.com/node/21560523[/size]




Super članak!

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
ljubljenje??? meni iz svega ovog izgleda kao da mi je jedini spas da jedem (tudja) govna...  :(
Mica

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
 :D

Ali, zanimljivo, svi su izgledi da su ti bakterjiski super organizmi - mikrobiomi, nešto kao mozak... U najmanju ruku, kompleksni programi.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Joj, ovo mora da se proba  :?

Quote
Yogurts are limited in the range of bacteria they can transmit. Another intervention, though, allows entire bacterial ecosystems to be transferred from one gut to another. This is the transplanting of a small amount of faeces. Mark Mellow of the Baptist Medical Centre in Oklahoma City uses such faecal transplants to treat infections of Clostridium difficile, a bug that causes severe diarrhoea and other symptoms, particularly among patients already in hospital.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Ima ovde donatora ko pleve.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Joooj, sad kad nastane borba za resurse  :idea:

Josephine

  • Guest
Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. But if you don’t watch, it acts like a wave and can go through both slits at the same time. So how can a particle change its behavior depending on whether you watch it or not? The answer is simple – reality is a process that involves your consciousness.

Or consider Heisenberg’s famous uncertainty principle. If there is really a world out there with particles just bouncing around, then we should be able to measure all their properties. But you can’t. For instance, a particle’s exact location and momentum can’t be known at the same time. So why should it matter to a particle what you decide to measure? And how can pairs of entangled particles be instantaneously connected on opposite sides of the galaxy as if space and time don’t exist? Again, the answer is simple: because they’re not just ‘out there’ – space and time are simply tools of our mind.

“The influences of the senses,” said Ralph Waldo Emerson “has in most men overpowered the mind to the degree that the walls of space and time have come to look solid, real and insurmountable; and to speak with levity of these limits in the world is the sign of insanity.”

Oh, ovo je strašno zanimljiv članak. Očekivala sam raspravu o prve dve boldovane rečenice, a onda sam shvatila da se zbog treće o tome ne diskutuje... :!:

Otprilike se i ja slično pitam kada pitam možemo li da se posmatramo van okvira polnog identiteta? Da probijemo nametnute barijere percepcije čula i uloga? Možda je to ravno samoubistvu? To je čak benigno pitanje u odnosu na tvrdnju da su vreme i prostor samo alati našeg uma. Mislim, šta ako mu oduzmemo te alate? Šta bi bilo sa univerzumom? Kako univerzum stvarno izgleda i da li može "stvarno da izgleda"? Ako je u našima umovima, onda smo sve što vidimo, zvezde, sazvežđa, galaksije, svemir, sami smislili, sami smo se okružili time i vidimo samo tri dimenzije (+1 ) koje smo smislili.

Univerzum u umu je zaista ludačka tema. Ja bih sad o njoj, ali se ne bih usudila prva. A verujem i da bih naišla na tišinu... Svačiju, osim lordovu.

Ali navešću da sam nekada davno, u srednjoj školi još, pokušavala da intuitivni osećaj o poreklu svemira dovedem u racionalnu percepciju. Problem je što mi je to poništavalo čulni osećaj i ja više nisam osećala da postojim u uobičajenim granicama. Naime, lord je sada tražio definiciju života, što je vrlo blizu traženja definicije postojanja...

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Јер ми смо само шетња електрона
Из једног у друго стање заблуде...

Josephine

  • Guest
Opet neki pesnik izlaže sebe nauci.

Јер ми смо само шетња електрона
Из једног у друго стање заблуде...


 :!:

Eto zašto pesnik treba sebe da izlaže nauci.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Odgovor mora da bude efikasan, a nauka sebi rezerviše vekove do kraja vremena  :roll:

Josephine

  • Guest
Ima živih bića koja se uopšte ne reprodukuju.

To nisam znao. Daj neki link, ako može.

Evo, na primer - ja!  8)



ahahahahah!  :lol:

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Kvantna fizika na kolenima!
 
Quantum measurements leave Schrödinger's cat alive
 
Quote

Schrödinger's cat, the enduring icon of quantum mechanics, has been defied. By making constant but weak measurements of a quantum system, physicists have managed to probe a delicate quantum state without destroying it – the equivalent of taking a peek at Schrodinger's metaphorical cat without killing it. The result should make it easier to handle systems such as quantum computers that exploit the exotic properties of the quantum world.
Quantum objects have the bizarre but useful property of being able to exist in multiple states at once, a phenomenon called superposition. Physicist Erwin Schrödinger illustrated the strange implications of superposition by imagining a cat in a box whose fate depends on a radioactive atom. Because the atom's decay is governed by quantum mechanics – and so only takes a definite value when it is measured – the cat is, somehow, both dead and alive until the box is opened.
Superposition could, in theory, let quantum computers run calculations in parallel by holding information in quantum bits. Unlike ordinary bits, these qubits don't take a value of 1 or 0, but instead exist as a mixture of the two, only settling on a definite value of 1 or 0 when measured.
But this ability to destroy superpositions simply by peeking at them makes systems that depend on this property fragile. That has been a stumbling block for would-be quantum computer scientists, who need quantum states to keep it together long enough to do calculations.
 Gentle measurement Researchers had suggested it should be possible, in principle, to make measurements that are "gentle" enough not to destroy the superposition. The idea was to measure something less direct than whether the bit is a 1 or a 0 – the equivalent of looking at Schrödinger's cat through blurry glasses. This wouldn't allow you to gain a "strong" piece of information – whether the cat was alive or dead – but you might be able to detect other properties.
Now, R. Vijay of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues have managed to create a working equivalent of those blurry glasses. "We only partially open the box," says Vijay.
The team started with a tiny superconducting circuit commonly used as a qubit in quantum computers, and put it in a superposition by cycling its state between 0 and 1 so that it repeatedly hit all the possible mixtures of states.
Next, the team measured the frequency of this oscillation. This is inherently a weaker measurement than determining whether the bit took on the value of 1 or 0 at any point, so the thought was that it might be possible to do this without forcing the qubit to choose between a 1 or a 0. However, it also introduced a complication.
 Quantum pacemaker Even though the measurement was gentle enough not to destroy the quantum superposition, the measurement did randomly change the oscillation rate. This couldn't be predicted, but the team was able to make the measurement very quickly, allowing the researchers to inject an equal but opposite change into the system that returned the qubit's frequency to the value it would have had if it had not been measured at all.
This feedback is similar to what happens in a pacemaker: if the system drifts too far from the desired state, whether that's a steady heartbeat or a superposition of ones and zeros, you can nudge it back towards where it should be.
Vijay's team was not the first to come up with this idea of using feedback to probe a quantum system, but the limiting factor in the past had been that measurements weak enough to preserve the system gave signals too small to detect and correct, while bigger measurements introduced noise into the system that was too big to control.
 Error correction Vijay and colleagues used a new kind of amplifier that let them turn up the signal without contaminating it. They found that their qubit stayed in its oscillating state for the entire run of the experiment. That was only about a hundredth of a second – but, crucially, it meant that the qubit had survived the measuring process.
"This demonstration shows we are almost there, in terms of being able to implement quantum error controls," Vijay says. Such controls could be used to prolong the superpositions of qubits in quantum computing, he says, by automatically nudging qubits that were about to collapse.
The result is not perfect, points out Howard Wiseman of Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, in an article accompanying the team's paper. "But compared with the no-feedback result of complete unpredictability within several microseconds, the observed stabilization of the qubit's cycling is a big step forward in the feedback control of an individual qubit."
Journal reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature11505

Mica Milovanovic

  • 8
  • 3
  • *
  • Posts: 8.298
Naravoučenije: sve radi polagano, u rukavicama, i isplatiće ti se...


Mi Srbi bi radije pobili sve mačke... Meho, naravno, ne bi...
Mica

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
Kad naučnik kaže "almost there" dođe mi da zaplačem od sreće i ponosa  8-)

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
I Ajnštajn posrće:
 
Einstein's math may also describe faster-than-light velocities
 
Quote

Although Einstein's theories suggest nothing can move faster than the speed of light, two scientists have extended his equations to show what would happen if faster-than-light travel were possible.
 
 
Despite an apparent prohibition on such travel by Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the scientists said the theory actually lends itself easily to a description of velocities that exceed the speed of light.
"We started thinking about it, and we think this is a very natural extension of Einstein's equations," said applied mathematician James Hill, who co-authored the new paper with his University of Adelaide, Australia, colleague Barry Cox. The paper was published Oct. 3 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
  Are you scientifically literate? Take our quiz Special relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905, showed how concepts like speed are all relative: A moving observer will measure the speed of an object to be different than a stationary observer will. Furthermore, relativity revealed the concept of time dilation, which says that the faster you go, the more time seems to slow down. Thus, the crew of a speeding spaceship might perceive their trip to another planet to take two weeks, while people left behind on Earth would observe their passage taking 20 years.
Yet special relativity breaks down if two people's relative velocity, the difference between their respective speeds, approaches the speed of light. Now, Hill and Cox have extended the theory to accommodate an infinite relative velocity. [Top 10 Implications of Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos]
Interestingly, neither the original Einstein equations, nor the new, extended theory can describe massive objects moving at the speed of light itself. Here, both sets of equations break down into mathematical singularities, where physical properties can't be defined.
"The actual business of going through the speed of light is not defined," Hill told LiveScience. "The theory we've come up with is simply for velocities greater than the speed of light."
In effect, the singularity divides the universe into two: a world where everything moves slower than the speed of light, and a world where everything moves faster. The laws of physics in these two realms could turn out to be quite different.
In some ways, the hidden world beyond the speed of light looks to be a strange one indeed. Hill and Cox's equations suggest, for example, that as a spaceship traveling at super-light speeds accelerated faster and faster, it would lose more and more mass, until at infinite velocity, its mass became zero.
"It's very suggestive that the whole game is different once you go faster than light," Hill said.
Despite the singularity, Hill is not ready to accept that the speed of light is an insurmountable wall. He compared it to crossing the sound barrier. Before Chuck Yeager became the first person to travel faster than the speed of sound in 1947, many experts questioned whether it could be done. Scientists worried that the plane would disintegrate, or the human body wouldn't survive. Neither turned out to be true.
Fears of crossing the light barrier may be similarly unfounded, Hill said.
"I think it's only a matter of time," he said. "Human ingenuity being what it is, it's going to happen, but maybe it will involve a transportation mechanism entirely different from anything presently envisaged."

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.665
Mnogo ga komplikuju. Konstante vremenom postaju nepouzdane. Ha! Ovo je komplikovanije od oligopolije!
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Lord Kufer

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.102
    • Poems and Essays
A ako se čestica kreće unutar svoje zapremine...???

Ovi plaćenici pojma nemaju. Ja mislim da su previše plaćeni.

"a transportation mechanism entirely different from anything presently envisaged"

Odavno viđeno.  xyxy

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 49.002
Nije striktno u temi, ali mrzi me da smišljam gde ovo da stavim:
 
  ‘Point of no return’ found Peering to the edge of a black hole 
Quote

Using a continent-spanning telescope, an international team of astronomers has peered to the edge of a black hole at the center of a distant galaxy. For the first time, they have measured the black hole’s “point of no return” — the closest distance that matter can approach before being irretrievably pulled into the black hole.
A black hole is a region in space where the pull of gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape. Its boundary is known as the event horizon.
“Once objects fall through the event horizon, they’re lost forever,” says lead author Shep Doeleman, assistant director at the MIT Haystack Observatory and research associate at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). “It’s an exit door from our universe. You walk through that door, you’re not coming back.”
The team examined the black hole at the center of a giant elliptical galaxy called Messier 87 (M87), which is located about 50 million light-years from Earth. The black hole is 6 billion times more massive than the sun. It’s surrounded by an accretion disk of gas swirling toward the black hole’s maw. Although the black hole is invisible, the accretion disk is hot enough to glow.
“Even though this black hole is far away, it’s so big that its apparent size on the sky is about the same as the black hole at the center of the Milky Way,” says co-author Jonathan Weintroub of the CfA. “That makes it an ideal target for study.”
According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, a black hole’s mass and spin determine how close material can orbit before becoming unstable and falling in toward the event horizon. The team was able to measure this innermost stable orbit and found that it’s only 5.5 times the size of the black hole’s event horizon. This size suggests that the accretion disk is spinning in the same direction as the black hole.
The observations were made by linking together radio telescopes in Hawaii, Arizona, and California to create a virtual telescope called the Event Horizon Telescope, or EHT. The EHT is capable of seeing details 2,000 times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope.
The team plans to expand its telescope array, adding radio dishes in Chile, Europe, Mexico, Greenland, and the South Pole, in order to obtain even more detailed pictures of black holes in the future.
The work is being published in Science Express.