Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Sci Fi TV science or fiction?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedSci Fi TV science or fiction?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 23>
Author
Message
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 06:10
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

^^ So we can not exclude the possibility that the huge complexity of a human being, or at least certain aspects of it, might be reduced as from arising from some simple principles. The science of Complexity studies precisely the emergence of complex phenomena out of simple principles. There is no solid reason to believe that the complexity of a living organism is uncompressible in principle. Many features must emerge from simpler principles. So it might be enough to know those principles to reproduce traits of the organism from a simpler description of the basic data + the effect of those principles.
To tell somebody to build a Boeing 747 you do not need to tell him the position and type of each of its atoms, you can use drawings and specifications.
Yup - you can do all those things. But you are not performing a transportation function, you are performing a transformation function and that is something completely different since it assumes that most of the information is already known. That may not make immediate sense, but consider your future state of the Universe example - the magic formula is a transformation that can predict a future state of the Universe from a previous state - the future and previous states are equally as complex and contain a vast amount of information - without knowing the previous state (aka "the initial conditions") you cannot apply the transformation and get the desired future state, so the amount of information that is actually required to predict the future state is not compressed at all. As I said "That's not information compression, it does not even sound like information compression."
 
 
For a human you can simply specify 65% Oxygen, 18% Carbon, 10% Hydrogen, 3% Nitrogen, 1.4% Calcium, 1.1% Phosphorus, ... 10-17% Radium and assume that the  3 x 1027 atoms are available at the destination in those proportions and can be fabricated into the necessary molecules and compounds and then hope that all those elements fall into the correct spacial location by some random process and life can be reanimated. If all you had was hydrogen then the process is a little more complicated and may take a little longer... and will require a means of making a sun go supernova.
 
If we assume the 747 is entirely made from aluminium we still need to fabricate each component before it can be assembled into sub modules, modules and the final airframe, if I remember my MRP2 correctly a 747 can be broken down into 6 or 7 levels of subassembly regardless of the number and complexity of each subassembly, so the process is not difficult, however what you have is a new 747, you have not transported the original one from the point of destination. (Legally, and to some extent philosophically, you have not even created a Boeing 747 - you have made a replica or counterfeit - but that's irrelevant). What you have done is transformed a pile of aluminium into something that looks and behaves like a 747. The other assumption you have made is that the receptors have the skill and knowledge to do this because that is part of the total data pack for the transformation - it is part of the initial conditions of the transformation. You have not compressed the amount of data required to build a 747 by this method.
 
Similarly you can also take a sperm and an egg and make a human which is a considerably smaller data-pack than a fully grown, fully educated, fully experienced adult human, you can also take a single cell and clone a human. However, none of those things are transporter technology.
 
 


Edited by Dean - August 01 2013 at 06:11
What?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 06:51
I know you are stubborn and I respect that, but you still didn't convince me that the information required to transport a human is necessarily irreducible to more compressed formats and would require a complete description atom by atom. I may not have the knowhow to tell you the solution but that goes against my intuition, nature knows how to encode information.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 06:57
Data compression methods do not always produce smaller files.
 
This is counter intuitive but it happens.
 
The following image is 100px by 100px and contains Gaussian distributed random noise on an 8-bit grey scale:
 
 
 
The amount of data in that image is 100 x100 x bit depth (which in this case is 8 bits or 1 byte) so the maximum file size needed is 10Kb, which when you save that as an uncompressed .raw file that is precisely the file size. [If you saved it as an uncompressed .bmp a header is added so the file size increases to 11Kb]. If I use an image compression format such as JPEG the file size actually increases to 33Kb and it gets transformed so it is no longer a replica of the original. However, because there are some pixels where the data does not change from one pixel to the next standard Huffman coding type compression (as usind in .png for .zip files) will reduce the file size to just 3K.
 
However if I perform the same excercise with my avatar (suitablty shrunk and converted to 100px by 100px 8-bit grey scale) the .raw file remains at 10K and the .jpg is now reduced to 20K but the .png file cannot compress the data at all and the file size remains at 10K. With this image no data compression is possible.
 
 
This is not intended to be a conclusive proof that complex data cannot be compressed or reduced, it merely illustrates that not all complex data can.
What?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 07:17
Only genuinely random data can not be compressed. I like to think that humans are not a random collection of atoms.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 07:33
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

I know you are stubborn and I respect that, but you still didn't convince me that the information required to transport a human is necessarily irreducible to more compressed formats and would require a complete description atom by atom. I may not have the knowhow to tell you the solution but that goes against my intuition, nature knows how to encode information.
I have a feeling that in this particular instance stubbornness trumps intuition because these things are generally counter-intuitive.
 
Atom by atom is in fact a simplification, you would probably need to go down to the subatomic level if you were converting matter to energy, and then our mate Heisenberg will have something to say about the location of each subatomic particle.
 
Data compression is unknown is nature, (if it were we'd make a fortune exploiting it) - DNA and RNA are indeed coding techniques that are useful in replicating many copies of something, just as Jacquard loom was a coding technique that was useful for replicating many copies of a piece of patterned fabric. Information is reducable down to the level that makes it different from the next reduced piece of information, what remains then is a collection of deltas that are all unique - compression is the art of producing the fewest number of deltas.
 
In order to compress the data of a human being from very large numbers to numbers that can be transmitted through a medium at acceptable data-rates then we need compression rations that are comensurate with those very large numbers. A 10:1 compression knocks a zero off, a 1000:1 compression knocks 3 zeros off - to reduce billions of years down to a few seconds (31million seconds in a year x 1 billion years = 31 quadrillion seconds) we would need compression ratios of a quadrillions to 1.
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 07:59
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Only genuinely random data can not be compressed.
Not quite, but there is little to be gained by going into it deeper - some non-sequential patterns cannot be compressed, some random patterns can be compressed andf others cannot - genuinely random is a special form of random (it is a subset of random).
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

I like to think that humans are not a random collection of atoms.
I like to think that each one is unique. That is random enough.


Edited by Dean - August 01 2013 at 07:59
What?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 08:21

At the risk of getting too long and technical for this forum, for the interested guys here I’d like to mention about what I consider one of the most fascinating experiments proving the reality of quantum superposition and the role of observation in causing decoherence. It is called the Quantum-Zeno effect and the original milestone experiment, informally called “The quantum pot that never boils if it’s observed” was performed by W. Itano et al in 1990. Again at the risk of getting too long, since some readers here may not be very familiar with the subject I will try to explain it in a very layman way and perhaps too detailed manner in the hope that it is understandable for most readers here.

In a previous post I used the expression that “the Moon is not there when nobody is looking at it” as a common metaphor for what some interpretations of quantum mechanics (mostly the Copenhagen) imply. This experiment clearly shows what the metaphor stands for.

As you may know, atoms can be “excited” into a higher energy state by providing them electromagnetic energy. If you throw photons to an atom, the photons may be absorbed by the atom’s electrons which will “jump” into a higher energy orbit. This is the “excited” state of the atom (if you leave it alone it will eventually radiate those photons away and return to its “ground state”).

Now, the experiment consists of a “pot” containing around 5000 beryllium atoms. By applying a shower of microwave radiation (photons of a certain energy) we can excite them and set them in a higher energy state, which informally we may call as “the beryllium atom being boiling”. The time it takes for the microwave shower to bring a beryllium atom into the excited “boiling” state is 256 milliseconds.

However this boiling -which is the expected thing to happen for atoms under the radiation shower- occurs only if the atoms are not observed during the 256 milliseconds period. If we do not observe the pot, after 256 milliseconds all of its atoms will be “boiling”.

But if we attempt to observe the atoms “en route to becoming boiling”, we will not see them getting to the boiling state. The more the atoms are observed, the longer they take to boil. If the atoms are observed frequently enough -every 4 milliseconds- the pot will never boil at all, no atoms will get to the boiling state. 

This shows that objects, matter, and events in general, evolve differently when observed than when unobserved (at least in the quantum realm), and this is what the metaphor of the moon stands for.

The reason why the pot never boils if observed is that an atom, while not observed, can be in a superposition of different states, partly not-boiling and partly boiling (the percentage of each state shifting gradually from “not boiling” to “definitely boiling” along the 256 millisecond period). It is important to realise that there is no intermediate state between not-boiling and boiling, the electrons can only be either in the ground orbit or in the higher one, but they can never be in between. The “superposition state” is not an in-between state between not-boiling and boiling, but really a superposition of “not boiling” and “boiling” states with different probabilities for each. But if the atom is observed, it needs to “choose” a definite state, either “boiling” or “not boiling”. If we observe the atom at 128 milliseconds, the chances that it may “choose” to be boiling or not boiling are exactly 50%.

When observed, each atom can only be in any of either states, boiling or not-boiling, but nothing in between. They can only be in between (in a quantum superposition of both states) while not observed. This is the key.

Now, those atoms which at the moment of being observed (let's say after 128 milliseconds) "choose" to take still the unexcited (non-boiling) state, need to start again from scratch, and need again 256 milliseconds to boil, not just 128 milliseconds more.

The microwave radiation shower is continuous, even while the atoms are being observed.

The observation is done by shining a laser beam through the "fog" of beryllium, and the scattering of the laser tells how many atoms were boiling and how many were not (because non-boiling atoms absorb some energy from the laser and boiling ones don't).

During an unobserved 256 milliseconds radiation shower, every atom will evolve from a quantum superposition of states 100% not-boiling + 0% boiling, to a superposition of 0% not-boiling + 100% boiling. All of them will have gotten to the boiling state.

At 128 milliseconds, the superposition is 50%-50%, at 64 milliseconds it's of 75%-25%, and so on.

When observed, each atom must abandon the superposition and "choose" between any of both states.

If you only observe after 256 milliseconds, all the atoms could get to the 0% not-boiling + 100% boiling superposition, so you find all of them boiling. 

If you observe after 128 milliseconds, they are in a superposition of 50%-50%, therefore half of them will choose the non-boiling state and the other half the boiling state.

But for the 50% who take the non-boiling state, the superposition returns to 100% non-boiling + 0% boiling. Therefore they need again 256 milliseconds unobserved to evolve to 0%+100%, they have to start from scratch again. 

Therefore if you observe them very repeatedly -every 4 milliseconds was the test so the probability of an atom “chosing” to be boiling was neglectable because of the short time elapsed-, causing them to return to the 100% non-boiling + 0% boiling, they can never make it to boil even if the radiation shower is never stopped.


An interesting fact is that both the radiation shower (it is radio waves radiation) and the laser beam, are BOTH electromagnetic radiation being showered to the atoms. However the radio waves shower does not cause the collapse of the superposition, and the laser does. Why?

The only difference is that we use the laser to observe, while we don't with the radio waves. It is our using the information from the radiation to acquire knowledge of the system which determines if the radiation will change the atoms state or not. As long as we do not attempt to gain information from it, radiation will not cause the atoms to choose a definite state and they can remain in a superposition of multiple states (the radio waves shower), but if we try to use that radiation to get information on the state of the atoms (the laser beam), they will collapse into a single definite state.

Ain't that fascinating?

Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 08:46
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


 

An interesting fact is that both the radiation shower (it is radio waves radiation) and the laser beam, are BOTH electromagnetic radiation being showered to the atoms. However the radio waves shower does not cause the collapse of the superposition, and the laser does. Why?

The only difference is that we use the laser to observe, while we don't with the radio waves. It is our using the information from the radiation to acquire knowledge of the system which determines if the radiation will change the atoms state or not. As long as we do not attempt to gain information from it, radiation will not cause the atoms to choose a definite state and they can remain in a superposition of multiple states (the radio waves shower), but if we try to use that radiation to get information on the state of the atoms (the laser beam), they will collapse into a single definite state.

Ain't that fascinating?

 
Is it because the energy in a radio wave is less than in the same magnitude of light? Is it because the microwave photon is considerablly larger than the light photon but is in a lower energy state? Not all radiation is the same and not all photons are the same.
What?
Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 09:09
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

At the risk of getting too long and technical for this forum, for the interested guys here I’d like to mention about what I consider one of the most fascinating experiments proving the reality of quantum superposition and the role of observation in causing decoherence


Sorry I got this far then my brain exploded; or did it implode? But then, I can't see my brain, so is it there (or in Copenhagen)?



Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 09:16
So is it worth reading the 40 posts I missed in the opinion of Dean and Gerinski?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 09:23
Nope.
What?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 09:26
Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

At the risk of getting too long and technical for this forum, for the interested guys here I’d like to mention about what I consider one of the most fascinating experiments proving the reality of quantum superposition and the role of observation in causing decoherence


Sorry I got this far then my brain exploded; or did it implode? But then, I can't see my brain, so is it there (or in Copenhagen)?


Never mind LOL, it's just that Dean, Pat and myself got into some quantum discussions so I felt the need to share this with them. I know it's not the appropriate forum for such stuff, sorry.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 09:29
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Nope.


Thank God.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 09:31
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


 

An interesting fact is that both the radiation shower (it is radio waves radiation) and the laser beam, are BOTH electromagnetic radiation being showered to the atoms. However the radio waves shower does not cause the collapse of the superposition, and the laser does. Why?

The only difference is that we use the laser to observe, while we don't with the radio waves. It is our using the information from the radiation to acquire knowledge of the system which determines if the radiation will change the atoms state or not. As long as we do not attempt to gain information from it, radiation will not cause the atoms to choose a definite state and they can remain in a superposition of multiple states (the radio waves shower), but if we try to use that radiation to get information on the state of the atoms (the laser beam), they will collapse into a single definite state.

Ain't that fascinating?

 
Is it because the energy in a radio wave is less than in the same magnitude of light? Is it because the microwave photon is considerablly larger than the light photon but is in a lower energy state? Not all radiation is the same and not all photons are the same.
Nope, the energy of the EM radiation has nothing to do. Multiple other experiments (I pointed earlier to the "delayed choice" and the "quantum eraser" experiments) have shown that what determines how a quantum system will behave is whether we attempt to gain information from it or we don't. The quantum pot is just another example showing that this is the way nature works and the weird seemingly implication that we conscious beings with our observations shape the way the universe evolves.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 09:43
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

So is it worth reading the 40 posts I missed in the opinion of Dean and Gerinski?
No, but since the "do you think the Moon is there when nobody is looking at it" question was directly addressed to you, and given that you are a scientifically smart guy, maybe a look at my long post of 15h21 (my time) might be worth it, sorry it's a bit a long one.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 09:48
The one on the Quantum Zeno effect?

By the way in reference to the article you posted for me, I found it very cool. But it doesn't change anything that I've been saying: Coppehagen gives the best description, but it is not one I find to be complete. I just works as the most useful way to think about the mathematics.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 10:18
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The one on the Quantum Zeno effect?

By the way in reference to the article you posted for me, I found it very cool. But it doesn't change anything that I've been saying: Coppehagen gives the best description, but it is not one I find to be complete. I just works as the most useful way to think about the mathematics.
Yeah the one on the Quantum Zeno effect, which turns to be somehow a criticism about the Copenhagen interpretation (not that the other interpretations do not suffer from flaws either!). Glad that you appreciated the article about macroscopic superposition.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 10:21
I may be sufficiently hungover and obtuse to miss the point, but how does it criticize the Copenhagen interpretation?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 10:36
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Nope, the energy of the EM radiation has nothing to do. Multiple other experiments (I pointed earlier to the "delayed choice" and the "quantum eraser" experiments) have shown that what determines how a quantum system will behave is whether we attempt to gain information from it or we don't. The quantum pot is just another example showing that this is the way nature works and the weird seemingly implication that we conscious beings with our observations shape the way the universe evolves.
I wasn't refering just to the energy of the EM radiation but the energy density - none of these experiments mention the size of the photon, they all treat it as if it were a physical particle (ie a massless mass) much smaller than an atom (because it interacts with an atom) - but it isn't like that - photons are big (compared to other particles) because they are an energy "packet" with length, width and height, the onlty problem is we're not sure how big that is - we presume the length is several wavelenghts... which probably makes its size in the other two dimensions also proportional to the wavelength (and through Planck, inversely propotional to its energy) - if a photon is that big in all three dimensions then the double slit experiment (where the slits are spaced by a couple of wavelengths apart) can have the bulk of that energy field going through one slit and the residual through the other - like silly-putty. If a photon is that big then the 5-detector version of the "quantum eraser" is also not as it seems because the photon doubler just after the slit changes the size and energy value of the photons (because it halves the frequency). The act of observing is not passive, of course it affects the outcome - at the quantum level that's not necessarily in the most obvious way.
What?
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 01 2013 at 10:45
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I may be sufficiently hungover and obtuse to miss the point, but how does it criticize the Copenhagen interpretation?
Well in fact you are right, actually it only seems to support it. Conscious observers determine the way the universe evolves, precisely what Copenhagen says. Sorry for that, but I still find it weird and I'd like to believe that it's an incomplete view of how the universe works. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that it is our observations which make the universe real. For one thing it would mean that before consciousness existed, nothing definite existed but just a soup of probabilities. Deep stuff I know...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 23>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.207 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.