Sinking Intel Corp - Yahoo! Finance
Wednesday, April 3, 2024
Tuesday, April 2, 2024
TAYLOR SWIFT OFFICIALLY BILLIONAIRE
Taylor Swift Billionaire - FOX Business
How many people out there can claim friends like that?
Monday, April 1, 2024
Saturday, March 30, 2024
Tuesday, March 26, 2024
Tuesday, March 19, 2024
Wednesday, March 6, 2024
Thursday, February 29, 2024
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
WHITE HOUSE AND DUMPING C AND C++
C and C++ Dumping - InfoWorld
Response - Slashdot
Rust is difficult to use; try it.
White House should pressure Google to dump Kotlin because most developers work from St. Petersburg in Russia and have direct connections to Putin's security people. This is a very major security risk.
Friday, February 9, 2024
Saturday, January 27, 2024
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
TOURIST TRAPS
Tourist Traps in the US - Explored Planet
The most overrated tourist attractions in the United States.
Tuesday, January 23, 2024
MOBILIZATION IN UKRAINE
Mobilization in Ukraine - The Kyiv Independent
It's a test of whether the government of Ukraine can actually implement it.
NUCLEAR FUSION - ANOTHER ONE GOES DOWN
Nuclear Fusion Will Have To Wait - Nature
Recreating what is happening inside the Sun is not simple or even possible.
CHANGING AMERICA
Living Abroad - The Hill
Best places to live abroad, according to expats.
1. Mexico
2. Spain
3. Panama
4. Malaysia
5. Taiwan
6. Thailand
7. Costa Rica
8. Philippines
9. Bahrain
10. Portugal
Wednesday, January 17, 2024
IBM QUANTUM LAB TOUR
IBM Quantum Lab - YouTube
After watching this video, if you still believe that IBM can make a functional quantum computer, I recommend heading to a doctor, "Doctor, I must have my head examined. I was told it's really f*cked up."
IBM PATENT REWARD PROGRAM CANCELLED
IBM Inventions Program - The Register
In large corporations, patents are usually versions of patents coming from small companies that invent considerably more and have much more original ideas. There is little need to continue with such practices. The only people who get paid handsomely are lawyers.
VERY OLD BLACK HOLE
Old Black Hole - Phys.org, University of Cambridge
The Big Bang theory needs to be revisited and likely replaced with something else.
Friday, January 12, 2024
NUCLEAR BATTERY
Nuclear Battery - Lenr-Forum
If someone accidentally dropped a cell phone, and it split in half, exposing the radioactive content of the battery - that's not very pleasant. What do you think?
Tuesday, January 9, 2024
VERY OLD TERMITE
22-Million Years Old Termite - X
Sap from a tree caught a termite on its way to the restroom.
NO MORE DOG MEAT IN SOUTH KOREA
Leave a comment if your favorite dish is gone. Or, just travel to any of those remaining countries: China, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Nagaland in India.
Monday, January 8, 2024
Friday, January 5, 2024
Thursday, January 4, 2024
QUANTUM COMPUTING: NOISE
Noise in Quantum Computing - MIT Technology Review
Noise, noise, even more noise. This is how it is supposed to be.
Thursday, December 28, 2023
GAMOW - THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE
Quoted from Physics in History.
"It took less than an hour to make the atoms, a few hundred million years to make the stars and planets, but five billion years to make man!" -- George Gamow (1904-1968), as mentioned in The Creation of the Universe (1952)
Comments:
1) We are still determining when the first atoms arrived. 13 billion years ago, maybe 15 or 20? Nobody can explain what existed before that. How can something originate from nothing? The Big Bang idea needs to be updated. Most of the stuff in the universe remains unknown.
2) Same story with the first stars, ancient.
3) Planets, probably several billion years ago.
4) Earth is around 4 billion years old.
5) Man on Earth is probably around 1-2 million years old, perhaps less than that.
6) Atoms in your butt, however, are as old as the first stars. If someone tells you that you look old, it's true!
7) If you calculate probabilities that atoms independently arrange themselves into human DNA and RNA, those probabilities are zero. Life is very mysterious.
8) Can life exist somewhere else in the universe? It cannot be outright rejected. Conditions for life to exist somewhere else are good. Can we ever communicate with someone outside of Earth? Probably not because distances are so huge, and the waves propagating only at the speed of light prevent people from interacting with anyone out there. Travel is also likely beyond reach for the same reason.
9) Can life somewhere in the universe be more advanced than here on Earth? There is nothing against it.
Wednesday, December 27, 2023
Tuesday, December 26, 2023
Thursday, December 21, 2023
Tuesday, December 19, 2023
HOAXES 2023
A list of hoaxes heard in 2023 and explanations why they are called hoaxes.
1) Quantum computing
This one is straightforward. All quantum computing architectures described so far violate a fundamental law of nature, which you may not know, I discovered. It states that the quantum state of a real quantum system cannot be determined. Since quantum computers are probabilistic, they will always operate in superposition with random noise. Therefore, it is impossible to determine, for example, what a quantum qubit is doing or what the output of a quantum gate will be. It's not even possible to place a qubit in a reproducible initial state. Not in any reliable, predictable way. If a quantum computer is to operate with integers, this is not going to work because there is no randomness in integers, and 0 + 1 = 1, always. The answer would be a wide distribution on a quantum computer once this simple operation is repeated many times. An abacus can do it without any errors, but a quantum computer cannot.
On the other hand, the quantum state of a textbook quantum system can usually be determined unless the number of particles is huge. People are familiar with that version and think that they need to order parts from Amazon, have them delivered with Prime, and then start gluing things together. And once they are finished, they realize that the thing does not work. Why is that? Well, it's the probabilistic nature of everything around us. In a nutshell, two thumbs down on quantum computing.
2) Large distance quantum entanglement
There is no such effect. None of the four known fundamental forces in nature could be responsible for linking two particles, objects, or items separated by a large distance. There will be some form of electromagnetic interaction at small distances, when even closer - weak and strong nuclear forces will govern the interaction process. Einstein got this part right and called it spooky - it has no merit.
3) Room-temperature superconductivity
Yeah, another guy cooked something over the stove. This time, he placed many different metals and oxides together, so there is always a possibility that someone trying to reproduce that process added a quarter of the spoon of that last thing too much. So that's why it cannot be reproduced! No, that's not it. It did not work in the first place. Will it ever work? So far, there are no signs.
4) Nuclear fusion
There is an excellent technical argument against it. The temperatures inside the reactor must be around 200 million degrees C. Even inside the Sun, temperatures are not that high, only about 15 million degrees C. It means it would be necessary to place a reactor inside the Sun, and the lasers inside the reactor would increase the temperature much higher. But what plumbing? How do you let cooling water flow to the reactor? The temperature gradient inside a nuclear reactor would be so high that even the Sun cannot support that. Therefore, only a little will come out of the nuclear fusion idea in the foreseeable future.
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Wednesday, November 22, 2023
POISSON EQUATION SOLVERS
Comparison of different numerical methods used to solve the Poisson equation. A bit old but still good.
Algorithm Type Serial PRAM Storage #Procs Time Time --------- ---- ------ --------- -------- ------ Dense LU D N^3 N N^2 N^2 Band LU D N^2 N N^(3/2) N Inv(P)*bhat D N^2 log N N^2 N^2 Jacobi I N^2 N N N Sparse LU D N^(3/2) N^(1/2) N*log N N CG I N^(3/2) N^(1/2)*log N N N SOR I N^(3/2) N^(1/2) N N FFT D N*log N log N N N Multigrid I N (log N)^2 N N Lower Bound N log N N Key to abbreviations: Dense LU : Gaussian elimination, treating P as dense Band LU : Gaussian elimination, treating P as zero outside a band of half-width n-1 near diagonal Sparse LU : Gaussian elimination, exploiting entire zero-structure of P Inv(P)*bhat : precompute and store inverse of P, multiply it by right-hand-side bhat CG : Conjugate Gradient method SOR : Successive Overrelaxation FFT : Fast Fourier Transform based method
Source: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~demmel/cs267/lecture24/lecture24.html
Tuesday, November 14, 2023
LOWER YOUR SALT INTAKE
We always knew that salt is not good for your blood pressure.
LIMIT SALT - Business Insider
Tuesday, August 29, 2023
Tuesday, July 11, 2023
NINTH DEDEKIND NUMBER D(9) IDENTIFIED
D(9) Identified - Live Science
Knowing that you can now sleep well.
Dream about 286386577668298411128469151667598498812366.
Good night.
Tuesday, June 20, 2023
Thursday, June 15, 2023
Wednesday, June 14, 2023
Thursday, June 1, 2023
IS EINSTEIN'S E=MC^2 CORRECT?
This is Einstein's famous equation
E = m * c^2
Let's write it in a slightly different form
E = Const^0 * m^1 * c^2
We already notice a very peculiar feature; only three numbers, 0, 1, and 2, appear as powers in that equation. Does the Universe like only small numbers? Or is this a problem with Einstein's thinking, trying to get things as simple as possible because they are more beautiful that way? There may be an issue.
Let's add units to both sides.
E[kg^1 * (m/s)^2] = m[kg^1] * c[(m/s)^2]
How can this equation be modified? Assume that energy is not a perfect quadratic function of the speed of light. Then, it's obvious that a Const constant needs to be introduced. The constant is non-physical; let's tolerate it for a moment. For example, the Boltzmann and the Avogadro constant are both non-physical.
Let's introduce powers of a, b for the Const, y for the mass, and z for the speed of light.
E[kg^1 * (m/s)^2] = Const[kg^a * (m/s)^b] * m^y[kg^y] * c^z[(m/s)^z]
For units to work, we have those equations.
kg^1 = kg^a * kg^y
1 = a + y
so a = 1 - y
(m/s)^2 = (m/s)^b * (m/s)^z
2 = b + z
so b = 2 - z
The new equation is now.
E[kg^1 * (m/s)^2] = Const[kg^(1 - y) * (m/s)^(2 - z)] * m^y[kg^y] * c^z[(m/s)^z]
Let's assume, as an example, that y=1.02, z=1.97
E[kg^1 * (m/s)^2] = Const[(m/s)^0.03 / kg^0.02] * m^1.02[kg^1.02] * c^1.97[(m/s)^1.97]
Without units, the modified equation looks like that
E = Const * m^1.02 * c^1.97
where units are as follows:
E[kg^1 * (m/s)^2] or E[J], Const[(m/s)^0.03 / kg^0.02], m[kg], and c[m/s]. Only mass and the speed of light effects on energy are affected.
For the second example, y=0.97 and z= 2.04, a weaker effect coming from mass and a more substantial effect coming from the speed of light.
E = Const * m^0.97 * c^2.04
Now we would have E[J], Const[kg^0.03 / (m/s)^0.04], m[kg], and c[m/s].
Could this be true? How to verify if our ideas are correct?
Deviations from the Einstein equation could show up with relatively high energies. Where to find such examples? Perhaps in some stars or nuclear explosions. People familiar with astronomy can identify potential objects with high energies. Then pointing a Webb telescope in that direction may give us some surprises.
Tuesday, May 23, 2023
ION-Q ARIA QUANTUM COMPUTER
Just remember that no quantum computer can ever pass this test:
QUANTUM COMPUTER DEFINITION BASED ON X=0 TEST
Thursday, May 18, 2023
Wednesday, April 26, 2023
Sunday, April 23, 2023
Wednesday, April 19, 2023
Sunday, April 16, 2023
Wednesday, April 12, 2023
Tuesday, April 11, 2023
Wednesday, April 5, 2023
Monday, April 3, 2023
Thursday, March 30, 2023
Monday, March 27, 2023
Friday, March 24, 2023
Thursday, March 9, 2023
Tuesday, March 7, 2023
UNIVERSAL CONTROL OF ENCODED SPIN QUBITS
Let's see how far this goes.
Aaron J. Weinstein et al, Universal logic with encoded spin qubits in silicon, Nature (2023).
Monday, March 6, 2023
Friday, March 3, 2023
Thursday, March 2, 2023
Wednesday, March 1, 2023
Tuesday, February 28, 2023
Monday, February 27, 2023
Saturday, February 25, 2023
Friday, February 24, 2023
Thursday, February 23, 2023
Sunday, February 19, 2023
Thursday, February 16, 2023
GRID OF ATOMS FOR QUANTUM COMPUTING
ArsTechnica Article - Ars Technica
Can that computer pass this test?
Wednesday, February 15, 2023
Tuesday, February 14, 2023
Monday, February 13, 2023
Monday, February 6, 2023
Wednesday, February 1, 2023
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
Monday, January 30, 2023
BIG BANG IS A HOAX
Let's discuss the subject of the Big Bang. This is not a detailed scientific discussion, just several essential points sticking out and not fitting with common wisdom published in scientific literature.
1) If there was a Big Bang, there must have been something before it; let's call that a pre-Big Bang. We don't know what it was, but there must have been something. Quantum energy fluctuations, OK, good enough for now. Where does that something come from? There is no legitimate answer. And fluctuations occur in time, but there is no time.
2) There are indications that something happened about 13.8 billion years ago. OK, let's stick with it. Why didn't it happen 23.8 billion years ago? Why didn't it stay in its pre-Big Bang state for another 50 billion years? There isn't any reason for it to occur at all. No magical threshold exists, so no threshold could have been reached. Yet, we are told it happened. Why? Out of boredom?
3) Time is supposed to start at the Big Bang. So pre-Big Bang existed in no time? How is this possible?
4) There was no space either since no time means no space. Because Einstein said so. True or false?
5) Some say the original Big Bang Universe was very small, which is false; this is the problem with Einstein's equations. Because they do not work with small objects.
6) The pre-Big Bang Universe was already quite extensive, then suddenly, for no particular reason, decided to blow up by orders of magnitude in size, basically, in no time. This part is phony!
7) Scientific data confirms that the Universe is expanding. However, nothing in the Big Bang and the resulting inflation part guarantees expansion or moving matter and energy away from the Big Bang. Why didn't the post-Big Bang Universe start to shrink? Or expand here, and shrink over there? The Big Bang is not a bomb; it is also not an implosion device. The expansion part and the Big Bang are not related. Who can explain this discrepancy?
8) Why is the Universe so big? It does not make any sense. So many galaxies, so many stars, so much gas, and other junk. What for?
9) Energy is a scalar quantity; the expansion requires momentum, which is a vector quantity. How do you go from a scalar to a vector? Some additional mechanisms are needed.
10) Four fundamental forces in the Universe just popped up. Again, out of nowhere. Then decided to work, clump things together, and form atoms and molecules. Where does an electron come from? Where does the electron or proton charge come from? Where do the spins come from? Where do all elementary particles come from? From quantum fluctuations of energy? Very unlikely. Something significant needs to be added here.
11) The Cosmic Microwave Background CMB data shows the early Universe temperature to be around 2.7K and extremely uniform. Very hot early Universe suddenly became very cold, and the violent, sudden expansion caused the temperature to be uniform everywhere? Come on, this is pure nonsense!
12) Is it possible that light in the early, very dense Universe behaved differently from today's light? The surroundings were very different. The constant speed of light comes from Einstein, and all the data available to him came from Earth's surroundings, and he assumed that it must be true everywhere. How can anyone conclude that? He reached that conclusion based on a lack of data, very sneaky indeed.
13) Many galaxies are likely to be even older than the Big Bang. Future space telescopes, even more sensitive than JWST, are likely to confirm that.
14) It's time to start thinking about how to make such a new and revolutionary telescope. It would have to be assembled by robots over a fairly long time somewhere far from the Sun. It would need a constant supply of materials required to operate it, namely helium and other gasses, isotope-powered batteries, and maybe solar cells. The robots would have to be able to fix damage caused by meteorites and gamma radiation, plus replace aging parts.
15) We must mention Roger Penrose's idea that the Universe, in some form, always existed, and it had no beginning but does have an end. This theory sidesteps most of the problems that we discussed, but the expansion issue, however, still remains.
For now, the Big Bang does not sound like a reliable scientific theory but rather a hoax. What is your opinion on this subject?
Saturday, January 28, 2023
Friday, January 27, 2023
Wednesday, January 25, 2023
Tuesday, January 24, 2023
Wednesday, January 18, 2023
Friday, December 30, 2022
Wednesday, December 28, 2022
Wednesday, December 21, 2022
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
Saturday, December 17, 2022
Thursday, December 15, 2022
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
