It's an interesting theory though. What makes it less mainstream than other interpretations? (And is any interpretation of quantum mechanics a consensus?)
John Bell himself, the original author of one of the impossibility theorems, recognized its irrelevance, but he was systematically misquoted, misunderstood, or ignored as he tried to call attention to it. Ironically, he was then portrayed as being against Bohmian mechanics, despite the fact that he was its prime supporter during his lifetime.He said:
“But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer,’ could be eliminated…
But why then had Bohm not told me of this ‘pilot wave’?... Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing “impossibility” proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978?... Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in textbooks? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?”
John S. Bell, "On the impossible pilot wave". Foundations of Physics 12 (1982)
Can't say i can explain it, but the words you're looking for are "local realism".
I really like the pretty pictures from walking droplets, and it makes the thing seem very intuitive. But they're a little disingenuous. It's easy to imagine, or just see a drop of water bouncing in the air on a wave of water. But all this stuff happens in 3d. There's (as far as i know) no separation like air and water. It's more like a sound wave expanding out in all directions.
How do you surf on a sound wave? Not saying it can't be done, it's just that the pretty picture has to be a lot more complicated for the particle to have something to bounce off of. Maybe there are some weird hard thin shells that hover around particles. Who knows? For sure i can say 'not me'.
Yep, you are right — 3D version will be very different. Why not to conduct such experiment in space, where 3D version can be constructed with ease?
Moreover, electromagnetic waves are very different from sound waves, so physic process involving them will be very different. Can you imagine an experiment, which will be closer to reality?, e.g. spinning eccentric charged particles in space.
We have, at this point, strong evidence [1,2] against the straight-forward version of pilot wave theory. Thus pilot wave theory is forced to add more and more epicycles. This, IMO, is part of the reason why it's not becoming more mainstream today.
Can you explain how these are evidence against pilot wave theory? It's entirely compatible with Bell's inequality and indeed makes all the same predictions as other, more popular interpretations of QM, so it's not clear why these papers would be evidence against it.
When any theory has to add more and more complexity to explain the data it tends to be an indication that there is something wrong with the theory and that another theory may be more supported.
> (And is any interpretation of quantum mechanics a consensus?)
There is, broadly speaking, a consensus view. Whether this is because the consensus best matches reality or whether it's dogmatic is probably up for debate, but I don't personally know any professional scientists who believe pilot wave theory (Bell's theorem largely disproved it).
I recommend digging into the available actions, this looks more flexible than anything else in this space (eg IFTTT, Zapier). There's control flow (if and while), and some actions aren't tied to any service: there's a "Recurrence" action that allows to trigger actions at specific intervals, an "HTTP" action that can send a request with any URL+method+headers+body+auth, there's a "Delay" action, FTP and SMTP output actions...
edit: "HTTP" can also be a trigger.
edit:
List of service agnostic triggers:
- Recurrence (RecurrenceTrigger an event to run at regular, customized time intervals)
- HTTP (Trigger an event based on a select REST API)
- HTTP + Swagger (Trigger an event based on a select Swagger-enabled API)
- Button (Manually trigger a flow)
- Request (This is an incoming API call that could use actions in a Logic App or other API to trigger this flow)
- RSS - When a feed item is published (Triggers a workflow when a new feed item is published)
edit:
List of service agnostic actions:
- S/FTP - Create file (This operation creates a file)
- S/FTP - List files in folder (This operation gets the list of files and subfolders in a folder)
- Delay (Set how long an action should be delayed once the flow is triggered)
- Delay until (Delay an action until a specific date. For shorter time periods, use the Delay action instead)
- HTTP (Choose a REST API to invoke)
- HTTP + Swagger (Choose a Swagger-enabled API to invoke)
- Response (This is an incoming API call that could use the results of an action to trigger this flow)
- Compose ?
- Filter Array
- Mail (Sends an email)
- Push notification - Send a push notification (Sends a push notification to the Flow app)
- RSS - List all RSS feed items (Get all RSS feed items)
- SMTP - Send Email (This operation sends an email to one or more recipients)
How likely is a startup to allow that type of clause for a non executive? I thought sacking people at will was part of the business appeal of places like California.
(Edit: so this is a pre-existing game concept. Should have read the about page first :) Thanks for showing me this game in a nice little implementation anyway. & my feedback/suggestion still stands.)
Outstanding work. This is an excellent, simple and original logic game, well done.
Only negative thing I experienced: it can be tough(/not particularly fun) to find similar rows/columns when playing on larger grids. And I don't feel like finding similar complex line patterns is where the game design esthetic shines. Not sure how you could solve this. Perhaps some sort of visualization of similarity of rows for larger grids? Say two rows are identical (minus missing tiles), then the same little icon could appear to the right of each row. Icons could be differentiated by shape, or color. Just an idea. Good work :)
I probably wouldn't do something as blatant as "always pre-mark identical rows for me". But something simpler like a "highlight all rows that currently match this one" button would be nice for probing for identical rows.
I don't seem to have the ability to edit, and I forgot to reply to the first part of your comment.
I use Apache/mod_neko on the server, though after the high traffic last night we might switch to nginx/mod_tora. Either way, these basically server ".n" Neko Bytecode files, and provide caching between requests [1].
I stayed away from using a database / ORM for this website, instead using Github for all the content. When we update we pull a repo and it references flat files. The site then transforms the HTML or Markdown, pops it in a template, and serves it up.
I used a library called ufront for the MVC environment on the server. You can have a look at what a controller looks like here [2]. I'm hoping to do a tutorial, ufront was written by Franco Ponitcelli and Andreas Sudderland a few years back, but I've done a lot with it in the last year and hope to release / document soon. I did do a talk at last year's conference if you're interested [3].
I'll have to dig around and find out where the broken links are coming from. They were not part of the old site, nor the new site, but were in the private development repo for a while. Probably my fault they're still around.
Please, not this thing about defense spending again ... you could feed and clothe them many times over, for many generations, with all the entitlement spending ...
In theory, could elevators replace satellites? If so perhaps an initial batch of elevators could also be used to clean up the space junk (including the now obsolete satellites).
The counterweight platforms would be a great place for services now performed by geosync satellites. Probably you would also have major GEO platforms in areas not (yet) served by a tether. Take a tug there from the nearest tether. Would really cut down on discrete sats.
Services that need to be done away from the equator (monitoring of the surface, communications at high latitudes) would still need orbits like todays LEO sats. The same model of discrete satellites may prevail, but you might also see larger platforms housing multiple services.
We might see a tether vastly increase the amount of orbital activity, but decrease the number of discrete objects.
