Intellectual

Einstein isn't first? Maybe you need a new avatar lol

Wow, Brian Cox and Einstein at the same level?

Well I can't have too many at 1,, and Cox is a great speaker.

Ok the first bit is fine - except it is much more than one hundred-fold; you can represent all the states of a set of variable at once only limited by your register size. But the section regarding reading data is not what I have learnt - measurement and the necessary collapse of the superposition of the state into a certain position is all part of quantum computation. The trick is setting up the superposition and the unitary transformations of that superposition such that measurement does not further cloud your answer - but rather that from the myriad possibilities a smaller number (easily checkable) is returned.

 

And the bit about natural disasters seems like sci-fi to me

I realize this, I was just putting it in lamens terms

I don't know about that, but they will render modern encryption standards obsolete.

I read it somewhere

We can all be intelligent but not all of us can be wise and most still have a fair way to go.

You don't need intelligence to be wise, and you don't need to be wise to be intelligent. Intelligence is like an instinct, an ability to learn the ability to want to seek to learn more. Wisdom is like quantum physics we don't instinctively know it but experience can bring around wisdom.

Sun Tzu was wise, Niccolo Machiavelli was intelligent

Einstein could be said to be both.

Of course it is possible, it is an absurd idea but Einstein once said if at first an idea is not absurd then there is no hope for it.

And should they come into contact? Absolutely! If they destroy us they would only be hastening what we are doing to ourselves, if they help us they could be our Savior.

I join discussion forums to learn other's opinions and to hone my own

You have hit upon a subtle issue here. One should really talk about models being good or bad rather than right or wrong. A good model is defined as one that fits the observed data well. Similarly, a bad model is one that does not fit the observed data well. But note that this is subjective as I have not quantified "well".

 

One must also be careful with the domain of applicability. There are usually sets of parameters in a theory for which you do not expect it to be a good model. For example, Newtonian mechanics is a good model of macroscopic objects moving a low speeds. It is not so great for microscopic objects, where quantum mechanics comes into play nor when we have high speeds, where relativity comes in. But it would be unfair to say that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. However, as you suggest we know how to see Newtonian mechanics as a limit of QM and relativity.

 

Another issue is that theories are ruled out rather than ruled in. If the theory does not agree well with nature within its expected domain of validity then it should be considered bad and discarded (or maybe applied in a different context).

 

So, the Lambda CDM + inflation model has parameters that are fixed by observation and these are all consistent in the sense that we get a good model within the parameter space. It applies well where we expect it to.

Yes, this may not be what you meant but here's an example:

Einstein's force which he thought would keep the universe in a steady state or cosmological constant, he later ruled this theory out when evidence of a unsteady universe was found. Several decades later in rolls dark energy, Einsteins force which counteracts the force of gravity.

Do I believe it at the same level as Newtonian Mechanics. No. But it certainly is a compelling model, though built on more uncertainty the further one goes back, I think. I have had ideas I liked better, but they never fit the evidence as well, at least to the limits of what I could comprehend.

 

Still the best we have, and it seems to have evolved.

Would it still be coined "the Big Bang", if named today?

It may not be at the level of Newtonian Mechanics, however the big bang can be considered part of a larger more illusive picture while gravity we had some intuition with as we experience it daily

I accept the big bang and inflation because they fit within the current models of physics. And string junky, yes it does annoy me when people say it's just a theory, there's a lot of evidence to support both theory's.

And to expand, if a scientist says it's a hypothesis it means there is evidence to support it however it is not garnered enough evidence to there be reasonable assurances with the scientific community. And if there are two competing theory's then either one is completely wrong or one fits somewhere in the other.

1. Stephen Hawking - Michio Kaku - Brian Greene

2. Albert Einstein - Brian Cox

3. Carl Sagan

4. Isaac Newton

5. Schrodinger

6. Dr. Sheldon Cooper () if only he was real lol

I think World Science U is a good place to go to learn about physics

A normal computer uses 'bits' witch can be a one or a zero at a given moment, so they can only check off computational pathways one at a time, granted it is extremely fast comparative to a humans ability to think up several scenarios however this is still a limitation.

Quantum computers use quantum principles that an atom can be in several states at one time unless directly observed. Quantum Computing uses Qbits which can be both a one and a zero simultaneously and thus is able to process several problems at once increasing computational power 100 fold. The problem is if we are looking at the data, the state will stick and the data will become unreadable, scientists are currently looking to use quantum computing with indirect observation so data can be seen.

Quantum computers are theoretically so powerful they can predict natural disasters.

Bananas are great, but they are the most radioactive fruit, a detriment to the good protein and healthy vitamins it gives.

Although the radioactivity is low, 200 bananas being equal to the radiation given off by an X-ray