Hi All >>See... another possibility is that our government is so incompetent
Do not impute malice where incompetence will suffice. My 2c, Jo. P.S. Quantum mechanics works, and seems to make mathematical sense ... until you get to renormalization, which is basically a sophisticated form of ancestor worship (goes well with bowing towards Copenhagen). And one more thing --- as quantum mechanics is and must be non-local (EPR paradox, Bell's experiment) why does almost everyone make fundamental Hausdorff assumptions? (Or what am I misunderstanding here?) J. On 19 October 2013 10:08, Scott Locklin <[email protected]> wrote: > Raul: > > >Of course I might be wrong about that. But we certainly seem to be > > >investing a lot of money into making sure that academics are... > > >well... academic, and so specialized that we do not accomplish much of > > >anything useful. > > > IMO, this is just something that happens in the late stages of > bureaucratization. Though I am no expert, other than a few grad school > courses, and talking to real experts, I don't think there is anything > particularly wrong with QM. Maybe there will be something more satisfying > one day, but at present, there seems no reason to doubt the results. Stuff > like string theory, or doing decades of "research" on programming imaginary > quantum computers, though: this is just an academic glass bead game. If > it's not physical, as in, you can do an experiment with physical objects, > it's not physics. The experimental side is the hard part. A lot of theory > is just collecting a paycheck for being smart. Easy living if you can get > the work though; I considered it as a career path before coming to my > senses. > > > >My take is that we do have a huge optical computing infrastructure > > >already built. And that our government is so twisted around its own > >structure that it can't admit, yet, to having built it, nor what its > > >capabilities are. > > > >And I think I know why. And I'm trying to work up enough courage to > > >express those thoughts. > > I'd be curious what you're thinking here. The spooks certainly have stuff > we don't specifically know about (crazy space planes, big computers, big > ASIC things for doing crypto, weird ECM doodads), but it seems to me a > large scale revolutionary invention like a useful optical computer would be > difficult to hide. You can infer a lot about spooky government priorities > going through the SBIR funny papers; all the "total information awareness" > successors were pretty obvious looking at these some years ago. You could > also tell the F-35 was doomed back in 2006 or so. It seems like a big > optical computer would require infrastructure and new doodads that you'd > hear about from time to time. You'd probably also see things from Coherent > and Newport (and, I dunno, maybe Cisco) which could be used for such a > beast. > > FWIIW, I think this project has the best chances of turning Fusion into an > energy technology. I'll eventually be going through some of the patents on > my blog, but they seem like serious people with some really good ideas. > > > http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/the-secret-us-russian-nuclear-fusion-project/19039 > > > -SL > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
