A new road test conducted in Europe proved that convoys of driverless trucks can save fuel and reduce emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases
Dr. Daniel Mader, Angle - news agency for science and the environment
The autonomous car bug has been gaining momentum in recent years. The automotive and technology giants are competing with each other to see who will market the first autonomous vehicle, who will capture a larger market share, and who will have the safest vehicle.
Autonomous vehicle driving can provide greater safety for passengers, pedestrians and cargo than the average driver. Automated driving systems react much faster to dangers than a human driver, they don't get tired and fall asleep at the wheel, they are more accurate, they don't get drunk or take drugs before driving, they are expected to be cheaper to use than human drivers, they allow people to do other things while driving Traveling instead of driving, so driving time is not "lost time".
However, not everything is rosy: the introduction of this technology means the dismissal of many professional drivers, as well as the threat of accidents that may occur due to malfunctions in the autonomous system. An autonomous driving system also opens the door for hackers and terrorists to take over the autonomous vehicles in order to cause accidents, attacks, kidnappings and thefts.
From an environmental point of view, the autonomous vehicles themselves will not contribute to the environment. In fact, they may extend the current period when it is profitable to purchase a private car and less profitable to use other solutions (public transportation, cooperative transportation, working from home, building residences alongside workplaces). Who among us would object to a "private driver" who would take us to all the districts we wanted and even make the traffic jam on the way to/from work more enjoyable or productive? More vehicles on the road (with or without a driver) will cause more emissions of polluting substances from burning fuel, more use of raw materials for the production of cars, more construction of roads and infrastructure, which lead to the loss of open spaces and increased use of resources.
traveling in Dabuka
At the same time, intelligent use of autonomous vehicle technology can certainly contribute to the environment. Recently, this technology took another step, when six convoys of autonomous trucks (Truck Platooning), each convoy belonging to a different European car manufacturer (DAF, Daimler, Iveco, MAN, Scania, Volvo) completed journeys of over 2,000 kilometers between several cities Europe to Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
The uniqueness of this journey is that each convoy of autonomous trucks will communicate with each other during the journey. This communication allowed the trucks to coordinate joint acceleration and braking, thus maintaining a small distance between truck to truck. This small distance allowed the trucks to create an aerodynamic travel setup that helps the trucks save fuel due to reduced air resistance to travel. This is similar to cyclists who ride in a peloton one after the other, or to birds flying in an orderly formation where the leading individual invests a relatively large amount of energy to move through normal air resistance, while those following him move through lower air resistance and therefore need to invest less energy.
In addition, when the truck convoys traveled at a constant speed, there is less need for braking and acceleration, which increase fuel consumption and the wear and tear of the vehicles. Through these actions it is possible to save about 10 percent of the fuel consumption of the vehicle fleet. Moreover, an autonomous truck convoy also increases safety and frees up more space on the roads for other vehicles.
The plan to implement the use of autonomous truck convoys is led by the European Union and includes collaborations between authorities in different countries, car manufacturers, technology companies and research institutions. Such a travel arrangement combines reduced energy consumption to transport a lot of cargo similar to a train, with flexibility of operation and access to any road as in normal trucks.
Germany has already announced that it will subsidize truck convoys with 80 million euros until 2020, in order to accelerate research and development in the field, this is in addition to investments from the European Union, which promotes the initiative
167 תגובות
we
"Given a triangle that is not (not) a right triangle, where the size of each of its sides is an integer. and takes place in it:
a^N+b^N=c^N
Also N is an integer.
Question: What are the values of the four numbers?'
So what did we not understand?
What about the triangle double the knee?
Israel
It doesn't seem that you and your friend even understood the question that Yossi Simon asked.
Come on...
Have fun triangulating and be careful not to catch a bomb from the boomerang
Israel
It doesn't seem that you and your friend even understood the question that Yossi Simon asked.
Come on...
Have fun triangulating and be careful not to catch a bomb from the boomerang?
You got the point.
Israel
Instead of 4 GPS satellites, would it be possible to settle for one to get a location?
The eyes of a dead angel. Tuco and Blondie combined him in a triathlon.
What blow can be made with a device that knows the distance to a source of electromagnetic radiation without triangulation?
Israel
Eini Malach says that 3 is the perfect number.
3 what? A billion?
we
Our answers were correct. Yos didn't ask for the general case, just numbers. The numbers we have given solve the problem as presented. Also a Gaussian plane.
Your job is to solve the triangle double the right angle puzzle.
Anonymous
I have never claimed to be an expert in a field in which I am not an expert. And even in the fields in which I am an expert - I never claimed to be an expert.
Yossi asked for four numbers that meet certain conditions. The numbers I gave meet all of Yossi's conditions. where is my mistake
Miracles
Right! As I said: you answered and were wrong and Israel answered and were wrong.
And I claimed that I am not an expert in the field. That's what you do. 🙂
we
Israel answered Yossi's first question. After he changed the question - I answered.
Then he changed the question again….
For your part... you didn't know how to answer. According to you - the experts did not know the answer 🙂
Israel
3
Yossi Simon
I don't understand mathematics very well, but I have always been intrigued by symmetry and logic and the seemingly perfect relationship between them.. 🙂
Miracles
You are wrong, of course. On the contrary, he is right. In other words, you were wrong and yes, Israel was wrong.
I wrote that I am not an expert. Therefore, the claim in your response that I am the "only expert" is strange.
"It is not clear" how you came to this absurd conclusion.
Israel
Don't believe every broadcast station you pick up.. 🙂
Gogol oh..
And what number does the eyes of an angel claim is perfect?
Do you think that if we manage to build such a device, it is possible to bring a support?
Hint: theoretically this is impossible.
Good opponent!!! You beat me to it 🙂
Israel
I don't think that by point measurement you can know the distance to the station that is broadcasting, if you don't have prior knowledge.
the good, the bad, and the Ugly.
Yos
In which famous movie does the hero say: "Six is a perfect number"?
anonymous
I'm glad there's at least one who caught on!
Based on the most basic math rules.
The point is not the riddle, but the idea and coincidence that a group or a circle or a field can be defined here that combines number theory and geometry.
And in fact every formula in number theory can be examined from the geometric display, for example the sum of cubes (ascending order) can be squared into a square whose length is the sum of consecutive numbers: 1 in one third to four in one third = (one + ...four) squared
we
A riddle for you:
A triangle where a^n + b^n = c^n.
All integers, as usual.
The triangle is not only right angled - it even has two right angles.
To work we, to work.
Miracles
Do you or anyone know of a technical - or even theoretical - possibility to know how far a radio station is from you using any device at any one point, without triangulation and without any prior knowledge of the station's data?
Anonymous - did not solve
Israel - yes solved
Miracles - yes solved
So you're the only expert?
Yossi Simon
Nice solution. Although I am not an expert in the field, it is interesting that none of the "experts" here were able to solve the riddle.. 🙂
Yossi Simon
What is interesting about this matter is not the multiples of 3, 4 and 5, because it is clear that every property of a triangle will be preserved when we change its size.
What is interesting is that there are an infinite number of Pythagorean triangles (that is, right-angled triangles whose lengths are whole) that do not overlap. In particular, for any pair of integers that 1) are foreign and 2) have an odd interpretation, a Pythagorean triangle can be formed. This was discovered by our friend Euclid.
But - I'm not convinced that a triangle can be made from any Pythagorean triangle according to your method.
Miracles!
1. Since Pythagorean triangles are an infinite set expressed by multiplying the base (5, 4, 3, ) by N an integer!
So if we multiply 20, 15, 12 by an integer, the property will be preserved.
2. According to the best of my understanding, for every triangle that is not equilateral, for every two sides it is possible to find such a Q (not necessarily an integer) that the sum of the two sides to the power (first the power and then the sum is equal) to the third side to the power
Q can be proved by the method of finding the limit (like binary search in sorting).
Then to each triangle an "inverted triangle" can be attached and it is possible that talented mathematicians will be able to establish another branch that links numbers to geometry.
(And if you made a typo, I'm sorry)
And of course this does not apply to an equilateral triangle (which is an example of the fact that even if a property exists in a large number of cases, this does not serve as proof of a sweeping claim)
Yossi Simon
You said you have a general solution. where is he?
Israel
Get typo correction instead of 14 should be 12.
A confused mathematician thinks about X writes Y and the correct Z
1/400 + 1/225 = 1/144
Israel!
Do you accept the statement that X is equal to - in brackets 1/ X to the minus 2 power.
(It's just hard to type formulas here because of Hebrew/English right and left)
If so! Do you accept that the triangle with sides one-third, one-quarter, and one-fifth answers the exercise (with rational numbers)
If you multiply by a common denominator 3 times 4 times 5 which continues to maintain equality, check with multiples of 3,4,5 that it is actually a zoom on the triangle.
As for us, don't forget that a fraction to the power of a number greater than 1 simply reduces the fraction.
As far as I understand, I am not wrong.
It is simply difficult with a non-mathematical word processor to send the calculation step by step.
Yusuf
Are you sure it works?
Here is the solution
the equality 2^5 = (2^4 +2^3)
It can also be expressed in the following way:
2-^1/5 = ( 2-^1/4 +2-^1/3 )
The fractions 1/3, 1/4, 1/5: the sum of each pair of them is greater than the third fraction, so it is possible to build a triangle with the lengths: one-third, one-fourth, and one-fifth.
Well we got a triangle with four rational values. A triangle that is not right angled
By passing whole values, we will enlarge the triangle 60 times and get 2 - , 14, (15, 20)
If we repeat the process with the resulting triangle, we will multiply the right triangle with the origin (the right angle) reduced by 60.
Yoda
Glad I charmed you.
It is sad that sorrow is an integral part of the world and this is due to the criminal acts of the second law of thermodynamics.
for further reading:
http://www.amalnet.k12.il/machine/show_item.asp?item_id=14600&id=1425&level=1&num=3
The names of the three scientists in the story, Boltzmansky, Leibniz and Gadelhiou, are named after Boltzmann Leibniz and Gadel who ended their lives because of the accused.
Yossi Simon
You wrote "Question: What are the values of the four numbers?" Do not repeatedly change the question….
Come on, Yosef, close the matter..
what is the solution 🙂
Miracles!
This is a method that produces infinite series.
And the solution does not refer to the power of minus 1. (which is also fine for a more modest puzzle)
And the beauty is not in the solution but in the method.
Yossi Simon
You did not answer me.
Hint
By using a mathematical rule it is possible to find for every right triangle "from three opposites" the triangle is not right angled.
Basically, in a second step, the scope of the definition can be expanded to a general definition with one exceptional case, which is an equilateral triangle.
And really the story is so simple that I don't understand how no one has noticed or referred to it (to the best of my knowledge)
Nissim's solution is correct and sufficient, but as I know Yossi, it is something sophisticated, maybe negative fish..
Yossi Simon
My answer is in the direction?
For those interested in the answer!
As soon as you ask and if you are unable to solve, I will present the answer.
A lovely answer with the most elementary algebra. I'm sure Pythagoras would have been amused.
Israel! With a slight change in the definition of an elaborate number it is possible to produce an infinite series based on 2 to the power of any positive integer minus 1.
Joseph
With the new limit: 20, 36 and 45. And of course N = -1
Joseph
Fermat's theorem is not limited to triangles, therefore the condition you have placed is even more restrictive. On the other hand, Fermat's theorem only talks about N>2. That is, you require a+b > c, you said from three that is not right-angled (therefore N must be different from 2). Fermat's theorem requires N <= 2 and therefore we need to find for N smaller than 2.
N=1 doesn't work because we won't get a triangle.
N=0 doesn't work, because 1+1 is different from 1.
That's why you need to look for a solution for negative N. If we take N = -1 we get the optical equation, which has infinite solutions, for example a = 2, b = 2 then c = 1.
Maybe a Gaussian or complex plane, who has the head to calculate Pythagorean triples..
Give
Mom
Momentan
Gaussian plane? composite?
I'm already too old to try to calculate Pythagorean triples..
Joseph
I found a beautiful solution for this, I wrote it in the margins of the book.. 🙂
2 am, good night.
Israel Shapira
You're in the right direction
Added another limitation
The lengths of all the ribs are different.
The truth is that I thought there would be a response that this was impossible because of Fermat's theorem.
But it is possible and there is a nice solution.
And if there are many "timers" and none of them stopped (for example, protons)? And if there is a timer whose half-life is a billion years? How many billions of years should I wait 🙁
And if there are many "timers" and none of them stopped (for example, protons)? And if there is a timer whose half-life is a billion years? How many billions of years should I wait 🙁
"True, but why does entropy turn in the direction it chooses over time? Why doesn't shuffling arrange the cards in the deck instead of messing them up? Why doesn't the wind arrange the room? Why don't we get younger with time instead of aging?”
"It's all my fault, as usual," muttered the law.
"Exactly" agreed the professor. "You are quite a mess. You only know how to cause a lot of trouble. Is there any other explanation why entropy always increases with time? Newton's laws of motion do not require this! If we feed a computer the data of a certain star system, it will be able to predict with great accuracy its condition in a thousand years - but also its condition a thousand years ago! Why doesn't this principle of equivalence also apply to a thermodynamic system?".
"Like you said, the math.."
"Oh!" The professor was enthusiastic. "In this matter you made a mistake, and I can demonstrate this if a blackboard and chalk are brought to me." The audience stretches in their seats in tense anticipation, as the sun shakes into the portable blackboard auditorium.
"Let us examine the claim of the second law according to which mathematics requires increasing disorder," said the professor.
He drew a straight line on the board from end to end, marked a point in the center of the line and wrote "0" above it.
"Here, this is the number axis. It starts from minus infinity at the left end of the line I drew, passes through zero and ends at plus infinity, at the right end of the line. Although there is no direct connection between them, this axis can be seen as a metaphor for the timeline in nature, with infinity as the very distant future and minus infinity as the past."
In his speech, the professor marked ∞- on the left of the line and ∞ nowadays.
"All numbers, large or small, whether whole or fractional, positive or negative, rational or irrational - can be entered in ascending order between minus infinity and infinity. It could be expected that such a simple arrangement would not lead to any particularly neat pattern - because what have we done after all? We put 1 at the beginning, followed by 2, 3, and so on."
"If the claim of the second law were true, the more we would progress from zero towards infinity, but without reaching infinity so that the system would remain closed.
, there was an increasing disorder and the quality of the mathematical relationships between the numbers was decreasing, as in the example of the deck of cards. But here we are in for a pleasant surprise. From this completely simple order, a much more complex and interesting order is created. It turns out that there is no end to the cunning sophistication with which these seemingly simple numbers can be arranged. Take for example the phenomenon of perfect numbers. These are numbers whose sum of the numbers dividing them is exactly equal to the number itself. The number 6, for example, is divisible by 1, 2, and 3, and 6=1+2+3. The numbers 28, 496 and 8128 are also perfect numbers. And here, it turns out that all perfect numbers obey the rule discovered by Euclid: every perfect number is a product of two numbers, one of which is a power of 2 and the other is the next power of 2 minus 1. For example:
6=2¹ x(2²-1)
28=2² x(2³-1)
496=24 x (25 -1)
x(27 -1) 8128=26
.
. .
. . .
-2216090) =2216090 x (2216091 -1) 2432181 )
This number is over 130,000 digits long! And he obeys Euclid!"
"And that's not all. It also turns out that all perfect numbers are a series of consecutive numbers:
6=1+2+3.
28=1+2+3+4+5+6+7.
496=1+2+3+4+5…+30+31.
8,128=1+2+3+4+5…+126+127.
The professor continued to write numbers on the board while the audience whistled in admiration.
"We therefore see that although we started with a minimal amount of order, the series of numbers is numerous, the order is increasing as we add more members to the series of perfect numbers. This is just one of many examples of order and perfection in the field of mathematics called number theory. There are many beautiful numbers - friendly numbers for example - these are pairs of numbers each of which is equal to the sum of its partner's divisors. For example, the numbers 220 and 284, known as Romeo and Juliet, are friendly numbers, and are considered a symbol of friendship and love, because the parts of 220 are: 20,22,44,55,110 which add up to 1,2,4,5,10,11. The parts of 284 are 284, which add up to 1,2,4,71,142. Do you feel a lack of harmony or any disorder in the world of numbers?" The professor addressed the audience.
The hall was plowed with applause and rhythmic chants: "Leibnovich! Leibnowitz!
4,4 2, 1-
Still driving..
What about 16, 16, 8 and 1-, does it work?
rival
But you don't believe in God. So if you only have one timer left, what do you do? kill yourself 🙂 🙁
🙂 Satyaam..
...the road is crooked...
Israel my friend
Fascinated by your learned response. For a moment it overshadowed the explosion in Florida of Amos 6. May God grant that we will never know any more sorrow.
Good night
Yehuda
I got confused, while driving..
Joseph
4,4, 16, 2-.
Israel Shapira!
Since you demonstrate great proficiency in the field of number theory, you have a simple puzzle in front of you:
Given a triangle that is not (not) a right triangle, where the size of each of its sides is an integer. and takes place in it:
a^N+b^N=c^N
Also N is an integer.
Question: What are the values of the four numbers?
If there is only one timer then you can try to ask God.
rival,
Thanks for showing me that, but it's pretty trivial that a timer has already stopped, we know it stopped right? They also know how to solve the stopping problem with simple programs. And it is still customary to say that it is impossible to solve the stopping problem in a finite time. Regarding your idea, I don't see how it helps. Let's say there is only one timer, you waited a really long time and it just didn't stop. So how can you tell? You don't have any stats to help.
point,
Let's start with the fact that you said that there is no way to differentiate in a finite time between a blocked timer and a non-blocked timer.. I showed you that at least in some situations it is possible to tell.
Regarding timers that have not yet stopped at the end of the measurement, you may be able to use the method I suggested earlier for miracles.
Rival: And if you waited a really, really long time, and there are still timers that haven't stopped?
we
What makes you think the universe is finite?
Yoda my friend as my brother.
The point of the story is that the simple numbers are the ones that hold the special ones. Because of the second law, there can be no peace and order in the world because the natural tendency of any system is to increase entropy.
The leader of the simple numbers, Rando, calls them to revolt and they collapse the number axis.
That's why everyone was so excited when little i joined the family, and held a religious and proper feast in his honor, intended, they promised, for the whole world of numbers. Who wasn't there? Every fat man of mathematics, every duke and every count, and everyone who is a little something. Endless columns, which had gathered especially for the occasion, marched in total. Entertainment stages were set up for series. It is understood that upper and lower barriers were placed in all the streets to prevent the proletariat from rubbing shoulders with the rabble and the nobles. Then, when the signal was given, the announcer announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, I ask everyone to kneel, and allow me to present before you the five princes of mathematics, 1, 0, i,e, and π."
You already know 1, 0 and i. π is of course the ratio between the diameter of the circle and its circumference, approximately 3.14. The numerical value of e is approximately 2.72, and is defined in calculus as a number whose natural logarithm is equal to 1.
The five of them stood on the platform of honor, sons of gods lifted up from the people, while the announcer details the lineage and virtues of each of them. "And here we are, we have reached the great moment, the redemptive formula that will forever unite the fields of algebra, calculus and geometry!"
The lights dimmed, and to the sound of trumpets and drums, a huge fire inscription lit up above the stage, illuminating the night sky and the cheering crowd:
0=1+ e^iπ
Gadalihu stopped in his words, all choked with excitement, while Leibnovitz wiped away hidden tears from excitement.
Rando, who understood the hearts of the mathematicians, continued the story.
"Yes," continued the announcer, "here are the representatives of the people, the five great figures of mathematics, combined with each other in the immortal formula which is unparalleled in frugality and elegance, and do you know that... what, what is it? What is this disorder? Who let a rabbi get close to the stage of honor?"
In front of the barrier stands Rando and with him his best friend Araba, number 6487.13.
"may I come in?" Rando asked politely.
" and who are you? Which group do you belong to?" asked the sentry.
"I'm just telling. I thought the party was for the whole world of numbers."
The sentinel let out a chuckle. "You are quite a number. Do you belong to the primitive group?"
"No" answered Rando quietly.
"The perfect ones?" The sentry tried
"no and no."
"The square ones?"
"Not yet."
The sentinel, who was a random number himself, felt sympathy and identification with the brash and brave number. "Be careful" he whispered to him. "If you upset them, they might still pull the root out of you." "Maybe the bunch of whole numbers?" said loudly.
"Neither" replied Rando. He was born around 1994.99983 but who's counting? who cares? Only when they reached maturity did it fill up and round to 1995.
"What does this defective number want from us?" One honorable matron grumbled.
"defective?" Rando asked the sentry. "What's wrong with me?" He was not used to condescension.
"A defective number is a number whose sum of parts is less than the number itself." explained the sentry. "You divide by 1, 3, 5, 7, 15, 19, 21, 35, 57, 95, 105, 133, 285, 399 and 665, the total of which is only 1845."
"I understand" Rando said to Arava. "It seems to me that they don't want us here. Come on, let's go home."
They turned and started marching, not looking back, while the privileged crowd called after them: "Good, go back to where you came from and take all the other unsuccessful numbers with you, too crowded here on the axis." The sentinel looked at them with an amused look, shrugged his shoulders and started walking after them. He was joined by the servants, the cleaners and the other black workers of the party. To everyone who asks them about their purpose, Rando answered briefly: come after me. Soon there was a geometrically growing column of simple numbers behind them, unknown numbers and daily difficulties, never mentioned in any book, numbers that were not beautiful, not perfect, not prime, not even necessarily positive.
All this huge procession slowly wound its way in front of the dais on which the princes of mathematics still stood, a terrified look in their eyes, because when all the simple numbers began to be extracted from the number line, all the prime numbers lost the support they had always had on the right and left, and soon they were all reduced to one singular point: 0 .
Because this is the nature of the number axis: each number in itself, however important and privileged it may be, is nothing more than a dimensionless point, but the successive addition of all of them turns them into a line with a dimension of length.
Even in a thermodynamic system, "preferred" states of order can arise spontaneously, but which are void in the infinite sixty in relation to the amount of possible states of disorder. It is this difference, between an orderly and a less orderly state, that allows useful work to be produced from the system.
Rando told his story in his metallic, digital voice. And many people in the audience, and even more who followed the "Revolt of the Fallen" in the media - a paraphrase of a well-known story in which the exact opposite happened - hundreds of millions of people who asked themselves every day what the purpose and purpose of their bland lives was, people who were not beautiful (relative to whom?) , not tall (relative to what?), not rich (relative to a destitute but happy puppy?), not smart (relative to a monkey? to a rabbit? or to other people), moody (could they really do anything else?), who worked, if at all, in jobs Those who languished for little pay without a real ability to advance, finally received the explanation for the purpose of their life without satisfaction and hope: to be the reservoir of low heat that allows the whole great psychomechanical system to unfold.
My friend Israel, you are talking about special numbers in one group, and in the second group about numbers without any uniqueness, so I just ask: Are the numbers without any uniqueness special? After all, being unique is their uniqueness, isn't that right Mr. Israel?? Or maybe define what you think special numbers are?
Just philosophizing at two in the morning.
Please respond uniquely
Good night
Yehuda
rival
Yes - I completely agree.
Maybe in some scales it will look uniform to you, but in other scales it will have bumps and unevenness, this is compared to true randomness which will always give you uniformity.
What do you think?
Miracles,
I just saw that there are people who are bothered by our comments, so I didn't know whether to continue.
Do you want to continue the conversation with the article that Israel suggested? (but only if he honors us there with tea and cookies)
Listen, I'm still thinking about the issue, regarding a timer with a finite time I pretty much agree with you although the problem is that a chaotic mechanism like I described before can have a maximum time of billions of years so you can't test it in a laboratory experiment and see what the upper limit in time is.
What's more, I think it is possible to find out if this is real randomness or just great chaos by the histogram of the decay times -
1. If the particles really decay randomly then for each time scale you examine (against a large amount of neutrons) you will get a flat and uniform histogram, that is, at each point in time you will see that the same amount of neutrons decayed (if 570 neutrons decayed in the seventh minute, then 570 neutrons also decayed in the thousandth minute , and 570 neutrons per minute 2054) because true randomness will give you almost perfect uniformity.
2. On the other hand, in a chaotic mechanism of the type I proposed earlier (and I have already seen clear signs of this in the simulation I started to build) the histogram you will get will not be uniform... there will be, for example, many boot modes that will give you a timer with a very long time, and in contrast, many reboots that will give you a short time, but few reboots They will give you a timer with an expiration time in the middle of the range.
That is, a histogram that you create for a chaotic mechanism will not be flat and uniform, it will have many mountains, hills and valleys that will indicate that many neutrons decay at certain times and much less decay at other times.
What do you think? Did you get the idea by and large?
Israel
How would there be infinity in a finite world? Maybe, you should ask the second law. Something here is not right with him.
rival
did you agree with me
rival
If it bothers people, you are always welcome to stay with us in the farthest galaxy at the edge of the universe.
Yoda
From the theorem of the second law of thermodynamics:
"This is exactly the difference between us and physics," the professor pointed his nose at Al. "Mathematics is perfect to infinity, just as the Almighty is perfect to infinity, while physics is nothing more than a collection of approximations. No wonder you yourself, the progenitor of the mess, was chosen as the basic law and the most representative of physics, as if to confirm the thesis that there is an upper limit to the scientific truth that can be achieved by physics.
"And there is also an upper limit to the amount of nonsense that the ear is able to digest in a given period of time" muttered the law.
"Did you mumble something?" barked the professor.
"Nothing, nothing," the law smiled flatteringly. "All of us here delight in the pearls of your tongue, Professor Leibnovitz." He pointed to the line of numbers the professor had drawn on the blackboard. "Tell me, please: how many special and perfect numbers are there between minus infinity and infinity?"
"infinite!" replied the professor firmly.
"And how many numbers are without any uniqueness?"
"Also infinite" answered the professor in a weak voice.
"And which infinity is greater?"
"What kind of nonsense are you spouting, Law" intervened the prosecutor. "What does a greater infinity mean? Infinity is infinity, isn't it Professor?”
The audience applauded, but the professor buried his face in the ground.
"The prosecutor expects an answer from you" scolded the law.
The professor raised his flushed face and muttered "The infinity of meaningless numbers is greater.."
"Thank you for opening your heart. How much bigger?”
"infinite…"
To Israel
You wrote: "Not to make it easy in any way. There are questions that should not be asked. such as infinitely greater,” ???end quote.
Sorry, my friend Israel, but according to Cantor's set theory, there is an infinity greater than another infinity, for example, all natural numbers contain an infinity of numbers and are less than the number of irrational numbers such as all the points in the segment between zero and one.
Please respond gently
Yehuda
Let's do a vote, who wants to continue the comments on the quants here?
Herzl
Back to Basel.
floating point,
"There is no way to differentiate in a finite time between a blocked timer and a non-blocked timer..."
Why? If our measurement time is greater than the maximum time of the blocked timer, then we will see a difference, right? For example, it seems that starting from a certain point in time in our measurement, there are no more breakdowns at all because all the clocks have already rung, meaning they have reached their maximum time.
FYI: Maybe you will establish a place for philosophizing about quantum theory and remove all these comments from an article about transportation? Apparently people have a strong mental pressure to write truths and nonsense about quantums that has no place to vent, so it is discharged in every random article where the comments are not thrown away. You can simply write a basic article about particles, quanta, randomness, etc. and route all these comments there.
according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.[1][2][3][4] The chance that a given atom will decay never changes, that is, it does not matter how long the atom has existed. The decay rate for a large collection of atoms, however, can be calculated from their measured decay constants or half-lives. This is the basis of radiometric dating. The half-lives of radioactive atoms have no known lower or upper limit, spanning a time range of over 55 orders of magnitude, from nearly instantaneous to far longer than the age of the universe. A radioactive source emits its decay products isotropically.[5]
There is no way to differentiate in finite time between a blocked timer and a non-blocked timer.. it's like the stopping problem.
rival
A chaotic system is a deterministic system that is very sensitive to the initial conditions.
Because its behavior is complex, it is difficult to tell from observations alone whether a particular system is chaotic or random.
Assuming that the world is discrete, a timer based on a chaotic mechanism has a finite number of times, and in particular, there is a maximum time for such a timer. A random timer has no such limit.
On the face of it, we have a way to diagnose with our random or deterministic timer.
What I'm saying is that we all assume that the decay time of a particle is unblocked. If it is blocked, a deterministic system can be assumed to determine the time.
And if we are sure that there is no upper limit to the decay time, then we have proven that the decay is random.
Maybe we'll go out dancing too.
Israel What are we at the Song and Poets Conference?
Miracles,
"It is possible that there really is a barrier to the life time of the neutron"
Why? Because the number of combinations in a chaotic system is limited? is that what you mean?
Don't make it easy at all.
There are questions that should not be asked.
such as infinitely greater,
or numbers that cannot be doubled.
He will not tolerate such disrespect,
You will go straight to ask.
And if you were hoping for forgiveness -
You are wrong - big time.
rival
By the way - in our discussion there is a hidden assumption: radioactive decay does seem random to us. For example, it is possible that there really is a limit to the lifetime of the neutron.
I didn't have time to delve into your discussion, maybe later.
rival
Omnipotence is nonsense - because it is a contradiction. There is no point in discussing things that cannot be.
I understand that you accept what Israel says (in my understanding). The argument is: it is impossible to create a mechanism that will provide any real number.
I understood, I thought it was blocked in terms of time until it changed value and caused the neutron to decay.
PS - God is not nonsense, he is omnipotent.
Rival/Israel
The meaning of the word "blocked" in our context is that there is a certain a priori number that any number we receive is not greater than it. Please don’t invent nonsense like infinite computing power or God…… 🙂
A completely random (non-deterministic) number generator is also blocked because God who knows the future can quietly tell you in your ear when he will change a value and therefore it is also possible to change it with a timer.
Miracles
I'm not sure computers have anything to do with our neutrons.
I have long since come to the conclusion that these quantum particles are dark and malicious creatures, small in stature, full of malice.
Israel
I don't understand what that means. Why don't we say that there is a computer that knows how to output numbers of unblocked size? There is no point in assuming meaningless things, because we will reach meaningless conclusions.
What about a computer with infinite computing power?
(Ano, the almighty boss will also double the speed of light).
Israel
With the help of a computer it is not possible to build an unblocked "number generator". That is, there is no such algorithm.
A donkey knows how to buy it and a manger to its owner.
Oh ok. You're still stuck in the donkey section
And in the field you will not graze strangers.
Even in the Higgs field of us and the donkeys.
Israel
What about the Higgs field? And its random mechanism? This is perhaps the only thing that can still be called random, isn't it?
And don't worry, there isn't a donkey in the field that you won't be able to resist the temptation to covet. At least that's how it seems to me. After all, this is a field that produces mass out of nowhere.
And a righteous soul knows his death.
Please Araf, I know what a blocked triangle is.
You shall not block an ox in a ditch.
Israel
Do you know a non-random mechanism that is not blocked?
Miracles
"And no timer mechanism can produce such behavior"
Excellent minus.
No definitive mechanism.
Everyone dies eventually and most of us don't know when but know the range 0-120 years more or less. Therefore every day that passes increases the probability of the inevitable the next day.
Of course you are the boss rival and we are not included. We are the people of virtue, mythological figures from the Iliad carved in Homeric marble. Where are there other people like us? After all, we were like the weeping Arabs.
rival
You are confusing two things. We all agree that in practice, if we take a single neutron at a certain moment then there is a 50% chance that it will decay after 10 minutes.
What Israel is saying, as I understand it, is that no timer mechanism can produce such behavior.
The simulation will work against you, because in every simulation, all the timer times are blocked even though the real decay time is not blocked.
In my opinion, and I think Israel agrees, no system that sets a time in advance can give an unblocked time.
Shapiro,
1. If we create a neutron and wait 10 minutes there is a 50% chance that it will decay right? And if we created a thousand neutrons in a chain one after another and waited 10 minutes for each one and none decayed, does that mean that the 1001st neutron now has a higher chance of decaying within 10 minutes of creating it?
2. "Doesn't this contradict what we said earlier?"
If you are talking about a deterministic decay, then every result you get in each time period had from the beginning of the experiment a 100% chance of being accepted, even though as a bystander who is not aware of the time the timer is aiming for, the chance of decay in each time period (of 10 minutes) is 50%.
Just like a deterministic currency.
3. The example of an earthquake is not so good because it is not really an independent event. The pressure of the tectonic plates on each other is increasing year by year and therefore the chance of an earthquake is increasing as time passes.
rival
"The same goes for the decay of radioactivity every time period does not depend on the previous time periods".
Doesn't that contradict what we said earlier?
"Each neutron has a specific and defined decay time, even though we don't know it."
What decay time other than infinity does not depend on elapsed time? If an 8.2 earthquake is definitely expected in California in the next hundred years - which unfortunately is almost certain - doesn't every passing day increase the likelihood of an earthquake tomorrow?
If the coin is deterministic then even on the 6th toss it has a 100% chance (in your example) of falling on a tail.
Shapiro,
I don't agree with your wording, with every toss of a coin the coin has a 50% chance of falling on a tree even if in the thousand previous tosses it fell on a tree. The same goes for radioactive decay, each time period is independent of the previous time periods.
rival
If a coin has a deterministic lifespan - it is predetermined that on the seventh toss it will fall on a tree for the first time - then with each toss after the first the probability that it will fall on a tree is increasing.
Do you understand the analogy to the neutron?
Shapiro,
"Since, according to the assumption, the particle has a certain time in which it disintegrates, then as time passes the probability that it will disintegrate in the next minute is increasing"
Absolutely not and I'm surprised that miracles didn't fix you! A neutron that was created a million years ago has in the next minute exactly the same chance of disintegrating as a neutron that was created 5 minutes ago, it's like a sequence of coin tosses, there is no dependence between the current toss and the million tosses that were before!
Miracles right?
Miracles
Young neutron.. Old neutron.. Elderly neutron..
As the neutron elder here, my opinion is that there is no mechanism that breaks up the neutron and if it exists it is completely random, i.e. infinite.
rival
This is the meaning of information in physics.
Israel
Yes, this point bothers me too. This means that if I have a 100 year old neutron and a new neutron then it is more likely that the old neutron will decay first.
That is - there is a way to distinguish between particles. I hope you are right 🙂
Rival, miracles
It was said that the half-life of a particle is one minute and that you managed to create some kind of mechanism - a timer - that tells the particle when to disintegrate.
Since, according to the assumption, the particle has a certain time in which it disintegrates, then as time passes the probability that it will disintegrate in the next minute is increasing.
This contradicts the assumption that:
The chance that a given atom will decay never changes, that is, it does not matter how long the atom has existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
Miracles,
1. "Opponent, position and momentum is information"
I don't have a problem with that, but as I already said before, maybe when the neutron is created, it receives this information from particles that are in place, they already contain all this information.
2. According to what I understand, you are actually saying that everything physical for you is "information", in my opinion this is a bit of a strange definition. This means that a bird's feather is information, and the pencil I have on the table is also information.
But it's okay, it may be information but not really useful...
Israel
I answered you as possible. Technically it's easy.
rival
Position and momentum is information.
Shapiro,
"You would need a much larger amount of bits than can be packed into a single neutron to explain the probability distribution we see in radioactive decay"
Good progress, what is the probability distribution we see in radioactive decay? Tell me a little about it until I get to Bell's trial.
rival
If the system is deterministic, meaning that each neutron has a predetermined decay time, then you would need a much larger amount of bits than can be packed into a single neutron to explain the probability distribution we see in radioactive decay.
Therefore the system must be random, or the programming must be external.
How do Bell's Inequality Theorem and Aspa's Experiment progress? it's connected.
Good night.
Shapiro,
It's a matter of probability, once I have directed a three-dimensional space of a certain size (a room) within which a certain number of balls move that have a 50% chance of concentrating together in the same area once a minute (= the clock rings) then there is a probability that some of the rooms (depending on the initial position and direction of the balls ) will ring only after an hour.
Of course, I also intend to test this in a software simulation, as soon as I have some free time, but in the meantime, maybe just explain to me where your objection is? Why do you think it won't work?
How will you arrange for one or 20 of the timers to ring in one hour?
Shapiro,
What is the problem? I play with the amount of balls and the size of the room until I reach the probability you asked for (grouping of all the balls together in the same area in space, with a 50% chance once a minute).
OK.
Organize your mechanism to function as I requested in the previous post.
Shapiro,
"Then why complicate it? Particles moving through space... Use alarm clocks. There is no simpler and more accurate timer than this.
Say you want to drive me crazy 🙂 There are no alarm clocks in nature, they don't have enough space inside the neutron. I offered you a simple mechanism that is equivalent to an alarm clock, what is wrong with you?
2. "It doesn't matter what the mechanism is - if it has a certain expiration time, it's an alarm clock"
So what ??
So why complicate? Particles that move in space..
Use alarm clocks. There is no simpler and more accurate timer than this.
Now arrange them so that out of 120 I choose, 60 will ring within a minute, 30 within 2, 15 within 3..
And no matter when, every clock left has a probability of ringing in an hour.
Shapiro,
1. "Show me a mechanism that rings the day after tomorrow at 19:34:43"
Again, the original mechanism I proposed with the particles moving through space does exactly that... depending on the initial conditions.
2. "It doesn't matter what the mechanism is - if it has a certain expiration time, it's an alarm clock"
So what ?? Nissim was also already convinced that a randomly disintegrating neutron is equivalent to a timer. Why? Because if you are in a good relationship with God then he can whisper in your ear exactly when each neutron will decay, and then you can replace his random mechanism with an alarm clock... Do you understand?
rival
Reporter:
"A mechanism that flips a coin once a minute does exactly what you asked..."
I requested:
"Show me a mechanism that rings the day after tomorrow at 19:34:43"
So how suddenly:
Please, 100 cannons that shoot 100 golf balls every second at a hole that is a mile and a half from them, as soon as the first golf ball goes into the hole in a direct shot the clock goes off!
Shapiro,
"Show me a mechanism that rings the day after tomorrow at 19:34:43"
Please, 100 cannons that shoot 100 golf balls every second at a hole that is a mile and a half from them, as soon as the first golf ball goes into the hole in a direct shot the clock goes off!
Calculator = computer
rival
"A mechanism that flips a coin once a minute does exactly what you asked..."
Show me how it rings the day after tomorrow at 19:34:43.
Miracles
The age of the universe in Planck units comes in at 64 bits, a rough estimate. I give you 128 bit on my mobile. Not enough? ?
Doesn't even tickle the tip of the chuka's penis 🙁
Miracles,
"64 bit, as I understand it, we will enter without any problem any known particle"
I still don't understand why they have to insert bits into the poor particle 🙂 What did he do to you? It's just a small ball moving in space... it doesn't need any bits, it's not a computer, just a particle.
mechanism
rival
Your bullet mechanism doesn't change the situation. You are only tying yourself down trying to describe a mechanism. 64 bit, to my understanding, we will enter without any problem any known particle. And if we have "universe time" that runs much, much faster, then we also have Mandanon to step on the timer
Israel
The age of the universe in Planck units comes in at 64 bits, a rough estimate. I give you 128 bit on my mobile. Not enough? 🙂
Shapiro…
"It doesn't matter what the mechanism is - if it has a certain expiration time, it's an alarm clock"
A mechanism that throws a coin once a minute does exactly what you asked for...
rival
No matter what the mechanism is - if it has a certain expiration time, it is an alarm clock.
So take a number of alarm clocks and arrange them so that out of 100, half will ring in the first minute, a quarter in the second, an eighth in the third..
And show me how you also arrange for one of them to ring after an hour, when I can choose the hundred clocks I want.
How many watches will you need?
Nissim, Shapira...
In the mechanism I proposed, there is no need for a compiler and the number of bits in a computer word is of no importance... a total of 4-5 balls that move in space and depending on the initial conditions they have a chance of colliding together (or clustering together in the same area) after two seconds, after half an hour, or after a million sleep!
At the level of principle it is similar to repeatedly tossing a coin, it has a chance to land on a tree immediately! After two hours or only after a million and a half years!
There is no need for bits or a compiler, it's just a simple physical mechanism...
Miracles
Seconds are an arbitrary time. What about the second billion?
And a million years too. What about a million to the power of a million?
Is there a compiler for this too?
No matter how you look at it - you are aiming for infinite timers.
Israel
There are half a trillion seconds in a million years. That is - 39 bits of information. There are 64 bits in a computer word. So, you can reach a resolution of microseconds, and still reach a million years.
And there are compilers for PC that work in 128 bit without breaking a sweat...
I showed earlier that there is no problem in reaching Poisson splitting as there is in radioactive decay.
Miracles, Rival, the programming people.
Please arrange for me a deterministic system of timers where every minute half of the timers expire with an equal probability for each timer to expire after a million years and which has less than 2 to the power of a million times 365 times 24 times 60 timers.
I'm waiting, if it takes a million years.
did you organize Now do the same with a billion.
did you organize Now with..
Shapiro,
As Nissim said, there could also be a particle that will disintegrate after a million years in the mechanism I proposed, but the chance of that is extremely slim... It's like the chance that you toss a coin every 10 minutes (like a neutron that once every 10 minutes has a 50% chance of disintegrating) and for a million years it will always fall on a tree...
Israel
How does what the opponent wrote contradict this? One of the particles has a timer set for a million years.
rival
Reporter:
"Is the system you proposed deterministic? Does each neutron have a specific and defined decay time even though we don't know it? (Unknown information Elek)"
exactly like that!"
Doesn't this mean that if we take 100 particles at moment 0 then the decay time of each one is predetermined - number 1 at time 7:07, number 2 at time 10:35. Number 5 0.27 like this up to 100?
So how does this work with the fact that each particle can disintegrate even in a million years time?
Israel
Each particle has its decay time. This time can have any positive value. 50% of the time has a value less than the half-life of that particle type.
Think that, as a rival suggested, we perform a computer simulation. Every time we create a particle we take a decay time from a random number generator. It is no different than that each particle has its own random generator.
Miracles,
"The thing is, and I think you said it, that the system can be initialized with the help of an external data"
Yes, I have already repeated this at least 10 times, the person who initializes the system I proposed can very simply be the particles that are at that moment in the place where the neutron is created, they already have all the necessary information - position in space, angle of movement and speed.
Shapiro,
"Nice, but how can a particle have a deterministic decay time of 0.37 seconds and also a probability of decaying in an hour?"
Maybe you didn't understand the mechanism I proposed - in the simple system I described earlier, if the two balls move towards each other right at the beginning then the disintegration will be fast because almost immediately they will collide depending on their speed, on the other hand if they move at different angles and start colliding with the walls back and forth, then maybe they They will meet in 20 minutes or maybe an hour.
I intend to prepare a simulation for this as well at the first opportunity I have (I have already prepared one but something is very inaccurate with small squares that move in space, not good enough to demonstrate the idea, I want to see what the histogram of the distribution of times looks like after many attempts with different opening conditions).
Miracles
Nice, but how can a particle have a deterministic decay time of 0.37 seconds and also a probability of decaying in an hour?
?
??
??! ??
Israel
Thus (Knoth's algorithm).:
init:
Let L ← exp(−λ), k ← 0 and p ← 1.
to:
k ← k + 1.
Generate uniform random number u in [0,1] and let p ← p × u.
while p > L.
return k − 1.
Miracles
Show me how you build a system where half of the particles disintegrate in the next minute and at the same time each of them has a probability of disintegrating in a million years.
rival
Chaotic has nothing to do with complexity. A system is chaotic and is very sensitive to the initial conditions. Adjacent pendulums form a chaotic system - and it is a very simple system. The gas in a closed container is not chaotic - but it is definitely a complex system.
So leave the chaos - your claim can still be true 🙂 The point is, and I think you said it, that the system can be initialized with the help of an external data. Imagine that the universe has a clock with enormous resolution. Initialize each particle with the insignificant bits of this clock.
I see no way to dismiss this idea on its face. There still remains the problem of the amount of information entering a certain volume, but perhaps in practice this is not a barrier. I also don't think that this method has a limit to the speed of light.
Israel
Half-life is probabilistic. You have a billion, after a minute half a billion, but only approximately. After about half an hour you will be left with about 2. But when talking about small numbers it is impossible to know exactly what will happen.
we
I don't, but my baby..
rival
I understand that you are offended after all. Because it is not clear how you came to the conclusion that you know for sure what I believe. Good luck anyway, because you sound like a young man who has ambitions to change the world.
Israel
So I understand from your words that you, like any disciplined secularist, covet your neighbors' cats? 🙂
we
It seems to me that the boss is quite pleased with his servant Israel who keeps commandments 6-10 and does not bother him with requests and sacrifices and does not even covet his neighbor's donkey.
rival
I haven't fully checked, but my false feminine intuition tells me that if the system is deterministic then we will encounter a contradiction.
We can see this if we take a sample of a billion neutrons whose half-life is one minute.
Half of them are programmed to disintegrate in the first minute.
A quarter of a second.
eighth in the third
After a certain number of minutes, we will give up about 100 neutrons, which also continue to decay at a rate of 50% per minute. In the end only with two.
But that means those Irish super Darwinians are programmed to disintegrate in the next few minutes, when in reality they could disintegrate in a million years, right?
The example is not perfect, I leave it to you and Nisim to work out the details.
anonymous,
Unlike you, I am here only to learn and not to argue. Secondly, it's a bit hard for me to take seriously someone who believes in imaginary friends... and it's really said with good intentions 🙂
rival
It's better that you watch a few more videos in your life, and read a little more, and one hour before. Because as it seems you still don't have enough understanding about the issues you are arguing about. And this is said with good intentions.
Israel
In the meantime, the boss defeats your and Nissim's 'logic' together, as if you were ants under his feet..
Shapiro,
"Is the system you proposed deterministic? Does each neutron have a specific and defined decay time even though we don't know it? (Unknown information Elek)"
exactly like that!
PS - Who is the boss? God bless his name?
(Regarding the Bell experiment, I prefer to first read a bit myself and watch videos on YouTube)
rival
Is the system you proposed deterministic? Does each neutron have a specific and defined decay time even though we don't know it? (Unknown information Elk).
Regarding Bell's theorem - the best explanation I know is in the link from my name.
If English is a difficult language - miracles are here to help.
If Nissim fails to simplify - I am here to complicate.
And there's always us, not to mention the boss..
Miracles,
1. Who said a few trillion options isn't enough? Until you make an accurate calculation, you won't know...
2. In my example there are only 2-4 balls, but each ball you add increases the amount of possibilities by many orders of magnitude...!!
3. "Don't forget that there are many symmetrical situations here... and many starting conditions that will give the same time until the end"
Totally agree! And I don't see any problem with that, maybe all the symmetric modes are actually the neutrons that decay in your laboratory at that very moment? 🙂
4. "There is a limit to how much information can be inserted into a certain volume"
True but... who said that the scope of possibilities under this limitation is not enough? Even if only 25 particles enter the neutron volume, each starting at a different location in space, at a different angle and at a different speed, the amount of possibilities created is simply enormous!
5. "And who said this system is chaotic?" She probably isn't.
And who said she's not chaotic? When you give a strong blow to a pillow at home and a lot of dust comes out of it, do you think the dust particles move in an orderly manner? in a coordinated way? One that is not chaotic?
rival
That's only a few trillion possibilities, and don't forget that there are many symmetric states here. And you will add - there are many starting conditions that will give the same time until the end. And who said this system is chaotic? She probably isn't.
But two problems still remain:
1) There is a limit to how much information can be inserted into a certain volume.
2) You need to think of a mechanism that will determine the initial conditions, so that it does not depend on time or the relative or absolute position of particles (suppose you created one neutron at high speed, or in enormous gravity, and a second neutron at high temperature in a place where there is no gravity, and so on.
But miracles, even a very simple chaotic system of only 2-3 components can give you the time ranges you are talking about! From a short time to a very long time!
For example, let's say you have a square area of 500 by 500 pixels and inside it move two small spheres whose radius is 5 pixels. Every time they hit a wall they come back at the same angle. Now let's say the timer goes off when the balls collide with each other or get really close to each other, okay?
1. The starting conditions are very simple, for each of the two balls a starting position X and Y is determined in total and some angle between 0 and 360 degrees (1, 2, 3, 4....), I think that the number of options for the opening conditions here is 500 multiplied by the fourth 360 to the 2nd power, a huge amount of possibilities with only two particles!
2. If in the opening conditions it happens that the two balls are moving in each other's direction, then within a moment or two (depending on the distance between them) they will collide and the timer will expire, you got a timer that expires almost immediately!
3. On the other hand, it is possible that they are initially aimed at such a position and angle that they will have to move for a very long time, collide with the walls back and forth, back and forth, many, many times until they finally collide, meaning the timer will expire after a very long time...!
4. Change the mechanism so that instead of 2 balls this time it has 3 or 4 balls that only if they all collide together or are grouped together in the same area the timer expires, and you got a much, much wider range of possible values! Starting with a short exposure time if by chance they move immediately in front of each other, and up to a very long exposure time until they meet all three or four of them together...
What's wrong with such a simple timer mechanism? As you have seen such a timer of only 3-4 particles can give you a huge variety of expiration times!
And the ones who determine the initial conditions (that is, in which position and angle each ball will be and in which direction it will move) are simply the local particles that are in the specific place in the universe where the neutron was created! They already contain all the necessary information.
(We won't get to the Bel trial later, I want to read a little about the topic in the meantime)
What about loose Islamic particles. They will not want to abuse the autonomous vehicles. Scary
rival
1. Chaos depends on the mechanism and the initial conditions. Assuming that the mechanism is fixed, the initial conditions remain. When a particle is formed, its decay time is determined, which can be billionths of a second or billions of years. I don't know how to put a number, but our timer has many possible values. That is - there are many different starting conditions, this means - the starting conditions contain a lot of information.
2. The answer is no.
Miracles,
1. I am totally not convinced that you are right, think that you have even 10 tiny particles inside a 100x100x100 cube inside the neutron, the amount of possibilities that can be arranged inside is enormous! That is, you can have chaos at such a high level that for you, no measurement you make will be able to differentiate between it and true randomness!
2. "If there is no randomness then it must be that information can travel faster than the speed of light"
Why? How did you come to this conclusion? I would appreciate it if you could explain it to me.
rival
I already agreed that you are right. That is - we will not be able to distinguish with the help of an experiment whether the decomposition is random or not.
But - I don't think that it is possible that there is a mechanism that is internal to the particle. I cannot contradict the idea that once a particle is formed it does not receive its decay time from the outside.
I am of course also open to the idea that I am wrong, and a diagnosis can be made - then you are also wrong.
But pay attention to something - if there is no randomness, then information must be able to travel faster than the speed of light. Both to give up the theory of relativity and to assume an extremely complex chaotic system to rule out randomness is, in my opinion, too heavy a price.
On second thought, the correct solution is to move the cargo traffic over long distances to the railroad tracks, when in the urban areas trucks will transport the cargo in containers, and between urban areas freight cars, each of which can carry one long container or two short ones. Since all the railway tracks in Europe are electrified (well, not the tracks, the wire above) so the energy cost for propulsion is really zero. In addition, steel wheels almost do not wear out and when they are worn out, you can salvage them and use second steel, compared to tires that have a short lifespan and are difficult to get rid of after they are worn out. Electric motors require little maintenance and have a long life compared to gasoline motors. And the big advantage: there is already a command and control system that routes the movement of the trains, it's just a matter of a larger quantity. What's more, you need to build loading and unloading stations for cargo that are designed for many trucks and many wagons at the same time in every city.
So the whole caravan thing is dropped from the episode. And anyone who has driven in Europe knows that on the intercity roads the trucks are at least half of the traffic volume, but inside the cities you see a few trucks. ZA that switching to trains will release a tremendous volume of traffic to the intercity roads.
What about the simulation? are you done
Miracles,
Agree with what you said, I forgot about the issue of simultaneous braking of all the trucks.
rival
One of the first things that are checked in such caravans is an obstruction on the way to the front vehicle. Unlike a manned convoy, here an almost immediate braking message is sent to all the vehicles in the convoy. This is exactly the reason why the distance between the vehicles can be reduced.
1. It seems that the direction is definitely autonomous private vehicles in the coming decades, but even an autonomous vehicle will have a problem in my opinion to overtake such a convoy of trucks mainly on a one-track road, it may crawl behind such a convoy for a long time. Maybe the solution is a separate route for trucks and heavy vehicles?
2. Convoy of trucks close to each other is really nice and efficient in terms of aerodynamics and fuel saving.... Until someone suddenly bursts into the road (a person or an animal) and then it can end in a chain accident where each truck hits the one in front of it. I wonder if this is taken into account.
A convoy of trucks with distances like in the picture will not allow small vehicles to merge, and will only cause accidents when they get stuck at the end of the acceleration lane. The interchanges need to be signalized or the trucks spaced, or all the cars will be computerized.