Category Archives: Singularity

That sustained humming noise youre hearing from one end of town to the other, rising over the still-unopened Midtown parking deck, echoing off the lonely, desolate tiles of the unused Nishuane and Essex pools, filling the stillness of the closed-door executive sessions of the Township Council, is not the dying strains of the quite wonderful Montclair Jazz Festival, nor the sound of millions of women angrily muttering under their breath about the Supreme Court, nor even the distant buzz of out-of-control California wildfires, but merely the collective, joyous exhalation of Montclair parents as their kids go back to school.

Yes, the pandemic, which we can now officially declare we are pretending is over, has brought a new appreciation for the joys of schooling, and not just the joy of having your lovely progeny out of the house for a few freaking hours. It has also, we can only hope, brought a new appreciation for the wonders of in-person teaching. You know, the kind done by a teacher? A real, live, three-dimensional human being?

That would be nice, because there is an ugly trend in American thought that teachers are just overpaid babysitters, or archaic remnants of a handicraft economy that can be replaced by online learning or gamified video lessons. This is the mindset of the corporate educational reform movement, which was all the rage about 10 years ago but recently seems to have lost some steam. Backed by tech bros and hedge fund managers, these reformers sought to apply corporate efficiencies and tech solutions to public education. They were also very fond of high-stakes testing and charter schools.

But as weve just discovered, teachers cannot be replaced by screens, and education cannot be automated for the simple reason that children (unfortunately?) are not standardized. They are not raw materials to be shaped into finished products but unique individuals that need individual attention from a human being. (Until the singularity occurs and super-AI powered computers rule over humanity, when in all likelihood they will just clone us to ensure that we are standardized, but lets not think about that.)

At least for now, human teachers remain the key to successful education, and precisely because they cant be replaced by machines, its going to cost good money to get good teachers. Why do you think your plumber charges so much?

Often underpaid, vilified by the political right, under intense pressure from administrators and parents, many teachers, along with paraprofessionals and school bus drivers, have joined the great resignation creating a national shortage of qualified educators. You would think in these circumstances that we would be extra careful with our own precious professionals, but as usual, you would be wrong.

Here in Montclair, we had our own experience with corporate reform, when the board hired reformer Peggy McCormick in 2012, only to have her leave in a rush in 2015 in the midst of a scandal called Assessmentgate, which was about never mind. The Board of Education has never really recovered from the contentious debates of that period. Instead, weve been plagued by a revolving cast of superintendents and a board that seems to drift from one crisis to another.

The current superintendent, Jonathan Ponds, doesnt even appear to have a clear idea of how many teachers we need, as demonstrated by the chaos surrounding the nonrenewal notices sent out in May. He is now on his third business administrator in a year, with one leaving after whistleblower allegations and the second, his friend Nicholas Cipriano, vanishing without an explanation. The state of confusion is so thick that the district neglected to tell teachers that the first day of school had been rescheduled. Luckily, some of them are Montclair parents, so they found out from their kids. So once again, we have to ask, and I know this is getting boring, who is in charge?

Oh, and before I forget, the next election for school board is coming up in November with a whopping four candidates for three openings, which means basically anyone who submits a petition can get elected. The group that brought us the elected board, Vote Montclair, has dissolved in shame after learning its co-founder was only interested in humiliating Mayor Sean Spiller. Instead of participatory democracy we now have a vacuum in which no one seems to be paying attention. No one is in charge.

It's worth remembering that Montclair was once a leader in educational policy. The magnet school system, instituted in 1977, was a national model for integration. There was a time when the board worked together, the superintendent was competent, and community members attended meetings not just to complain (which is fine, Ive done it myself), but to participate and, you know, help make the schools better. Thats not too much to expect, is it?

On the other hand, maybe the robots will save us

Richie Chevat, writer, activist, has been a Montclair resident for more than 30 years. Hes the author of the comic sci-fi novel Rate Me Red, the play Who Needs Men? and the young reader version of A Queer History of the United States, among other works. He can often be seen running errands around town on his bike.

View original post here:

What the pandemic taught us about teaching (On the Other Hand) - Montclair Local

The Boom Sniper Rifle is an Exotic Sniper Rifle inFortnitethat is making its way back onto the island inChapter 3 Season 4. Not only has this weapon been Unvaulted, but Update v22.00 has buffed the rifle, bolstering its explosive damage from 60 to 75. Such a significant increase in power undoubtedly makes it a deadly armament in the hands of those skilled in long-ranged combat. Keep in mind that the Heavy Bullet from the Boom Sniper deals damage and contact damage, including the buffed explosive damage from the projectiles blast. Finding theBoom Snipers location inFortniteis map knowledge that every long-ranged combatant should have inChapter 3 Season 4.

To get the Boom Sniper inFortnite Chapter 3 Season 4, players must travel to a landmark location known as Shifty Shafts, southwest of Sleepy Sound and southeast of Logjam Junction. Here, fans will encounter theRustler, aFortniteNPCwho will sell the Exotic Sniper Rifle for 600 Bars.

Thanks to gameplay footage provided byYouTube content creator Singularity,Fortnite fans can see the exact location of the Boom Sniper seller on the island map. While Rustler does tend to wander about the area, she will typically stay on the eastern side of Shifty Shafts. Therefore, if players land or enter the main zone of the landmark, they must head to cabins on the eastern hills to find Rustler.

As mentioned above, Rustler will sell the Boom Sniper for 600 Bars inFortnite. Earning Bars inSeason 4 is no different from the past seasons. Players can obtain this currency by opening and destroying loot containers, such as Chests, Rare Chests, Safes, or Cash Registers. A great place to find Rare Chests would be the nine Bunker Vaults dotted about the island. Keep in mind that a key is required to enter these havens of valuable loot. Bars can also be acquired by eliminating player opponents and completing Bounties at the Bounty Boards found all over the map. After obtaining the Boom Sniper, players can wreak havoc on their enemies from afar. Remember that the headshot damage multiplier only affect contact damage, not the explosive damage applied by the rifles projectile.

Fortniteis available for PC, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch, and Xbox Series X|S.

Source:Singularity

Read more:

Where to get the Boom Sniper in Fortnite Chapter 3 Season 4 - The Nerd Stash

The singularity is coming for us, day by creeping day. Artificial intelligence is starting to write about cycling. It is starting to create pictures of cycling. And now, it is starting to predict the results of races that havent even happened yet.

There are humans involved at some point there always are, before the end of everything. In this case, it is a data and analytics consultancy called Decision Inc., Australia. The humans developed the modelling, fed it to their machine learning tool, let it marinate for a bit [that may be creative license] and then, the magic happened.

Machine Learning is a form of Artificial Intelligence which uses advanced data analytics [to] solve complex issues, explained Decision Inc, Australia CEO, Aiden Heke. It uses algorithms to best imitate how humans solve problems or predict outcomes.

Since the technology has evolved so much over the past few decades, we thought: why not use it to predict the outcome of the UCI World Championships?

First up, the womens road race:

A caveatthe Machines were crunching their numbers before Annemiek van Vleuten crashed out of the mixed team time trial, putting her start at risk. Also, apparently The Machines dont rate Grace Brown as a top 10 favourite. But all that aside? Those are certainly some credible names.

To the men:

Again, some curiosities in here for me. The podium seems credible, but I think Van der Poel is a bit more of a dark horse than this is letting on. Pogaar seems low; Almeida seems high. Im also furious about the Juraj Sagan erasure, but that is a me thing, not a you thing, and certainly not an AI thing.

Decision Inc. is likening their cycling foray to Deep Blue, an early machine learning venture from the mid-1990s that famously vanquished chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov. Its why were putting it to the test, to see just how far its come, said Decision Inc. CEO Aiden Heke. Were keen for everyone who fancies themselves as a bit of an expert on cycling to see if they can win where Kasparov couldnt: against the Machine.

If you want to show that you know more about this weekends cycling than a series of computer calculations, you can head to the companys Instagram account where you could win some signed cycling goodies.

Or, you can just wade into the comments here and tell us who your pick is. Thatd be fun too.

Read the original:

Machine learning has predicted the winners of the Worlds - CyclingTips

The Vaonis Vespera Observation Station is a small robotic telescope designed to be smart and fully automated, taking the guesswork out of astronomy and making it easy for beginners to start their journey.

The new Vaonis Vespera, originally announced almost two years ago and is now becoming available for $2,499, is technically a camera and not a telescope as it has no eyepiece or viewfinder. Instead, it captures images and sends them to a connected mobile device which can be shared with up to five other connected smartphones using the Singularity app.

While the device does works as described, the question is whether or not the Vespera is the ideal smart telescope and astrophotography solution for photographers.

The unit itself looks much like an egg and is incredibly small and lightweight for what it does. Coming in at about 15 inches (40 centimeters) tall not including the small tripod that adds about eight inches (20 centimeters) and weighing just about 11 pounds, the device does seem to live up to the companys claim of it being the worlds lightest.

The Vespera features a Sony IMX462 sensor and an Apochromatic (APO) quadrupled refractor with an aperture of 2/50mm, a focal length of 8/200mm, focal ration of f/4, magnification of x33, and a field of view of 1.6 x0.9 degrees. The company claims the device can operate for about four hours before needing to be recharged, but if you are near a power outlet (or even a USB-C battery/power supply), you can plug it in to allow for even longer operation.

The Vespera is capable of capturing 1920 by 1080 pixel images and is, for some reason, IP43 water resistant. The quadruplet 50mm lens consists of two lenses in two groups made with lanthanum glass that the company says results in zero distortion, zero chromatic aberrations, and zero astigmatism.

Out of the box, besides the sleek design, theres not much to look at, as it really is quite small and unassuming. The company does offer a custom backpack that can store the observation station and all of its peripherals quite easily, continuing that promise of making it incredibly portable. But even without the provided backpack, the device is small enough that it can easily fit in most normal bags and backpacks on the market.

Setting up the device is rather straightforward. Just attach the included tripod base and legs, and connect the provided level bubble to the magnetic charging port near the base and tripod mount. After adjusting the legs of the scope to level out the scope as best as possible, you are ready to power up the device, connect the app, and start observing.

The Vespera is very smooth and sleek, leaving you with no real grip points to hold on to when installing the tripod or other accessories. Id recommend you leave the Vespera in its bag (and the provided protective pouch) to avoid any dust, smudges, or scratches while connecting the tripod for initial use. That will also assure you dont accidentally drop it.

For our testing, Vaonis provided us with a Light Pollution Filter (which costs an extra $199) as well as a hygrometer sensor to measure and account for the humidity (another $99), all of which fit easily in the backpack provided. For those with a bit more in the budget, the company also offers a Solar Filter (for $99), a Dual-Band filter for better viewing of faint nebulae (for $399), and an extendable full-size tripod (for $149). The custom backpack from Vaonis is also available for $149.

If you decided to go all in on this device, which for the main unit already costs $2,499, you can see how expensive it could get.

Changing the filters is as simple as a push-and-click to remove and install whichever ones you want. Sadly, they arent able to be stacked as you would be able to with more traditional scopes, but for the most part, this shouldnt ever be a major issue especially considering the skill level of the target audience.

To install the hygrometer, you need to remove the lens filter (push/click) and then seat it in the slot clearly designed to contain it and screw it in with the provided toolset. The app should be able to detect which filter is attached once it initializes, allowing you for better viewing depending on the accessories used.

Since the Vespera is not a traditional telescope, everything needs to happen inside of the mobile app. Singularity, as the company says, is effectively your control room where everything happens. The app lets you access one of any stellar objects included in the companys catalogs and you will get personalized recommendations on what to observe according to your geolocation and the astronomical calendar.

In addition to these screens, the app also provides notes about the secrets of the Cosmos and even has a trivia screen to look at for information on the celestial object being observed.

Once the device and app are connected, the Vespera uses star pattern recognition software to align itself with the night sky and presents you with a list of observable objects with recommended amounts of time it will take to produce a quality image.

The start-up initialization process will take about five to ten minutes and it does this automatically. Once youve selected the object you want to observe, the Vespera will move to capture it and starts its autofocus routine. Once this is complete, you will start to see the images that continue to improve (brighter and clearer) the longer and more images you allow the device to capture and stack.

The Vespera will keep stacking the images and reducing the noise in them until you tell it to stop or the object is no longer viewable in the night sky. For most of the objects the observation station can capture, Varonis recommends at least 10 to 15 minutes of capture time, with some objects needing well over an hour or two to provide a decent image. During this time users can hang out by the device checking in periodically at the updated image capture stack (even playing a mini timelapse of the progress within the app), watching the clarity improve over time.

The Vespera will use its motor that is controlled by an onboard computer to automatically track the stellar object youve selected to observe and continue to do so until you tell it to stop (or it loses sight of it), compensating for Earths rotation.

When you do get a photo though, you can download them directly onto your phone and save them either as a JPEG, a lossless RAW, or even as at TIFF for manual editing later, too.

I found myself wishing there was a way to save this whole process as a timelapse video. It is possible to simply create a screen recording on your device, but the process is rather clunky and you cant maximize the resolution of the captures. I dont know if anyone else would want this, but I feel like its a missed opportunity, personally.

One frustrating situation I ran into is that sometimes the autofocus doesnt quite nail sharpness. If you happen to get some passing cloud cover during a capture time, if the device is shaken, bumped, or moved a little, or even if you happen to stand in front of it you could run into a problem. Once it does lock in on the celestial object, it can take between 10 and 30 minutes before you really notice the image isnt actually focused properly. When that happens, you have to start the initialization process over again, then restart the photo-taking process which is a huge chunk of lost time.

The images captured and created by this device are decent not amazing, but decent. It is definitely something fun for beginners and families, but they are definitely not something a professional astrophotographer (or astronomer) would really go wild for.

The system can produce 1920 by 1080 pixel images. For example, below is a capture of the M13 nebula captured on two different nights and from different locations. The first image was captured with over 300 images stacked in an environment pretty far out of Los Angeles with next to no light pollution obscuring the view.

The second image (below) was captured in the heart of Los Angeles, just down the street from the Hollywood Bowl. For this one, I attached the Light Pollution filter to help but even then the nebular was very hard to see (by the device) and the captures were of far less quality. You can even see a bright streak of light across the top third of the image where one of the Hollywood Bowl Spotlights was pointed across the sky.

The light pollution filter helped a little, but it still left the image stack with much less clarity and quality. It also wasnt even really in focus. With this in mind, if youre in an area that has some significant light pollution like I do in Los Angeles, you may want to consider venturing further out of the hot spots before using the Vespera, even with the filters.

Below are some additional images I captured around Los Angeles and a few supplied by the team at Varonis:

Another point worth mentioning is that actually getting files off the Vespera can be a little confusing at first. Through the Singularity app, you can save the JPEGS directly to your smartphone or tablet which makes those files easy to share, but getting the RAW files or exported TIFFS is not as simple.

To do that, you basically need to connect to the Vespera as if it were an FTP server and download the files that way. The good news is Varonis has very detailed instructions on how to do this.

This process should be easier and more streamlined, and I hope Vaonis addresses that in the future.

Its also worth mentioning that the Varonis has a Adjust Frame mode that lets you take multiple images of the night sky to stitch together later and according to the company, in a future update, the app will include an automated version of this called Mosaic Mode which should go live in early 2023.

While using the observation station is actually quite easy, for more serious photographers and budding astrophotographers, the images and image quality are rather underwhelming. Yes, the device is really neat, fun to use, and is easy to deploy, but the images are effectively two megapixels in size, and you only get a good photo after upwards of an hour of stacking and enhancements. It is very fun to use with friends but not really something youd focus your night around, but rather something to set up and let go while doing other things like simply enjoying the night sky or the company of those around you.

On the plus side, it can capture very faint objects that most normal optical telescopes couldnt ever even hope to capture but closer celestial objects like other planets in our solar system and even the moon can leave you feeling quite underwhelmed with the results.

Basically, as cool and fun as this and other smart telescopes are, they are best utilized for rich and deep field observations. If you want to look at closer-up objects and/or take higher resolution images of them, it may be best to pair this device up with a normal optical telescope that you can scale out accessories and camera equipment with as your skills with photographing them advances.

One last thing: while a four-hour battery life sounds fine on paper, it took between 30 minutes and an hour to capture usable images where I am, which means that four hours go by quickly. For many, I dont think thats going to be enough, and theyll be forced to bring along battery packs in order to keep the observations going long into the night.

The Vespera can work in a wide range of environments but is best in a properly dark location, as you might imagine. It has some really neat features and does exactly what Vaonis advertises, but I think it lacks the performance that most who call themselves photographers would hope to find the rather unimpressive image quality the biggest downside.

The app and software powering the Vespera is pretty great, it just let me down on the camera portion, which I argue is the most important detail to nail. Even after letting it run for over an hour to get the best possible image quality, I was disappointed with the results.

Overall, the Vaonis Vespera Observation Station is fun to use and is honestly pretty impressive given its size and portability. I also should say it is much easier to use than some other beginner telescopes on the market. While you dont have an eyepiece to look through or anything that will allow you to make manual adjustments, the Vesperas live image stacking technology makes up for that as long as you have the patience to wait around for it.

The system isnt cheap at $2,499, but if you are a casual stargazer or budding astronomer, you might enjoy what it offers.

There are a few other smart telescopes on the market with some more advanced and additional features for budding astronomers and astrophotographers, including the previously reviewed Unistellar eVscope 2 for $5,199, or the $3,999 Stellina, and the coming soon Hyperia (both from Vaonis) for an astronomical $45,000.

Maybe. I can see the appeal for beginner photographers, families, or just those interested in a cool digital telescope camera they can use to explore the cosmos. But for more serious photographers, the Vaonis Vespera probably isnt going to cut it.

View post:

Vaonis Vespera Review: Easy To Use But with Underwhelming Results - PetaPixel

No matter what you may have heard, make no mistake: physics is not over in any sense of the word. As far as weve come in our attempts to make sense of the world and Universe around us and we have come impressively far its absolutely disingenuous to pretend that weve solved and understood the natural world around us in any sort of satisfactory sense. We have two theories that work incredibly well: in all the years weve been testing them, weve never found a single observation or made a single experimental measurement thats conflicted with either Einsteins General Relativity or with the Standard Models predictions from quantum field theory.

If you want to know how gravitation works or what its effects on any object in the Universe will be, General Relativity has yet to let us down. From tabletop experiments to atomic clocks to celestial mechanics to gravitational lensing the formation of the great cosmic web, its success rate is 100%. Similarly, for any particle physics experiment or interaction conceivable, whether mediated via the strong, weak, or electromagnetic force, the Standard Models predictions have always been found to agree with the results. In their own realms, General Relativity and the Standard Model can each lay claim to be the most successful physics theory of all-time.

But theres a huge fundamental problem at the heart of both of them: they simply dont work together. If you want your Universe to be consistent, this situation simply wont do. Heres the fundamental problem at the heart of physics in the 21st century.

Countless scientific tests of Einsteins general theory of relativity have been performed, subjecting the idea to some of the most stringent constraints ever obtained by humanity. Einsteins first solution was for the weak-field limit around a single mass, like the Sun; he applied these results to our Solar System with dramatic success. Very quickly, a handful of exact solutions were found thereafter.

On the one hand, General Relativity, our theory of gravity, was a radical concept when it first came out: so radical that it was attacked by many on both philosophical and physical grounds for many decades.

Travel the Universe with astrophysicist Ethan Siegel. Subscribers will get the newsletter every Saturday. All aboard!

Regardless of how anyone might have felt about the new picture that Einsteins greatest achievement, the general theory of relativity, brought along with it, the behavior of physical phenomena in the Universe doesnt lie. Based on a whole suite of experiments and observations, General Relativity has proven to be a remarkably successful description of the Universe, succeeding under every conceivable condition that weve been able to test, whereas no other alternative does.

The results of the 1919 Eddington expedition showed, conclusively, that the General Theory of Relativity described the bending of starlight around massive objects, overthrowing the Newtonian picture. This was the first observational confirmation of Einsteins theory of gravity.

What General Relativity tells us is that the matter-and-energy in the Universe specifically, the energy density, the pressure, the momentum density, and the shear stress present throughout spacetime determines the amount and type of spacetime curvature thats present in all four dimensions: the three spatial dimensions as well as the time dimension. As a result of this spacetime curvature, all entities that exist in this spacetime, including (but not limited to) all massive and massless particles, move not necessarily along straight lines, but rather along geodesics: the shortest paths between any two points defined by the curved space between them, rather than an (incorrectly) assumed flat space.

Where spatial curvature is large, the deviations from straight-line paths are large, and the rate at which time passes can dilate significantly as well. Experiments and observations in laboratories, in our Solar System, and on galactic and cosmic scales all bear this out in great agreement with General Relativitys predictions, lending further support to the theory.

Only this picture of the Universe, at least so far, works to describe gravitation. Space and time are treated as continuous, not discrete, entities, and this geometric construction is required to serve as the background spacetime in which all interactions, including gravitation, take place.

The particles and antiparticles of the Standard Model obey all sorts of conservation laws, but also display fundamental differences between fermionic particles and antiparticles and bosonic ones. While theres only one copy of the bosonic contents of the Standard Model, there are three generations of Standard Model fermions. Nobody knows why.

On the other hand, theres the Standard Model of particle physics. Originally formulated under the assumptions that neutrinos were massless entities, the Standard Model is based on quantum field theory, where there are:

The electromagnetic force is based on electric charges, and so all six of the quarks and the three charged leptons (electron, muon, and tau) all experience the electromagnetic force, whereas the massless photon mediates it.

The strong nuclear force is based on color charges, and only the six quarks possess them. There are eight massless gluons that mediate the strong force, and no other particles are involved in it.

The weak nuclear force, meanwhile, is based on weak hypercharge and weak isospin, and all of the fermions possess at least one of them. The weak interaction is mediated by the W-and-Z bosons, and the W bosons also possess electric charges, meaning they experience the electromagnetic force (and can exchange photons) as well.

The inherent width, or half the width of the peak in the above image when youre halfway to the crest of the peak, is measured to be 2.5 GeV: an inherent uncertainty of about +/- 3% of the total mass. The mass of the particle in question, the Z boson, is peaked at 91.187 GeV, but that mass is inherently uncertain by a significant amount owing to its excessively short lifetime. This result it remarkably consistent with Standard Model predictions.

Theres a rule in quantum physics that all identical quantum states are indistinguishable from one another, and that enables them to mix together. Quark mixing was expected and then confirmed, with the weak interaction determining various parameters of this mixing. Once we learned that neutrinos were massive, not massless as originally expected, we realized that the same type of mixing must occur for neutrinos, also determined by the weak interactions. This set of interactions the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear forces, acting upon the particles that have the relevant and necessary charges describes everything that one could want to predict particle behavior under any imaginable conditions.

And the conditions weve tested them under are extraordinary. From cosmic ray experiments to radioactive decay experiments to solar experiments to high-energy physics experiments involving particle colliders, the Standard Models predictions have agreed with every single such experiment ever performed. Once the Higgs boson was discovered, it confirmed our picture that the electromagnetic and weak force were once unified at high energies into the electroweak force, which was the ultimate test of the Standard Model. In all of physics history, theres never been a result the Standard Model couldnt explain.

Today, Feynman diagrams are used in calculating every fundamental interaction spanning the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces, including in high-energy and low-temperature/condensed conditions. The electromagnetic interactions, shown here, are all governed by a single force-carrying particle: the photon, but weak, strong, and Higgs couplings can also occur. These calculations are difficult to perform, but are still far more complicated in curved, rather than flat, space.

But theres a catch. All of the Standard Model calculations we perform are based on particles that exist in the Universe, which means they exist in spacetime. The calculations we typically perform are done so under the assumption that spacetime is flat: an assumption that we know is technically wrong, but one thats so useful (because calculations in curved spacetime are so much more difficult than they are in flat space) and such a good approximation to the conditions we find on Earth that we plow ahead and make this approximation anyway.

After all, this is one of the great methods we use in physics: we model our system in as simple a fashion as possible in order to capture all of the relevant effects that will determine the outcome of an experiment or measurement. Saying Im doing my high-energy physics calculations in flat spacetime rather than in curved spacetime doesnt give you an appreciably different answer except in the most extreme conditions.

But extreme conditions do exist in the Universe: in the spacetime around a black hole, for example. Under those conditions, we can determine that using a flat spacetime background is simply no good, and were compelled to take on the herculean task of performing our quantum field theory calculations in curved space.

Inside a black hole, the spacetime curvature is so large that light cannot escape, nor can particles, under any circumstances. Although we lack an understanding of what happens at the central singularities of black holes themselves, Einsteins General Relativity is sufficient for describing the curvature of space more than a few Planck lengths away from the singularity itself.

It might surprise you that, in principle, this isnt really all that difficult. All you have to do is replace the flat spacetime background you normally use for performing your calculations with the curved background as described by General Relativity. After all, if you know how your spacetime is curved, you can write down the equations for the background, and if you know what quanta/particles you have, you can write down the remaining terms describing the interactions between them in that spacetime. The rest, although its quite difficult in practice under most circumstances, is simply a matter of computational power.

You can describe, for example, how the quantum vacuum behaves inside and outside of a black holes event horizon. Because youre in a region where spacetime is more severely curved the closer you are to a black holes singularity, the quantum vacuum differs in a calculable way. The difference in what the vacuum state is in different regions of space particularly in the presence of a horizon, whether a cosmological or an event horizon leads to the production of radiation and particle-antiparticle pairs wherever quantum fields are present. This is the fundamental reason behind Hawking radiation: the reason that black holes, in a quantum Universe, are fundamentally unstable and will eventually decay.

Although no light can escape from inside a black holes event horizon, the curved space outside of it results in a difference between the vacuum state at different points near the event horizon, leading to the emission of radiation via quantum processes. This is where Hawking radiation comes from, and for the tiniest-mass black holes, Hawking radiation will lead to their complete decay in under a fraction-of-a-second. For even the largest mass black holes, survival beyond 10^103 years or so is impossible due to this exact process.

Thats as far as we can go, however, and that doesnt take us everywhere. Yes, we can make the Standard Model and General Relativity play nice in this fashion, but this only allows us to calculate how the fundamental forces work in strongly curved spacetimes that are sufficiently far away from singularities, like those at the centers of black holes or in theory at the very beginning of the Universe, assuming that such a beginning exists.

The maddening reason is that gravity affects all types of matter and energy. Everything is affected by gravitation, including, in theory, whatever types of particles are ultimately responsible for gravitation. Given that light, which is an electromagnetic wave, is made up of individual quanta in the form of photons, we assume that gravitational waves are made up of quanta in the form of gravitons, which we even know many of the particle properties of in the absence of a full quantum theory of gravitation.

But thats precisely what we need. Thats the missing piece: a quantum theory of gravity. Without it, we cannot understand or predict any of the quantum properties of gravity. And before you say, what if they dont exist, know that wouldnt paint a consistent picture of reality.

Results of a double-slit-experiment performed by Dr. Tonomura showing the build-up of an interference pattern of single electrons. If the path of which slit each electron passes through is measured, the interference pattern is destroyed, leading to two piles instead. The number of electrons in each panel are 11 (a), 200 (b), 6000 (c), 40000 (d), and 140000 (e).

For example, consider the most inherently quantum of all the quantum experiments that have ever been performed: the double slit experiment. If you send a single quantum particle through the apparatus and you observe which slit it goes through as it goes through it, the outcome is completely determined, as the particle behaves as though it

the slit you observed it to go through at every step of the way. If that particle was an electron, you could determine what its electric and magnetic fields were during its entire journey. You could also determine what its gravitational field was (or equivalently, what its effects on the curvature of spacetime were) at every moment as well.

But what if you dont observe which slit it goes through? Now the electrons position is indeterminate until it gets to the screen, and only then can you determine where it is. Along its journey, even after you make that critical measurement, its past trajectory is not fully determined. Because of the power of quantum field theory (for electromagnetism), we can determine what its electric field was. But because we dont have a quantum theory of gravitation, we cannot determine its gravitational field or effects. In this sense as well as at small, quantum fluctuation-rich scales or at singularities in which classical General Relativity gives only nonsense answers we dont fully understand gravitation.

Quantum gravity tries to combine Einsteins General theory of Relativity with quantum mechanics. Quantum corrections to classical gravity are visualized as loop diagrams, as the one shown here in white. Whether space (or time) itself is discrete or continuous is not yet decided, as is the question of whether gravity is quantized at all, or particles, as we know them today, are fundamental or not. But if we hope for a fundamental theory of everything, it must include quantized fields, which General Relativity does not do on its own.

This works both ways: because we dont understand gravitation at a quantum level, that means we dont quite understand the quantum vacuum itself. The quantum vacuum, or the properties of empty space, is something that can be measured in various ways. The Casimir effect, for instance, lets us measure the effect of the electromagnetic interaction through empty space under a variety of setups, simply by changing the configuration of conductors. The expansion of the Universe, if we measure it over all of our cosmic history, reveals to us the cumulative contributions of all of the forces to the zero-point energy of space: the quantum vacuum.

But can we quantify the quantum contributions of gravitation to the quantum vacuum in any way?

Not a chance. We dont understand how to calculate gravitys behavior at high energies, at small scales, near singularities, or when quantum particles exhibit their inherently quantum nature. Similarly, we dont understand how the quantum field that underpins gravity assuming there is one behaves at all under any circumstances. This is why attempts to understand gravity at a more fundamental level must not be abandoned, even if everything were doing now turns out to be wrong. Weve actually managed to identify the key problem that needs to be solved to push physics forward beyond its current limitations: a huge achievement that should never be underestimated. The only options are to keep trying or give up. Even if all of our attempts turn out to ultimately be in vain, its better than the alternative.

Read the original here:

The biggest problem with gravity and quantum physics - Big Think

Sometimes it is difficult to make out if what the BTS members are saying is for real or a joke. As ARMY says, it looks like fake subs but those are actual words coming out of the boys mouths. This is exactly how all the fans are currently feeling after Taehyungs recent response to being asked about his tattoo.

It is safe to say that V is the king of random fun replies. You will find him dropping an unrelated comment to fans questions. It is always hilarious to see his interactions with ARMY. But due to that it sometimes also becomes difficult to understand whether he is joking or not.

Take him talking about the friendship tattoo for that matter. Recently when the Singularity singer was asked about the same, his response to the question left everyone in splits. Heres what happened!

An ARMY on Weverse left a query for the global star. Taehyung shii, where did you get your friendship tattoo? asked the fan. To this, he replied, On my left butt-cheek.

His comment left everyone speechless. Many said that they are now in between two minds unable to decide if V is being serious or not. You know how he is we can never know, he could be saying the truth. Yeah what if he is being serious.. what say everyone??? wrote a user on Twitter

For those who may not be aware, the BTS boys decided on getting 7 inked on their bodies as matching friendship tattoos, signifying the number of members in their band. Till now, RM, J-Hope, Jin, Jimin, and Jungkook revealed their tattoos by dropping pics of the same. As for the Daegu men, Suga and V, there is still a mystery around it.

What are your thoughts on it? Do you think, Taehyung really got the friendship tattoo on his butt cheek?

More here:

V gets inked on his butt cheek? BTS star spills the details about his friendship tattoo - Zoom TV

Imagine what will happen if we robots can process information, store data and transfer the same at a pace at which humans do, will they not be as good as humans? Just to let you know we will touch on one aspect in this article (Quantum Computing) which takes care of processing information, however there is tremendous progress already made to store information like our DNA and also transmit the same like our nervous system does.

As the smartest creatures on Earth, our journey from the analogue to the digital world has been at a tremendous pace in the past decades.

There was a time, few decades ago, when invention of electronic calculator marked a major breakthrough in the world of technology. The transformational advancements of processing information since then have been remarkable. Undoubtedly, we have come a long way with smartphones, wearable and smart devices, shifting from press the keys to touch, swipe and speak.

With Artificial Intelligence (AI), Virtual Reality (VR), Internet of Things (IoT) and Metaverse being technological realities today, we are also heading towards a new era of data & computation called quantum computing.

Now, Whats That?

Well, quantum computing is a futuristic technology which employs the power of quantum mechanics for solving extremely complex problems that are beyond the capacity of classical computers. To define it simply, this computer-based technology functions around the quantum theory principals where behaviours of matter and energy are studied on the atomic and subatomic levels.

Supercomputers designed on quantum theory consume comparative less energy while operating at an exponentially higher speed.

This quantum computer implements the laws of quantum mechanism for such complex calculation which are much beyond human comprehensions.

Tech titans envision that humans will be accelerated into the future by quantum computing through its impact on data analytics and artificial intelligence. Its massive speed and power shall help us crack even the complex challenges that we, human beings, face.

In the Next Decades, What If I Say That Robots Can Become a Challenge to the Humans?

If thats going to happen, it would be for AI and quantum technology. Scientists have already started to research on bridging the two avenues quantum physics having its strong algorithms and artificial intelligence coupled with autonomous machines. They are investigating the ways to use quantum technology for the advantage of learning robots. So far, the results show that robots can decide faster.

#Case Study:

A team of experimental physicists led by Philip Walther from The University of Vienna collaborated with theoreticians from German Aerospace Center, the Austrian Academy of Sciences and University of Innsbruck. Together, for the first time, they succeeded in proving the increase in actual learning time of a robot. Their experiment included the use of fundamental particles of light, single photons and integrated photonic quantum processor. The researchers implemented learning tasks by using this processor as a robot. The result showed significant reduction in the learning time, compared to the no quantum physics cases.

Hence, artificial intelligence devices that are integrated with quantum computing are capable of self-correction and learning through experience, much like humans.

Sounds interesting?Let me make it more intriguing for you.

As the speed of quantum computing is significantly higher than the traditional machines, this could result in quantum robots if rapid responses are recorded. Such robots are envisioned to be highly advanced and way more sophisticated, with unparalleled capabilities of multitasking. Not just that, but they will also be able to fully examine and adapt to various environments for survival, becoming independently more creative and data processing at a greater speed.

Scientists also opine that the concept of technological singularity will be possible, which signifies machines will be more progressive and smarter than humans.

Upcoming: Robots with Human Intelligence

Yes! You read that right.

Plans are already on to build robots that would share similar values as well as rights like us. They will have the ability to understand the world like humans, have same feelings as well as emotional spectrum. Such human-like technology will profoundly change our relationship with technology and the world around us.

What next?

Remember the movie titled Transcendence? The protagonist uploads his consciousness into quantum computer and outsmarts death! Well, what you might have thought to be unrealistic then may not be so today. Popular predictions say that humans will soon become transhumans through the concept of virtual or digital immortality. We already have quantum computer amongst us, though not a consumer product, but commercially available.

How would this technology make it happen?

Well, going back to its definition again, quantum computers utilise quantum bits or qubits. These tiny physical objects help them cope with highly complex problems and extremely large volumes of data in less than a second. Hence, storing a humans memories and personality would be an effortless job for the quantum computers.

Recent breakthroughs show that narrow AI can perform certain tasks much better than humans. It wont be surprising to say that artificial intelligence will emulate the human skill, i.e. responding to various tasks, and thereby, put our race at a challenge in the future.

Coming back to digital immortality, it is a theoretical concept of transferring and storing an individuals consciousness into a robot, a virtual body or a computer. The required technology with appropriate hardware for this transfer is expected to arrive soon in this decade, although several milestones are needed to be achieved yet.

Digital Immortality: How far are we?

Once a persons consciousness is uploaded, it can be stored in two different ways:

From there, it can easily interact with the physical as well as the virtual worlds. The fascinating result would be that the persons consciousness will remain alive in a virtual space for thousands and thousands of years to come. Thats not all. He can also travel to various virtual worlds and download content for enriched experience. Being still alive, he can work with his own digital clones to accomplish essential jobs in real life faster.

Quite a far future though, the second instance says human beings will possibly grow or build completely new bodies. While models may vary with the type of technology used, the least expensive one could be machine-like or robotic in appearance.

Fast forwarding many decades from today, we might have these machines as highly expensive synthetic bodies similar to the real human bodies using several hi-tech features to enhance their mental and physical capabilities. Moving thousands of years further, the world might have so advanced synthetic bodies that their capabilities would probably exceed our wildest imaginations today. If need be, new versions of these bodies can also come up.

According to the predictions of renowned futurist, Ray Kurzweil, uploading the human mind would be possible in the next quarter century, though perfection might need a lot of time.

In a major breakthrough in research a year ago, one of the most complex organs, eyes of mice, were reprogrammed in a lab. If a human goes blind when older, he/she never recovers the vision. Hence, the experiment was done on one-year old mice using gene therapy where their retinas were turned to be young again. Three out of the four reprogramming factors were implemented. Scientists successfully reversed aging in their retinas taking those backwards to around two months old in age. The mice could clearly see everything again much, like they saw when young. Additionally, the system can be turned on and off whenever required. Scientists confirmed that this can be done with any tissue to reverse aging, not going back too far though.

Probably, the concept of death will vanish in a century or so owing to the dynamic evolution of technology. Humans will just be moving from one body to another, with their memory and consciousness stored in the form of data.

To say so, its just the beginning for us to understand what possibilities artificial intelligence have. Every new and successful experiment, thus, adds to the development of the scope of quantum computing. IBM believes that quantum computing will become the mainstream technology in probably the next 5 years. At this point, can we look back to our mythology and sum up that our culture has been talking about it since eons?

Food for thought:

In simple terms, History for which we dont have documented proof is called Mythology. Do you think we will need to document or even speak 100 years from now? We have already moved from paper documents to speaking in a mic and recording the artefacts, why is it not possible to just transfer thoughts from one person (robot) to another without any speech or text?

Read more here:

Robots & Humans: Are we heading towards Singularity? - INDIAai

Five People With Lupus Went Into Complete Remission After ImmunotherapyEd Cara | GizmodoIn their new research,published Thursday in Nature Medicine, Schett and his team infused five patients with treatment-resistant SLE with modified anti-CD19 T cells. And so far, all of them have experienced a remarkable recovery. Their symptoms have all improved, with none showing signs of lupus-related internal damage up to 17 months later and minimal side-effects from the therapy.

An AI That Can Design New Proteins Could Unlock New Cures and MaterialsMelissa Heikkil | MIT Technology ReviewTraditionally researchers engineer proteins by tweaking those that occur in nature, but ProteinMPNN will open an entire new universe of possible proteins for researchers to design from scratch. In nature, proteins solve basically all the problems of life, ranging from harvesting energy from sunlight to making molecules. Everything in biology happens from proteins, says David Baker, one of the scientists behind the paper and director of the Institute for Protein Design at the University of Washington.archive page

Structure-Inflating Construction Tech Could Give 3D Printing a Run for Its MoneyBen Coxworth | New AtlasWeve heard how 3D-printed concrete buildings can be constructed quickly and easily, but could there be an even faster and simpler method? According to American inventor Alex Bell, there most certainly isand it involves inflating buildings, then pumping concrete into them. For our 100 square foot [9.3 sq m] and 200 square foot [18.6 sq m] prototypes, the inflation took 7 to 10 minutes with air, he said. Then the concrete pump filled them in 1.5 hours. Including labor, our prototypes only cost $20 per square foot. This is significantly cheaper than anything else.

2 Minutes to Midlife: The Fantastic Unspecified Future of Epigenetic ClocksRobin Donovan | NEO.LIFEWhen Horvath first described epigenetic clocks, scientists began to speculate that altering them could reverse aging. After all, if certain patterns of DNA methylation at certain sites in cells in certain tissues of your body are hallmarks of aging, could shifting them somehow reverse aging? The short answer: Its possible.

Robloxs Avatars Are About to Get More ExpressiveTanya Basu | MIT Technology ReviewRoblox users will soon be able to give their avatars facial expressions that mimic the players own, the platform announced today. And soon, Roblox says, users will be able to speak directly with other avatars as in other multiplayer video games. In short, the changes might blend our real-world human experience with that of the metaverse and make avatars more like ourselvesfor better or worse.

How Long Is the Drive to the Edge of the Universe?Randall Munroe | The New York TimesThe edge of the observableuniverse is about 270,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles away. If you drive at a steady 65 miles per hour, it will take you 480,000,000,000,000,000thats 4.8 10years to get there, or 35 million times the current age of the universe. Be sure to pack extra snacks.

Record-Breaking Robot Highlights How Animals Excel at JumpingYasemin Saplakoglu | SourceThe [robot] jumper had reached a record-breaking height of about 32.9 meters, as Keeley and his collaborators, led by Elliot Hawkes, a mechanical engineering researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara,reported in AprilinNature. Not only had it jumped more than three times higher than other experimental robots constructed for that task, it had jumped more than 14 times higher than any other creature in the animal kingdom. In all likelihood, their robot jumped higher than anything ever had on Earth.

Saturns Rings Finally Explained After Over 400 YearsEthan Siegel | Big ThinkObserved since the invention of the telescope back in 1609, Saturns rings were a wholly unique feature within our Solar System.While the other giant planets have since been discovered to have rings, theyre faint and unimpressive compared to Saturns.Despite all weve learned about our Solar System, the origin of Saturns rings have remained an unsolved puzzle. Perhaps, that is, until now.

View original post here:

This Week's Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through September 17) - Singularity Hub

Even as more offshore wind projects launch and the turbines they use get bigger, there are questions around offshore winds economic viability. Unsurprisingly, hauling huge equipment with multiple moving parts out to deep, windy sections of ocean, setting them up, and building lines to transmit the electricity they generate back to land is expensive. Really expensive. In our profit-driven capitalist economy, companies arent going to sink money into technologies that dont deliver worthwhile returns.

A Swedish energy company called SeaTwirl is flipping the offshore wind model on its headnot quite literally, but almostand betting it will be able to deliver cheap renewable energy and make a profit along the way. SeaTwirl is one of several companies developing vertical-axis wind turbines, and one of just a couple developing them for offshore use.

A quick refresher on what vertical axis means: the turbines were used to seeing (that is, on land, at a distance, often from an interstate highway or rural road), have horizontal axes; like windmills, their blades spin between parallel and perpendicular to the ground, anchored by a support column thats taller than the diameter covered by the spinning blades.

Bigger means better when it comes to efficiency, so these turbines have gotten huge both on land and at sea. But there are some technical and design limitations to how big they can get. Their generators need to be located at their main axle near the top of the support tower. This adds a lot of weight at the top of the tower, which requires even more weight at the bottom (and significant strength along the towers entire height) to keep the whole thing from toppling over or bending in half.

The generator in a vertical-axis turbine, on the other hand, can be placed anywhere on said vertical axis; in an offshore context, this means it can be at the waterline or below, adding weight where weight is needed.

Vertical-axis turbines can also use wind coming from any direction. Since their rotation doesnt take up as much space as that of horizontal-axis turbines nor create as much of a blocking effect on downwind turbines, they can be placed closer together, generating more electricity in a given footprint.

SeaTwirl was founded in 2012, and for the past seven years its been proofing a test version of its vertical-axis turbine off the coast of Lysekil, a seaside town on Swedens western side. Called S1, the turbine has a generating capacity of 30 kilowatts, and its above-water portion is 43 feet (13 meters) tall, with another 59 feet (18 meters) submerged. It has fed an onshore grid throughout its trial period, while withstanding hurricane-level winds and waves.

With this success under its belt, SeaTwirl now wants to go biggera lot bigger. Its preparing to build a turbine called the S2x, which will be able to generate one megawatt of electricity and will serve as a pilot for the companys first commercial product.

The turbine will rise 180 feet (55 meters) out of the water, and its weighted central pole will reach 262 feet (80 meters) below the surface. Thats a total height of 442 feet. For perspective, the Statue of Liberty is 305 feet tall including the base and foundation. The vertical-axis turbine is still dwarfed by its horizontal-axis counterparts, though; GEs Haliade-X is 853 feet tall, and Chinese MingYang Smart Energy Group is building a turbine thats even a few feet taller.

The S2x will be placed in waters at least 328 feet deep, and designed to withstand category-two hurricane winds. SeaTwirl estimates the turbine will have a service life of 25 to 30 years, and the first one will be located off the coast of Bokn, Norway. Its expected to be commissioned in 2023 for a test period of around five years, and the company says it will generate energy at a cost thats competitive with other offshore turbines.

If the S2x is as successful as the S1, SeaTwirl will aim to scale up even more, possibly to turbines in the six to ten-megawatt range by 2025.

Image Credit: SeaTwirl

Go here to see the original:

A Swedish Company Wants to Transform Offshore Wind With Vertical-Axis Turbines - Singularity Hub

One of the main arguments against a rapid transition to renewable energy is the potentially enormous cost. But a new study shows that moving quickly could actually save us huge amounts of money compared to taking things slowly or doing nothing at all.

Models designed to estimate the economic impact of different energy scenarios, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have consistently predicted that shifting from fossil fuels to greener alternatives like solar and wind would entail significant costs.

But researchers from Oxford University believe these predictions have also been consistently wrong. When projections made over the last 20 years are compared to real-world data, they systematically underestimate the cost reductions of key technologies and the pace of deployment around the world.

These findings prompted the team to see if they could find a better way to model the potential trajectories of future energy systems. By turning to the same kind of probabilistic modeling approaches used by the betting industry, they predicted that transitioning to a decarbonized energy system by around 2050 is expected to save the world at least $12 trillion, compared to continuing our current levels of fossil fuel use.

The belief that the green energy transition will be expensive has been a major driver of the ineffective response to climate change for the past 40 years, the authors wrote in a paper in Joule. This pessimism is at odds with past technological cost improvement trends and risks locking humanity into an expensive and dangerous energy future.

Relying on methods used by gambling companies rather than those favored by economists might seem like an odd decision, but the researchers point out that they must have some merit, as they make the industry billions in profits every year. Whats more, governments and companies are either implicitly or explicitly making bets on different energy technologies, so working out which bets have the best odds makes sense.

The approach they used has also been well validated. The team had previously used their probabilistic model to forecast the cost of 50 technologies and shown that it closely tracked historical data. In the latest study, they applied the same technique to technologies that will be critical to the green energy transition, like solar, wind, batteries, and electrolyzers for creating green hydrogen, as well as coal, gas, nuclear, biopower, and hydropower.

Their results show that a fast transition to renewable energy would save the global economy $12 trillion by 2050 compared to leaving the energy system the way it is today, while also producing 55 percent more energy than we do currently. They also investigated a slower transition, which they found would save less than the fast one but considerably more than the business-as-usual case.

Crucially, the model didnt take into account the cost of climate change itself, which would clearly favor a shift to renewables. The calculations are based purely on the underlying economics of the various energy technologies.

The study found that a rapid shift to a decarbonized energy system would entail significant increases in annual infrastructure costs due to the need for things like enhanced grid capacity. But the extra $140 billion this would cost per year was significantly less than the roughly $400 billion in annual savings on energy costs.

The researchers are keen to point out that their model is not aimed at finding optimal solutions, and its possible that in certain situations or localities it may make sense to retain some fossil fuels, for instance using gas rather than hydrogen fuel.

The modeling approach they use is also novel, and its far from certain whether key decision-makers will be willing to take their findings at face value. Nonetheless, they highlight the fact that todays accepted wisdom around the cost of a green energy transition is on shaky ground, and smarter bets on the future of energy could have some serious payoffs.

Image Credit: WikiImages / 1175 images

See the original post here:

Decarbonizing the Energy Sector by 2050 Could Save the World $12 Trillion - Singularity Hub