I’ve wondered why no one seems to be seriously putting effort into a genealogical ship. I’d be okay with being the first generation; I can’t possibly be the only one.
I guess there’s a place to be conserned that eventually a society might emerge within the genealogical ship that might cause them to loose their allegiance to the rest of humanity and go their seperate way. We saw this when european colonists came to the new world, they didn’t stay loyal to their home governements because of the difficulty to communicate across the ocean and the difficulty the home government would experience projecting their authority. Communication would be just as difficult with a genealogical ship and they might leave us forever, like we’ll never see any benefits from the genealogical ship.
And when you think about it that would make the most sense, because even when the final decendants of the genealogical ship find a new home world they’ll never come back to earth, their will be no travel. That world would become a different world for people who might not even consider themselves as human.
Conclusion: there’s no way to space travel unless a person can travel between worlds and still have enough of their lifespans ahead of themselves to do stuff to contribute to the wider galactic human soceity. Unless you want to live in the cowboy bebop world where the government is too weak to do anything so they have to hire bounty hunters to suppress criminal organizations competing governments, and you don’t know who has your better intrest and who’s going to protect you from who, be my guest, fracture human soceity before we’re truly ready to go out into space. It sure worked out well 100 years ago.
There’s increasing evidence that it is lack of exposure to some allergens which causes problems. Current advice is to eat peanuts during pregnancy and to introduce peanut butter to baby diets early to reduce the risk of peanut allergy.
So you’re more likely to be reducing the risk. But there’s a lot we don’t properly understand yet, of course.
There had been long-standing advice to avoid foods that can trigger allergies during early childhood. At one point, families were once told to avoid peanut until their child was three years old.
However, evidence over the last 15 years has turned that on its head.
Instead, eating peanut while the immune system is still developing - and learning to recognise friend from foe - can reduce allergic reactions, experts say.
tl;dr no, i don’t think newly developed allergies can kill you. #notadoctor
did you have a peanut allergy earlier on? personally always had a mild allergy to basically everything. now i live with cats, who make it worse, but before that i was always sneezing and my eyes were going bonkers, regardless.
Most allergic reactions start with milder symptoms, and some get worse each time you’re exposed. You would probably notice (and hopefully see a doctor about) the burning/itchy/numb mouth and throat, and/or upset stomach, before it progressed to a lethal allergy
If the measurement device were a light year away and were precise enough to “zoom in” and see which slit the electrons went through, what would happen on the final screen?
That level of precision implies technological advancement, that would result with far better equipment to perform the test and measure the results, providing they would be still needed.
I know it sounds like an attempt to brush the question off, but it’s Spherical Cow and/or Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword territory. 😉
The results of the double slit experiment and the uncertainty principle will not change with our level of technology. They are fundamental laws of nature.
The quality of the camera to observe the result of the double slit experiment (meaning the pattern on the wall) has no effect on the results.
The hardware, software, money involved and other variables required to conduct an experiment from a lightyear away definitely elevate the project to different level on Kardashev’s scale.
The “observation” doesn’t occur when a person sees the result, but rather when the electron or photon interacts with the device (in this case the wall). The wall is making the observation. In this situation “observation” doesn’t have the traditional meaning, but rather refers to an interaction event.
So the same average result will happen no matter where the device is, the only thing that changes is its proximity to you.
First, though, your premise is a bit off. Zooming in still wouldn’t change the speed of light or change how fast the photons take to get from point A to your zoom lens. Zooming doesn’t give you a time or distance shortcut - all zooming does is decrease the angle of view of whatever you are pointied at. The only thing that matters in the double slit experiment is whether you observe them enroute or if you observe the screen after impact. If the screen were between you and the photon sources and you zoomed in, the photons would still hit the screen first and the photons you observe through the lens would come after.
The TL/DR of that article I cited earlier is that we still know the field would collapse. The more interesting question (and the one they pose in the article that remains unanswered) is: how fast does the collapse propagate back to the source? Is the propagation delay of the collapse instant/infinite (like what would be described by entanglement) or is the speed of the collapse still subjected to the speed of light (which is the same for the propagation delay of gravitational waves)?
The links to the older articles are dead in that link. Here’s an archive of the 3rd essay (and it links to the second and first). The 3rd essay presents a thought experiment very close to what OP is asking. If we delay the choice of inserting a detector then would we still get an interference pattern when we’re not supposed to? It seems that the question is still unanswered but theoretically, no, because the universe is not locally real and quantum effects seem to happen faster than light in plenty of other experiments.
A measurement device is necessarily local: if it’s “zooming in” from a light year away, it’s using transmitted particles to observe—and those particles are traveling (and entangled) with the particles you’re trying to observe.
When you say zoom in, what you are actually asking is what if the wall was a light year away, and you’re building the delayed choice version of the experiment, details here …m.wikipedia.org/…/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
But basically, the universe knows, and you can’t worm your way around it.if you detect which slit the photons flow through, then you lose the interference pattern.
I know China has done a lot of “regreening” of areas and I’ve read that the Sinai could be a good candidate for the same sort of restoration. It’s not my area of expertise but the best candidates seem to be areas that are deserts because of human activity (like over farming, excessive water use, etc.).
What China did was plant trees, restore nutrients to the soil, add terraces to hills, limit livestock, and other things that slow down water loss. They successfully regreened and area the size of France but I think, crucially, it got enough water naturally. The land was just depleted, which caused the water to wash away topsoil instead of support vegetation.
So, I don’t think we could realistically show up to an arid desert and turn it into much. But there’s places we think of as desert now that would be good candidates for restoration.
I’d say the most important part is moisture. When a desert starts getting more rainwater, it starts to be an interesting habitat for algea and cyanobacteria (all they need is sun and moisture). These organisms start colonizing the desert, because it’s not hostile for them anymore. As they live and die there, organic matter starts to pile up and allows other organisms that consume this matter to colonize the desert as well. Soil is slowly developing and allowing more and more plants and animals to inhabit the place. The whole proces is very slow. You can do the same (and faster) through artificial means, but you have to water the land and take the water from somewhere else. If you stop watering, the land turns into desert again if there’s not enough rainfall. At some places that are not dry naturally you could reestablish a long term green habitat - e.g. instead of a dam and dry land surrounding it, you could recreate a wetland forest with a meandering river, which would help the surrounding area, because forests create their own small water cycles so more rain can be expected around them.
Naturally this kind of thing happens over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. So, even going back to BC times, we’re still only a small fraction of how far we need to go back to find really major, long-term climatic shifts. These things are supposed to happen sloooowwwwllly, not really discernable as changing over the scale of a single human lifetime, which is just the blink of an eye in planetary time scales.
Can we though? Probably. We can certainly dam rivers and use irrigation to make the land more agriculturally productive. But we should have the technology currently to attempt more dramatic geoengineering projects if we wished.
The problem though, is unintended consequences, where you change one thing over here, and you didn’t realize it was also controlling something else over there, and that thing changes too now, even though you didn’t necessarily want it to.
Like, to make up a fictional example, say we engineered rainfall over the Sahara somehow. But we didn’t know some of this moisture influences air currents, and now southern Europe and the Middle East are changing too somehow, by accident.
It’s like when you’re trying to untie a really tangled knot, and you pull on one part thinking its going to start undoing it, but it just tightens it somewhere else instead.
I seem to recall that Mythbusters episode proving the exact opposite. They showed that fecal matter definitely gets sprayed all over the bathroom when the lid is up when flushed.
askscience
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.