Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies
It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.
Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
They will be eating insects soon enough. We should be looking ahead, to the environmental consequences there.
Never has there been a time in history when more fat-assess of all types have talked about a civil war than America at this juncture in time.
America needs to declare a civil war on cheeseburgers and twinkies
The cancer issue with red meat is primarily how it is cooked, and not the meat itself:
Also that it's usually served as part of a Western-style diet; everything else along with it is also high in calories, high in fat, high in sodium and so on, see e.g. cheeseburger.
I eat red meat rarely but when I do have it I try to make it an event it's not (or shouldn't be) disposable food.
_this_ is a steak:
Look at the fat content in that. Prepared wonderfully. The "solution" isn't lean hamburger (blech) it's eat excellent meat much less often. At least for me...
This "peasant food" with salmon and mashed pea sauce is just amazing, trout for breakfast is awesome. I don't miss beef and pork that much.
An interesting paper. But should it consider the "Reductio ad absurdum"?
What would happen if we all became vegetarians/vegans overnight? It's true that the Earth can grow a lot more crops if we don't have to use any of the land for growing "red meat". But, according to the article, people would become healthier and so live for longer. Perhaps life expectancy would increase to such an extent that the concern of "aging populations" would become the greatest concern. What would we do if an even greater proportion of the population suffered from dementia in their later years as physical diseases are defeated through changes to diet and advances in medicine? Eventually we will defeat dementia, too. Illness won't be the problem; personal space will.
At some stage there would be a limit to how many humans the Earth could support. What happens then?
Soylent Green, anyone?...
-- Jeff
"Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled particles, and the other changes instantaneously."
Dew tell. And how in the heck could one determine that? Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A. Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other. The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy, meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.
In africa mostly, they eat insects. Kill enough, and all hell breaks loose..
From the same issue of PNAS
You haven't been paying attention.
Population growth rates in most advanced industrial countries are essentially zero - they've gone through the demographic transition.
Places like the US and Australia are unusual - the likeliest explanation is that they are less advanced than they seem (and like to think).
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally, which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.
That is to say the effect only works if you "ask" particle A what state it's in at a given time, and someone else then "asks" particle B which will then be the opposite of particle A.
To transmit information you have to "force" particle A to be in some state according to your mutually-agreed on encoding scheme. There _must_ be a mutually-agreed encoding scheme between the transmitter or receiver or you can't transmit any information. But doing that breaks the entanglement
But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).
You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:
-- Regards, Martin Brown
You could put the polarization measurements in separate envelopes and mail them to Australia to be opened and compared in 2050. Same results.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the other measurement instantaneously. So what?
Is the objection to the "instantaneously" part not being able to be strictly experimentally verified because the no-cloning/no-broadcast theorems themselves forbid the instantaneous transfer of information about the experiment?
Any other way would be the equivalent of a hidden-variables theory and hidden-variables interpretations of QM have been discredited as inconsistent with other experiments
Not necessarily instantaneously. Opposite spin states need not, and can't, be measured instantaneously, but they still measure as opposite. The spins of an entangled pair could be measured at very different times.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Not necessarily instantaneously. Opposite spin states need not, and can't, be measured instantaneously, but they still measure as opposite. The spins of an entangled pair could be measured at very different times.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Yes but once the first measurement is made the outcome of the second is certain; the probability function of the entangled system has collapsed immediately upon the first measurement and there is only certainty. regardless if the measurement of the second particle of the entangled pair is made some time later.
Just because the second experimenter does not know what the outcome will be local to their frame of reference doesn't mean it's not pre-determined. There's no universal "standard time" to judge simultaneity by anyway in general relativity, which on the macro scale at least QM must at least be consistent with, whether two events occur in the future, the same time, or the past of one frame of reference all depends on the properties of the other frame of reference you are comparing to.
Suppose an atom emits entangled photon pair A and B.
Alice is close to the source and measures the polarization as UP. The photon to Bob travels through a long polarization-maintaining optical delay line. After Alice sees the UP photon, she can send a message to Bob, "expect a photon at 14 nanoseconds after noon, GPS time, and it will be DOWN."
That's cool.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
No, you can't.
You'd need to know the angle of the grids wanted in 2050. things get spooky when the grid angles aren't 90 degrees (or some multiple)
-- When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.