Entanglement between superconducting qubits and a tardigrade(arxiv.org)
arxiv.org
Entanglement between superconducting qubits and a tardigrade
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.07978
123 comments
So this is me. A decade ago, I would have been a plausible choice of referee for a paper like this.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=C6BzRwwAAAAJ
You'll have to take my word for it, as I don't currently have a university job. For some reason, Google doesn't let you authenticate your Scholar account with your ORCID account, even though they trust ORCID to verify that you wrote the papers.
This paper sounds legitimate to me. If it was made up, it would be a fraud, not a spoof. That's unlikely, because the authors come from the most legitimate institutions there are (The University of Oxford, The National University of Singapore). ArXiv verifies institutional affiliation. Even if it is made up, the experiment is plausible.
I can get how it sounds like a spoof. I laughed out loud at:
> We simulate the electric fields and capacitance shifts using ANSYS Maxwell where the tardigrade is modelled as a cube of length 100μm
I.e, they literally assume a cubical tardigrade in a vacuum!
Actually, I did present this experiment as a spoof, at a physics department O-week camp 20 years ago. I think we used a monkey instead of a tardigrade. It was as lame as it sounds.
> My favorite laugh line from the paper: "Maximum likelihood estimation was then employed to prevent the resulting density matrix from having nonphysical properties."
What they did is totally legitimate. Reconstructing density matrices is numerically unstable, a bit like any computerized tomography. This is similar to constraining a noisy CAT scan, to avoid the "nonphysical property" that the air at some point in your lungs has density less than zero.
Engtangling a live animal is a hell of a party trick. No doubt about that. So how much does this matter scientifically? Here we're getting into subjective territory, and what follows is my opinion.
The surprising aspect is biological, not physical. I might have guessed that, if you cooled a tardigrade to the temperature that quantum electronics operate at, you could use it as a quantum electronic component. I wouldn't have guessed that the tardigrade would get up and walk away afterwards!
The philosophical significance? It depends, of course. For materialists like me, who make sense of quantum wierdness the Everettian way, it makes no difference. Of course electrons can get entangled, and the electrons in a tardigrade—or a physicist—are still electrons. (The price we pay is a very, very, odd sense of personal identity.)
For idealists, this is quite a big deal. If you insist that you are a definite state of consciousness, then you need to draw a line somewhere, between the part of the universe that is you, and the other parts that can be quantum superpositions. Twenty years ago, that was easy: you're an animal, not an atom, duh.
This makes it a bit harder: you're a ... big animal? How big, exactly? You could be some non-electronic degree of freedom, but surely that's a stretch neurologically.
It's a lot easier to draw a categorical distinction of animal vs mineral than of human-like observers vs other animals. If they can entangle a tardigrade, then in principle they could entangle your pet dog. Is it much comfort that they can't, yet, entangle you?
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=C6BzRwwAAAAJ
You'll have to take my word for it, as I don't currently have a university job. For some reason, Google doesn't let you authenticate your Scholar account with your ORCID account, even though they trust ORCID to verify that you wrote the papers.
This paper sounds legitimate to me. If it was made up, it would be a fraud, not a spoof. That's unlikely, because the authors come from the most legitimate institutions there are (The University of Oxford, The National University of Singapore). ArXiv verifies institutional affiliation. Even if it is made up, the experiment is plausible.
I can get how it sounds like a spoof. I laughed out loud at:
> We simulate the electric fields and capacitance shifts using ANSYS Maxwell where the tardigrade is modelled as a cube of length 100μm
I.e, they literally assume a cubical tardigrade in a vacuum!
Actually, I did present this experiment as a spoof, at a physics department O-week camp 20 years ago. I think we used a monkey instead of a tardigrade. It was as lame as it sounds.
> My favorite laugh line from the paper: "Maximum likelihood estimation was then employed to prevent the resulting density matrix from having nonphysical properties."
What they did is totally legitimate. Reconstructing density matrices is numerically unstable, a bit like any computerized tomography. This is similar to constraining a noisy CAT scan, to avoid the "nonphysical property" that the air at some point in your lungs has density less than zero.
Engtangling a live animal is a hell of a party trick. No doubt about that. So how much does this matter scientifically? Here we're getting into subjective territory, and what follows is my opinion.
The surprising aspect is biological, not physical. I might have guessed that, if you cooled a tardigrade to the temperature that quantum electronics operate at, you could use it as a quantum electronic component. I wouldn't have guessed that the tardigrade would get up and walk away afterwards!
The philosophical significance? It depends, of course. For materialists like me, who make sense of quantum wierdness the Everettian way, it makes no difference. Of course electrons can get entangled, and the electrons in a tardigrade—or a physicist—are still electrons. (The price we pay is a very, very, odd sense of personal identity.)
For idealists, this is quite a big deal. If you insist that you are a definite state of consciousness, then you need to draw a line somewhere, between the part of the universe that is you, and the other parts that can be quantum superpositions. Twenty years ago, that was easy: you're an animal, not an atom, duh.
This makes it a bit harder: you're a ... big animal? How big, exactly? You could be some non-electronic degree of freedom, but surely that's a stretch neurologically.
It's a lot easier to draw a categorical distinction of animal vs mineral than of human-like observers vs other animals. If they can entangle a tardigrade, then in principle they could entangle your pet dog. Is it much comfort that they can't, yet, entangle you?
Note that they describe using a tun, which is a form of tardigrade which has evacuated pretty much all water and is metabolically inert. These forms can survive thousands of years of harsh conditions and have effectively no chemical activity. None of this work would translate beyond organisms that enter such states.
I won't really comment on whether the authors did what they said, except to point out that academics are highly incentivized to make their work sound both more "significant" (that is, important beyond what they did in their lab) and "impressive" (that is, a greater technical achievement than what they did in their lab).
I won't really comment on whether the authors did what they said, except to point out that academics are highly incentivized to make their work sound both more "significant" (that is, important beyond what they did in their lab) and "impressive" (that is, a greater technical achievement than what they did in their lab).
The biology is even more interesting than I thought. These things have brains, which shut down, then reboot when they rehydrate. Wow!
Thanks! I appreciate the detailed and super interesting explanation.
I may be wrong, but my sense is that the authors confused things a bit for the general internet reader by (let's say) not entirely resisting the troll potential here.
I may be wrong, but my sense is that the authors confused things a bit for the general internet reader by (let's say) not entirely resisting the troll potential here.
> not entirely resisting the troll potential here
Entirely possible. The sad thing is, when I've seen physicists take the "no such thing as bad publicity" approach, it's worked. University presidents watch the news too.
Entirely possible. The sad thing is, when I've seen physicists take the "no such thing as bad publicity" approach, it's worked. University presidents watch the news too.
Don't know what to say, I'm speechless. We all love us some tardigrades, but this is quite a statement about the resilience of life. If anything from here can colonize the universe, it's these guys.
I'm not really sure what they're trying to accomplish here, but I never thought I'd read a quantum physics-related paper with the sentences:
"We place a tardigrade tun on a superconducting transmon qubit and observe coupling between the qubit and the tardigrade tun via a shift in the resonance frequency of the new qubit-tardigrade system. This joint qubit-tardigrade system is then entangled with a second superconducting qubit."
"We place a tardigrade tun on a superconducting transmon qubit and observe coupling between the qubit and the tardigrade tun via a shift in the resonance frequency of the new qubit-tardigrade system. This joint qubit-tardigrade system is then entangled with a second superconducting qubit."
Same - it’s technically impressive, but I just have no idea what one can Do with this, it’s so incredibly weird.
Presumably, changes in the quantum state of the tardigrade's atoms could be inferred from the state of the qubits, thus potentially allowing chemical activity inside cells to be monitored without dissections.
It might be quite the stretch, but possibly one day real beam-me-up-scotty quantum teleportation of a living thing.
“ Here we not only go beyond Bohr’s complementarity by entangling a living system to two superconducting quantum bits, but we also expose an additional twist in areas where quantum physics, chemistry and biology all overlap. Namely, the living system we study is a tardigrade which is capable of suspending its living functions for an indefinite amount of time if the external conditions are deemed to be adverse enough for survival [2]. In that sense, and this is a point that Bohr certainly missed, it is possible to do a quantum and hence a chemical study of a system, without destroying its ability to function biologically.”
I would argue that it isn’t living when it’s at mK temperatures, but that it is frozen/dead but revivable (like the children who have fallen recently off of bridges in to frozen rivers and been revived hours later).
Life is amazing.
I would argue that it isn’t living when it’s at mK temperatures, but that it is frozen/dead but revivable (like the children who have fallen recently off of bridges in to frozen rivers and been revived hours later).
Life is amazing.
Sort of a big philosophical question in quantum physics is what would be the experience of an entangled consciousness being (say, a human).
However if you have to freeze the human to a complete metabolic halt (to achieve coherence), then it seems that it wouldn't be able to experience anything at all? And if you don't freeze the human, then it would be impossible to entangle it with an external system?
Then, I guess one could argue that you could build a more thermally efficient system (say an AGI) that can experience and tell us about what it feels like to be entangled. But in order for it to experience/think, it would need to do some computation, so is subject to the Landauer's limit, and would need to release heat, which will also break the coherence? Has anyone done this kind of calculation?
However if you have to freeze the human to a complete metabolic halt (to achieve coherence), then it seems that it wouldn't be able to experience anything at all? And if you don't freeze the human, then it would be impossible to entangle it with an external system?
Then, I guess one could argue that you could build a more thermally efficient system (say an AGI) that can experience and tell us about what it feels like to be entangled. But in order for it to experience/think, it would need to do some computation, so is subject to the Landauer's limit, and would need to release heat, which will also break the coherence? Has anyone done this kind of calculation?
> what would be the experience of an entangled consciousness being
Is there any reason to suspect it wouldn't feel completely normal? Obviously whether we're entangled all the time varies depending on which model of QM you're working with (any linear model like MW would say we are), but I can't think of an interpretation that would predict a difference in subjective experience of a quantum system that's entangled from the POV of some observer outside the system.
Is there any reason to suspect it wouldn't feel completely normal? Obviously whether we're entangled all the time varies depending on which model of QM you're working with (any linear model like MW would say we are), but I can't think of an interpretation that would predict a difference in subjective experience of a quantum system that's entangled from the POV of some observer outside the system.
> Is there any reason to suspect it wouldn't feel completely normal?
Exactly
> an interpretation that would predict a difference in subjective experience
Chaos makes this effectively impossible to achieve, but: what if you (embedded in the experiment) could achieve the exact same end state via multiple different intermediate states, ie in one case you observed the qubit on, and in the other you observed it off. Now what would you remember?
Exactly
> an interpretation that would predict a difference in subjective experience
Chaos makes this effectively impossible to achieve, but: what if you (embedded in the experiment) could achieve the exact same end state via multiple different intermediate states, ie in one case you observed the qubit on, and in the other you observed it off. Now what would you remember?
If you achieved the exact same end state, then by definition all of those paths would have the same subjective memory. The only way to achieve the exact same end state is if you actually didn't observe the qubit in two different states, or if you forgot about it. Your brain would be the same at the end.
Agreed, it would have to be the same subjective memory, and you're right it's not a very interesting question. You'd probably have to either not observe it, or forget about it.
What's most intriguing is that it lends support to Roger Penrose's theories of the role of quantum mechanics in the brain. Here's a nice article: https://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-wh...
And if that's true, then our notions of AI are seriously underestimated. (Which is what biologist Brian J Ford has been saying for a long time...)
Quantum mechanics rocked the physics world a century ago, perhaps now it will do the same to biology and computer science...?
And if that's true, then our notions of AI are seriously underestimated. (Which is what biologist Brian J Ford has been saying for a long time...)
Quantum mechanics rocked the physics world a century ago, perhaps now it will do the same to biology and computer science...?
same authors and their previous paper about magnetized cockroaches
https://www.quantumlah.org/about/highlight/2019-09-cockroach...
>The award was presented for the paper “In-vivo biomagnetic characterisation of the American cockroach", published in Scientific Reports in March 2018 by Rainer and five collaborators
https://www.quantumlah.org/about/highlight/2019-09-cockroach...
>The award was presented for the paper “In-vivo biomagnetic characterisation of the American cockroach", published in Scientific Reports in March 2018 by Rainer and five collaborators
Is this parody?
I have the same question. It seems https://www.vlatkovedral.com/entangled-tardigrades/ is serious? and it's by an Oxford prof.
It seems like a social experiment or something..
Yes.
My favorite laugh line from the paper: "Maximum likelihood estimation was then employed to prevent the resulting density matrix from having nonphysical properties."
In other words, "We made up some numbers that looked impressive"
My favorite laugh line from the paper: "Maximum likelihood estimation was then employed to prevent the resulting density matrix from having nonphysical properties."
In other words, "We made up some numbers that looked impressive"
Ok, maybe we'd better downweight this submission. Thanks.
Was downvoted before for asking, but was serious: why was this conducted? What's the scientific value?
Have reread it since and just can't see it, or see the joke if it's meant as one.
Have reread it since and just can't see it, or see the joke if it's meant as one.
[deleted]
I'm not sure what the practical outcome of this will be, but the quantum woo community is going to have a field day with it. Ugh!
What does that even mean? The term "woo" is so condescending and useless.
Well what’s condescending and useless is the crowd of people that, in absence of any understanding or genuine interest in the subject, use words and phrases from quantum mechanics to enforce their beliefs or sell snake oil to others. I can see the books and blog posts and motivational videos now:
“Entangle yourself to your successful universe”
“Science proves life is quantum”
“What entanglement to life proves about our spiritual path”
“
“Entangle yourself to your successful universe”
“Science proves life is quantum”
“What entanglement to life proves about our spiritual path”
“
Is this really a thing though? It's a small group of ungrounded people and con artists trying to make money with absurdities like you mention, rather than a widespread phenomenon. Multiverse theory was "woo" until it wasn't. The problem is not with these uneducated fools, but rather with the "woo" category being overly broad and preventing any alternative theories from being posited. Scientists with valid credentials and a body of work are getting bucketed in the "woo" category because their ideas don't fit the prevailing model.
You’re right. People searching for meaning in life and selling positive messages is so condescending, annoying, and useless. Scientific findings could never serve as useful metaphors for the human condition. I almost took scientific advice from a spiritual blogger once - that was a close one!
The issue is when these metaphors aren’t presented or interpreted as such but as literally physical reality.
It’s the difference between seeing the Bible as inspirational and believing that the earth is literally 6000 old and Christ Is Coming Back Soon; take this course to prepare to Meet Him.
If you compromise on truth in order to further your goals, you’re just priming people to be susceptible to conspiracy theories and other actually harmful untruthful ideas like that Bill Gates literally is putting nanochips inside vaccines.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most of my hippie friends seem to have turned antivaxx on unscientific grounds lately.
It’s the difference between seeing the Bible as inspirational and believing that the earth is literally 6000 old and Christ Is Coming Back Soon; take this course to prepare to Meet Him.
If you compromise on truth in order to further your goals, you’re just priming people to be susceptible to conspiracy theories and other actually harmful untruthful ideas like that Bill Gates literally is putting nanochips inside vaccines.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most of my hippie friends seem to have turned antivaxx on unscientific grounds lately.
It’s not necessarily meaningless, but that doesn’t mean it’s not absolute rubbish, in reality. People can find meaningful, useful, comfort in anything. I’ve seen people who put clovers in their wallets, rocks/crystals in their pockets/necklaces, perfumes/oils, wear special clothes/socks, etc. It doesn’t mean those items are anything but those items. The thoughts of those items is what’s magical, not the items themselves. In fact, physical existence isn’t even required!
Yes, exactly.
>> People searching for meaning in life and selling positive messages is so condescending, annoying, and useless
In some cases,absolutely! If the results of such bending of meaning weren't actively harmful (eg Vaccine denialism) perhaps it could be ignored.
In some cases,absolutely! If the results of such bending of meaning weren't actively harmful (eg Vaccine denialism) perhaps it could be ignored.
All ideas have more or less merit. Address them individually based on their grounding in facts and evidence rather than a priori bucketing an arbitrary subset of ideas with a label. It's no different than calling people "libtards". You mention "woo" with annoyance before anyone even said anything, indicating a strong bias.
Look, it’s just a convenient term for working scientists to use to categorize a group of people who are not worth listening to at all (in the scientific realm). Quantum physics gets a lot of this because it’s spooky but all fields experience some amount of quackery. Think people who send P=NP proofs to universities, “alternate” historians, flat earthers, and the like.
Imagine if there were coding boot camps that were entirely based on developing a good vibe with the computer, and didn’t involve learning about how to write code at all. People go in, “learn” something, but then they try to get a coding job and fall flat on their face because they don’t actually know anything. This is exactly the state of quantum physics re: the general public. I would guess as a scientist it would get demoralizing.
Imagine if there were coding boot camps that were entirely based on developing a good vibe with the computer, and didn’t involve learning about how to write code at all. People go in, “learn” something, but then they try to get a coding job and fall flat on their face because they don’t actually know anything. This is exactly the state of quantum physics re: the general public. I would guess as a scientist it would get demoralizing.
> Imagine if there were coding boot camps that were entirely based on developing a good vibe with the computer
From my experience the industry is sorely lacking people who have developed a good vibe with the computer and we can probably trace the root cause of a lot of the major systemic issues we see to that. This boot camp sounds great.
From my experience the industry is sorely lacking people who have developed a good vibe with the computer and we can probably trace the root cause of a lot of the major systemic issues we see to that. This boot camp sounds great.
OMG, +2 for this bootcamp. I think the above comment about shroomwater in a camelback applies here.
> Imagine if there were coding boot camps that were entirely based on developing a good vibe with the computer...
Not quite zen cracking, but that's getting closer to the old +ORC ideology.
Not quite zen cracking, but that's getting closer to the old +ORC ideology.
Nah. Ridicule them ruthlessly and bring back the shame to being an idiot. One idiot's quantum entanglement with a tardigrade is another idiot's claim that antifa created the tornadoes that devastated Kentucky. Can't they see how much they have in common with each other?
While we are making broad generalizations, the problem with people who shame "them" (whomever you think "they" are) is that everything is binary, it's either the prevailing theory, or it's insane idiocy. There's no room in between, so even if you are scientist who put in good work but diverge a bit from the mainstream you get labeled as "woo". Labels are horrible lazy tools is my point. Just address the assertion itself.
Except it's not at all like that. There are definitely media sorts and influencers whose followings are based on you believing that's the case so they can portray your faction as some sort of victim of nefarious elitists to keep you glued to their content, but it's never been a good idea (for example) to call a debate between an astronomer and a flat-earther in any way fair and balanced, yet it's those sorts of contrived ridiculous scenarios 24/7 now for top advertising $$$. You might need a new hobby if your find yourself in the midst of anything like that.
Will you address my claim that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter?
If not, why not?
If not, why not?
My point was about a broad categorization, not individual bad ideas and theories. Building up a general intolerance to a vague and broad category called "woo" ends up in you calling a non-zero percentage of viable theories "woo" because it's outside of your world model, rather than being contradictory with evidence.
It's the science equivalent of labeling someone a "conspiracy nut" in politics, where CIA manipulation of the media (a real thing with plenty of evidence) gets bucketed with reptilian overlords to unfairly denigrate the former valid theory.
There is absolutely a ruling class with personal interest in the status quo within the scientific community that applies unthinking skepticism to perfectly valid ideas to protect their own agendas. I'd recommend listening to Dr. Avi Loeb's thoughts on this.
It's the science equivalent of labeling someone a "conspiracy nut" in politics, where CIA manipulation of the media (a real thing with plenty of evidence) gets bucketed with reptilian overlords to unfairly denigrate the former valid theory.
There is absolutely a ruling class with personal interest in the status quo within the scientific community that applies unthinking skepticism to perfectly valid ideas to protect their own agendas. I'd recommend listening to Dr. Avi Loeb's thoughts on this.
The way I’ve always heard it used, it basically means “scientific sounding words/sentences that are actually gibberish, used to make something with little or no evidence sound more credible to laypeople“. If you’re in the business of selling laypeople on fancy terms to mislead them, then sure, it’s condescending, but I think condescension is warranted in that case.
You pretty much nailed it: "woo" is something that is so useless as to be worthy of condescension when it is presented otherwise (which woo invariably is).
> The term "woo" is so condescending and useless.
This is what makes it so effective of a term, as it accurately describes the activities, behaviors, and ideologies to which it is applied!
This is what makes it so effective of a term, as it accurately describes the activities, behaviors, and ideologies to which it is applied!
Your post is exactly what is wrong here - we haven't even discussed any particular ideology. This is no different from McCarthyism. "They" are out there, and we must not allow them to continue, even though we aren't even talking about a particular person or ideology.
I categorically reject your slippery slope claim that we can't speak openly and negatively about socially maladaptive group behaviors regarding new age-ism philosophies and ideologies identified as "woo", especially when they use terms of science they misattribute and do not understand.
> This is no different from McCarthyism
What US Government official are blacklisting actors, politicians, and public officials for practicing new age-ism analogously to what McCarthy did for real and alleged communist sympathizers? None of note. And if there is legislation introduced that bans non-harming practices of belief, let us join arms and fight it together.
In case you've read more into my comment or this chain, here is a recap:
Here is what you said:
>>>> The term "woo" is so condescending and useless.
Here is what I said:
>>> This is what makes it so effective of a term, as it accurately describes the activities, behaviors, and ideologies to which it is applied!
Note:
- No "they"
- No calls for persecution
What you read in my comment is simply an identification that the term "woo" accurately describes people who misapply attributes of quantum behavior to new age claims (and those who accept such attribution), as it is apt as one that describes the uselessness and base superstitiousness of such behavior, activities, and supporting ideologies.
> This is no different from McCarthyism
What US Government official are blacklisting actors, politicians, and public officials for practicing new age-ism analogously to what McCarthy did for real and alleged communist sympathizers? None of note. And if there is legislation introduced that bans non-harming practices of belief, let us join arms and fight it together.
In case you've read more into my comment or this chain, here is a recap:
Here is what you said:
>>>> The term "woo" is so condescending and useless.
Here is what I said:
>>> This is what makes it so effective of a term, as it accurately describes the activities, behaviors, and ideologies to which it is applied!
Note:
- No "they"
- No calls for persecution
What you read in my comment is simply an identification that the term "woo" accurately describes people who misapply attributes of quantum behavior to new age claims (and those who accept such attribution), as it is apt as one that describes the uselessness and base superstitiousness of such behavior, activities, and supporting ideologies.
People with (often) new age mystical beliefs justify them with unconventional, incompletely understood, or naïve views of QM. Like the belief in the healing effects of crystals due to some quantum effect or that consciousness is generated by quantum effects in neurons.
I seriously doubt any quantum mysticism is true, and I'm happy to defer to the physicists to get my woo from QM as in this experiment.
I seriously doubt any quantum mysticism is true, and I'm happy to defer to the physicists to get my woo from QM as in this experiment.
Maybe don't tar Penrose with the same brush ?
Penrose, who's probably my favorite living physicist, is far from the only person who's attempted to connect QM to everything mental from consciousness, free will, qualia to telepathy or the efficacy of prayer. QM is a god-of-the-gaps for mental things we don't understand or don't really exist. And it plays that role in plenty of other places.
One good reason for not lumping ORR in with crystal healing (beyond the rigor and erudition applied to the theories) is that ORR addresses what most would consider a real mystery in our understanding of the mind (however you define that), while crystal healing addresses something demonstrably false.
I'll still contend there's some quantum woo to ORR, but for that reason it's been a brave attempt to further scientific knowledge.
One good reason for not lumping ORR in with crystal healing (beyond the rigor and erudition applied to the theories) is that ORR addresses what most would consider a real mystery in our understanding of the mind (however you define that), while crystal healing addresses something demonstrably false.
I'll still contend there's some quantum woo to ORR, but for that reason it's been a brave attempt to further scientific knowledge.
I can and I will. “Quantum effects” doesn’t mean magic - things like paint color come from “quantum effects” - but he is using it to mean brains are magic.
Maybe be more specific in what you're referring to?
> consciousness is generated by quantum effects in neurons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reducti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reducti...
Demand operationalization of “woo”! Otherwise, it’s just another form of self satisfied group think
Thank you, at least one person here gets what I'm saying. When the definition of "woo" is so vague, it gets applied to things it shouldn't and becomes recursively self-referential itself
[deleted]
I guess they mean the “What the bleep do we know?” and CCC (not chaos computer club) crowd
"Consider a spherical tardigrade in vacuum..."
The future of quantum computers: scientists watch how a few tardigrades navigate a labyrinth, make notes in complete silence and with a straight face expression update the chalkboard filled with GR/QM equations.
> The animal is then observed to return to its active form after 420 hours at sub 10 mK temperatures and pressure of 6×10^-6 mbar, setting a new record for the conditions that a complex form of life can survive.
!!!
!!!
We need to take control of the tardigrade DNA and use it to build space stations, terraform new planets and whatever else we might need as the uncontested TardiGods of the Galaxy.
we must never ever release tardigrades onto an alien planet.
definitely not a desert planet. or one named Arrakis. or Dune
oh wait... we must
definitely not a desert planet. or one named Arrakis. or Dune
oh wait... we must
Incredible. They paused his ass
[deleted]
I think we should throw a tardigrade at a black hole
Don't you remember? That's how we got into this mess in the first place!
We've already bombarded the moon with them...
https://www.wired.com/story/a-crashed-israeli-lunar-lander-s...
https://www.wired.com/story/a-crashed-israeli-lunar-lander-s...
Do you want cthulhu?
I want cthulhu. Don't let the pandemic ruin your sense of fun.
kingcharles(1)
[deleted]
Obviously quantum entanglement is how the tardigrade remains connected to the subspace mycelial network. I’m surprised they don’t mention this.
Please don’t give me flashbacks to that horse crap.
Horse crap grows the best mushrooms, I hear.
And modern Star Trek rocks. Definitely a different groove but a fun one regardless.
And modern Star Trek rocks. Definitely a different groove but a fun one regardless.
The first season was fun. The second and third seasons were a fantasy soap opera almost totally divorced from what makes Star Trek great.
The third season was where we saw the TNG level of writing for the first time since TNG. The admiral speeches and negotiations with the chain are magnificent.
edit: my poor spelling.
edit: my poor spelling.
The admiral was great; Michael and other characters crying/shouting almost constantly were not. They are supposed to be the best of the best, yet they behaved like whiny teenagers.
I believe that they were interns fresh out of the academy so they _are_ teenagers that were thrown into war.
No excuse for Michael though, she really put me off.
To their credit they did joke about get behaviour in season 3.
No excuse for Michael though, she really put me off.
To their credit they did joke about get behaviour in season 3.
Maybe you are right, but god was she annoying.
On the other hand, I really loved Saru. Getting him replaced as captain... I don't know if I want to watch season 4 :/
On the other hand, I really loved Saru. Getting him replaced as captain... I don't know if I want to watch season 4 :/
Hear hear!
No no, that's Cow crap you're thinking of.
Not according to my psychonaut brother-in-law ;-).
Apparently Disneyland + shroomwater in a camelpak make you really think its a small world after all.
Apparently Disneyland + shroomwater in a camelpak make you really think its a small world after all.
Huh, never heard of horse crap shrooms. Only heard of the cow crap ones.
Maybe cow crap makes for regular 'ol shrooms, but horse crap makes for great shrooms?
Maybe cow crap makes for regular 'ol shrooms, but horse crap makes for great shrooms?
As a second-hand hearer of a story, perhaps we should find out together!*
* I am not advocating for the use of drugs.
* I am not advocating for the use of drugs.
> * I am not advocating for the use of drugs.
I am! :P
I am! :P
> And modern Star Trek rocks.
+1 on that. Those snobs are tiresome. Firs they shitted ST: Enterprise out of existence (which now they keep on whining how underrated it was), now they are pooping all over the place on all modern stuff.
+1 on that. Those snobs are tiresome. Firs they shitted ST: Enterprise out of existence (which now they keep on whining how underrated it was), now they are pooping all over the place on all modern stuff.
Modern Star Trek is basically just Space: 1999 with better special effects. I don't understand why they insist on calling it Star Trek when it's nothing like the show.
> I don't understand why they insist on calling it Star Trek when it's nothing like the show.
Here are some of the elements off the top of my head
1. Takes place in the same universe
2. The characters belong to Starfleet
3. Spock
4. Based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry
5. *spoiler* Cardassian Federation President in Season 4
6. Trills
7. Warp drives
8. Replicators
9. Romulans merging with Vulcans to reunify
10. Synthetic humanoid modeled after Data, Lore, etc.
11. New stuff like Tardigrades
12. Mirror universe
13. Unified earth
14. Klingons
15. Ferengi
I mean, I get it, original Star Trek is super campy, but like all the ST since ST:TOS, ST:D is inclusive, prioritizes working together to solve monumental challenges, and breaks cultural barriers many people don't even realize exist unless they are marginalized.
And damn, they got amazing Tardigrades. Such a cool run at the concept. I really enjoy the show for what it is, not to satisfy some deep longing for legacy Star Trek. Picard satisfies the legacy urges nicely.
Here are some of the elements off the top of my head
1. Takes place in the same universe
2. The characters belong to Starfleet
3. Spock
4. Based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry
5. *spoiler* Cardassian Federation President in Season 4
6. Trills
7. Warp drives
8. Replicators
9. Romulans merging with Vulcans to reunify
10. Synthetic humanoid modeled after Data, Lore, etc.
11. New stuff like Tardigrades
12. Mirror universe
13. Unified earth
14. Klingons
15. Ferengi
I mean, I get it, original Star Trek is super campy, but like all the ST since ST:TOS, ST:D is inclusive, prioritizes working together to solve monumental challenges, and breaks cultural barriers many people don't even realize exist unless they are marginalized.
And damn, they got amazing Tardigrades. Such a cool run at the concept. I really enjoy the show for what it is, not to satisfy some deep longing for legacy Star Trek. Picard satisfies the legacy urges nicely.
Since they retconned basically everything in the old universe out of existence, ... no. It's not the same universe.
The old show was about professional people working together to do their job, the new show is about a team of people acting like a bunch of immature teenagers, completely driven by whatever emotion happens to come over them this episode, always acting short sighted and having arguments and panic attacks. It's exactly the sort of junk psychology that made Space: 1999 such an awful show. Like, how are these people allowed aboard a space ship. Wouldn't calm-under-pressure be the first thing you look in when you recruit someone for a position like that?
The old show was about professional people working together to do their job, the new show is about a team of people acting like a bunch of immature teenagers, completely driven by whatever emotion happens to come over them this episode, always acting short sighted and having arguments and panic attacks. It's exactly the sort of junk psychology that made Space: 1999 such an awful show. Like, how are these people allowed aboard a space ship. Wouldn't calm-under-pressure be the first thing you look in when you recruit someone for a position like that?
I just finished a rewatch of Star Trek the original series and wow professionals working together to do their job is... So not what that show is. I don't like Discovery but TOS is absolutely people acting emotional and unprofessionally in basically every single episode. It is hilarious.
Watching TOS in full was very eye opening to how much current cultural memory of what that show was doesn't match what was actually in the show.
Watching TOS in full was very eye opening to how much current cultural memory of what that show was doesn't match what was actually in the show.
I've learned that people get *really* tied up in cultural kitsch they experienced as children. Given syndication, this means we get kids absolutely adoring movies and television shows that are awful.
Personal example I believe is representative. I grew up with three movies we'd watch in this hacked-together Frankenstein of a travel van with a tiny TV: Dantes Peak, The Cowboy Way, and Mac and Me. I'm 100% sure these were picked up in the bargain bin sale.
I loved them all at the time, because at the time they represented all the excitement of a vacation -- none were great, and Mac and Me is objectively TERRIBLE!!!
I keep an ear out for these kinds of things. ST:TOS definitely hits this note, long and loud (there was a reason there were few seasons). So does ST:TNG, but its actually really good.
Personal example I believe is representative. I grew up with three movies we'd watch in this hacked-together Frankenstein of a travel van with a tiny TV: Dantes Peak, The Cowboy Way, and Mac and Me. I'm 100% sure these were picked up in the bargain bin sale.
I loved them all at the time, because at the time they represented all the excitement of a vacation -- none were great, and Mac and Me is objectively TERRIBLE!!!
I keep an ear out for these kinds of things. ST:TOS definitely hits this note, long and loud (there was a reason there were few seasons). So does ST:TNG, but its actually really good.
Absolutely, we form such weird attachments to things we saw as kids that we don't really remember well at all.
ST:TOS I highly recommend because it remains engaging/entertaining and is fascinating to see as a lens into the late 60s, but "good" it is not.
ST:TNG I love and I think is the better show but it shocked me too when I tried to rewatch in order after ST:TOS. The first seasons are not great! I really had erased a lot of it from my memory. I realize now that it's not until a couple seasons in that it became the show I remember, that show was lucky to hang in there long enough to hit its stride.
ST:TOS I highly recommend because it remains engaging/entertaining and is fascinating to see as a lens into the late 60s, but "good" it is not.
ST:TNG I love and I think is the better show but it shocked me too when I tried to rewatch in order after ST:TOS. The first seasons are not great! I really had erased a lot of it from my memory. I realize now that it's not until a couple seasons in that it became the show I remember, that show was lucky to hang in there long enough to hit its stride.
I've been working my way slowly through season 4. It's so creative. I love it.
The dream of a quantum bear has been realized.
As Jeff Kimble used to say, it’s the dreams stuff is made of.
Torturing Tardigrades For Fun and Profit^X^X^X^X^X^X^X Citations.
Tardigrades are amazing and so is this. But I fully expect the next experiment will end with facehugger sized tardigrades tearing through some Black Mesa-esque lab.
Is it like Schrödinger's Tardigrade?
Not unless they kill it conditionally on the value of a qubit. But in fact they 'merely' affected some charges on the tardigrade. Its living/dead status was not entangled.
Although with tardigrades, it's not as if anyone can tell.
I hope this is not the beginning of quantum tardigrade computing. (Because that has Netflix Original all over it.)
I hope this is not the beginning of quantum tardigrade computing. (Because that has Netflix Original all over it.)
No. It's more like alive versus Schrödinger's Tardigrade.
Does this mean the spore drive is on it's way :)
Blaze it
Either the story is interesting and significant [1] or it shouldn't be on HN's front page. Either way, the thread shouldn't fill up with shallow internet reflux. I get that the novelty of this story is activating, but we're trying for something different here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[1] which does seem to be the case? I can't really tell. But this alone is significant: "setting a new record for the conditions that a complex form of life can survive"
Edit: I'm downweighting this as some sort of parody, barring more information.