[konraDarnok]

It is always a pitty if non-physicists read things like this and start believing everything could become possible. Nope.

What do you mean "nope?" I'm not claiming anything that isn't cited in the article. I'm certainly not claiming "everything could become possible." Merely what's printed. And if people have an interest, they can search Google Scholar for how the technique is being proposed to image deep space objects and overcome the Rayleigh limit.

[Winder]

Nikon is on to something with the CX-sized 1 series. It is their hedge against the decline of entry-level DSLRs. I predict in 10 years time it will rule the sidelines at youth sporting events and among many amateur and enthusiast photographers.

FWIW, I'm packing for my next motorcycle travel assignment and for the first time in many years I am leaving the K-5 behind. I'm bringing a Panasonic GH2 with 12-35 F2.8 to shoot stills and video, supplemented with the Nikon V1. The Nikon proved itself to me on my last trip. The K-5 has undoubtedly better image quality than both the GH2 and V1, but much of that advantage gets washed away once you are talking about high speed, web press magazine printing. The V1 rocks it with AF and it's much much smaller to boot.

Nikon rethinks 1 System and cuts 2013 forecast citing poor sales: Digital Photography Review

[falconeye]

I'm not claiming anything that isn't cited in the article

You actually did. And the article in itself made false promises too (or at least was suggesting them -- tank in the desert ...).

Rather than referring to a Google search, let me refer to http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.2614v1 and the role of the near-field detector (named bucket detector in the article). It is always important to understand. Simply quoting from articles is one of the big illnesses of the internet age.

[Daemos]

FWIW, my father had corrective surgery 15 years ago and says it's the greatest thing ever, and most people I know with glasses would do it if they could afford it. YMMV.

I didn't think corrective surgery was too expensive, depending on which tech is being used. That being said, I have a science/research/heath care background, and I've worked with plenty of ophthalmologists, and many of them still wear corrective lenses (in contact lens form). Although to be honest I haven't kept up with the latest research on laser eye surgery. That being said, non-laser based vision corrective surgery like lens-replacement surgery is also very good (being a strong alternative for people who do not qualify for laser eye surgery).

[Aristophanes]

Moores law isn't applying to viewfinders.

One analogy is watches. Digital watches was going to take over the world. No moving parts and much cheaper. I saw a Seiko (or Citizen or whatever) brochure around 1980 and there was one analog watch in there (for the luddites presumably) among all the digital. Now you're lucky to find any digital watches except for niche watches. As with viewfinders, watches are for looking at (or through for viewfinders) and the old way was much more intuitive in spite of higher cost and more moving parts. Also, mechanical watches have increased in popularity in spite of old technology, incredible level of precision, lots of mechanical parts and significantly higher cost. .

They still sell sundials, too.

I think you need an app to rememebr how to use one

[Class A]

As for quantum computing: I am personally convinced that taking the interaction of energy density with quantum fields into account (aka as quantum gravity theory, a theory still to be discovered) will break the strict linearity of quantum mechanics thereby destroying the possibility of a larger scale quantum computer and resolving the Schrödinger's Cat paradox.

Is the Schrödinger's Cat paradox already resolved by the notion of an unconscious observer? I can't see what would be wrong about it.

[Uluru]

Is the Schrödinger's Cat paradox already resolved by the notion of an unconscious observer? ...

ROFL ...

[bvg]

Is the Schrödinger's Cat paradox already resolved by the notion of an unconscious observer?

Yes. If the observer is unconscious, what is matter to him, is the cat died or no?

[falconeye]

unconscious observer?

But no, observers need to be conscious to observe ( Quantum mind?body problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

Wigner replaced the Cat by his Friend and named it Wigner's Friend Paradox. I had the chance to have a conversation with Eugene Wigner about this and he considered the paradox to be as unresolved as when he stated it originally.

And I don't buy the Many World interpretation either, it is against Occam's razor.

Being a Theoretical Physicist myself and as I already mentioned above, personally I believe that a more universal theory will discover that the linearity of quantum theory is an (excellent) approximation. And that higher-order non-linear terms can cause what is called the collapse of the wave function. (We already got a hint in this direction: the (yet to be discovered) M-theory would have 6 known linear approximations which however have different space-time dimensions; which makes it unlikely (to me) that the M-theory itself would be a linear theory.) If things turn out this way, it would be bad news for quantum computing. So, don't bet your future on it

[Aristophanes]

We need a Heiseneberg camera to take pictures of Schrödinger's Cat so when the unconscious observer wakes up he can look at the photos taken and tell us if it is FF and made by Pentax.

[Class A]

But no, observers need to be conscious to observe...

Not buying it.

This idea is like claiming that if no one is around to hear the tree fall, the latter doesn't make a sound (this is an analogy only).

I've read the reference you provided (thanks) and it is full of criticism towards Wigner's concept.

Does anyone really believe that no wave function ever collapsed on the developing earth before a conscious mind developed?

This seems just absurd to me.

Schrödinger's original thought experiment is a thing of beauty and he nails it when he says

"There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks."

Wigner's extension doesn't add anything useful, AFAIC, and falls into the same ill-guided "the mind is so special" camp as Penrose's idea about the mind not being computable. Not buying that either.

And I don't buy the Many World interpretation either, it is against Occam's razor.

It can be a computational aid, but as to describing "reality", yeah, it would be an expensive variant.

Being a Theoretical Physicist myself and as I already mentioned above, personally I believe that a more universal theory will discover that the linearity of quantum theory is an (excellent) approximation. And that higher-order non-linear terms can cause what is called the collapse of the wave function. (We already got a hint in this direction: the (yet to be discovered) M-theory would have 6 known linear approximations which however have different space-time dimensions; which makes it unlikely (to me) that the M-theory itself would be a linear theory.) If things turn out this way, it would be bad news for quantum computing. So, don't bet your future on it

My personal universe will have ended before a quantum computer ever does something impressive (if ever).

It would be fascinating to have a chat with you in person about your M-theory related ideas. I may run out of steam after a while, though. I followed this stuff for quite a bit but not recently.

BTW, it seems we must have met some day already because I recently found a business card of yours in my drawers!

Somehow I think it could have been during NetObjectDays 2002.

[falconeye]

This idea is like claiming that if no one is around to hear the tree fall, the latter doesn't make a sound (this is an analogy only).

I've read the reference you provided (thanks) and it is full of criticism towards Wigner's concept.

Does anyone really believe that no wave function ever collapsed on the developing earth before a conscious mind developed?

Personally, I think that Wigner's friend is more to the point. The question really isn't if the cat can be in a superimposed state but if the human conscious mind can be. Wigner's thought experiment makes this a bit more clear.

Today, most wouldn't make a big difference between a cat and a human anyway anymore

Wigner's argument is not that a conscious mind must make a wave function collapse (at least, this is not what he told me). But that something in between the quantum scale and the level of a conscious mind (inclusive) must make it collapse.

Your tree argument would mean that it is something in between but exclusive a conscious mind. Note however that this is more speculative than Wigner's argument.

To make Wigner's argument clear: if a conscious mind could be in a superimposed state, than it could make superimposed decisions (like murder or not murder Hitler) and thereby create superimposed universes. A conscious mind is the largest amplificator which we know about. Which would enforce a many world interpretation not originally covered by the Copenhagen interpretation. The many world interpretation has too many problems to be acceptable (IMHO). I think Wigner's argument points this out more clearly than Schrödinger's Cat.

Question to the mods: may it be that we are moving off-topic here?

BTW, it seems we must have met some day already because I recently found a business card of yours in my drawers!

Somehow I think it could have been during NetObjectDays 2002.

Quite possible I was one of the organizers of the Net.ObjectDays series of conferences.

[monochrome]

So, future high end EVFs will use large chips which will both bring betetr resolution and better contrast. Current technology can already do this. But it won't be cheap and Moore's law won't help. However, progress in OLED technology will.

Jim Malcolm mentioned this very thinking in repsonse to our question about EVF's (external and integrated) for Pentax cameras. He (and apparently Pentax) is not convinced current EVF technology is well enough developed to warrant their investment, but believes OLED will get there.

[HawaiianOnline]

And now it's turned into a non-camera related quantum physics discussion....

[monochrome]

Also, mechanical watches have increased in popularity in spite of old technology, incredible level of precision, lots of mechanical parts and significantly higher cost. .

To the user, the utility of knowing the time by viewing the position of the hands on the face has become intuitive. Reading the digits is cognitive. Intuitive is faster and more comfortable.

To me, the interesting change about watches is how the smartphone has reduced the wearing of watches altogether by those under about age 30.