Observer B

Transistor Made Using a Single Atom May Help Beat Moore's Law this is an article I found today about quantum computing research that could potentially break Moore's Law.

Who knows... but I must agree the only way to really appreciate the subject of consciousness is some good old fashioned experimenting. I cant say I read through all these replies but I was surprised to not see anything about The Emperor's New Mind, a book by Roger Penrose [THIS IS NOT SPAM PLEASE DONT BLOCK ME]. Penrose is a bit of a technical writer but this one is an easier read. I thought it was very insightful and might help you understand the subject better.

It doesnt exactly make sense to say the Universe exists in space - that would suggest that the universe is contained IN space, when its more like space is a part of the Universe. But I think the answer to your question is more fundamental than that; if the Universe is everything that exists and there are two Universes existing at the same time, then each one by itself is not the whole of the Universe. If we discovered one day that there was another Universe, we would simply have to change our definition of the Universe to include the new one (or new ones) regardless of what the physical laws looked like. This is why a Theory of Everything is a valued idea in physics.. it would explain everything as one even if there are multiple 'Universes' with unique properties. Of course if the Universe is everything that exists, and the Universe exists, then the Universe itself is part of a larger class - the Universe and everything in it. Unfortunately this is a pretty technical mathematical field that I dont understand too well but you could look into Godel's incompleteness theorems.

You have to consider that this experiment only makes sense if its impossible to observe the system (and the cat is part of the system). Any object inside the box which is interacting with its environment and can be observed completely invalidates the experiment, because we're observing something... the point is that nothing inside the box can be measured or observed, and is therefore unknowable until we observe it. Dead and alive is like flipping a coin. If you flip the coin and never look then you dont know if its heads or tails. Of course a flipped coin is a classical experiment and the result is EITHER heads or tails, not both. In the quantum equivalent of a coin flip (which is demonstrated by the Schrodingers cat experiment) the result can be in a superposition of two states at the same time; headstails / deadalive.

Ah yes, quenching... thats the word I was looking for. Even a little quenching can completely ruin a superconducting material by altering its magnetic properties. This is a huge concern for big research facilities or any organization that uses superconductors.

The Trouble with Physics - Lee Smolin One of the best modern physics books around. Not very technical, and discusses the current state of physics and the problems faced by modern science. The Emperor's New Mind - Roger Penrose A little on the technical side, but not as much as the average Penrose book. This one is about modern science and conciousness. entanglement - Amir Aczel About quantum entanglement. Einstein's Cosmos - Michio Kaku Im not a big Michio fan but this is a pretty good one. Not very technical.

Perhaps you noticed the wikipedia article on Superconductor referenced the Meissner effect, which is "the complete ejection of magnetic field lines from the interior of the superconductor as it transitions into the superconducting state" (A material transitions to the superconducting state when it is cooled below a certain critical temperature). Induction doesnt take place in this situation as it would in any other. The article continues; "In a weak applied field, a superconductor "expels" nearly all magnetic flux. It does this by setting up electric currents near its surface. The magnetic field of these surface currents cancels the applied magnetic field". If you search superconductor in google images you see a lot of this: This is a picture of a magnet hovering over a piece of superconducting material (which has been cooled below its critical temperature; notice the liquid nitrogen evaporating). The magnet hovers because of the Meissner effect. Magnetic flux from the hovering magnet is expelled from the superconducting material below it. Generally induction is thought of as an electromagnetic field influencing the electromagnetic properties of a material, but in this case the material has zero resistance. The magnetic field lines are directly responsible for the electrical currents in the superconducting material which balance them out. So in a way you could say yes, the magnet alters the current in the superconductor, but it generates a current which induces a balancing magnetic field. Power is out of the picture because there is no resistance; the stationary magnetic field is enough to generate a current. I dont think there is a theoretical limit to the amount of current that can be put through a superconducting material, but i also couldnt tell you what a practical limit might be. I think I sill have some information on possible explanations for practical limits, but I'd have to dig it out from my school stuff. Superconductivity has been studied for almost 100 years now but we're still missing a dynamical theory to explain the phenomenon. If you figure it out, you could probably get a nobel prize. Hope this answered at least some of your questions, sorry I couldnt be more specific. I wanted to post this to you sooner but I was accidentally banned because someone thought I posted spam... Seeing as this is only my third post and my first one was in the welcome thing, Im guessing it had to do with one of my posts about opencourseware. Its rather interesting how quick they are around here to block someone out completely with no explanation or any way to contact administrators. I had to reply to the welcome email.

if you like opencourseware you should check out Khan Academy

Im Observer B, and I exist.