What is the biggest problem of our world or the whole human civilization?
Is it lacking full healthcare or good education for everyone?
Or not enough food and/or water for everyone?
Not (good) enough jobs/money for everyone?
Not (good) tech and/or living standards for everyone?
How about the lack of permanent world peace or the lack of (a fair and effective) world government, that quickly solves all problems between any countries of our world?
If we look at the history of our world, we see many big and small nations, city states, kingdoms, empires, countries make wars from time to time.
The problem is how much damage happens to so many people and their property in each war!
Also consider, thanks to keep advancing military weapons (because of the constant power competition between all countries of the world), possible damage from any big/small war is keep increasing all the time, fast!
Besides of wars, big/small countries of our world, also keep running into disagreements that bring bad consequences for one side or both.
Also, who can say the outcome of any particular war/disagreement was really fair for everyone?
Okay but how do we know creating a fair and effective world government is even possible?
Currently we have UN (as a second attempt I believe) but it obviously cannot solve all international problems. Can we really create a new UN (more like a true world government) that is fair and effective for any and all international problems?
In the current UN voting/decision system, each member country has a right for a single vote for each decision. But any (permanent or temporary) member country of the security council has a right for preventing any UN decision. Can we really create a more fair and effective voting/decision system?
What if there was no security council to prevent any decision? Then, obviously, biggest and/or most powerful countries would not accept to have equal voting rights with smallest and/or least powerful countries, and rightfully so IMHO. If so then, what if we find a way to fairly (each year re-)calculate how many votes each country needs to have?
Obviously, first, we would need to find a fair and equal way to evaluate each and all member countries. Imagine in the end of evaluations, each country gets an overall score, to be used as the weight, to calculate the number of its votes.
And to calculate overall scores, what if we put together a big international group of scientists/experts, and asked them to determine a standard set of statistics (and their weights) to evaluate economic/military/industrial/technological/scientific power, land size, population, living standards, healthcare, education of each and all member countries, to calculate a (sub)score for each, and later, apply a standard set of weights to all sub-scores, and add them together, to calculate overall scores for each member country?
20171227
20171224
EMPEROR IS NAKED
What really is the current state of String/M Theory/Theories?
And what practically it really means for the community of phycisists/universities?
IMHO:
How about we always judge current theories of phycists based on, currently and objectively, how much chance (as probability), they (still) have for being correct?
And what exactly, each range of probability of correctness, means for us practically?
I think second question is obviously easier to answer:
1) A new and promising theory of physics comes along then what to do?
New phycisists (or their percentage who really like challenges and taking risks), start studying it, theoretically, experimentally, observationally, by all means.
(Or existing phycisists, who are considering changing their area of expertise, and have similar character :-)
2) Current theoretical/experimental/observational results indicate, the theory, (very) unlikely to be correct then what to do?
Existing experts should continue working on it, by all means.
New phycisists (or ...), should choose studying that theory, with a distribution matching to its current (and objective) probability of correctness.
3) Current theoretical/experimental/observational results indicate, the theory, (very) likely to be correct then what to do?
Again, existing experts should continue working on it, by all means.
Again, new phycisists (or ...), should choose studying that theory, with a distribution matching to its current (and objective) probability of correctness.
(Obviously, in the cases of current state of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, each definitely have .999... probability of correctness, each in their own domain/scale.)
At least ideally, whenever the current probability of correctness of a theory goes lower (because of new theoretical/experimental/observational results) then current percentage of new people choosing to study it also should go lower, and vice versa.
In the case of current state of String/M Theory/Theories/Frameworks, the following is my current personal view/judgement, as just a big fan of physics and nothing more:
I think theoretically or observationally there is really nothing to favor or disfavor String Theory.
And I think, the experimental results (mainly from LHC), directly disfavor Super Symmetry, and indirectly String Theory.
So I think what it practically means for the world of physics is number two above, unless new experimental/observational results change its probability of correctness in the future.
For the reader who read everything above:
My first idea for the title was a simple yet glorious one, "Theories Of Physics".
Later I changed it to "On Theories Of Physics".
Later I changed it again to "Descent of (String) Theory" :-)
And what practically it really means for the community of phycisists/universities?
IMHO:
How about we always judge current theories of phycists based on, currently and objectively, how much chance (as probability), they (still) have for being correct?
And what exactly, each range of probability of correctness, means for us practically?
I think second question is obviously easier to answer:
1) A new and promising theory of physics comes along then what to do?
New phycisists (or their percentage who really like challenges and taking risks), start studying it, theoretically, experimentally, observationally, by all means.
(Or existing phycisists, who are considering changing their area of expertise, and have similar character :-)
2) Current theoretical/experimental/observational results indicate, the theory, (very) unlikely to be correct then what to do?
Existing experts should continue working on it, by all means.
New phycisists (or ...), should choose studying that theory, with a distribution matching to its current (and objective) probability of correctness.
3) Current theoretical/experimental/observational results indicate, the theory, (very) likely to be correct then what to do?
Again, existing experts should continue working on it, by all means.
Again, new phycisists (or ...), should choose studying that theory, with a distribution matching to its current (and objective) probability of correctness.
(Obviously, in the cases of current state of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, each definitely have .999... probability of correctness, each in their own domain/scale.)
At least ideally, whenever the current probability of correctness of a theory goes lower (because of new theoretical/experimental/observational results) then current percentage of new people choosing to study it also should go lower, and vice versa.
In the case of current state of String/M Theory/Theories/Frameworks, the following is my current personal view/judgement, as just a big fan of physics and nothing more:
I think theoretically or observationally there is really nothing to favor or disfavor String Theory.
And I think, the experimental results (mainly from LHC), directly disfavor Super Symmetry, and indirectly String Theory.
So I think what it practically means for the world of physics is number two above, unless new experimental/observational results change its probability of correctness in the future.
For the reader who read everything above:
My first idea for the title was a simple yet glorious one, "Theories Of Physics".
Later I changed it to "On Theories Of Physics".
Later I changed it again to "Descent of (String) Theory" :-)
20171223
ISRAEL AND PALESTINE
The problem between Israel and Palestine was going on for a long time and is does not look like will be resolved anytime soon, IMHO.
I would ask this, are we all want a peaceful solution or not?
We all as the humanity, should always try to find peaceful solutions to any problems between ourselves, or not?
If we all want peace, we should always try to make sure absolutely all possible solutions are considered, or not?
Can we really say, all possible solutions are considered for the problem between Israel and Palestine?
And all of them rejected by Israel and/or Palestine?
I really do not know the answer, and I really do not think anybody else knows the answer, either (but that is just my guess).
I think it is because the problem seems really big and complicated, with a long history.
I think scientific/logical approach would be, try to define the problem precisely first, and try to make a list of all possible solutions, to consider all later.
Obviously, to precisely define the problem, we should try to simplify it as much as possible, at first.
Can we really simplify the problem between Israel and Palestine, so that almost anybody can understand, what is the problem, exactly?
How about trying to find a simple analogy for it first?
Here is an idea (IMHO):
Imagine, you are the current owner of a little farm, and living there with your family.
Your farm was owned by your family going back many generations.
Your farm also contains a little land which is an extremely holy site for you, for your religion.
But you also have a rich neighbor, who really wants to own your land, because, the distant ancestors of the neighbor also owned the same land, for many generations.
And also, the holy site in your little farm was in fact, was first build and used by the distant ancestors of your neighbor, and it is also an extremely holy site for your neighbor, for his religion.
You and your neighbor were keep arguing (even fighting) for many years without finding any solution.
Obviously, the most simple solution would be both sides leaving each other alone, but imagine, that never happened, and does not look like will ever happen.
What other solution possibilities could be considered for the problem?
Here is an idea (IMHO):
What if your rich neighbor offers to buy your farm, for a more than fair, really good price for you?
But how you can sell such holy place for your family to anyone else?
But what if, first, you and your neighbor determined the exact location and size of the common holy land, for both of you?
What if, that holy land would be always belong to you and your neighbor, with equal ownership, as part of the agreement.
What if, you both also determine another co-ownership land, next to the holy land/site, to build a common headquarters, to provide security, repairs, cleaning and so on, to the holy land/site.
What if, you both provided an equal number of people for all services, and they always have to work together, enter, leave the holy land/site.
What if, you both first determined, what are the exact rules for any visitors, what kind of possible situations must be handled, and exactly how.
(Like, for example, what if, multiple groups of visitors from both sides/religions want to use the same part of the holy site, at the same time? Maybe a common scheduling system could be created?)
Assuming you and your neighbor agreed upon the holy site (somehow), would you be okay with selling the rest of your farm to your rich neighbor?
Or you would want to keep arguing/fighting with your neighbor farm? (And you and your neighbor both keep getting/causing harm/damage.)
I think, if I was in this situation, I would be okay with selling (non-holy site part of) my farm, but only if, it is absolutely certain I would get a new (and better) farm.
So, what if, Palestine sells all its land to Israel (except the holy site), for an agreed price.
What if, as part of the agreement, we need to find another country in the Middle East, willing to sell a large piece of land to the people of Palestine, to build a new (modern and luxurious) city, and start their own new independent country there?
What if, as part of the agreement, UN would need to officially recognize the new Palestine, as a new and independent country?
What if, as part of the agreement, Israel (and UN/US?) would need to guarantee protection of the new Palestine state, against any possible future invasion/takeover attempts, by anyone from outside?
If we look at the history of our world, I think there countless times a whole nation (country) got relocated.
Also some large lands were bought/sold with agreement (sometimes fair, sometimes not), instead of war/invasion.
Can we do it in our modern times, without war/invasion, and with a really agreed upon and fair deal for both sides?
IMHO, one thing is certain, humanity would be gaining/accomplishing a lot, if we learn to solve our international big problems (at least), always in peaceful ways.
I would ask this, are we all want a peaceful solution or not?
We all as the humanity, should always try to find peaceful solutions to any problems between ourselves, or not?
If we all want peace, we should always try to make sure absolutely all possible solutions are considered, or not?
Can we really say, all possible solutions are considered for the problem between Israel and Palestine?
And all of them rejected by Israel and/or Palestine?
I really do not know the answer, and I really do not think anybody else knows the answer, either (but that is just my guess).
I think it is because the problem seems really big and complicated, with a long history.
I think scientific/logical approach would be, try to define the problem precisely first, and try to make a list of all possible solutions, to consider all later.
Obviously, to precisely define the problem, we should try to simplify it as much as possible, at first.
Can we really simplify the problem between Israel and Palestine, so that almost anybody can understand, what is the problem, exactly?
How about trying to find a simple analogy for it first?
Here is an idea (IMHO):
Imagine, you are the current owner of a little farm, and living there with your family.
Your farm was owned by your family going back many generations.
Your farm also contains a little land which is an extremely holy site for you, for your religion.
But you also have a rich neighbor, who really wants to own your land, because, the distant ancestors of the neighbor also owned the same land, for many generations.
And also, the holy site in your little farm was in fact, was first build and used by the distant ancestors of your neighbor, and it is also an extremely holy site for your neighbor, for his religion.
You and your neighbor were keep arguing (even fighting) for many years without finding any solution.
Obviously, the most simple solution would be both sides leaving each other alone, but imagine, that never happened, and does not look like will ever happen.
What other solution possibilities could be considered for the problem?
Here is an idea (IMHO):
What if your rich neighbor offers to buy your farm, for a more than fair, really good price for you?
But how you can sell such holy place for your family to anyone else?
But what if, first, you and your neighbor determined the exact location and size of the common holy land, for both of you?
What if, that holy land would be always belong to you and your neighbor, with equal ownership, as part of the agreement.
What if, you both also determine another co-ownership land, next to the holy land/site, to build a common headquarters, to provide security, repairs, cleaning and so on, to the holy land/site.
What if, you both provided an equal number of people for all services, and they always have to work together, enter, leave the holy land/site.
What if, you both first determined, what are the exact rules for any visitors, what kind of possible situations must be handled, and exactly how.
(Like, for example, what if, multiple groups of visitors from both sides/religions want to use the same part of the holy site, at the same time? Maybe a common scheduling system could be created?)
Assuming you and your neighbor agreed upon the holy site (somehow), would you be okay with selling the rest of your farm to your rich neighbor?
Or you would want to keep arguing/fighting with your neighbor farm? (And you and your neighbor both keep getting/causing harm/damage.)
I think, if I was in this situation, I would be okay with selling (non-holy site part of) my farm, but only if, it is absolutely certain I would get a new (and better) farm.
So, what if, Palestine sells all its land to Israel (except the holy site), for an agreed price.
What if, as part of the agreement, we need to find another country in the Middle East, willing to sell a large piece of land to the people of Palestine, to build a new (modern and luxurious) city, and start their own new independent country there?
What if, as part of the agreement, UN would need to officially recognize the new Palestine, as a new and independent country?
What if, as part of the agreement, Israel (and UN/US?) would need to guarantee protection of the new Palestine state, against any possible future invasion/takeover attempts, by anyone from outside?
If we look at the history of our world, I think there countless times a whole nation (country) got relocated.
Also some large lands were bought/sold with agreement (sometimes fair, sometimes not), instead of war/invasion.
Can we do it in our modern times, without war/invasion, and with a really agreed upon and fair deal for both sides?
IMHO, one thing is certain, humanity would be gaining/accomplishing a lot, if we learn to solve our international big problems (at least), always in peaceful ways.
20171222
SONIC BOOM ABATEMENT
How we can reduce sonic booms generated by supersonic passenger aircraft, so that they can easily fly over cities, all the time?
From what I read on Wikipedia, it seems to me there are two main strategies as,
try to reduce it by modifying aircraft shapes and/or surfaces,
try to divide it into multiple smaller sonic booms.
I am guessing even combining both methods is still not good enough.
If so then, can we find more strategies to combine with the others?
Since the problem is called '"sonic" boom', it is a sound problem, obviously.
How we take care of other loud noise problems?
For example, think about how noise cancelling earphones work.
What if each aircraft carries a powerful enough speaker, that generates anti-sound, for its own sonic boom (and all other noise?)?
Each sonic boom can be thought as a combination of countless simple sound waves, doing constructive interference.
If so then, can we modify supersonic aircraft designs, so that each sonic boom wave is generated as twins in opposite phases, like sound and anti-sound?
Or, can we modify supersonic aircraft designs, so that each simple sound wave generated, also has a twin in opposite phase?
Or, can we modify supersonic aircraft designs, so that all simple sound waves generated are in randomized phases, so that the aircraft generates non-loud white noise, instead of loud sonic boom?
From what I read on Wikipedia, it seems to me there are two main strategies as,
try to reduce it by modifying aircraft shapes and/or surfaces,
try to divide it into multiple smaller sonic booms.
I am guessing even combining both methods is still not good enough.
If so then, can we find more strategies to combine with the others?
Since the problem is called '"sonic" boom', it is a sound problem, obviously.
How we take care of other loud noise problems?
For example, think about how noise cancelling earphones work.
What if each aircraft carries a powerful enough speaker, that generates anti-sound, for its own sonic boom (and all other noise?)?
Each sonic boom can be thought as a combination of countless simple sound waves, doing constructive interference.
If so then, can we modify supersonic aircraft designs, so that each sonic boom wave is generated as twins in opposite phases, like sound and anti-sound?
Or, can we modify supersonic aircraft designs, so that each simple sound wave generated, also has a twin in opposite phase?
Or, can we modify supersonic aircraft designs, so that all simple sound waves generated are in randomized phases, so that the aircraft generates non-loud white noise, instead of loud sonic boom?
20171220
General Theory Of Auto-driving
Today there are many companies working on autonomous cars/vehicles/drones/aircraft/ships/submarines. I have no idea how their software actually work. I also do not know, if there is a general theory for how auto-driving/piloting software should work.
Why we would need a general theory for it, right at the beginning?
I think a good example is the history of computer programming languages. What were their state, before and after, development of the general theory of computer programming language design?
I think the general theory of auto-driving/piloting, could be based on Game Theory in Computer Science.
For example, when a computer is playing Chess, to decide each next move, it generates as many as possible future moves for itself, and the other player. It evaluates the board states in those future moves from a winning/losing score point of view. Then it chooses the best move for max winning and min losing scores.
Now imagine we have a self-driving car:
It keeps track of all moving vehicles, people, animals, objects around. (Each could be represented as a moving box in a 3d non-moving world of boxes/surfaces.)
Every millisecond (or less), the software creates future possible moves, for the car itself, and all other moving objects. (So the car itself and each moving object is like the players of the same game.)
And it also evaluates those future possibilities for:
How close it is to the future navigation goals of the car?
How high is the chance of an unavoidable collision?
How high is the chance of an avoidable collision?
Even if a collision is certain, how the damage to the car itself can be minimized?
Even if a collision is certain, how the damage to the another vehicle can be minimized?
Even if a collision is certain, how the damage to the another person/animal can be minimized?
To generate future possibilities, it would need to consider things like, the car itself, each of all other vehicles around, each of all people/animals around slowing/accelerating/turning in many different (and physically possible) ways/directions.
Of course, the general method described above can be modified for piloting, instead of driving (just like the general algorithms known in Game Theory can be modified for playing different games).
Why we would need a general theory for it, right at the beginning?
I think a good example is the history of computer programming languages. What were their state, before and after, development of the general theory of computer programming language design?
I think the general theory of auto-driving/piloting, could be based on Game Theory in Computer Science.
For example, when a computer is playing Chess, to decide each next move, it generates as many as possible future moves for itself, and the other player. It evaluates the board states in those future moves from a winning/losing score point of view. Then it chooses the best move for max winning and min losing scores.
Now imagine we have a self-driving car:
It keeps track of all moving vehicles, people, animals, objects around. (Each could be represented as a moving box in a 3d non-moving world of boxes/surfaces.)
Every millisecond (or less), the software creates future possible moves, for the car itself, and all other moving objects. (So the car itself and each moving object is like the players of the same game.)
And it also evaluates those future possibilities for:
How close it is to the future navigation goals of the car?
How high is the chance of an unavoidable collision?
How high is the chance of an avoidable collision?
Even if a collision is certain, how the damage to the car itself can be minimized?
Even if a collision is certain, how the damage to the another vehicle can be minimized?
Even if a collision is certain, how the damage to the another person/animal can be minimized?
To generate future possibilities, it would need to consider things like, the car itself, each of all other vehicles around, each of all people/animals around slowing/accelerating/turning in many different (and physically possible) ways/directions.
Of course, the general method described above can be modified for piloting, instead of driving (just like the general algorithms known in Game Theory can be modified for playing different games).
20171217
Comparing Security Of Programming Languages
Many different programming languages are used to create all kinds of software. And computer software security is extremely important today, and probably will become even more important in the future.
Big Question:
Are all programming languages inherently equal in security viewpoint? Or some are really inherently more secure than some others? (And also, a related question, are some Operating Systems more secure than some others?) How we can compare them objectively for inherent (natural) security?
First, how software bugs are used to break security of computer systems, by hackers or malware?
I think they send a series of instructions/input data to any accessible software, to activate known (and unpatched) bugs. Which create unhandled runtime exceptions, like division by zero, buffer overflow/underflow, array out of bounds, dangling pointer,...
Now, for simplicity, assume we want to compare security of native executables, for a certain OS, compiled using a certain brand and version compiler, for a certain programming language (and its version), like C, C++, Delphi,...
Imagine if we created a table for objectively comparing security as follows:
First column: A (sorted) full list of common runtime exceptions like, division by zero, buffer overflow/underflow, array out of bounds, dangling pointer,...
Next, add one column for each certain language compiler.
Next, we fillout cell values of our table (where each will be -1 (No) or +1 (Yes)), by asking this question:
Is the runtime exception on the left, possible to happen, for the certain language compiler on the top? (Assume the programmer wrote any section of any compiled software, using that certain language compiler, and forgot to add any exception handling for it.)
(If the certain version OS, which we creating this table for, already have general safe handling, for any certain common runtime exception, so that it can never be used by hackers/malware, then we do not need to include it in our table, obviously.)
(If the runtime exception on the left, inherently cannot happen, for the certain language compiler on the top, then the cell value still must be -1 (No). Because that is still an advantage for the certain language compiler on the top. Since all programming languages are Turing-Complete, any algorithm can be implemented in any certain language compiler. Then we must conclude, if the runtime exception on the left, inherently cannot happen, there is no ability lost, but there is an inherent security gained.)
Then in the end, we can compare inherent security of each certain language compiler, which we included in our table, by simply calculating sum value of each column, as an inherent security score. Then smaller sum values would indicate higher inherent security.
But I think if we do statistical analysis on all existing software (for any certain OS version), then we would find, some kind of dangerous runtime exceptions are more common than others. That means if we know relative frequencies (RF) of each common runtime exception (bug) in our table, then we can make our inherent security scores more realistic/accurate, by using relative frequencies as a weight, for each runtime exception on the left.
(So then each cell value would be -1*RF or +1*RF.)
Can we use this kind of programming language compiler security scoring table, to also score and compare, security of different OSs (and their different versions)? I think the answer is yes.
Imagine if we re-evaluated the same security scoring table (same set of row and column titles),
for different OSs (and their different versions). Later, for each table, we calculated sum of all cells in the table, to get a total security score for that OS (version). (Then, again, smaller values would indicate higher inherent security.)
Big Question:
Are all programming languages inherently equal in security viewpoint? Or some are really inherently more secure than some others? (And also, a related question, are some Operating Systems more secure than some others?) How we can compare them objectively for inherent (natural) security?
First, how software bugs are used to break security of computer systems, by hackers or malware?
I think they send a series of instructions/input data to any accessible software, to activate known (and unpatched) bugs. Which create unhandled runtime exceptions, like division by zero, buffer overflow/underflow, array out of bounds, dangling pointer,...
Now, for simplicity, assume we want to compare security of native executables, for a certain OS, compiled using a certain brand and version compiler, for a certain programming language (and its version), like C, C++, Delphi,...
Imagine if we created a table for objectively comparing security as follows:
First column: A (sorted) full list of common runtime exceptions like, division by zero, buffer overflow/underflow, array out of bounds, dangling pointer,...
Next, add one column for each certain language compiler.
Next, we fillout cell values of our table (where each will be -1 (No) or +1 (Yes)), by asking this question:
Is the runtime exception on the left, possible to happen, for the certain language compiler on the top? (Assume the programmer wrote any section of any compiled software, using that certain language compiler, and forgot to add any exception handling for it.)
(If the certain version OS, which we creating this table for, already have general safe handling, for any certain common runtime exception, so that it can never be used by hackers/malware, then we do not need to include it in our table, obviously.)
(If the runtime exception on the left, inherently cannot happen, for the certain language compiler on the top, then the cell value still must be -1 (No). Because that is still an advantage for the certain language compiler on the top. Since all programming languages are Turing-Complete, any algorithm can be implemented in any certain language compiler. Then we must conclude, if the runtime exception on the left, inherently cannot happen, there is no ability lost, but there is an inherent security gained.)
Then in the end, we can compare inherent security of each certain language compiler, which we included in our table, by simply calculating sum value of each column, as an inherent security score. Then smaller sum values would indicate higher inherent security.
But I think if we do statistical analysis on all existing software (for any certain OS version), then we would find, some kind of dangerous runtime exceptions are more common than others. That means if we know relative frequencies (RF) of each common runtime exception (bug) in our table, then we can make our inherent security scores more realistic/accurate, by using relative frequencies as a weight, for each runtime exception on the left.
(So then each cell value would be -1*RF or +1*RF.)
Can we use this kind of programming language compiler security scoring table, to also score and compare, security of different OSs (and their different versions)? I think the answer is yes.
Imagine if we re-evaluated the same security scoring table (same set of row and column titles),
for different OSs (and their different versions). Later, for each table, we calculated sum of all cells in the table, to get a total security score for that OS (version). (Then, again, smaller values would indicate higher inherent security.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)