Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research.
Hi, gang! For two particle systems, the application of quantum mechanics and a change of variable allow the separation of the problem into "one concerning only the centre of mass of the system, and another which describes the behavior of a particle of mass mu under a potential V(r)." (Alistair I. M. Rae, Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981, p. 189. If you have a small machine shop with two lathes, two mills, two surface grinders, two cylindrical grinders, and two of every other machine tool needed, and duplicate tooling, than taken as a system of 2v machine tools, the system is capable of self-replication. (The foundry is a separate thing. Don't worry about it.) This does not contradict the finding of Wigner in "On the impossibility of self-replication" in "The Logic of Personal Knowledge" because the machinist, an agent not included in Wigner's analysis of structures growing in a nutrient "sea", is self-replicating (alive). I assert that a properly trained machinist inherently knows how to operate such an array to self-replicate, given time, because the machinist is a living, self-replicating being, but special training in the theory of self-replication may help. It may take generations to acheive it if it is done one machine part at a time, but a theoretical solution might be achieved in one machinist's lifetime, and a computer calculation might be a matrix operation that would complete in seconds, or days. Once stated, the theoretical basis can be taught, in context, to students at the appropriate level of instruction in mere minutes. v is finite and may be 2, for a small shop, or up to around 7. If n is 1, we have a pair of self-replicating machine tools and then can consider a growing population of them. This idea of growth doesn't work in an array very well because it's constrained to pairs of machine tools. Multiple pairs of machines. It's rather over constrained. In particular, cross pairings start to get all, well, complicated. If we start with an large enough array of pairs of machine tools ( a fully equipped shop) then the array is "universal", able to construct any product of industry, and in theory, can be reduced to a single pair of identical, universal self-replicating machine tools: the Holy Grail of Mechanical Engineering. Goncz's Postulate is : "You Need Two of Everything" If and only if you start with a pair of universal self-replicating machine tools, then each tool in the growing population is indistinguishible from (functionally identical to) its fellow, so every possible pairing in a population is a valid pairing in which one machine may reproduce a part of the other and there are no cross pairings to get in the way. In other words, the population gets busy, starts growing faster, and we get more and more of the little devils. And then exclusion principles, entanglement, and other interesting properties will probably start showing up. If we can accomplish this, the cost of guns, if not butter, should fall, producing new wealth for all to share. For a system of two particles with position vectors r1 and r2, and with mass m1= m2, we form the center of mass of the system, bold R, and the relative position bold r: bold R = ( m1*r1 + m2*r2 ) / ( m1 + m2 ) and bold r = r1 - r2 The center of mass of a circular machine tool array in full assembly is fixed, the position vector magnitudes are constant, but the mass of each machine tool is distinct, and it may vary as one only of each pair is disassembled to relase an internal part for replication by the array. So the wave function of this system will in general be a function of the masses of the particles. That is, if a machine tool's current mass is m.r, and its fully assembled mass is m.t, then m.r = m.t, and by reference to a chart, m.r indicates the state of disassembly. So what I have done is to ignore spin (or a hiden variable) like Rae does on p. 188, and instead of psi (r1, r2, r3, ..., rn, t) I write psi (m1, m2, m3, ... mn, t) to describe the state of an array of n = 2*v machine tools, one pair of each of v types, and | psi (m1, m2, t) | ^ 2 d (something) to describe the probabilities related to transistion between states of disassembly in a pair of self-reproducing universal machine tools, or the probability that the array will be in a particular state at a particular time. I guess you could go with dm where d (something) is written, because m is multiple and analogous to r. Then dm would be something like the "sloppiness" of disassembly, relating to the probability that pair could self-replicate in a messy shop. That seems reasonable. In a circular array in polar coordinates, the position vector magnitures ri are constant relative to the center of position, while in a multiparticle system, and in particular, systems of _indistinguishible_ particles, the masses mi are constant, all equal. I find this similarity striking and have attempted to form new variables for use in describing the state of an circular array of indistinguishible (functionally interchangeable) machine tools by transposing the roles of m and r, forming a new variable. Let's look at a two machine system with one machine in partical disassembly. The first analogy is to the relative position bold r. bold m = m1 - m2 This is the mass difference, directly related to the amount of work needed to achieve bold m = 0, which would seem to be associated with the most stable states Usually bold m = 0 is associated with m1 = m2 = mt. If we impose the rule that only one of the pair may be disassembled at a time, then bold m = 0 is the most stable state, the state in which universal construction is available for use. Now, bold M is a bit tricky. The moments above the virgule seem reasonable and add OK, but putting the sum of the positions below them gives: bold M = (r1*m1 + r2*m2) / (r1 + r2) Moment divided by distance is mass. What I'd like here, by analogy to the center of mass above, bold R, is still like the location of the center of mass, something like the location of the center of imbalance, that is, the point around which the system, while imbalanced, is centered. The analogy is breaking down. Should I just keep bold R and deal with the center of mass or is there something I've missed? The moments above the virgule, while listed in the other order, still sum to a moment. And there's really only two choices for the denominator: the sum of the masses, or the sum of the positions. Help! Yours, Doug Goncz Replikon Research (via aol.com) Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:20:34 GMT, Bert wrote:
( Doug Goncz ) wrote: snip This does not contradict the finding of Wigner in "On the impossibility of self-replication" in "The Logic of Personal Knowledge" because the machinist, an agent not included in Wigner's analysis of structures growing in a nutrient "sea", is self-replicating (alive). I assert that a properly trained machinist inherently knows how to operate such an array to self-replicate, given time, because the machinist is a living, self-replicating being, but special training in the theory of self-replication may help. snip Just curious what your definition of "self-replicating" is, and where that definition came from. Is anything other than the machines you mentioned here included in the self-replicating entity that you envision? How much assistance or work by an external agent, and what degree of pre-processing of raw materials and energy sources, can be utilized while still meeting the qualifications for self-replication? Which is also my question. I think Doug and I might have discussed this once before. I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself. Interestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as DNA does. John Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
Is this the best possible way to spend
your limited time on this ball of dirt? QA manager at the local house of Ill repute is more fun. Hell, by the time NASA realizes they need me, I'll be on the payroll! And what could be more fun than a paid trip to Mars? Yours, Doug Goncz Replikon Research (via aol.com) Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
Doug Goncz wrote:
This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research. Hi, gang! snip self replication Interesting, but what would be the point in inefficiently producing machine tools that there is no market for? Are you planning on colonizing some distant planet with machinists? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
In article ,
John Flanagan wrote: [ ... ] Which is also my question. I think Doug and I might have discussed this once before. I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself. But a combination of a human and a machine can create a greater machine. In particular, things like the layout of a modern CPU chip, and the generation of the masks is a task for which a human is poorly suited, but a computer (another CPU) is ideally suited, as long as the human sets some design parameters. Things like word size, number of registers, the style of logic used in adders and multiply/divide circuits, and similar parameters. Even the early Motorola 68000 (one of the first serious 16/32-bit chips) had approximately 68000 devices fabricated in the chip. I have no idea where today's crop is, but certainly well beyond that. Just the time taken for a human to do all that layout, let alone to make sure that it is error-free, boggles the mind. Machine tools, of course, are much simpler (until you get into CNC, where you need a CPU again). Where they stretch the envelope is in the quest for greater accuracy. Interestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as DNA does. Certainly the combination of a human and one or more machines can do so. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
snip
In experimental machine work, we use both woodworking and metalworking machines and principles, and the Smithy Super Shop is an experimentalists's dream tool, though its potential for SR is unknown to me. In woodworking, you sometimes make a fixture for just one use. In metalworking, usually a fixture is built for mass production. Different paradigms. Same jig and fixture technology, though. Kinematic contraint. Yours, Doug Goncz Replikon Research (via aol.com) Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical" You might enjoy reading "Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy" by Wayne R. Moore if you haven't already. Excellent treatise on the production of accurate machines by simpler - albeit more tedious - methods than self reproduction. StaticsJason |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
"ATP" wrote in message
et... Are you planning on colonizing some distant planet with machinists? You sound awfully scpetical; this is the dream of 90% of the newsgroup! :^) Tim -- In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!" Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
... I have no idea where today's crop is, but certainly well beyond that. Well past 20 million I believe. Things have come a long way since your Commodore 64 Tim -- In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!" Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
Doug Goncz wrote:
Is this the best possible way to spend your limited time on this ball of dirt? QA manager at the local house of Ill repute is more fun. Hell, by the time NASA realizes they need me, I'll be on the payroll! And what could be more fun than a paid trip to Mars? Enjoying the rest after (successfully) returning *from* Mars. :-/ Pete (remembering Columbia) Brooks |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
In article , Gunner says...
Is this the best possible way to spend your limited time on this ball of dirt? QA manager at the local house of Ill repute is more fun. Now be realistic Gunner. You would eventually get tired of that job, after some time. Say, maybe, five or ten years. Like the old joke says, "...and it took the undertaker four hours to get the smile off his face...." Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
... I never had a Commodore. First 6800 system was an Altair 680b Oh right, Altair. Couldn't think of it so threw in a generic old thing Tim -- In the immortal words of Ned Flanders: "No foot longs!" Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
From: "Wayne Bengtsson"
I would be interested in reading about the "unconventional use of whatever's available". Links or book titles would be appreciated. The historical aspect interests me. It's no longer listed at Lindsay, at least not on: http://www.lindsaybks.com/prod/index.html but that's where I read about it. It is only in cases of extreme production using every machine tool in every factory that we even approach the intensity required of a self-replication project. Older machinists have explained to me that they had to drill 1/16 inch holes with 5 HP drill presses because that's what was available, or had to flame cut a hole in a 2 inch steel plate because the mill with the ten by twenty foot bed was in use, even during non-wartime three-shift production. But I first read about it in Lindsay. Yours, Doug Goncz Replikon Research (via aol.com) Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
And lo, it came about, that on Sun, 31 Aug 2003 08:05:19 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking , Gunner was inspired to utter: wrote: Is this the best possible way to spend your limited time on this ball of dirt? QA manager at the local house of Ill repute is more fun. Gunner Hmmm, comparison shopper could be more fun. Or the guy who writes the consumer reviews for the paper. -- pyotr filipivich What is normal? "Two sigmas either side of mu. You bring the cow." drieux. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
From: Larry Jaques
He is attempting to prove, via mathematics, that when there are pairs of every machine in a shop, they are capable of reproducing. "'Effin wunnerful!" sez I. Thank you, Larry. Since the other replies have been long winded, and yours the most enthusiastic, I though I'd take the time to acknowledge it here. The reason for the pairs is, of course, in the abscence of computers, CAD files, CAD systems, NC machines, and probably even writing paper, self-reproduction of a shop full of machine tools is possible only when there is two of everything. And your post indicates you understand this. For those that do not, in the absence of a drawing or schedule, one might be busy repairing things all day, but if more operators became available, it would probably be most effective to work directly from each machine tool as if it were broken. That is, disassemble, extract one part, reassemble to be sure that nothing was lost, then focus just on the one part, with calipers if need be, and duplicate it. A whole machine shop might have a lathe, mill, surface grinder, and cylindrical grinder, all powered by some BIG theoretical power supply that I am not including in my quantum mechanical scribblings. Assume unlimited power, limited resources, limited time, and limited labor, but a steadily growing demand as things wear out and new Mars colonists arrive. So you pull the spindle out of the mill, put everything else back on it, hang an Out of Order sign on it, UNPLUG IT AND LOCK IT OUT, and measure the spindle with calipers. You pull some stock, or, having unlimited power, melt some rock, refine some metal, pour a slug, and rough it out on the lathe, file or finish turn, and head for the cylindrical grinder. You grind it close, maybe using a long-since-worn out micrometer with no graduations as a direct mesurement device, and you get it close enough. Then you notice a problem. It's of hardened steel, now, since you hardened it in between the lathe and the cylindrical grinder. But you forgot to slot it! It's going to spin if you put if back in the mill, so you put a narrow wheel on the grinder, a wheel that happens to be made from Martian rock held together with synthesized hydrocarbons, and, grossly overloading the tool, you grind a suitable slot, and you are ready to disassemble. Now, if you were an experienced machinst, and I am not saying I am, you'd have thought BEFORE roughing the slug, finishing it, and hardening it, that you could have slotted it efficiently on the mill. But wait a second, the mill is OOO. So you have to have a second mill. Now one of the first finite algorithms we have to apply to self-reproduction is sort of a combination of old wisdom and something extremely specific. We "do the hard part first", which is the old wisdom, and specifically, we take the slug, center drill it, and then, on centers, on the mill, machine the slot first, before even turning it. Why? Because, by the old wisdom, if there's something that needs doing in parts, and you do the hard part as soon as possible, not necessarily first, you've got a little working room and you can avoid mistakes like hardening the spindle, then grinding the slot. Now this is easy to incorporate into a computer program, but to a person, it is wisdom that cannot be taught unless they learn all about finite math and the critical path method. (Gantt charts. Hate 'em) But an appropriate, sufficiently deep theoretical understanding is the equivalent of wisdom, and usually costs as much in tuition and labor as you'd earn learning it. And this theoretical understanding can be taught without knowing anything about finite problems or applications. Just a few simple things to learn, and you're ready to fly to Mars, and if one of your fellow colonists has to take over when you drop that spindle on your foot, no problem. Everyone is multi-trained without seventeen lifetimes of apprenticeships. Of course, I also believe in the innate animosity of inanimate objects and I have the scars to prove it. How's your foot? Remember this is human-facilitated on-demand reproduction, so there's no grey goo. You're probably the only person on this thread so far that gets that bit. Gently-used Firestone tires for sale at discount! On Mars we can synthesize the carbon and rubber from atmospheric CO2 and water, draw up a couple thousand yards of wire, and make a tire in an appropriate time. It all changes when you have access to energy, and that means nuclear. Yours, Doug Goncz Replikon Research (via aol.com) Recent Original Posts: http://groups.google.com/groups?scoring=d&q=+-Re+dgoncz (1,150 and counting) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
On 02 Sep 2003 19:48:19 GMT, ( Doug Goncz )
pixelated: From: Larry Jaques He is attempting to prove, via mathematics, that when there are pairs of every machine in a shop, they are capable of reproducing. "'Effin wunnerful!" sez I. Thank you, Larry. Since the other replies have been long winded, and yours the most enthusiastic, I though I'd take the time to acknowledge it here. Blame it on the engineers of the group. You know how THEY get. (Huh? You're one? Oh, sorry.) The reason for the pairs is, of course, in the abscence of computers, CAD files, CAD systems, NC machines, and probably even writing paper, self-reproduction of a shop full of machine tools is possible only when there is two of everything. And your post indicates you understand this. Y'mean "when there are two"? But it could be 2+ dissimilar models as long as you have all the capabilities of both in both. That is, disassemble, extract one part, reassemble to be sure that nothing was lost, then focus just on the one part, with calipers if need be, and duplicate it. Hell's Bells, boy. I misunderstood that -entirely-. I thought that you just put the pairs into a dark room and they did the metallic stiffy stuffin' until they had reproduced themselves. Never mind. Now this is easy to incorporate into a computer program, but to a person, it is wisdom that cannot be taught unless they learn all about finite math and the critical path method. (Gantt charts. Hate 'em) But an appropriate, sufficiently deep theoretical understanding is the equivalent of wisdom, and usually costs as much in tuition and labor as you'd earn learning it. And this theoretical understanding can be taught without knowing anything about finite problems or applications. Just a few simple things to learn, and you're ready to fly to Mars, and if one of your fellow colonists has to take over when you drop that spindle on your foot, no problem. Everyone is multi-trained without seventeen lifetimes of apprenticeships. Oh, you may say that this lifetime, but what about the others? Shucks, I forgot #10. You HAVE read The 10 Rules for Being Human, right? Well, in case you haven't, here they a Rules for Being Human 1. You will receive a body: You may like it, or hate it, but it'll be yours for the entire period this time around. 2. You will learn lessons. You are enrolled in an informal full-time school called life. Each day in this school you will have the opportunity to learn lessons. You may like the lessons, or think they are irrelevant and stupid. 3. There are no mistakes, only lessons. Growth is a process of trial and error. The "failed" experiments are as much a part of the process as the experiment that ultimately works. 4. A lesson is repeated until it is learned. A lesson will be presented to you in various forms until you have learned it. When you have learned it you can go on to the next lesson. 5. Learning lessons do not end. There is no part of life that does not contain lessons. If you are alive, there are lessons to be learned. 6. "There" is no better than "here". When your "there" becomes a "here" you will simply obtain another "there" that will again look better than "here". 7. Others are merely mirrors of you. You cannot love or hate something about another person unless it reflects to you something you love or hate about yourself. 8. What you make of life is up to you. You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. The choice is yours. 9. Your answers lie inside you. The answers to life's questions lie inside of you. All you need to do is to look, listen, and trust. 10. You will forget all of this. - Source Unknown Of course, I also believe in the innate animosity of inanimate objects and I have the scars to prove it. How's your foot? Oh, they seldom bite me on the feet, but my legs, butt, hip, arms, shoulders, back, neck, head, hands, and fingers get nibbled a lot. I'm surrounded by machines. Remember this is human-facilitated on-demand reproduction, so there's no grey goo. You're probably the only person on this thread so far that gets that bit. No goo? What fun is that? P.S: I wonder what the robots think about all this... ------------------------------ REAL men don't need free plans ------------------------------ http://diversify.com REAL websites |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
" Doug Goncz " wrote in message ... This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research. Huge snip Having read this thread and understanding some of it all I can say is that there are a few people here who need to get laid! Tim disregard the previous statement. lg no neat sig line |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
Doug,
This is a kool idea, as many of your posts are (even drill press abuse). I have two comments - 1. you have not shown proof that "two of everything" or even "two of anything" is the smallest number required and 2. I think replication without evolution is undesirable. Early man used sticks and stones as tools. Everything we currently have (good and bad) has evolved from those simple beginnings. So I suggest that the minimum number of anything is very close to zero. Send McGiver to Mars with a Swiss Army Knife (and an unlimited supply of bicycle spokes and boot laces) and by the time you get there, you'll have to hunt for a place to park your shuttle between the Bridgeports. Now project that evolutionary capacity to a capability that may be available in ideal environments and simple replication of current technology may even be undesirable. Grow your lathe ways from a single diamond crystal - now your iron machine tools are as desirable as the barber's leeches. Evolve some more and now you can generate any product by selectively ADDING molecules of the appropriate type to the proper location - why machine by chip REMOVAL? When your razor gets dull, it can be sharpened by replacing the displaced molecules not by abrading until a fresh edge is exposed. Machine tool self-replication is an excellent philosophy exercise - and that brings me to the next level of evolution. Perhaps we don't really need THINGS as instances of matter, we can just THINK them and therefore don't actually need to perform an actual task or build a particular device to know the cosmic truth. We think through the problems, then we know that we can build that 42-shot-simiautomattic-revolver with each part perfectly heat treated and accurate to a couple of milliangstroms. Now that we know, we don't have to actually build it to prove our knowledge or skill. (Made you think about some old westerns, didn't it?) Just some ideas to think about. Bruce " Doug Goncz " wrote in message ... This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research. Hi, gang! For two particle systems, the application of quantum mechanics and a change of variable allow the separation of the problem into "one concerning only the centre of mass of the system, and another which describes the behavior of a particle of mass mu under a potential V(r)." (Alistair I. M. Rae, Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981, p. 189. If you have a small machine shop with two lathes, two mills, two surface grinders, two cylindrical grinders, and two of every other machine tool needed, and duplicate tooling, than taken as a system of 2v machine tools, the system is capable of self-replication. (The foundry is a separate thing. Don't worry about it.) This does not contradict the finding of Wigner in "On the impossibility of self-replication" in "The Logic of Personal Knowledge" because the machinist, an agent not included in Wigner's analysis of structures growing in a nutrient "sea", is self-replicating (alive). I assert that a properly trained machinist inherently knows how to operate such an array to self-replicate, given time, because the machinist is a living, self-replicating being, but special training in the theory of self-replication may help. It may take generations to acheive it if it is done one machine part at a time, but a theoretical solution might be achieved in one machinist's lifetime, and a computer calculation might be a matrix operation that would complete in seconds, or days. Once stated, the theoretical basis can be taught, in context, to students at the appropriate level of instruction in mere minutes. v is finite and may be 2, for a small shop, or up to around 7. If n is 1, we have a pair of self-replicating machine tools and then can consider a growing population of them. This idea of growth doesn't work in an array very well because it's constrained to pairs of machine tools. Multiple pairs of machines. It's rather over constrained. In particular, cross pairings start to get all, well, complicated. If we start with an large enough array of pairs of machine tools ( a fully equipped shop) then the array is "universal", able to construct any product of industry, and in theory, can be reduced to a single pair of identical, universal self-replicating machine tools: the Holy Grail of Mechanical Engineering. Goncz's Postulate is : "You Need Two of Everything" If and only if you start with a pair of universal self-replicating machine tools, then each tool in the growing population is indistinguishible from (functionally identical to) its fellow, so every possible pairing in a population is a valid pairing in which one machine may reproduce a part of the other and there are no cross pairings to get in the way. In other words, the population gets busy, starts growing faster, and we get more and more of the little devils. And then exclusion principles, entanglement, and other interesting properties will probably start showing up. If we can accomplish this, the cost of guns, if not butter, should fall, producing new wealth for all to share. For a system of two particles with position vectors r1 and r2, and with mass m1= m2, we form the center of mass of the system, bold R, and the relative position bold r: bold R = ( m1*r1 + m2*r2 ) / ( m1 + m2 ) and bold r = r1 - r2 The center of mass of a circular machine tool array in full assembly is fixed, the position vector magnitudes are constant, but the mass of each machine tool is distinct, and it may vary as one only of each pair is disassembled to relase an internal part for replication by the array. So the wave function of this system will in general be a function of the masses of the particles. That is, if a machine tool's current mass is m.r, and its fully assembled mass is m.t, then m.r = m.t, and by reference to a chart, m.r indicates the state of disassembly. So what I have done is to ignore spin (or a hiden variable) like Rae does on p. 188, and instead of psi (r1, r2, r3, ..., rn, t) I write psi (m1, m2, m3, ... mn, t) to describe the state of an array of n = 2*v machine tools, one pair of each of v types, and | psi (m1, m2, t) | ^ 2 d (something) to describe the probabilities related to transistion between states of disassembly in a pair of self-reproducing universal machine tools, or the probability that the array will be in a particular state at a particular time. I guess you could go with dm where d (something) is written, because m is multiple and analogous to r. Then dm would be something like the "sloppiness" of disassembly, relating to the probability that pair could self-replicate in a messy shop. That seems reasonable. In a circular array in polar coordinates, the position vector magnitures ri are constant relative to the center of position, while in a multiparticle system, and in particular, systems of _indistinguishible_ particles, the masses mi are constant, all equal. I find this similarity striking and have attempted to form new variables for use in describing the state of an circular array of indistinguishible (functionally interchangeable) machine tools by transposing the roles of m and r, forming a new variable. Let's look at a two machine system with one machine in partical disassembly. The first analogy is to the relative position bold r. bold m = m1 - m2 This is the mass difference, directly related to the amount of work needed to achieve bold m = 0, which would seem to be associated with the most stable states Usually bold m = 0 is associated with m1 = m2 = mt. If we impose the rule that only one of the pair may be disassembled at a time, then bold m = 0 is the most stable state, the state in which universal construction is available for use. Now, bold M is a bit tricky. The moments above the virgule seem reasonable and add OK, but putting the sum of the positions below them gives: bold M = (r1*m1 + r2*m2) / (r1 + r2) Moment divided by distance is mass. What I'd like here, by analogy to the center of mass above, bold R, is still like the location of the center of mass, something like the location of the center of imbalance, that is, the point around which the system, while imbalanced, is centered. The analogy is breaking down. Should I just keep bold R and deal with the center of mass or is there something I've missed? The moments above the virgule, while listed in the other order, still sum to a moment. And there's really only two choices for the denominator: the sum of the masses, or the sum of the positions. Help! Yours, Doug Goncz Replikon Research (via aol.com) Nuclear weapons are just Pu's way of ensuring that plenty of Pu will be available for The Next Big Experiment, outlined in a post to sci.physics.research at Google Groups under "supercritical" |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
Doug Goncz scribed in
: The jig guides the tool; So what's happening when you rip the edge off a board, or mill a BP x axis table by sliding it through a custom fixture, is that the flat, linear surfaces on the table saw or on the rough table Doug, you'll be interested to see my use of jigging to build a part for my lathe.... http://terrapin.ru.ac.za/satrain/lat...ingsteady.html using essentially woodworking techniques to make a metal travelling steady for the lathe so that I can (eventually) make leadscrews for the mill/surfacegrinder/whatever I get to next... the CNC surface grinder is high on mylist, just for fun... swarf, steam and wind -- David Forsyth -:- the email address is real /"\ http://terrapin.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/welcome.html \ / ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail - - - - - - - X If you receive email saying "Send this to everyone you know," / \ PLEASE pretend you don't know me. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
Wayne Bengtsson scribed in
: In woodworking the work is fed into and THROUGH the power tool by hand, mostly, and in any case can be larger than the tool. Mostly a linear process. But what's going on is feature projection of an unusual kind. The nice people I work for manufacture,sell, and use machine tools that go to the job. A lot of the stuff they get used on is too big to fit on any machine. Email me if you want more info (for discussion purposes, not a sales pitch). Hey Doug, thought of a MAG DRILL lately? it processes things much larger than itself and is self guiding after initial placement. one coudl easily use one to drill the holes in the raw part of another one, no matter how big it is...? maybe? -- swarf, steam and wind -- David Forsyth -:- the email address is real /"\ http://terrapin.ru.ac.za/~iwdf/welcome.html \ / ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail - - - - - - - X If you receive email saying "Send this to everyone you know," / \ PLEASE pretend you don't know me. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
From: Bert
Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking the space program has a history of inspiring technological advances and innovations that have subsequently resulted in incredible and unforeseen positive impacts on other arenas of human endeavor. Like the Velcro in my "service occupation" shoes from Payless. And when things go wrong in the space program, there are usually few massive environmental consequences, unlike Exxon Valdez. But people do give their lives in this field. Not just the astronauts, either. Wasn't there a big explosion at the Shuttle booster plant? I assume someone got hurt in that. Maybe all I need is a CAD program that can simulate manual control of a machine tool, knowing its parts and constraints, according to a program like NC. Then I can manually select a part, copy it, chuck it up, and see if it is in the work envelope, one by one, without leaving the keyboard and mouse. Do any of you know of a CAD program that can do that? Simulate ways, leadscrews, gibs, and chucks, but not actual cutting? Yours, Doug Goncz Replikon Research (via aol.com) Recent Original Posts: http://groups.google.com/groups?scoring=d&q=+-Re+dgoncz (1,150 and counting) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
From: "larry g"
This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research. Having read this thread and understanding some of it all I can say is that there are a few people here who need to get laid! LOL! I got laid two nights ago, but smoochie was too drunk last night to do anything but talk.... and then snore. Are you gettin' any? Darn these antidepressants, they make it difficult sometimes.... Yours, Doug Goncz Replikon Research (via aol.com) Recent Original Posts: http://groups.google.com/groups?scoring=d&q=+-Re+dgoncz (1,150 and counting) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
.... The "F00F" floating-point error in some versions of the pentium are an example of the kind of error which can't be prevented by computer design of the chip layout. ( [...] Remember when the floating-point processor was a separate chip? Easier to fix, then. :-) And yes -- there are still some CPUs with the problem still in service. My laptop (an IBM Thinkpad 760XD) shows the following on bootup with OpenBSD as the OS: ================================================== ==================== OpenBSD 3.0 (NIBBLETS) #0: Sat May 11 22:20:07 EDT 2002 :/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/NIBBLETS cpu0: F00F bug workaround installed ================================================== ==================== .... A minor correction here -- the F00F bug was protection-related,* nothing to do with FP, so a separate FP chip wouldn't have made a difference. -jiw * " The F00F bug received its name from its instruction encoding F0 0F C7 C8. This instruction encoding maps to a LOCK CMPXCHG8B EAX instruction. CMPXCHG8B compares 64-bit memory contents with the contents in EDX and EAX." "Instead, the Pentium processor locks up and freezes the entire computer when it encounters this instruction." - from a web page re F00F |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
Sounds like the mechanical version of a (software) virus...
"David Peterson" wrote in message ... Which is also my question. I think Doug and I might have discussed this once before. I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself. Interestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as DNA does. What's your definition of an entity? Seems there are programs (or could be) capable of creating equal, and perhaps better programs. Dave John Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
Which is also my question. I think Doug and I might have discussed this once before. I have an axiom that and entity (not a machine but something with and using it's own volition and knowledge) cannot create something equal to or certainly not greater than itself. Interestingly though a machine I believe can replicate itself, just as DNA does. What's your definition of an entity? Seems there are programs (or could be) capable of creating equal, and perhaps better programs. Dave John Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get. So please respond to this message through the newsgroup. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
The bookeeping of self-reproduction is the same as taking an order for a typewriter that comes with two free ribbons, an additional paid ribbon, a space bar, and a spare backspace key. It's done with an invertible quantity matrix, lower triangular, in technological order, inverted, and multiplied by the demand vector. I've seen the power of Mathcad doing this sort of thing, and it truly is amazing, so much faster than Excel on the same data.... Doug Goncz Replikon Research (via aol.com) Mathcad is one of my favorite programs. I'm suprised people don't use it more often, so much nicer than spreadsheets for so many things. Dave |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:04:42 GMT, "ATP"
wrote: Doug Goncz wrote: This one was rejected as too speculative for sci.physics.research. Hi, gang! snip self replication Interesting, but what would be the point in inefficiently producing machine tools that there is no market for? Are you planning on colonizing some distant planet with machinists? Or better yet, colonize it with machines..... |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quantum Mechanics and Self-Replicating Machines
David Peterson wrote:
What's your definition of an entity? Seems there are programs (or could be) capable of creating equal, and perhaps better programs. A compiler, for example... More useful examples are things like learning systems; there are systems that develop a program expressed as a series of rules. It runs tests against past data in which each rule is assessed for how much it helped, and bad rules removed, and good rules duplicated and variations tried. Solutions evolve automatically. A spectacular case in point... some group decided to use an FPGA (programmable digital logic chip; you feed in setup instructions to tell it what gates to wire to what, more or less), along with an evolving engine like that above, to evolve a circuit to work out the frequency of a train of pulses. The FPGA was too small (not enough gates) to contain the circuit you'd get if you designed it by hand. Sure enough, it soon came up with a working design... but the way it had managed to do better than what was thought to be the theoretical capacity of the chip was that it wasn't using them just as digital logic gates any more. It had gates wired back into themselves in unstable feedback loops, using their analogue characteristics (which you steer clear of in digital design!). Which was fine - but as soon as the temperature changed, the chip's analogue characteristics shifted and the circuit stopped working :-) They'd trained it in a stable temperature environment, so it had evolved to need that... Dave ABS |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|