They don't, see https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07061 . The basic idea is to use "picosecond-level" synchronization to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. They mention that a truly phase-coherent swarm would perform much better but they consider that a longer term prospect (section 2.1.4).
I am quite confident all the current employees of OpenAI qualify as real people. They certainly have problems and probably a good share of those problems are "real" too.
Of course their priorities may be off and they could be open to be persuaded to work in a different direction. But I don't think that condescension would be very effective for that.
Wow! :) A quick read seems to indicate that the case where the "metal plate with holes in it" approaches a wire mesh (holes are large compared to spacing) is treated in "Reflectors for a Microwave Fabry-Perot Interferometer" published by W. Culshaw in 1959 [1].
It's still locked up behind a paywall though, some 57 years later! :( Anybody have access (or can afford the $13 / $33 to buy it)? I checked if I could access it through DeepDyve but, no.
(Perhaps this is the answer to Q1, that it really hasn't "remained unanalyzed for 180 years", but that our broken way of archiving scientific knowledge has hid the analysis?)
To me it seems not entirely implausible that both the OPs main conclusions can be derived from Culshaw's 1959 paper:
1. "First of all, the radius of the wires matters. As r→0, the shielding goes away. This, we now realize, must be why your microwave oven door has so much metal in it, and is not just a sheet of glass with a thin wire grid."
This conclusion could possibly be derivable from Eq 26 in Culshaw's paper. There's a clear dependence on r there. It's not completely obvious (to me) though, as it seems Culshaw is studying a more general case with a 3D structure of rods/wires.
2. "Secondly, the shielding is linear in the gap size, not exponential."
This conclusion too could possibly be derivable from Eq 26; there's a linear dependence on a there. But for the same reasons as above it's not entirely obvious (to me).
Seems to me that Trefethen should at the very least read Culshaw's paper though, if he hasn't already. :P
Can anyone with some electrical field theory knowledge/experience make a better comparison? :)
That's true, but supersonic planes also travel higher (Concorde -> 18 km, XB-70 -> 22 km). The real problem is that L/D decreases at supersonic speeds. For example, the XB-70 had a L/D of about 7, while the 707 had a L/D over 18...
It's mostly a question of power. The 1987 design for the TAU probe communication system would have handled 20 kb/s from 1000 AU... by using between 100 and 260 watts for the transmitter (and relatively big antennas):
Photons are something of a special case because they are massless. Gravitons, too. As bosons, their interactions are not limited by the Pauli exclusion principle, so they can not annihilate each other. They interact through different means (electromagnetic). They're both because they only have the common properties of particles and their antiparticles.
It's basically like saying "the number 0 is its own negative number". It's correct according to some definitions, but not useful.
Physicist here. You are confusing things. Having rest mass or Pauli-exclusion principle has nothing to do with qualification of being an anti-particle.
Z boson, for instance, does have mass and is its own anti-particle.
> It's basically like saying "the number 0 is its own negative number". It's correct according to some definitions, but not useful.
Photons have zero charge; an anti-particle has negative of the particle's charge (and at the same time, same rest mass and spin).
Ok then. With that and since they've almost certainly designed a device and worked out the logistics just in case I'm quite willing to believe they could get a number of boosted fission devices assembled in less than a month.
I think you missed the joke. The first paragraph clearly says it's "top secret" and "confidential", so even though it was published by the Spiegel, it's not public information. Got it?
I know, it only makes sense in NSA's distorted rhetoric but if this is disputed in a court, that is what you're going to hear (that the information is not public, as in, it should not be disclosed).
> I know, it only makes sense in NSA's distorted rhetoric
Any US citizens propagating this information would probably be in big trouble precisely because of that. I am not sure about this, but IIRC, US citizens may even get in trouble for reading this information if they lack proper clearance.
A US citizen is under no legal obligation to do or not do anything with "classified" information. That is a standard that only its employees must observe.
I can go to Wikileaks and read Snowden and Assange-backed papers all day long. Govt. employees on the other hand aren't allowed to read that info even though it's already public (even at home, even on their own time).
Interesting. Thanks for clarifying. I wonder if those files can have other restrictions tied to them, such as being transported or copied between two computers.
