Why is there no antimatter in the Universe?

This question is widely discussed in the physics community with no answer yet presented. It was recently demonstrated that Hydrogen and anti-Hydrogen have the exact same excitation spectra, further strengthen the standard model in this respect.

So here is a wild (and as usualy not very firmly grounded since I don't know very much about this) suggestion to the assymetry.
Maybe there is some kind of process that can oscillate between matter and antimatter. Currently the universe is in the matter oscillation stage. Maybe there is a gradual process towards antimatter or maybe the big bang was initiated from the antimatter state some how. That is, e.g. the big bag was preceeded by an anti matter bug crunch.

Another thought regarding this is, since there is no difference in the spectrum, how can we be sure that the other galaxies, or galaxy clusters, actually consists of matter? Maybe actually they consists of antimatter and everything is much more symmetric then we think. But a quick googling indicates that this is unlikely.

Sensor OSI-model

Introduction

In communication there is the famous OSI network stack model. However, to my knowledge, there is no such thing for sensors. So, here is my proposition for such a model:
6. Decision layer
5. Fusion layer
4. Distribution layer
3. Classification layer
2. Detection layer
1. Physical layer

Layer descriptions

The function of these follows

Physical layer

This is very similar to the physical layer in the OSI model and consists of the hardware raw data produced by the hardware.

Detection layer

The function of this layer is to determine when the sensor gets actuated. Some sensor like for example a temperature sensor probably gets activated all the time, as long as it is on. But others, like radars and image sensors might only get readings of at certain time instances.

Classification layer

There is often a need for a sensor to classify the detections in one or another way. That can for example be a face recognition algorithm in an image sensor, or a tracking filter in a radar or lidar sensor.

Distribution layer

In this layer the sensor data is packages (typically using some communication protocol) and distributed to the unit that is processing the sensor data. At this stage, the sensor data is converted to some object format. Maybe time stamps or accuracy information is bundled with the actual read data as well.

Fusion layer

At this layer, data from all sensors is fused to form a coherent picture of the sensed scenario. This can for example be GPS and Lidar data in an autonomous car and the processing stage is then denoted an occupancy grid.

Decision layer

Once all data is fused into a complete picture - a decision layer processes it to determine how to act on the sensor data.

Conclusion

This is my draft of how a layer model for sensors could be formed. Would be very interesting to hear any comments on it.

A proposition on (free) will

I have a proposition on what might constitute (what might appear as free) will. It is a complex set of "high order" rules where by an entity operate or which govern the entity's operation.
This is an intuitive definition of will in the sense that people tend to use the word in contexts which apply to the above definition. It is most clear with computer programs where people can talk about the computers "will" when it does something (it should not). But it can also be seen e.g. when animals or plants are discussed: "The flower wants to have much sun", or rain. Or "the moskito wants to suck blood".

Now, I would like to propose that we should look for these high order rules and see if they can be built in to a program to emulate will.

These higher order rules can probably be associated to different orders of logic or Russells type theory.

Another key aspect of these rules is that they should have a connection to senses and actuators. That is key for interaction.

This might be a bit behavioristic. But one can view mind as an hirarcical entity consisting of entities which can be probed from the outside, but when viewed internally no mind process can be found. The entities them selves consist of further new entities which cannot internally be associated to a cognitive process bytes can perform one as a whole. This is some kind of emerging phenomenon model. Ideas similar to these, but expressed differently were also presented here.

About machine learning

It has recently, in so many places, been suggested that "AI" poses the single largest threat to humanity. To me, this claim is just uninformed and rediculus. Some arguments against:

1. It has been stated that we will not be able to predict the evolution of AI. And it will grow in intellegence exponentially and BAM out-smart and kill us all. But looking at history this kind of prediction has been made lots of times befor with different technical advancememts. To error. I see no reason to beleive this piece of tech will be any more disruptive in that sense.

2. AI is, also amongst highly educated people, vastly miss-understood. In its current incarnation, it is a set of tools to solve detailed technical problems. No where is there any will or intention. AI people still say (and so do I)they do not even understand will.

3. They keep saying we will have an escalation of ai evolving it self away from us slow biologically evolved beings. And finally erasing us. But if an ai is intelligent enough, and the above is a problem, why would it want to have it self superseded by a smarter ai? Won't that feel like for us and the level 1 ai?

Rehammar's law

I just read about Godwin's law. I think I can make a generalisation: If the number of entries in a discussion thread on the internet (or some where else) goes to infinity, every statement that can be made, will be made. This is just due to that people tend to make all sorts of weird connections and sooner or later, every statement will be made. Woilla - Rehammar's law.

Why Windows is such a success

I have devoted a full blog post here to all things I hate about Windows, and it is growing. However, it is impossible to deny the huge success the operating system has had on the desktop. And I think I just realized how this came about. It is really one key thing they realized:
Distribute self-contained binaries and keep binary compatibility.
I think this is the genius move that *NIX did not understand, and still does not.

Open mobile

When will we see an android version for a phone running on openrisc or risc v and some free gpu? This would be a really nice thing that could potentially in the long run increase availability and lower costs for end consumers of mobile phones.
The last piece in this puzzle would then be a free lte stack and a free asic to execute it.
When will I be able to buy that?

Car fleet virtualization

With the current trends in automotive with electrification and automation, I think it is time to start talking about car fleet virtualization.
In the not-so-distant future, cars will be mostly software. Software will regulate the driving style and the functionality of the vehicles. Do I want acceleration or comfort? A car with a bed or a desk? The virtualized car pool will provide whatever I desire.

HFSS errors and their solutions

Lately I have been constructing som passive microwave components using Ansoft HFSS. It is a very powerful piece of software, but somethings the error messages can be very hard to interpret. So this post will be continuously updated with problems I have had and solved.

1. This error I believe is related to meshing issues. However, I could only reproduce it in a statistics analysis where it reoccurred until I changed the mean in the distributions: [error] Critical features could not be preserved correctly. (10:14:21 AM  Aug 22, 2016)    [error] Statistical Analysis failed - Solver error. More information may be available in...
2. 
   

Are we living in a computer simulation

This is a hot topic at the moment with many people having thoughts on the matter. My answer to the question is: of course we are not. The answer is depending on what is meant by a computer simulation, and here I am referring to a situation similar to the Matrix, which is what is usually considered in the current discussion. However, I think the discussion is not very different from what actually Descartes already had when he was discussing his demon and Kant with das Ding an sich.
Anyway, my arguments against the idea that we are living in a computer simulation are:
1. Evolutionary extrapolation. It is often claimed that extrapolating the current pace of technology advance indicate, on an evolutionary time scale, that there should be machines capable to performing these kind of simulations at some point. However, this is a logical error, because current pace of technological advance has not occurred on an evolutionary time scale. Thus, it can not be extrapolated on an evolutionary time scale either. There is no predictable way to tell what will happen with technology over long time scales.
2. Ethics. We know from our own civilization that once we get advanced, we also have ethical ruses. E.g. we do not allow for any type on animal experiments. I am guessing that the kind of simulation referred to in the discussion would be considered highly unethical, and not be allowed to be run.
3. Computing power. If the world is constituted in a way similar to ours. That is, the presumed simulated structure is similar to the world in which the simulation is run, then it seem to follow that it will be very hard to simulate it accurately. It is not easy to simulate it self.
4. Epistemologically. If there is no way to detect that we are in a computer simulation (actually Neo noticed in the Matrix), then the discussion is not a very interesting one at all. Since then we have no way to test the hypothesis. Further, is it not likely that if we are in such a simulation, that just by design, we would not be able to detect the boundaries of the simulation. Any "flaws" in the simulation would appear as how the world is constituted to us (maybe this is the reason behind cancer, chaos theory, the Republican party, ... and other crazy-ness).

Hur svårt kan det vara med en aktiv invandringspolitik?!

Vi ser just nu människor runt om i världen utsättas för något av det grövsta våldet man kan tänka sig. Männisor flyr till Europa och Sverige och hela vår världsdel ska skämmas för den nedriga hantering av detta oerhörda lidande som vi skulle kunnas mildra mycket mer genom att öppna våra armar för dessa människor.

Samtidigt gör Sverige mer än de flesta länder genom att ta emort betydligt fler flyktingar än andra länder med liknande kapacitet. Men snäll och dum är ingen bra långsiktig kombination. Vi kan inte släppa in människor till Sverige och sedan tro att traumatiserade, utblottade och splittrade familjer ska gå ut och börja bidra till det svenska samhället dag ett.

Fredrik Reinfelt vågade till slut säga detta, men vi är ett av världens rikaste länder. Låt det kosta och gör något bra av pengarna. Det är inte svårt. Höj skatten. Sedan kan man t.ex. Starta Samhal2 för invandrare. Detta företaget skulle ha mycket bättre möjligheter än Samhal originalet att slussa ut männisor i "rikiga" arbeten, efter en tid.

Vi kan inte heller låta människor komma till Sverige och sedan bli sittande på en förläggning i ett år. När den tiden har gått har dessa männisor hunnit tappa tron på att man kan åstadkomma något i Sverige, skaffat sig en bekantskapskrets bestående av ladnsmän vilka hindrar inlärning av Svenska språket och missat ett år av produktiv integration.

Sedan betalas helt galna summor för att hyra bostäder då det är sån brist. Varför inte starta ett statligt bolag som bygger bostäder åt dessa människor? Det skulle skapa arbetstillfällen och ordna boende, minska kommunernas kostnaders för hyra. Varför inte låta en sektion inom Samhal2 göra det?

Det är inte svårt att lösa hanteringen av den stora flyktingström vi har in till Sverige nu. Det handlar bara om en sak: Vilja. Var finns den politiska viljan?

Sjuktalen ökar

Nyss lyssnade jag på Försöäkringskassans generaldirektör som ondgjorde sig över att sjuktalen i Sverige ökar. . Det visade sej (VA?!) att det är i yrken med mycket mänsklig kontakt där sjuktalen går upp mest...

Mer om nationella nät

Dom är ganska fräcka mobiloperatörerna. Nu tjänar dom massor på sina kommersiella nät, men det är lite dyrare såklart att bygga nät där det är mindre befolkningstätt. I sina kontrakt med PTS man fått sina licenser i avtal om att täcka Sverige med mobilnät. Men nu när den "tråkiga" utbyggnaden är kvar, tycker man att staten ska göra det. Dåligt!

The plasticity of our brains

I am getting older. And I have recently gotten aware of a new state of mind. I literary feel how the plasticity of my brain is disappearing. It is a very interesting feeling.
As an undergraduate, when I was taking a class in vector calculus for example, learning about the curl operator in 3-space you were given the definition and you were building a conceptual feeling for what that operator was doing with a vector field. You could actually feel the spatial properties being molded to you head.
This does not happen nearly to the same extent any more. And I think this has to do with me getting old. But it is interesting to speculate in how this plasticity manifests it self. Is playfulness a consequence of this plasticity? And if humans manage to significantly extend our lives, lets say to 500 years or so, I think it will be crucial that we also manage to control brain plasticity. If you only develop significantly during the first 50 years or less, a 500 years life will probably be quite painful.

Why is God all mighty?

I just read an intriguing paper which discussed weather the Internet might become conscious. In connection to this it occurred to me that in the discussions about AI developing consciousness (C) and free will (FW) there are many people that point out that this emerging CFW might pose a danger to us humans. Embedded in the reasoning is usually an assumption that the CFW will be superior us, due to many different reasons.
Now. For this CFW, we are the creator. Maybe we could be considered Gods. On the other hand, our creation supersedes us. Can this be the case also with the humans - we supersede our creator. It is an interesting thought and actually compatible, I think, with standard physical models of the universe creation. However not quite compatible with the Christian God I guess.

What comes after innovation?

Over the centuries different things have been valued differently. It has been physical strength, art, religion and science. In our time it is innovation.

It should however be noted that innovation does not have any simple relation to science. Science focuses on what is true in some objective sense and on the method of structured reasoning. But this is not what matters to innovation, which puts sell-ability first.

Now the big question is: What will come next? I have no clear answer, but my bet is on something where the human is even more in the center than now. So it could be some bio-related stuff. For example nerve-connected people, viz artificial telepathy. It could also be something new in the arts. Or something connected to other lifeforms,  animals or AI.

Can RF radiation cause cancer?

This silly question just refuses to go away.
Finally after 11 years NTP released a report. And, waaah, they found something.

Really? What about scaling to humans, publication bias, statistical significance,  realism, ...

And also - of course it is cancerogenus. Seriously, I am sure it is. But what is not? If we would apply the same care with tobacco,  alcohol,  sugar,  fat, chemicals, fossil fuel residues, well, most things that are nice. Not much would be left. Isn't there better ways to spend $25M?

In Python, -k/2 != -(k/2)

I just found an interesting fact about Python. The following C program:
#include

int main(int argc, char * argv[]){
int k = 11;
printf("k = %d\n", k);
printf("k/2 = %d\n", k/2);
printf("-k/2 = %d\n", -k/2);
printf("-(k/2) = %d\n", -(k/2));
}will output:
k = 11
k/2 = 5
-k/2 = -5
-(k/2) = -5

However, the following Python program:
k = 11
print k
print k/2
print -k/2
print -(k/2)
will output:
11
5
-6
-5

I guess this is related to Pythons floor division, and has apparently been changed in Python 3.

Wikimedia foundation the ideal publisher of free scientific papers

The issue of open science is a pressing one. The large publication houses, Elsiver, NPG and the others make huge profits publishing scientific papers. And the situation is actually absurd! The publishers really do nothing - they do not write the papers, perform the research, do the review, or the typesetting (ok, maybe thy do typesetting, but really it is to a minimal degree with the modern typesetting systems).
There is a slow drive for so called open access. However, this is something that even further increase publishers income since open access papers are funded by huge fees from the publishers to the authors.
So, we need some new actor stepping in and taking publishing responsibility, including review assignment, This is really the key problem that needs to be solved in true free science. How to manage the review process.
My suggestion is to have a process similar to how Wikipedia works. Maybe in combination with other elements such as a score system similar to Stack Exchange. And really Wikimedia is the ideal organisation to take on this task. It is the natural extension of their current operation, maybe in connection to Wikiversity. But a completely new project would probably be even better.

Actually IEEE is a spamming organisation

Really! I used to be in Comsoc in IEEE. However paying over $100 every year for nothing kind of did not square with me so I left. But since then I receive 2-5 emails per day from then with ads for different things. And they have like a zillion categories, so pressing unsubscribe more or less just stops the email that was just received, nothing else.
Seriously IEEE! You behave quite similar to a spamming venture. SHAPE UP!

Nyliberalism när den är som värst

Lena Andersson är en fantastiskt tänkare och författare, men hennes senaste inlägg i DN är något av det dummast jag läst på ämnet skatt.
När man diskuterar statens förehavanden är den gravt felaktigt och oärligt att lägga fram dess förehavanden som varandes från ett subjekt. Staten är inget subjekt, ingen entitet med egen vilja och motiv till ett visst handlande. Genom att lägga upp ett argument kring detta, faller inte bara hela argumentet, vilken syns tydligt i de absurda påpekanden Lena Andersson kommer med i debattartikeln, man sprider också vidare nidbilden av en stat som varandes en konspiratorisk enhet jobbandes mot folket.
Och visst kan så vara fallet i vissa situationer att de människor som leder ett land inte direkt har folkets bästa för ögonen, utan sitt eget. Men att odla bilden av den Svenska staten som varandes av den karaktären är djupt tragiskt, oavsett styrande partifärg.

Om man sedan går till sakpåståendena, så måste man ifrågasätta vem Lena Andesson syftar på när hon skriver att det inte är girigt att vilja skatteplanera och gömma inkomster från skatt. Det kan knappast vara sjuksköterskan, eller ingenjören eller snickaren. Jag tror dessa yrkesgrupper är ganska underrepresenterade i Panama-dokumenten. Det är allmänt känt att under de senaste 20 åren, eller mer, har klyftorna i samhället ökat. De samhällsgrupper som tjänar mest har ökat sina inkomster mycket mer är befolkningen som helhet. Att så anse att denna grupp inte är girig när den försöker ytterligare öka det gapet blir direkt befängt.

Att ta upp ett specifikt exempel som Spotify är också det ganska fånigt. Ingen tror väl att ett lands skattesystem är perfekt och genererar optimalt resultat i varje tänkbar situation. Den som tror det är naiv. Att Spotifys grundare vill påpeka problem i vårt skattesystem för nystartade företag är utmärkt och vi ska tacka Daniel och Martin för deras engagemang. Men den som tror att Spotify inte till stor del är en produkt av det Sverige vi gemensamt byggt upp, med skattemedel, har inte koll på sin historia eller hur man bildar högteknologiska företag.

Det språkbruk Lena Andersson använder med "Marxism" och "planekonomi" är också löjeväckande. Det är inte alls svårt att med etisk konsekvens motivera att vissa grupper i samhället bör ge ifrån sig merparten av vad de tjänar. Att inte Lena Andersson förstår de rudimentära konsekvenserna av Marx analys av kapitalet som ett maktmedel är beklämmande.


Vidare, att lägga fram en bild av att de som för tillfället styr med godtycke delar ut skattepengarna är ju rent löjligt. När hände det senast att de Svenska skattemedlen hanterades godtyckligt? Svenska skattemedel användes till mer eller mindre exakt samma sak varje år, fördelat efter behov och regerverk som mejslats ut under närmare 100 år eller så. Varje regering gör justeringar, devis utifrån ideologi, men i väldigt stor utsträckning utifrån tillfälliga behov. Dessa justerings brukar ligga runt några få % av statens totala budget, medianen för våren är 1.3%. Hur kan man tala om detta som godtycke? Det är inget annat än löjligt! Notera också att vårens stora förändring i budgeten, en post som fått 160% ökning, är migration. Ingen vid sina sunda vätskor kan väl kalla det godtycke att öka den posten just nu.

We need a couple of new pronouns

Exciting things are going on. I think we need at least one new pronoun. It should be used for entities that are made of AI technologies and interacting with us in a "human like" fashion. You can already now hear people talking about robot vacuum cleaners or Siri or other "smart" devices using "he" or "she". This is of course incorrect. On the other hand, apparently it is quite unintuitive to speak about these things using "it". Hence, we should come up with a new pronoun for there entities.
I suggest "mai", short for machine artificial intelligence.
Of course, this will have to be complemented by the other forms for the pronouns first person and so on.

In addition, I think we need a new pronoun for cyborgs. People and machine will merge in the coming 100 years or so and it might be appropriate to consider how different entities should be denoted. In Sweden this discussion has been around for some time in connection to a gender-neutral pronoun. We use "han" for "he", "hon" for "she" and the new "hen" for the gender neutral version. It might be that this pronoun should be generalized to denote someone also with cyborg qualities.

However, there is an important thing to note about the usage of the word "hen". There are two different cases. First we can talk about a person without knowing its particular gender, e.g. a general teacher or something like that. Or we can talks about an explicit person but which to not disclose (or it might even not be possible) that persons gender. It is not completely clear to me that these two cases should use the same word.

Vad är skillnaden...

...mellan 50-talets fabriker och 10-talets utvecklartorg?

Inte jättestor.

The software revolution

The industrial revolution occurred because someone came up with the idea that instead of making items, we should make machines that makes items. Now, could the same be applied to software? A software revolution when we stop making software and start making machines that makes software.

For this to come true, entirely new programming models will probably be required. We also need to start thinking of when the multitude of software will be required.

One interesting thought in connection to this is my previous post discussing communication as transmission of software. Thus; the communication revolution we see now, really corresponds to the industrial revolution in the sense that we produce software that is used only for a very short time (the "message" in classical terms). Maybe only once.

A solution to the Fermi paradox and the missing 96%

96 % of the universe mass is missing. At the same time we have the problem of the Fermi paradox. Combine them, and what do you get? Lots of type II and II civilizations.

I just learned about the dining philosophers problem...

The dining philosophers problem is an interesting one, invented by Dijkstra, and important in multi-threaded programming. I read the Wikipedia article and some others on the subject, and noted that the problem is very similar to what is faced in a wireless communication scenario where several clients needs a way to share the channel.

In communication the problem seem to have been solved in some other ways that in programming. E.g. Cellular systems usually employ a scheduler. 802.11 instead uses CSMA/CA. It is interesting to note that the communication system problem description actually is closes to the original problem formulation by Dijkstra where he considered shared access to a tape recorder system.

It would be very interesting to investigate how the computer science solutions perform in a wireless scenario, and vice versa, how would the wireless (and wired, e.g. Ethernet) solutions perform in concurrent programming scenarios.

I will have to get back on that.

On language and communication

I like philosophy. Especially philosophy of language. Recently I wrote an essay on the subject employing a, at least to my knowledge, new view on communication as transport, not of data which is the classical view I would say, but rather as transport of programs. The essay is attached. It is a draft with ideas sketched and not finalized. Mathematical notation in the text should be viewed in a lose kind of informal way. I am not trying to derive any mathematical theorems in this text.