General relativity includes a dynamical spacetime, so it is difficult to see how to identify the conserved energy and momentum. Noether's theorem allows these quantities to be determined from a Lagrangian with translation invariance, but general covariance makes translation invariance into something of a gauge symmetry. The energy and momentum derived within general relativity by Noether's presecriptions do not make a real tensor for this reason. Einstein argued that this is true for fundamental reasons, because the gravitational field could be made to vanish by a choice of coordinates. He maintained that the non-covariant energy momentum pseudotensor was in fact the best description of the energy momentum distribution in a gravitational field. This approach has been echoed by Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz, and others, and has become standard. The use of non-covariant objects like pseudotensors was heavily criticized in 1917 by Erwin Schrodinger and others.

Question: "When did the standard approach to energy momentum become criticized?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "1791"

Response: no

Earthquakes seemed to outline a special feature of earth's crust. Earthquakes let scientists know where the crust was moving. This led to the discovery that the Earths crust was broken up into regions, or plates. Earthquakes happen most often along these plate boundaries. This was evidence that continents can move. The movements of the plates are called plate tectonics. The Earths crust is divided into plates. There are about a dozen large plates and several small ones. Each plate is named for the continent or ocean basin it contains. Scientists know he plates are in motion. They now know the direction and speed of this motion . Plates dont move very fast. They move only a few centimeters a year. This is about the same rate fingernails grow. So you might wonder, what could cause this motion? What supplies the energy to cause this change?

Question: "How fast do plates move?"

Response: "Few meters a year"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

Problem: Even after Bin Laden's departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up. The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and Bin Laden. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former Bin Laden unit chief found out about Clarke's call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke's phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate." Mike" thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting Bin Laden. The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem. From 1999 through early 2001, the United States, and President Clinton personally, pressed the UAE, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan. These efforts achieved little before 9/11. In July 1999, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hamdan bin Zayid threatened to break relations with the Taliban over Bin Laden. The Taliban did not take him seriously, however. Bin Zayid later told an American diplomat that the UAE valued its relations with the Taliban because the Afghan radicals offered a counterbalance to "Iranian dangers" in the region, but he also noted that the UAE did not want to upset the United States.

Question: "Why were CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt angry?"

Answer: "The camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: yes

(CNN) -- Guatemala's government has declared a state of siege and sent hundreds of troops to a northern province where officials say a Mexican drug gang is overtaking towns and threatening residents. President Alvaro Colom announced the 30-day emergency rule in Alta Verapaz on Sunday. The rule allows the military to order anyone suspected of conspiring against the government to be arrested and imprisoned without a warrant, the state-run AGN news agency said. "Starting today, combined forces will retake the streets of Alta Verapaz," a government statement released Sunday morning said. Government data shows cells of the drug gang known as Los Zetas are in the area to protect drug trafficking paths between Honduras and Mexico, "intimidating the population with their heavy weapons and threatening farmers to give up their land for criminal activities," AGN reported. The state of siege also allows the government to place greater restrictions on public gatherings, travel visas and gun licenses, among other things, according to AGN. "The population should be calm. What we are doing is not intended to persecute honest, working people," Interior Minister Carlos Menocal told reporters. Menocal said operations in the coming days would aim to boost regional security, regain control of territory, identify criminal gangs and capture their members. In an interview with CNN en Espanol last month, Menocal said his country needed more help from the United States to combat cartels, which were increasingly carving out new drug transport paths. "In the end, the large majority of drugs travel through Central America, and the assignment of resources or the financial support of the United States government is not the same as Colombia and Mexico receive," he said. Menocal said clashes between authorities and Los Zetas had notably increased.

Question: "A state of siege declaration lasts how many days?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "30 days"

Response:
yes