Youtube comments of Lepi Doptera (@lepidoptera9337).
-
1300
-
73
-
73
-
68
-
46
-
45
-
43
-
39
-
30
-
26
-
23
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@skhi7658 IMHO it's the way we teach introductory quantum mechanics. I was completely lost after my own QM 101 class. I understood the math, of course, that's easy enough, but I had no idea what it actually meant. I didn't develop a working intuition until after I got into experimental high energy physics, had to read the CERN detector design documents and began to work on actual detector hardware. After that it became clear very quickly that all we are ever measuring are energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. It was really that "hands on" experimental work that clarified the concepts for me. The textbooks, however, are usually being written by theorists and are staying close to the original "particle" language from the early days, which, unfortunately, is misleading. So, yeah, we have a century's worth of quantum mechanics textbooks that should be rewritten... same math but emphasizing that we are looking at energy that is distributed in a quantum field.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Tesla factory receives spodumene (LiAlSi2O6), i.e. a mineral with a very high lithium content from the port of Corpus Christi and chemically removes the lithium, leaving aluminum silicates as a by-product. Tesla claims to do this without needing a large amount of acid (which probably just means that the acid is recycled in a closed chemical process). What these guys are talking about is about enriching water soluble lithium brines at the mining site. I suspect that to Tesla what matters is the availability of lithium rather than the total cost of production. They can absorb prices above the market price because they are making vehicles with very high margins. What they can not tolerate is to not have enough lithium in the market to keep making as many vehicles as they can sell. Supply risk management is a totally different goal than cost optimization, so the economics is potentially very different for Tesla. There may also be other reasons like quality control... if their process produces either "better" lithium than what they can buy or "good enough" lithium at a lower cost, then that's a winning strategy as well.
Tesla did describe their chemistry in a video, by the way. The main advantage seems to be that they don't have to buy expensive sulfuric acid and they don't end up with byproducts that are expensive to dispose. If I understand this correctly, this is like 19th century inorganic chemistry. You could do this at home with a chemistry kit and maybe a somewhat higher temperature burner. It's a different matter doing it at large scale, of course, but in principle this is, as far as chemical factories go, kindergarten level.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SteveKelly1 The particle language goes back to Einstein's 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect. In that paper he gives a congenial explanation for the macroscopic photoelectric data in terms of the quantization of the electromagnetic field. But at the same time he commits his actual biggest blunder. After having identified quanta of energy, he immediately concludes in a single sentence that these quanta have to have location properties like Newtonian corpuscles. That conclusion isn't backed up by any observational detail of the photoelectric effect. It doesn't match the well known definition of energy as a system property. It's also completely unnecessary for the remainder of the paper. It's a completely unforced slip of Einstein's mind.
Unfortunately other authors after Einstein have picked up this mistake and they kept building on it (to this day). What physicists mean by "a particle" is actually a quantum of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. Neither of these properties refers to a "small, localized object". They are all system properties. The theory does not describe particles. It describes changes in the energy of systems. You can find this clearly expressed in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics paper where initial and final energy was used as index into the matrices. That's the correct interpretation except that it's not just energy but the quad of energy/momentum/angular momentum and charges. Why these? Because these are the only locally conserved quantities in nature. Everything else changes, but these quantities get transferred from system to system.
We have language for property exchanges. Energy FLOWS. It does NOT take a path. The entire concept of path makes no sense because systems are random subdivisions of nature. They don't even have to be some continuous regions of spacetime. Even in classical mechanics the energy of a spring is not localized, for instance. It's in the entire spring. The kinetic energy of an extended object is not in the center of mass of that object, either. We never had this illusion that energy etc. has to be focused in some tiny region of spacetime. That is purely an invention (and not a good one) of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
In quantum field theory it's even worse. the only well defined states are the plane waves of the (interaction) free theory. Everything else is a jumbled mess without any known physical interpretation. Whatever happens in the interaction volume can only be described with classical quantities if we look at it from infinitely far away. In other words: the closer we look, the blurrier nature gets. It doesn't get more "point-like".
So, no, not only do particles not travel along paths, there simply are no particles. There are initial and final system states and they are characterized by changes in energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. That is a fundamentally different (and 100% correct) way of looking at the world.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem with quantum fluctuations as the source of the cosmological constant is a misunderstanding of quantum fluctuations. They don't exist in the way they are being portrayed in the press. You can look up into the night sky and you can see objects that are millions of light years away (the Andromeda galaxy) with your own eyes and over 40 billion light years with instruments (the CMB). That light was not disturbed by quantum fluctuations, at all. If the universe was "grainy" or "foggy" the way the usual mental model suggests, then this light would have never made it undisturbed and we would probably not even be able to see as far as our own toes. In quantum field theory higher order terms cause changes in energy levels of bound states because these bound states select a distance (size) scale themselves, hence the integrals over contributions at higher energy are cut-off at that scale and they don't average out to zero. These, however, are not simple random terms and they all go to zero at the scale of the universe. At most you can get something like a 1/R_cosmological dependence, which would be important during inflation but can either be neglected today or would, at most, lead to an asymptotically free universe. If an actual cosmological constant exists, then it is not caused by effects that are consequences of the background geometry. It exists as part of the layer of physics that causes the background geometry, to begin with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eljcd The initial calculation by Feynman? It is not naive. It's actually quite congenial and it works, with some difficulties. What is certain is that we haven't found anything better for over 70 years, which tells us that it's not all bad. Is it the best possible model for how quantum fields work? Certainly not. I am highly skeptical that the real/virtual particle picture is the best way to describe quantum fields myself.
That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the multiverse question. QFT tells us how to calculate with quantum fields and which kinds of quantum fields can exist, at all, but it does not tell us which kinds of quantum fields should actually exist. I am not aware that there were a whole lot of complaints about that in the past. If we were to put the same "prediction" criteria for the universe on plain QFT that we are putting on string theory, then we would have to conclude that it predicts an infinite number of possible universes. Instead we accept that it can't predict any. It can only describe the one we see.
What happened with the introduction of string theory is that people had overblown hopes that it would reduce the number of possible quantum field theories to one. It didn't do that. It seemingly reduced it to a very, very large number. Unfortunately, so far nobody seems to have found the actual solution to the universe inside string theory, either. It may be in there, it may not be.
And with that a serious philosophical mistake crept into the discussion: since string theory (which effectively has done nothing for physics proper so far) predicts a very large number of possible low energy universes, then maybe there have to be a large number of low energy universes. That is total nonsense, of course. The situation on the ground has simply not changed: we can describe the low energy universe very well, but we still can't predict it. We are still roughly where we were in the 1970s, when the SM was more or less finalized structurally. That is not a very long stretch of stagnation in physics. It was much worse in the 19th century when we had a more or less spotless (if inaccurate) theory of motion of matter without having any theory of matter, at all.
So take the "discussion" with a grain of salt. It is far more about egos of different groups of people, neither of whom has a solution, than it is about the actual state of physics. Physics is just fine, it simply didn't make as much progress as some elderly physicist would like to have seen. Will Susskind be able to die in peace, having seen the holy land at least from afar? No. He can talk to Moses and Newton and Einstein about that experience when he gets to heaven. :-)
2
-
@eljcd I think there are a number of attempts to use more or less plain QFT to work around the gravity problem. There is the double copy group which says that basically two copies of the color force can produce gravity. I have yet to understand how that is supposed to work even even at the kindergarten level, so I can't comment. Then there is an attempt at making gravity a massive field, which could possibly explain dark energy, but the model seems to suffer from cosmological stability problems... quantum gravity seems a bit like playing Whack-a-mole, whenever a model is successful in one area, it has serious, if not deadly problems in another.
My perspective as an experimentalist is a bit more focused on observations, right now. I don't believe that we will get the funding/develop technology to get beyond the 1TeV accelerator barrier within my remaining lifetime. So that leaves astronomical and cosmological observations. If you have been watching the success of gravitational wave astronomy and radio astronomy to image black holes, then it becomes somewhat evident that building new (space based?) observatories for gravitational, optical and radio-astronomy is the way to go. Nature has given us such a beautiful laboratory of absolutely monstrous extreme systems in the universe. We can never hope to replicate the conditions near and inside those objects in the lab, but we can harvest much of this information from a distance. That is where the near term progress of physics lies, IMHO.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If it allows them to calculate the low energy string spectrum, then yes. It does not necessarily lead to a practical result because of the string landscape. Unless it allows us to pick one specific version of the theory out of the 10^500 (or whatever) possible ones, the spectrum is still not uniquely determined. That problem will most likely not go away anymore than the equivalent problem in quantum field theory. Why is the low energy spectrum in QFT U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) and not something else? We don't know. Well, actually, it's not even that if you are precise. You, as in your body, are a peak in the low energy spectrum of QFT. So is a water molecule, a goat, third avenue in New York and the star Beta Orionis. "Every possible thing" in physics is such a peak. We aren't calculating any of these solutions from first principles. We are happy to stop at the em field, electrons, muons, neutrinos, quarks etc., so we are basically cutting ourselves off at one massless and one solution that is a fraction of an eV (the neutrinos). And technically we can't calculate the locations of any of these peaks in QFT, either. We a simply fitting measurements to them. So it's not like that string theory can't so something that QFT can. They are pretty much equally "powerless" at the moment, it just gets misrepresented in the public discussion. (And no, I don't think string theory is the correct approach, either, I am just trying to qualify a little better what "theory" means in this sector.).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Light is a quantum mechanical phenomenon, so you are doing QM here whether you like it or not. It just happens that the uncertainty principle has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It's a general property of functions and linear operators, no matter what they are describing. Something like a Gaussian does, of course, have a unique parametrization and we can define "the center" in a unique way. That is simply not the case for arbitrary functions. Where is the center of a plane wave, for instance? The entire notion of it having a beginning, a center and an end is useless. What's the physical meaning of the center of a hollow sphere? There is no physical interaction at "the center", it's empty. All the physical interaction would be with the shell, even in classical physics. One simply has to learn to live with the fact that "center of mass" is a very, very limited concept for a very limited class of problems, classical or not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The linker will tell you. It's a bit more complicated than that, of course, because not every program on a multi-tasking machine can have the same memory sections mapped to the same hardware address, so what the linker actually tells you is a symbolic address that merely points to the entry in the memory management unit, which then translates that to the physical hardware address that the CPU puts onto the address bus. Even that is a multi-stage process on modern CPUs because the L1 and L2 caches are still between your program and the actual memory. So instead of grabbing the data from the main memory, the machine will try to get it from L1 first, if that fails from L2 and if that fails it will reload the caches from the main memory. Word to the wise: you really, really, really don't want that to happen because your 5.3GHz racer then basically falls back to the speed of an 80 MHz CPU or so... because the CAS latency on DDR4 is still on the order of 12.5ns! I used to have faster (but much, much smaller) memory than that on one of my boards in 1995... so we have been basically standing still with regards to board level memory access times for like 30 years now. Chip level memory is orders of magnitude faster now, of course, so try to write your program in such a way that it doesn't jump around in memory too much so that the multi-level caching strategy can actually perform its miracles.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The only physics courses worth going to in college\university are those for physicists. Forget about "Physics 101 for x", where x is in {engineers, mathematicians, chemists, egyptologists, dentists, podiatrists, pre-school teachers,...}. I had desperate students from other faculties come to me because they couldn't understand the material. They showed it to me... and I couldn't understand it THAT WAY, either. Physics can not be abbreviated. There is a reason why physicists take an entire semester just for something fairly straight forward like classical mechanics... and in reality it would have to be two to get to any substantial level. So, yeah, it's not "you". It's the way they are trying to teach it to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tTtt-ho3tq Science historically you are correct. We discovered Maxwell first, then we noticed that it was Lorentz and not Galileo invariant. That caused a lot of confusion and eventually Einstein sorted it out by showing that one could build a Lorentz invariant version of classical mechanics. It was only discovered in hindsight that all of this had basically been sitting on a few pages of algebra right in front of out eyes all along.
I did, of course, not claim that a high schooler can solve this puzzle with nothing more than the algebraic tools that we teach in K-12. It took hundreds of physicists between Galileo and Einstein to put the pieces together, both experimentally as well as logically.
All I am saying is that today, in hindsight, a smart student can understand all of this with nothing more than K-12 algebra and a bit of calculus and the concepts we teach about space, time and with the usual definitions for physical quantities like distance, duration, velocity etc..
Will this ever be easy to "grok" for a human being who is used to a world that looks Galilean? Probably not, at least not to ordinary humans who have been trained in our current public school system that is still very much based on 19th century thought patterns. The world is a little more complicated at the core than it appears on the surface. That's just a fact. We need to start teaching children this lesson earlier than we do today and then they will have an easier time to adjust to the actual scientific realities.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem does not occur in Earth's reference frame. It occurs in SOME reference frame moving relative to Earth. As long as all causality is restricted to speed <c, all observers will agree that event A happened before event B if A happens before B in the reference frame of A and B. If the causality is connecting these events at >c, however, there is a reference frame in which B will come before A, i.e. in case of the grandfather paradox some observer will see you being born before your grandfather. I didn't think this through entirely, but intuitively one might expect time to flow in the opposite direction on the FTL ship itself (apart from the fact that it acquires an imaginary component which makes the system unstable). I Might be wrong about the last part, but the general lore about tachyonic systems is that they are always unstable. Now, all of this only holds if nature is actually relative. If it is not, then one can construct systems which have different energy bands, just like phonons and charge carriers in semiconductors. We would be in one of these bands and tachyons in another. There would be a gap between the two. By supplying enough energy one can "jump" the gap and then the new state would be in the higher band. We have accelerated protons to roughly 7TeV so far without observing this energy gap and "jump". We have been able to observe much, much higher energy cosmic rays (I believe by a factor of a million) and they still didn't become tachyonic, so if such a band exists, then it's at energies above the highest energy cosmic ray that has been observed. It would be completely useless for either communication or travel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@post_metro And that is, indeed, the billion dollar question. "Time" only exists if there is an energy flow mechanism that allows us to "keep time" and to synchronize clocks. In other words, "time" is only a good order parameter in a relativistic universe in which there is no "absolute" matter background that blocks the flow of energy. Thankfully at the surface of last scattering the universe would have been transparent for both neutrinos and gravitational waves, already, so the universe could actually "keep time". Now, if we go back a little further the universe becomes opaque for neutrinos, but it's still transparent for gravitational waves. But what happens if we go back even further than that? Is there ever a state for which even gravitational waves can't travel freely? If there is, then the conventional definition of time breaks down and then, I believe, we need a new mental model for what spacetime means.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelmappin1830 Look, my friend, absolutely nobody cares about Wolff and you living in your own intellectual construct that is thoroughly outside of the realistic level. That's your problem. :-)
A worker owned cooperative is simply not socialism. It's a form of capitalism where the workers are the shareholders and active manages of the company. You can set up any LLC that way, your only limitation is with LLCs taxed as S corps, where you can't have more than 100 shareholders, I believe. You will, of course, run into the usual problems with early vs. late investors and the question how you re-distribute growth. Whatever you do, somebody will be screwed and there will be a lot of bad blood in the company because of that. Professional shareholders who do investments as a business can deal with that problem a bit more rationally than inexperienced individuals, but I, personally would not want to work in a cooperative for that reason, alone.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I have managed to sort it out nicely in my own mind over the years, mostly by trying to explain it to other people over and over, again. The first few hundred times I was talking complete nonsense, of course, just like everybody else. Eventually it clicked and now I have a number of actually workable analogies and examples, but yeah, it took a decade or two to get there.
Feynman really didn't do the the world a service with that statement, if it is by him, that is. Of course he was joking, but most people seem to take it at face value, which is a pity because then it becomes an anti-intellectual statement that defends intellectual laziness.
I learned that quantum mechanics can not be treated with logic when I saw that the operator algebras in quantum mechanics are non-commutative while Boolean logic is a commutative algebra. So that's really a hard mathematical fact. We should be teaching these non-commutative structures much sooner, preferably at the middle school level when we teach children "ordinary" algebra. I think it would make student's minds much more open to "unusual" and "unintuitive" ideas if we would show them examples of "what else is out there" early and often.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@macschomo No, but it's not caused by quantum fluctuations, either, we just don't have a good language to talk about these things.
We can see the problem already in the ground state energy, which ought to be enormous, according to the usual calculation methodology. Instead the effective ground state energy is tiny. So that tells us that something at the interface of quantum mechanics of fields and the underlying geometry of spacetime is broken. It's probably the same technicality that makes it so hard to deal with gravity in a quantum mechanical way.
So where does this problem come from? For one thing, it comes from our definition of "physical event", which is classical and point-like. That, already, would cause an infinite energy term in the most naive formulation, right? We can not even implement a single "point" in spacetime with a proper physical system without running into the infinity problem, but our theory then happily goes on to integrate over an infinite number of four dimensional spacetime integrals to get to a finite result (with some very heavy lifting in the symmetries department that offset some infinities against others).
Moreover, the ground state energy was infinite in classical mechanics, already, if you remember... if we integrate the energy density of a point charge all the way to r=0, then we end up with a divergent integral, so the problem is not even quantum mechanical, it is a general conceptual difficulty with the infinitely "small".
Nature does not have that problem. It simply does not "start" with spacetime, at all. It does not seem to care about the "infinitely small". It only cares about whatever scale is of relevance based on the total energy in the system. Instead, spacetime "is" what "stays behind" in an abstract way (that can, as I said, not implemented with physical systems) once we strip all matter and radiation out of the actual physical solutions. Now, if I could tell you how to implement this with a mathematical model, then I would be in line for the physics Nobel. As far as I know nobody can do this, yet, but we can still point to where the problem originates: from dragging the classical mechanics picture too far into quantum mechanics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ChuckCreagerJr I agree. Some people do awful things to other people. Being dumped or even cheated on is, however, one of the less awful ones. Domestic violence and other forms of abuse, sometimes for economic gain, are far, far worse.
One of my best human experiences was a dinner at the house of a female co-worker. Also present were her teenage daughter, her current boyfriend and her daughter's father and former husband. The four were having the most pleasant intellectual conversations and they genuinely seemed to get along with each other just fine. I was informed that this dinner was a weekly ritual. I asked her about her divorce later and she told me that she and her former husband had both come to the conclusion that they had made a mistake when they got married, that they both loved their daughter equally and that they did not want to let their failure to be a couple come between either of them and the child. The result of that thinking process was a terrific arrangement as far as I can tell.
At the opposite end of a spectrum I once made the mistake of wanting to drop off a donation at a women's shelter. I walked up to the front door and rang the doorbell. The result was frantic shuffling behind the door and a threat to call the police immediately if I didn't leave. The situation was only rectified by one of the employees who knew me personally. Why was I being greeted with such a response? Because the shelter had been receiving violent threats from the husband of one of the sheltered women. They were genuinely afraid that the guy might show up to commit an act of violence.
So, yes, human relations can be traumatic, but they don't have to be. It's all about what we make of them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@xiupsilon876 Yes, there has been a lot of theoretical research in that area and even Sabine Hossenfelder has recently published an article about a different type of "hidden variable" approach if I am not mistaken.
There are a couple of problems with a phrase like "quantum mechanics is incomplete". What do we mean by that?
Incomplete because we can not know position and momentum with arbitrary precision at the same time? That's not a quantum mechanical property to begin with. It's a general mathematical property of functions with L2-norm (that's what the mathematicians call "energy"). It's just as valid for water waves as it is for classical electromagnetic waves as it is for quark and gluon quantum fields. Wifi routers have a protocol that uses time-energy uncertainty to shape radio-wave packets in a certain way. Our engineers are using this principle in mechanical, electrical and information systems daily. This can never be "undone" because it runs into a fundamental mathematical property of continuous functions. If Einstein would have wanted that, then he didn't even realize that the classical world had exactly the same limitations as soon as continua were involved.
Incomplete because photons, electrons etc. do not behave like classical particles? Absolutely nothing in the universe behaves like a classical particle. A classical particle in physics was always an abstraction to simplify problems like the Kepler problem to the level where it can be (almost) solved in closed mathematical form. All it ever meant was that we reduce the dynamics of an extended classical body to the dynamics of its center of mass, i.e. we neglect rotations and internal degrees of freedom. As it turns out, there are approx. one dozen single particle Hamiltonians that are integrable (that have general closed form solutions) and some of them (like the three dimensional Kepler problem and the four dimensional harmonic oscillator) are mathematically equivalent. Every other "particle problem" does not have a closed form solution and we can not predict its motion for arbitrary long times. If we connect three or four masses with rigid sticks and ask what the general rotation of these masses are, then it takes about a thousand pages of mathematics and physical discussion to sort out the possible modes of rotation of such systems under symmetry conditions and there is no solution for a completely asymmetric rotator, at all. That system is already completely chaotic.
So what, exactly, are we losing in quantum mechanics compared to classical systems? If anything, the hydrogen atom is a much better behaved system than a general Newtonian rotator ever was.
Finally, quantum mechanics the way Einstein saw it was not a physical theory. It was more like thermodynamics, a framework that connects different types of physical properties with each other but that does not say anything, at all, about a specific physical system. The physical theory that makes solid statements about nature is quantum field theory. It builds on what Einstein knew, but it goes far beyond it. Even Heisenberg mentions in that paper I just read that he does not believe (this is in 1925, I believe) that a quantum mechanical theory of the electromagnetic field is even possible. Feynman and others gave us such a theory in the 1948 to mid 1950's time frame, i.e. we went from knowing nothing about quantum fields to a complete (if unexplored) theory in another 30 years. That theory happens to be the one that has the best numerical match between theoretical prediction and experiment of all of our theories, to date. It's better than Newtonian mechanics/general relativity in the solar system by a factor of 100 or so, if I am not mistaken.
So, then what does it take to make quantum theory complete? A predictive formula of when the next photon will appear in a photon detector? Do we have such a formula for the lottery numbers? The roulette wheels in Las Vegas? When two cars will collide the next time at any given intersection? Whether it will rain at 3:12pm next Thursday? If we do not have those predictors, then why does it bother us so much that they also do not exist for photons? Just my two cents.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikeanderson8158 The conserved properties of the vacuum are energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. This is the combination of system properties that we call "quanta" and an event in quantum mechanics is the exchange of such a quantum between two systems. That such an exchange event has a duration is experimentally verifiable because it expresses itself in time-energy uncertainty. We can produce ultra-short pulses of light and the quanta in such pulses have a finite energy distribution that is inverse proportional to the duration of these pulses. The length of the time aperture of our energy measurement does influence the measured amount of energy. If we want perfect energy resolution, then we have to make that time window infinitely long. The same is true for momentum resolution. If we want to reduce the uncertainty in momentum to zero, then our detector system has to be infinitely large.
None of this changes in string theory, as far as I can tell. String theory adds internal degrees of freedom to the physical vacuum that behave like compactified dimensions (at least that's the naive interpretation for some versions of it), but the structure of reality stay the same as in ordinary quantum mechanics, at least in the free field limit (which implies flat spacetime). It's not clear to me what field states in string theory mean for the strong field case, but that problem already exists in general relativity. Even classical energy density seems to lose its original meaning in strongly curved spacetime, so if the classical theory has that complication, then it will likely persist in any quantum model just as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ayy lmao Let's make this simple, kid. Let's use the conventional definition of Marxism as a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation.
As such it has made predictions about the future from the perspective of the 19th century, correct? All of those predictions have failed.
Now, we can discuss why predictions, especially of the future, are difficult. What we can not discuss is that Marx and Engels were simply wrong. The dominating forces of the 20th and 21st century are certainly not those of historical materialism. They are mechanization and automation (devaluing manual labor of the kind that Marx saw as a dominant form of influence), information technology, nuclear energy (in form of nuclear weapons), the aging of the world's populations and, soon enough, artificial intelligence.
Marxism was completely blindsided by all of these. The end.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jth4242 I didn't say that it's impossible to derive actual physical "elementary processes". What I said is that Feynman diagrams are not equivalent to these processes. That does not mean that there are no other representations of the behavior of quantum fields that can yield a much better interpretation. Personally I strongly suspect that there are and I gave you an example of recent theoretical insight into one possible such avenue. The problem with Feynman diagrams is simply that they weren't derived from physical insight but they are a purely mathematical necessity to get through the calculations in a naive way, at all.
Why are Feynman diagrams like that? Because the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, which is a quantization procedure, basically assumes that one can describe the world in terms of quanta, which are irreversible energy exchanges at the boundary of a quantum field. By pushing this irreversibility (that does not exist there) into the volume, we are opening up a whole slew of mathematical problems, which we then have to solve with more or less ad-hoc methods. Even our best solutions have remnants of trouble (like an extremely high calculated vacuum self-energy term) that do not exist in nature. In nature quantum fields behave like extremely smooth objects all the way across the universe (if they didn't, then we couldn't see all the way back to the beginning of time with telescopes). There are no dizzying virtual particles popping in and out of existence all over the place as poor visualizations of spacetime want to make you believe. Atoms in the ground state remain in the grounds state until actively excited etc... all of this tells you that something in our math is wrong. It's good enough to calculate a lot of things, but it's still not good enough to be satisfied with it. And we aren't. That's why very smart people are still thinking about the problem. QFT with Feynman diagrams is, by far, not the last word, neither mathematically nor in terms of physical interpretation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Imjust Observing Violation of any of the conservation laws. I don't know if you guys are aware of this (it does not seem you are), but an atom has to be brought into an excited state to release a photon. That means that a mixed state between exited and ground-state is simply some of the ensemble being in the excited state and some of it being in the ground state. The same atom, however, can never be in both states at the same time because that energy will, eventually, have to be released. Energy that is not in the system can not be released. Energy that is in the system can not stay in it forever because of the decay time constant.
Goodness, gracious, kids. This ain't rocket science. One simply has to be able to distinguish between ensemble properties and individual system properties. What QM can't tell us for mixed states is which of the actual states one particular atom is in, that's all. This does have severe consequences for the phase space of systems that have many degrees of freedom, but even for those the total energy is the total energy, no matter how much it spreads out over the mix.
You can make the same argument for any conserved quantity. Momentum, angular momentum, spin, charge, lepton number, whatever. These conservation laws are not just being obeyed in the average. They are being obeyed by any one of the samples in the ensemble. To think otherwise is unphysical. Maybe you really need to take a few lab classes in the atomic physics department to remind yourself how nature actually works. That is the problem with all this double slit nonsense and Schroedinger's cat etc. These toy examples do not force you to think about real physics. They all gloss over all the stuff that is of actual importance in real world experiments. Do you really think we would build a multi-billion dollar 17km circumference accelerator if protons would be equally likely in all possible momentum states????? Seriously?
End rant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know how much experience you have with relationships, but an adult male in a working adult relationship does NOT crave intimate experiences the way a teenager does. This doesn't mean that we aren't craving intimacy. We are. What we are NOT craving, however, is the enormous amount of emotional (and sometimes physical) effort that is required to have a truly good intimate relationships. And THAT Is the actual reason why infidelity is not a problem for "happy" couples. We know that the fantasy of a quick in and quick out does not exist in the real world. Why do we know that? Because it may have taken us many days, weeks, months or even years of work to build a truly intimate relationship with our life partners. A real partner is the biggest investment you will ever make in your entire life. If you don't know that, yet, then you didn't have a real partner, yet. Words like "entitlement" are therefor pointless. They lead into the void, not just in practice, but also in theory. "For better or for worse", as trite as it is, is a much, much better way of thinking about this. Somebody who can't swallow the "for worse" part is, at the end of the day, not a suitable choice of a partner.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mage3690 I don't know what they are teaching in college algebra, but this is the algebra course description at Yale:
"MATH 500a, Algebra Junliang Shen
The course serves as an introduction to commutative algebra and category theory. Topics include commutative rings, their ideals and modules, Noetherian rings and modules, constructions with rings such as localization and integral extension, connections to algebraic geometry, categories, functors and functor morphisms, tensor product and Hom functors, and projective modules. "
That is what a mathematician calls "introductory algebra". Okay?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I recently went into the nearest public library. There was not a single physics textbook in the physics section. Honest to god, not one. I would have expected at the very least one or two college level textbooks about classical mechanics, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics and optics. I wasn't even hoping to see an atomic, nuclear physics or general relativity textbook... but there was NOTHING. All I could find were nonsensical things like Hawking's layman's books and stuff like it. Not even Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes" was there, even though that's at least a somewhat useful classic. Not even one copy of Heisenberg's "Physics and Philosophy" or Feynman's "QED" for historical reference (the content of both books is questionable from a modern point of view, but you as a librarian are neither required nor expected to judge that). This is NOT a problem with academia. In comparison, the physics section of the university library closest to me has something like 15,000 physics textbooks and a hundred journals (with many more online), if I remember correctly. So, if you want to talk about a real crisis here, it's a crisis of the public library system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good question. I don't know, but when it comes to Feynman I would be careful. He does, as Maudlin say, give a lot of beautiful intuitive explanations, but it turns out that many of them are wrong and while they seem to lead to short term insight, they are doing an enormous amount of damage in the long term because they are "just not so".
Maudlin's own explanation of the twin paradox is wrong, by the way. It's not the motion of the clocks that changes the clocks. Clocks never change. Clocks are simply ways to measure causality between different physical systems. If you want to understand the twin paradox, then you have to go back to the actual observations. What really happens if a clock is moving relative to us? It gets redshifted when it moves away and blueshifted when it moves towards us. It also gets delayed when it is at a distance from us. These are the actual physical effects that are related to relative motion and displacement. So when the traveling twin starts his journey, the clock of the stationary twin gets redshifted for him (and the traveler's clock gets redshifted by the exact same amount for the stationary observer). The "magic" happens when the traveler turns around: he experiences the change in the stationary observer's clock right away: it turns from red to blue. For the stationary observer, however, that event only happens a long time after the traveler has turned around because he keeps receiving the traveler's redshifted signals even while the traveler is already on his way back. That's caused by the inevitable signal delay between distant systems. We are always seeing the past of a system that isn't where we are. We can never see its "present", i.e. its actual physical state. This means we are seeing the redshifted past of the traveler longer than we are seeing his blueshifted past and that is the self-consistency reason why the traveler has aged less than we have.
One could argue that the concept of "proper time" describes this phenomenon in another way, but there is a problem with that: it requires "god mode", i.e. in order for us to know the "current proper time" of a system in motion we would need to know where it is right now... but in reality we only know where it was a considerable time ago. In that sense Einstein's formulation of special relativity breaks with its very own principles that we should only care about what is and not what we imagine should be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@worldnotworld I didn't say that these things are not real. What I am saying is that all these ideas came from real things and real world problems. Mathematics, at the core, is physics that has been liberated of its experimental and observational basis. We can discuss whether things like the axiom of choice have any relevance to practical applications of set theory in science (I don't believe so), but these are, IMHO, fringe problems, even for most mathematicians.
What will hit the mathematicians really hard in a short amount of time (less than a century) is the fact that physicists have already liberated themselves from the idea of objects with the advent of quantum theory. Sets are simply not what underlies nature. Implementations of sets in form of classical objects in classical baskets are merely an emergent property of nature. There has, as far as I can tell, not been any serious work in mathematics on the idea that maybe one should start math not with sets and formal logic but with a generalized version of quantum mechanics. Quantum math (which is NOT the same as the math of quantum mechanics but much, much more general) simply does not exist, yet, but eventually it will.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcozec5019 One has to understand measurement as a real, hands on, expensive lab hardware kind of process. It is not some "esoterical, mathematical, philosophical" abstract. A typical quantum mechanical measurement apparatus is like a spectrometer, which consists of an aperture/grating system that separates different wavelengths of light, followed by a detector, which could be a photodiode, a CCD camera, a photomultiplier tube or just the unaided human eye.
It turns out that we can build many different kinds of spectrometers of this kind, that select different properties of the light. The most simple grating is a single slit, which detects if light is coming through one particular spatial region. The next kind is a lens followed by a single slit, which detects if light is coming from a certain direction. The first kind of measurement is a position measurement, the lens makes it a momentum measurement. With an input slit and a fine physical grating we arrive at a true spectrometer that measures the energy distribution in the incoming light. We can add a "temporal aperture" and then get time dependent distributions as well. What never changes is the actual detector, which always removes energy from the electromagnetic field. What the math of the theory describes (in an abstract way) is the particular physical effect of our physical apertures/lenses/gratings etc.. This is almost never mentioned in theory textbooks. For that you have to study experimental physics textbooks which explain "how" a particular measurement can be done with actual physical means. There is, unfortunately, no trivial correspondence between experimental hardware and the operator calculus that we can find in theory books. There simply can't be because there are no "ideal" experiments. A quantum mechanical "measurement operator" can, at most, be crudely approximated with actual lab hardware and there is a lot of art and hard work to that experimental process.
Most of the "fundamental problems" in quantum mechanics stem from the different kinds of approximations that we have to make to get from real hardware to the operator calculus. They exist in the theory but they don't exist in reality because the limits of the theory that cause the perceived problems are being made obsolete by the actual physical processes that are happening in an actual measurement. One can learn some fundamental insight from that, as well, but they are usually lost in the theoretical literature which suffers a little bit from naval gazing. If all you do all day long is to look at the structure of the ideal theory, all you will ever find are the problems with the theory, whether they are actually present in reality or not. Most of them are not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
QFT is local in the sense that the Hamiltonian is local, which can be expressed as commutation between the Hamiltonian and all other operators at different spacetime locations (I am not a theorist, so don't nail me to the precise conditions). It is strongly "non-local" in the sense that multi-particle states are always symmetric or anti-symmetric, which leads to the entanglement of states due to these symmetries. I have heard opinions that this should better be called something else, like "inseparable" and I would agree with that since non-locality in classical physics was defined differently. Having said this, the language of QFT is (for historical reasons) a big mess, anyway. There are, most notably, no particles in QFT, even though textbooks and physicists call quanta particles all the time, which is one of the worst misnomers of all times in physics. So, essentially, you just have to get used to the language idiosyncrasies and do mental substitutions for poorly chosen terms all the time. So what shall we call this, then? QFT is a "local but inseparable theory", maybe?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@augustinemmuogbana3382 That's the definition of "observation" in science. It always refers to a physical event. Like I said, we can use hypotheses to predict phenomena that should be observable according to the hypotheses. Unless they are being actually observed, however, we can't assign "reality" to them. I can, for instance, calculate the exponential function of the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe. Does this mean that there is a physical observation that corresponds to this very large number? No. There is, as far as I can tell, no natural phenomenon that counts hydrogen atoms and then somehow implements their exponential function. Hence I will never claim that exp(n_Hydrogen) is a physical phenomenon.
In the same way I can't claim that virtual particles are a physical phenomenon. They are an intermediate result in a calculation procedure that can, with enormous difficulty, be used to make SOME predictions about quantum fields. We can't even claim that it makes only correct predictions. The vacuum ground state energy prediction, for instance, is wrong by many orders of magnitude, which proves that something is fundamentally wrong with the calculation to begin with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jefferyzielke7665 You would be boring her if you tried asking her about the stuff she does for a living. That was my point.
I don't study quantum gravity. I used to do experimental physics, which means I can differentiate between where the theorists would like us to be and where we really are. We are nowhere close to the parameter ranges that they are talking about, please trust me on that. It's like a snail talking about flying to Pluto squared... that's roughly the size of the parametric desert between current experiments and quantum gravity. Baring a technological miracle that gap will simply not close in anybody's lifetime, probably not even in the entire 21st century.
I wouldn't suggest any career for Dr. Hossenfelder. She has made her choices.
If you are a young physicists in your first couple semesters in university, right now, I would suggest that you stay far away from high energy physics, especially anything that uses an accelerator facility. It's not that there aren't interesting detail problems there, but the next big breakthroughs won't be happening for decades, well outside your likely career horizon.
Astronomy, on the other hand, is going through a technological revolution, right now. There will be amazing new instruments for fifty years to come (especially space based, long baseline interferometers). The amount of data that's in the sky is absolutely astonishing and it's ripe for the taking. That's the much safer bet.
Having said that, most physicists end up in other fields, anyway. Solid state physics and material sciences always offer solid employment opportunities in industry, if that is what somebody is interested in. Positions in astronomy are rare and hard to get and that won't change... so unless you are top of your field... tough luck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The chemical scale can be understood as being "set" by a couple of things: the speed of light, Planck's constant, epsilon_zero, the electron charge, the electron mass. None of that really matters as the values of these constants depend on our choices of physical units. They are only "uneven" numbers in SI units, which are really engineering choices. Set c=1, h=1, m_e=1 etc. and you will find that the only "constant" that remains is the fine structure constant which is the famous 1/137. That is the only "unexplained" mystery here. What sets that? We don't know. We don't know what sets the ratios between electron and proton masses, either, because for that we would have to know what sets the interaction strength of quantum-chromodynamics. There are, in total, something like 21 such ratios in the current standard model of high energy physics and if supersymmetry exists, then there could be dozens, if not hundreds more of such free parameters in the low energy effective field theory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If a cop tells you to stop what you are doing, then you stop what you are doing. If you get shot for not obeying, then it is your own fault. The woman was stupid. It's a simple as that. These people knew that they were breaking the law and they got what was coming to them. It is that simple in a nation of laws. This has nothing to do with immigrants, legal or not. A cop says "STOP!", then you stop. He has the right to tell you what to do. That's what he was hired for by US, THE PEOPLE. To keep the peace. You are not keeping the peace, then WE, THE PEOPLE, through our armed representatives, can stop you, if required with lethal force. That's it. Please grow up
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@2tehnik All the measurement bullshit comes from people who didn't study relativistic quantum field theory or, if they did, lack the intuition to connect it to the fundamental questions of "reality" in quantum mechanics.
Historically the study of quantum mechanical systems basically split at the end of the 1920s, shortly after the more or less final version of non-relativistic quantum mechanics was agreed upon. A number of physicists who were interested in low energy systems like solid matter and atomic and molecular spectra kept working with the non-relativistic theory, which can achieve reasonable accuracy for a number of problems but suffers from (mostly imaginary) interpretation issues because it is not a good theory of the world in general. It just happens to work if we squint and don't care too much about certain details. That's exactly how classical mechanics works in comparison to relativity. It's conceptually false but still good enough for many simple problems.
The more serious faction of physicists like Dirac, however, realized immediately that non-relativistic QM was both insufficient and a kluge. They began to construct relativistic versions of the theory, initially very much in the style of the Schroedinger equation. These early attempts produced enormous mathematical problems and were very hard to work with. More importantly, they did not reproduce the plethora of ever higher energy physics data that came from ever more energetic accelerators easily. It took these physicists twenty years (all the way towards the late 1940s) to develop mathematical methods that could tackle non-trivial problems (like Feynman's path integrals and Feynman diagrams). It took another twenty years (bringing us closer to the 1970s) to tackle divergence problems and to develop what is called gauge theory that is the backbone of the standard model of physics.
As a by-product of these mathematically very challenging problems the comparatively trivial issues of quantum mechanical measurement etc. are falling by the wayside completely. It is trivial to explain the source of uncertainty in a relativistic worldview and it is just as trivial to explain why the world seems to reduce to classical physics on its own without somebody staring at it all the time.
So why are there still people who just can't take the relativistic quantum field theory "yes" for an answer? Beats me. Some people just don't want to get out of their Schroedinger comfort zone, I guess, no matter how poorly it matches to actual reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GiuseppeBertini Genetically "male" is well defined. Males have an XY chromosome pair, females are XX. There are genetic abnormalities with additional chromosomes, like XYY (Jacob's syndrome) and XXX. Triple X females can have a very tall, rather unique (and in my personal opinion masculine) build, so they might have a physical advantage in some athletic disciplines, even though they are "more" female than regular females.
Having said that, athletic performance seems associated with more than 200 known genes (and there are probably many more beyond that), so counting chromosomes is a very, very crude tool at the biological level. Of course athletic performance measurement is, on some level, genetic discrimination. Some people are born more athletic than others. A genetic handicap is impossible to overcome with any amount of training in the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are two sources of discreteness in quantum mechanics. One is the measurement process. A measurement is an irreversible change of field energy. By that we mean that no matter what happens in detail, there is a long term (more precisely infinitely long) change in the energy distribution between the system under measurement and the measuring system. The "result" of that change, per special relativity, is a change of energy and momentum, but it can also involve angular momentum/spin, electric charge and other conserved (or nearly conserved) quantities. Logic necessitates that such a one time change has to have a discrete (single value) property. That, of course, is merely the source of discrete measurements. It is not the source of quantization of the fields. For that we also need the quantization of angular momentum/spin. I don't have a really good fundamental reason for that, even though I know that theorists have tried to derive it from deeper principles. It may be due to symmetries of spacetime. It may have to do with the partition properties of physical systems that require a theory that obeys something like the law of conditional probabilities, which can be used to derive the linear structure of quantum mechanics. It may be the intersection of both or something physically deeper, still.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chadkincham Matter isn't made of energy. Energy is a property. We teach that in high school, but it doesn't seem to stick. Maybe you can remember this: If you have a "red car", then "red" is a property of the car, but it's not made out of red. That's in contrast to a "clay brick", where the brick is, indeed, made out of clay. The way physicists use the word "energy" is the way "red" is being used in "red car", not the way "clay" is being used in "clay brick". Yes, photons are energy, they are not corporal objects. Quanta in general are not corporal objects. An electron isn't an object, either. It's a property of the physical vacuum that denotes a combination of energy, momentum, spin, electric charge and lepton number. Until that combination passes from one system (emerging from the physical vacuum) to another system (also emerging from the physical vacuum), "an electron" doesn't exist. If you can remember that, then you will be able to cut through mountains of bullshit about quantum mechanics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TWak4ord The galaxies beyond a fraction of the size of the current universe are already out of our sphere of influence, so we couldn't tie a string to them that would drive e.g. a generator, if that's the kind of mechanical analogy that you are looking for. They are already moving away at more than the speed of light from us. What an observer would see over the long term is that space will be emptying out, except for a few gravitationally bound local objects, which will not move away, unless dark energy is increasing over time and then everything will fall apart. At one point that process will probably become so fast that there will be a new wave of matter creation and that is where this "dark energy" will "condense" into new matter and radiation, if you will. So that's really a phase transition from an empty universe into a new matter filled universe. This may repeat cyclically over and over, again. Whether this actually increases the total size of the universe is not clear. Personally I have a feeling that it's more like kneading a finite piece of dough, the "inside" goes "out" and the "outside" comes "in", but, of course, the "inside" is everywhere and so is the "outside". That is very hard to visualize geometrically in a flat space, where something like this can't happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@afjelidfjssaf What you are comparing are COMPILER OPTIMIZATIONS, not languages. C is basically refined macro assembly language. It doesn't define all that many operations that do not already exist as native machine code instructions on most modern CPUs in one form or another. It does, of course, take care of memory allocation for you and it gives you a little bit of namespaces (an array or struct are, at the end of the day, just a name space for an allocated chunk of memory). Other languages are doing a lot more in that department, but that comes at a high cost: you lose access to the memory layout, which is not a good thing for performance and security purposes.
No, no language can beat assembly, but even relatively primitive compilers can beat most programmers. That's a limitation of programmers, it's not a particularly amazing feature of compilers.
I will give you a hint for the future: AI code generation will bypass the structured language level altogether. There is absolutely no need to generate human readable code for AI. It can output machine code directly just as easily. I would go even one step further: we may see AI that will generate microcode and programmable hardware maps directly. Welcome to the human-less future. ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nicholaslogan5185 Even with atoms it's at most wave mechanics and you are learning the wrong lesson if you are listening to the usual wave-particle duality nonsense that permeates the internet. The reason why atoms, neutrons, electrons, photons and buckyballs show similar wave-like behavior is because we aren't measuring either of those "things" in a geometric scattering experiment. We are measuring the behavior of the quantum equivalent of kinetic energy. Energy always behaves the same, no matter what kind of system exchanges it with an aperture. That is the correct explanation on the level of quantum mechanics.
There is no such thing as collapse. What people falsely call collapse is an irreversible energy absorption process. The energy that was originally in the quantum field is now in an "external" system called "detector".
So where do "waves" come from? They come from boundary conditions of linear equations. Because linear systems do not interact with themselves in the bulk (free space) the solutions on any part of their boundaries can only depend on the conditions on the remainder of the boundary. And because of homogeneity and isotropy the only relevant geometric quantities are the differences in distance between the boundary points. Guess what that leads to? It leads to EXACTLY the same quantitative behavior in the far field that you were taught in high school about the optical double slit! We don't even need light for this. The double slit works with water waves just fine... and for the exact same reason: small ripples on a liquid's surface are sufficiently linear and they don't interact with themselves.
So you were, indeed, told everything there is to know about this system, even for atoms. What you were not taught is WHY the optical solution is universal. That requires a bit more abstraction than we are teaching at the high school level, but not much more. This is all physics and math undergrad material.
The real step up to quantum mechanics, if you want, would be the realization that quantum mechanics is an ensemble theory. Ensembles are infinite repetitions of the same experiment, using the assumption that all individual copies are completely independent of all other copies. In that case we can apply Kolmogorov's axioms to the problem. You may have been told in high school that the solution to Kolmogorov is probability theory. That is true, but it's not the entire solution. One can, with a bit of juggling, find a solution that is based on scalar products in an abstract vector space and that solution is, if tailored to the requirements of relativistic physics what we call quantum mechanics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mostly private US investors and banks. 86% of our fiscal spending went to social security, healthcare, education, defense spending, R&D etc.. Who should we defund? Old people and their caregivers, sick people and their doctors, children and their teachers, poor people and their children or the military? Please give a detailed answer with rational reasons why defunding the old, the young, the sick, the poor, our soldiers and all of those we are taking care of them will make the country better. ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ They have been teaching the photoelectric effect in Germany for over 40, if not over 50 years. That is exactly how quantum mechanics works. It simply a specialized example of the general scheme. It tells you that photons are quanta of energy. Where in that experiment do you see particles? Nowhere. It's a macroscopic experiment which is usually carried out with photon numbers on the order of 10^12-10^15 or so.
Where else have you seen something infinitely small? And how did you do that? I am an experimental high energy physicist and I have never seen a single particle in my life. What I have seen by the trillions were irreversible energy exchanges between the physical vacuum and the matter of my detectors.
The difference between an atom and a quantum is fairly trivial: an atom is a persistent object that can be observed many times. A quantum only "exists" exactly once: as the amount of energy that flows between two systems during an emission or an absorption event. Easy, right? I would almost call the difference between "many times" and "exactly once" kindergarten level physics. No, not so easy at all, actually. It is this seemingly trivial difference that makes it so hard to get used to quantum mechanics because it has enormous consequences. It does, for instance, not allow us to assign "paths" to quanta.
Yes, you will have to start over with everything you believe you know because NONE of it is as you think. That is not my problem. It's yours. You have to forget everything about atomism because quantum mechanics is NOT atomism. It's pretty much the opposite of atomism.
Oh, and you will have to learn special relativity, because quantum mechanics is a direct consequence of it. If you have never heard that before, then you are in for quite a shock. There is no version of quantum mechanics that can be understood without it. ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@motivationmonster596 Electromagnetism isn't easy. It is not intuitive IMHO, not even for a classical field theory. It is certainly far too complex for high school science, but we still want people to have some understanding of electricity, which means that we have to reduce the physical reality to concepts like electrons flowing in wires. That, by the way, is not wrong, if we are interested in things like electrolysis. There we really have to count moles of electrons moving in wires. It's also not entirely wrong for static electric and magnetic fields. When it comes to dynamic fields, however, the motion of charge carriers becomes a secondary phenomenon and the motion of electromagnetic fields is best explained in the context of special relativity... which, of course, is beyond the high school level for sure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benjalucian1515 Not even the texts of the NT were written by what we would call Christians, today. You may call them proto-Christians or early Christians, if you like, but their world was very different from ours. Their economic, social, political and emotional needs were very different from ours. If you met one of these people, today, you would, most likely, find that you have little in common with them. You may actually discover that you would agree far more often with a Roman intellectual like Seneca who was later adopted by Christians, which tells you that Christianity in many aspects is just a copy of the thinking of greater minds that would not wanted to have anything to do with its eschatological nonsense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because it is also isolated and therefor the trigger system is also not in a classical state from the viewpoint of an external observer. The "solution" to this was known long before Schroedinger. It's called the "Poincare recurrence theorem". It basically says that an isolated system has a finite phase space and within that phase space the system takes on all possible states if we are willing to wait long enough. This means that no matter how unlikely the initial state was, eventually, after a very, very, very long time the system will return to its initial state. The so called "Poincare recurrence time scale" is insanely long, though. Much, much longer than the lifetime of the universe. And the quantum mechanical recurrence time scale is much longer than that, still.
But since Schroedinger didn't perform a time scale separation in his example his argument that we don't know if the cat lives or dies is valid. Eventually the cat will live, again (for a very short amount of time). This doesn't contradict the reality that a cat in a closed box is always dead (because it runs out of oxygen). Reality is simply the short term solution and Schroedinger's choice of superposition is the long term solution. One can calculate this explicitly for an atomic system with an initial state <excited atom| vacuum ground state| that decays into a new state <atom in ground state| single photon in vacuum|. In a completely isolated (mirrored) box the photon emitted by the atom will, eventually, be reabsorbed by the atom and it will get back to its initial excited state again. That is the real solution to Schroedinger's cat. It's trivial and says absolutely nothing about quantum mechanics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why is having old people around problematic? Old people have a finite shelf life. It expires rather quickly once they reach approx. eighty years of age. The longer we keep people healthy, the less care they need at the end. Much of that care can be automated these days and the remainder will give jobs to many young people. Because, see, having a lot of young people around is very, very problematic. Why, do you think, were they fighting so many wars in the past? Because they had plenty of young men who didn't have a job. These young men weren't the first born sons, so they couldn't inherit the farm. Their older brothers couldn't keep them around because there wasn't enough food and they were aggressive because they had no future and couldn't marry, either. Becoming a soldier was one way out of that hopeless existence. You got paid and you either died quickly or you rose up the ranks and then you could actually make a life for yourself by serving a nobleman. Today we don't even have that mechanism. Look at China's population dynamics. Enormous youth unemployment and hopelessness among young males who, again, can't afford to get married. And this in a country that is aging rapidly! What, do you think, is the future going to look like in Africa where that problem is ten times as pronounced? Grim. So, yeah. Lot of old people and few young are better, not worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@itseveryday8600 Let me ask you this: if you were the US government and you would be planning a long term upgrade to all of your military space assets, maybe including a complete revamping of your nuclear defense posture, what would you ask a rocket manufacturer to do for you? Might is look like the reusable rapid launch capable Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy and Starship architecture? Would you love to have the ability to build ultra cheap, liquid fueled ICBMs on a tiny production line in the middle of nowhere from fairly conventional materials (like rolled steel sheet...) with cheap tooling using mostly stock construction equipment? Would you like an ultra high performance rocket engine that costs a quarter of a million dollars a piece to make and of which thousands can be manufactured in a year, if funding becomes available? Would you like the ability to put ten thousand satellites into orbit in less than a decade (each carrying a small re-entry payload...)?
So, then, do you get the feeling that SpaceX may not be "just" an effort to get Elon Musk to die on Mars... just not on impact?
Can you further imagine that this "humanitarian effort to make mankind multiplanetary" might put the fear of total Armageddon into the hearts and minds of Russian, Chinese and North Korean military planners? :-)
And, no, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think I can still tell dual-use when I see dual-use.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blahdiblah2169 It was never "shut up and calculate". For me it was always "I don't understand QM101 at all, so let's go to the library and see if we can't find something that makes sense". It took me several weeks of more or less random digging in old journals and textbooks, but then I found Feynman's 1948 paper on the path integral formulation of the Schroedinger equation and then the lights went on. From there I began dabbling in quantum field theory and it took me years (I suck at theory) to understand why the QFT guys don't give a frell about measurement operators. And then I did a PhD in experimental high energy physics and there you notice very quickly that what your detectors are measuring are always energy and momentum. You aren't measuring some random linear operator over a general Hilbert space. It's not math but the most concrete physics in the world. It's the relativistic miniature version of collisions between massive objects that you have seen in high school physics, except that there are no massive objects, but the formulas for kinetic energy and momentum exchanges are still valid.
And then I read some more about it and I found Mott's paper from 1929 that explains why plane waves with high momenta automatically form particle tracks in detectors and another set of lights went on. And at that point you can completely abandon the QM 101 nonsense about particles. There are no particles. There are only quanta and quanta are energy and momentum and angular momentum exchanges between fields.
And once you know all of that, then you can go back and re-read the old papers of Heisenberg and others from the 1920s and you will find that you were never asked to shut up and calculate. It's all in those old papers, already. The entire physics intuition that you needed to make it successfully in QM101 was already there. What had simply happened in my case is that the guy who read QM101 to us (literally... he didn't give a frell) was not a high energy physicist, he didn't care about foundations of quantum mechanics, he had never built a relativistic detector, he had never read a thing about path integrals, he had never read Heisenberg's papers, either. He knew the formalism from abstract modern textbooks that didn't mention any of that and that was enough for him to do his job in solid state physics. He was the last guy on Earth who should have been teaching QM 101.
That is not a problem with quantum mechanics. That is a problem with how we teach quantum mechanics to undergrads.
And that, my friends, is exactly the state of quantum mechanics "teaching" on the internet. You are getting a completely mutilated version of a non-relativistic approximation of quantum field theory (which is the only real physical theory that is self consistent) presented by people who don't know that what they are showing you is not the real deal. They simply don't know what they don't know. That is physics DK.
And now you have to decide if you want to download Mott's 1929 paper and Heisenberg's 1927 papers (or thereabouts) and read a good textbook or two on QFT and go through Feynman's derivation of the path integral for the Schroedinger equation (one of the most beautiful theory papers in all of physics IMHO) or if you want to pretend that you know it all when you don't know anything, whatsoever. Take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@YngvinLion Wave function collapse is not a thing. The correct way of looking at it is in the context of reversible and irreversible physical processes. Only the irreversible ones are "real". Why? Because a reversible process doesn't leave a long term trace in the world. It comes and it goes. It's forgotten, even by the universe. The intellectual challenge, of course, is to leave the confines of your mental nursery behind. In high school and in early undergrad education even at the university level we are building up this fantasy that the world is reversible. In reality, however, the reversible processes are irrelevant. Hamiltonian mechanics can't tell you how many times the Earth has been around the sun. Only rock erosion can. All we know and learn about this world comes from the very processes theorists dislike because they are hard to calculate. ;-)
Similarly the randomness/determinism pair is childish thinking. The primary observation is not that the universe is random. It's that the future is not predictable. 19th century physics could not predict the future any better than we can and not for a lack of computing power. The future is simply not fixed, no matter how hard one looks. So how did they come up with that determinism fantasy? Because after an eternity (well, 300,000 years) of human evolution in an environment that seemed random and hostile, they finally managed to predict one thing: an elliptical orbit of a planet. That was it. They couldn't even do two planets. Today we know that two is already too many. One is it, plus a harmonic oscillator and a handful of other systems. It was that tiny success that lead to the hubris of "determinism". It's not a scientific term. It's philosophical nonsense.
So that leaves the question where the universe seeds "indeterminism" (NOT the same as randomness!) from? Relativity. A simple look at a space time diagram can show you that it comes from space-like events. And that is the entire story here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WayOfAges I am calling the people who can't explain quantum mechanics this easily unintelligent. A better phrase would be "intellectually lazy". These facts about quantum mechanics have been known for a long time. OK, the derivation directly from Kolmogorov might be only thirty years old, or something. I don't remember the earliest paper in which I saw it being done. Maybe it was from the 1980s, which would put it into the 40 year category, but I wouldn't rule out that there are much earlier papers that I simply haven't seen, yet. I am not a science historian and I won't spend weeks or months in the library to dig up some obscure paper from the 1940s that only three people have ever read.
So, yeah, my own QM 101 professor was in that category of "intellectually lazy teacher". He didn't care to explain what it was that we were doing there. He just threw the linear algebra at us without any physical connection to the real world. He could have known better, IF he had read the literature that existed at the time. This problem is endemic in the physics community. Professors who are being tasked with teaching a subject are usually very good at their specialties and crap at everything else (as you might expect). Quantum mechanics is not even a specialty. It's a general framework that is being used in many actual physical disciplines like atomic and molecular spectroscopy, nuclear physics and solid state physics. Everybody knows how to use it but almost nobody knows WHY it works and WHY it works the way it works.
That almost nobody knows, however, has nothing to do with it being unknown. It's known extremely well because it is extremely trivial. It just happens that nobody teaches these trivialities and the language that we are teaching, even in university, is basically 100% false. The math is all correct, but the way we are talking about the math is about as misleading as one can make it. That's a phenomenon of science history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@janellegrace5815 I am tired of people who treat reality like it's a religion. Just because Marx and other people wrote something over a hundred years ago does not make it true and it does not make it the last word. We have tried socialism (as in the control of the means of production by the government). Socialist states have built slave labor camps. Hence socialism is NOT foreign to slavery. There is undeniable historical proof of that. Hence Marx was wrong.
Now, we do know how slavery works. We knew this way before Marx. We didn't need him to elaborate on this. It works by dehumanizing humans. It strips them of their sentient quality to justify their inhumane treatment. It did that, even in theory, at least since Aristotle who wrote:
"Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature."
Aristotle says nothing about capitalism here. He simply entombs the right of the strong to enslave the weak as a matter of natural law. The bible does the same. It took humanism to declare these points of view immoral and reprehensible.
Did socialist rulers care? Of course not. They exerted brutal power under the disguise of serving Marxist ideas (incorrectly or not) and they established slave labor.
Now, you wanted respectful discussion? There it was. And it's gone in a flash because I can tell that the next thing you will pull is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simian_essence My best bet would be on much stronger magnets. ITER, and this I believe to be a valid criticism, was conceived ten, fifteen years too early and it is based on the 12T technology that seemed like a safe bet at the time. Once the field is set, the only way to achieve their goals was with enormous plasma volume, so they had to settle on a dinosaur. Machine cost scales, at least, with third power of size, if not faster, while fusion power density goes up with the fourth power of the magnetic field, so the volume bet is an absolute loser in terms of R&D, construction and operating cost. It's a pity that they didn't wait a few more years and didn't invest in magnet R&D first and foremost. MITs PSFC group has a few words to say about high field magnetic confinement fusion. It's well worth reading, even though some of it also comes with large grains of salt, of course. Field alone won't do it, but it's the right start.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sundhaug92 If you are on microcontrollers knowing how to set up the MMU is, unfortunately, a requirement, or, at the very least it is very helpful. I would, of course, not reinvent the standard libraries or write a file system library from scratch. That is completely pointless. I did write a specialized bare metal scheduler in a day once. It worked like a charm and was 100% stable. Why did I do that? Because there simply wasn't enough memory on that microcontroller to fit an OS in for that purpose alone and even if there had been, reading the documentation would have taken longer than implementing that one piece of code that I needed myself. One has to know where to put an end to reinventing the wheel, though.
In the microcontroller world many low level libraries and "drivers" are hopelessly overcomplicating things because the programmers of those libraries are trying to satisfy a lot of different needs with an unsuitable approach. Hardware libraries can not replace operating systems, no matter how "universal" they are trying to be, but it seems that is what many coders of those libraries are being asked to do. In my experience bit-banging the hardware registers very often solves problems much faster and more reliably.
So, yeah... shaving that code is actually a viable approach. In moderation. If somebody needs a file system, real multitasking, dynamic memory allocation and inter-process communication in addition to an ethernet library, then the gloves are off. That is not worth reinventing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewbagshaw3095 Dude, YOU wrote a diatribe about the cost of homes. That's simply supply and demand and "in the West" as you said it, which in the US means California and especially California oceanfront properties, supply is very limited. There is only so much buildable shoreline and even behind that there is only so much land that people want to live on.
And if you want to talk about Australia, I have been there as a tourist, there is also only so much land that people have the hots for. As much as I liked the outback and Alice Springs for a day or two, I would still prefer a pad in Sydney, Mate! And that also means that if I could afford one, I would buy it at any price that is within my reach (don't worry, it's not within my reach).
I have no idea what any of that has to do with child labor in Bangladesh and neither do you. Are we cool?
Now, with regards to the US, the problem is not the cost of housing. The problem is that the value of manual labor is constantly declining. There is nothing anybody can do about that. Mechanization is marching along at exponential speed. What took ten people in the past can today be done by one or... none. So, better tell your kids to pay very good attention in school, because if they don't they better have the looks of Claudia or they better jump like Jordan or it's game over!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NyscanRohid There is no measurement problem. Every day physicists are doing trillions on trillions of quantum measurements. Every single measurement is the transfer of a small amount of energy from a quantum system (like an atom that sends out some light) to the measurement system (a photodetector). All of this is covered perfectly fine by the high school textbook definitions of energy and systems.
As you can see, there are always two systems involved in a measurement. If you try to lump both systems into one (which one can, due to the definition of "system" as "a partition of nature by a physicist"), then the energy transfer process simply can't be defined and we can't talk logically about "a measurement" at all.
What people call "the measurement problem" is the search for nature's equivalent of the second "measurement system". It's all around you. It's the physical vacuum. If an atom sends out light, then that light travels at the speed of light away from the location of the atom. Since nothing can be faster than the speed of light, the energy in that light is entirely lost to the local "atom system". The atom can never get it back. That irreversible loss of energy from the localized system to the infinity of space, that is the reason why nature constantly makes measurements on her own. When was this known? Very early. You can find this explanation in von Neumann's seminal book about the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. It's in chapter six, I believe. The book was published in 1932, but you can find similar language in works of Heisenberg and Bohr a couple years earlier, around 1927 to 1929 or so, if I remember correctly. Its basically contemporary knowledge with the Copenhagen interpretation. Most modern textbooks aren't discussing it because it is such a triviality, but that doesn't mean that we don't understand it. It just means that the average student never gets to hear this explanation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thomas-gk42 Well, there is a kind of soft determinism that assumes that a godlike being can predict everything, even if man can't. Often that's a animist kind of belief system that assigns some form of personality to nature. "Nature knows what is going to happen next." is, of course, a completely nonsensical idea. What does it even mean that nature knows if she can't tell you because of relativity????
Technically hard determinism falls flat on its face even classically, see e.g. Maxwell's demon as an example for the consequences of such a perfect predictor. If you want to take it from there, then a perfect prediction machine can predict at your birth who will marry you, when you will die and, most importantly, it can resurrect you by turning the motion of your molecules around! Wait a minute... how can a machine that can resurrect you at the same time predict the time of your death? ;-)
As with all things "perfect", one can produce trivial contradictions by consistently applying that attribute. It is, logically, pretty much like an argument for a perfect, all-knowing god.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neillibertine3044 What are the most general systems that we know about? Fields. If we want a fundamental theory, then we have to study fields. Unfortunately it turns out that fields are very hard to study, both experimentally and theoretically. That's why we don't start physics with fields but with systems with discrete "components" like "chunks of matter".
For instance, the most important of all solvable classical particle systems, the Kepler problem, is handled by abstracting a gravitational field and the matter fields away. We decide that we don't care about the nature of matter and assign a classical kinetic energy to chunks of it and we decide that we don't care about the details of gravitation and we describe it in a simplified way as a potential energy term (that depends on the distance of the centers of mass of our chunks). We are then solving the equations that transform kinetic energy in potential energy and vice versa (while obeying global momentum and angular momentum conservation).
The critical term that describes which particular system we are analyzing (Kepler problem, harmonic oscillator, pendulum etc.) is therefor the potential energy term. It is here that we can realize that potential energy does not belong to any particular constituent of the system but to the system as a whole. No matter how many parts (chunks of matter, springs etc.) the system has, there is always one potential energy term that describes all of it.
You are correct that this is not how we are teaching classical mechanics in high school. We are, however, teaching exactly this in the first theory classes in university by introducing the Lagrange and Hamilton formalisms. Then, a semester later, or so, we are teaching students how to "quantize" these classical systems by using the Schroedinger formalism, which replaces the kinetic energy term with a Laplacian and the potential energy term with a multiplicative linear operator.
If you happen to take classes on electrodynamics (the most simple of fundamental physical field theories), then you can later learn in your graduate level QED class how one goes from the Hamiltonian of the electromagnetic field to the quantized field equations by inserting it into a path integral. That, like the Schroedinger equation, is a quantization procedure. It is, however, a much, much more complicated one with sheer endless mathematical consequences that are still not fully understood, yet.
In any case, the big picture is that we never work with "chunks of matter" in these theoretical descriptions. We are always working on the level of system energy.
1
-
@neillibertine3044 "first thing first, if an atom is in higher energy state how it come to so."
Usually by absorbing a photon, i.e. from the electromagnetic field. That is already a simplifying description because "an atom" is actually an electromagnetically bound system. The atom/em field distinction is already a system boundary made by physicists, it's not one made by nature.
So when you say "extra energy from outside", then you are already using the system language that I was talking about.
That atoms are "particles" are semi-classical approximations that you were taught to believe in in school because it is extremely difficult (and in most cases also unnecessary) to describe atoms with quantum field theory. The only difference between us is that I know when I am dealing with an approximation of that kind and you are glossing over it.
"Field theory, field whether scalar like temperature or vector like electric, dont exist without particles."
Why does an electromagnetic field not exist without particles? The classical field description is through either a four vector with a scalar electric field potential and a three vector for the magnetic vector potential. You can expand that to a four-by-four tensor for the electric and magnetic field components, if you like.
Once you quantize that you won't get particles, either. What you will get are field quanta, which are energy/momentum/angular momentum (spin) values. There will never be "an object" jumping out of a quantized em field. Experimentally that is fully supported by something as trivial as solar panels. They absorb electromagnetic field energy at 1e15Hz and convert it into a different form of electromagnetic field energy at near 0Hz. No particles needed.
"About kepler description, there is no conservation of angular momentum for elliptical orbit, so keplers description is faulty."
You really need to go back to your physics books for that one. It's completely false.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chervilant Capitalism is the control of the means of production by private shareholders. It doesn't say that those shareholders have to be men. You may have a bone to pick with the patriarchy, and I support that cause, but that has nothing to do with capitalism. I also don't believe that socialist Cuba was ever run by a woman called Fidelia Castro, was it? If it was, then she would have been a sensational bearded lady sideshow artist.
And please trust me on this... nobody would want to buy my body. Old male goat is not popular with the gay people, either. So, yes, I still need capitalism to continue to fill the stores. So do you, by the way. Because, see, you do not really want to go the way of the poor and desperate, not even if your youth and beauty would still allow you to be very successful in that line of business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sergio_Loureiro That was my point. There is a level of complexity, even in initialization, that requires automation. Not sure I have ever seen 200 in my life, either, but I think I have seen something on the order of 50 or 60 in a plot function once. Somebody tried to cram everything and a kitchen sink into that poor function call.
It is not all that hard to get to impractical numbers of parameters. Look at GUI elements like buttons, for instance. Location, size, colors for background, borders, highlights, style, fonts etc. It adds up quickly and personally I am becoming frustrated if I have to deal with even a dozen parameters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@professornebula6545 Where did I mention randomness with regards to microscopic processes? I didn't. One can actually prove pretty easily that the microscopic world can not be random. Random process inevitably create dissipation and we don't observe dissipation. There is even a fitting name for this proof: fluctuation-dissipation theorem.
Energy, momentum and a few other quantities are perfectly conserved locally as far as we know. This is so both at the macro- and at the microscopic level. What is locally not "conserved", so to speak, is our knowledge about the world. How comes? It's caused by phenomena like non-integrability for classical Newtonian systems (which make the claim that everything can be calculated nonsensical, even at the most primitive level of physics) and even more so by relativity once we look at the world the way it really is.
In a relativistic universe all systems are necessarily open. Energy, momentum and angular momentum are constantly "escaping" towards infinity. That leakage is what makes the local state unpredictable. We can't do the local accounting unless we "collect" all the missing energy etc. with some "hermetic" detector array that surrounds our local coordinates. To get the information about the measured results back we also have to wait for the finite time that a measured signal takes to propagate back to us from our distant collecting array. So that means that the current state can only be fully known in the future and even then only if we are extremely diligent (which is not even possible). In practice this means that the present is entangled with the future. It's not just any near term future. It's the entire future of the universe.
THAT is what causes the world to be non-deterministic. It doesn't mean that it's random, but it means that it's not knowable, neither to us nor to nature.
If you want a poetic description, try this: How do you know what you look like? You need to look into a mirror. Well, surprise! So does nature and because she doesn't have a mirror, she can't tell you what she looks like, either. Makes sense?
You are correct about one thing. Whether I have a PhD or not makes no difference to my arguments. It does make a difference to me, because it means that I have been thinking about this very thoroughly for a very long time. Much, much more thoroughly than most people. That causes a level of mental clarity that is otherwise hard to achieve. You can get there, as well, you just have to spend the fifty years on this stuff that I put in, already, and unlike you I am exercising every day on the internet by trying to explain physics to people, whether they want to hear it, or not. Every time I am repeating my argument I am learning, whether any of you are listening, or not. I am much, much more knowledgeable about the basics of physics than I was 20+ years ago when I began talking about physics on the internet. I used to tell people a lot of bs about quantum mechanics back then, but then I noticed that I was talking bs and I began learning. Today I know better. I am self-correcting. Can you do that, yet?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neillibertine3044 Matter is an emergent phenomenon of quantum fields. Protons and neutrons are bound states of quarks and gluons. Nuclei are bound states of protons and neutrons, atoms are bound states of nuclei and electrons, molecules are bound states of atoms and so on. Where quanta come in is during system changes. Nature doesn't know about systems. Nature is all one entity. Systems are definitions by physicists. We know that these artificial entities interact by exchanging globally preserved physical properties like energy, momentum, angular momentum, electric charge etc.. "A quantum" is an irreversible exchange of one or several of these properties. For thermodynamic reasons energy always has to change (that follows from the third law that does not allow zero temperature, which basically leads to a minimal thermal background energy density condition). So if any detectable change in a physical system should occur, there has to be an irreversible energy exchange. That is what we call "preparation" (aka "source") and "observation" (aka "detector").
As you can see, quantum mechanics is therefor a systems theory. It describes how physical systems interact with each other using measurable (classical) physical quantities. No particles required at any time. Classical mechanics is also a system theory, by the way, you were just never taught to understand it that way. If you had been taught properly, then the "emotional" transition to quantum mechanics would have been trivial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ModernSoftwareEngineeringYT All I am saying is that methodology doesn't scale. The more complex it is, the less it scales down. Just because something works for Google and Microsoft (and we could argue that absolutely nothing works at Microsoft, in terms of quality), doesn't mean that it works in general. Yes, if you can afford independent teams for design and test and validation, then you should be able to produce better software. How many software development companies can afford that? And those who can, do they really produce better software because of the methodology or because they have more developers and not everybody is stressed out to the breaking point? I would suggest it's the latter.
In comparison, how much software is being developed by single people? A lot. Worse, still, I used to do embedded systems, where I did everything except for the mechanical engineering. I did the circuit, the PCB, the debugging and I wrote all of the code that ran on the microcontroller. That product has 100% uptime. There was never a single line of documentation written by an architect. There was never a product definition and there is no test code. I simply wrote a functional software product around my own hardware. I don't think that I even documented the register maps other than in the source code. It still works without any methodology, whatsoever. Why? Not because I am a good software developer, either. I simply took the time to test every bit of the functionality manually. I knew my product in and out before it was ever shipped.
That is my experience. It's my religion. I would not suggest that you try it that way at Boeing or a major game development team.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When I throw dice and the outcome of a throw is four, does that make the probability of the outcome four 100%?
You are mistaking a property of an ensemble of systems (i.e. infinitely many copies of the same system) with the measurement of a state of a single system.
After you have done your measurement in quantum mechanics, the system is destroyed. It's not simply repeating itself with a new initial value. A typical quantum system is a decaying nucleus. When you make a measurement, then you will find one of two states:
1) The original nucleus is still there or
2) The nucleus has decayed and instead there is a new nucleus in its place. The other decay product, e.g. a released gamma, has deposited the decay energy in your detector.
You never get back from state 2) to the initial state. There is no "ensemble" to be had from the same experiment. You have to start over with a "brand new", not yet decayed nucleus.
This is the gist of all quantum mechanical experiments: they are, by definition, unique and irreversible. We can make many copies of the same setup if we like and do the measurement over and over, again. That will, eventually, give us an estimator for the square of the absolute value of "the wave function". We will never get the wave function itself. The measurements can only give us the absolute value at any give time and place but never the phase.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dude, if you don't want to work for less than twenty bucks an hour, then learn something that is worth more than twenty bucks an hour. What a concept! Now, I can tell you that in the medical industry plenty of professionals are raking in $500 to $1500 per hour, but those folks are typically lawyers, doctors or PhDs with decades of experience. Do you know what that means? It means that they didn't just pay attention in high school while you were smoking weed but they put in 24/7 for four to eight years in university and then worked their way up in the hierarchies of their law firms, medical departments and research facilities year after year after year, rain or shine. You don't just get these jobs for being a slouch. You get them because you worked for them. Some people do, that is. There are ten times as many people who are just as smart and who put in just as much work and who don't manage to move up the food chain, for whatever reason (bad timing, poor job choices, personality, bad bosses etc.). Those are the real losers. You are just an average complainer who didn't even get into the game.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimmybrice6360 If you want to find real physicist on the internet, then you can go to the physics stack exchange. Those folks are the real deal.
Tyson is a physics educator. He does it well, but within the limitations of how one can communicate physics to a wider audience. Most of the folks who are writing books for laymen are under the usual commercial pressure and they are human. Humans give in. When your editor tells you to water it down and to pep it up or to get out of his office because he can't afford to sell three copies of your scientifically precise horse tranquilizer, then you do what humans do. You go with the flow, which goes towards fake news, even in the laymen literature.
Many worlds is a side show. There are fundamental problems in quantum mechanics, but not of the kind that many worlds is trying to cure. Anything that has to do with the double slit is bad physics, for instance, but unfortunately of the kind that is even being taught in undergraduate university classes. There are trivial things in every field that are just so cringeworthy that nobody even notices them any longer. They are just being retold to every new generation, which then adopts them without questioning. Unfortunately, that is the "salacious" material that makes it to the internet and into books and on tv.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donbasuradenuevo I can only judge you by the nonsense you wrote. If you want to appear like a serious human being, please write like one. I am always happy to give second, third and forth chances.
With regards to "me trying hard"... I am a physics PhD and happen to be the designer of one of the core components of one of the world's largest high energy physics detectors. There must be hundreds of times more celebrities, rich people and even oncologists in the world than people like me. So, yeah, at least in terms of rarity I actually do take the cake, even if it's not a very rich one. Physicists don't get paid much. :-)
Not sure what you are trying to achieve with that rant anyway. It doesn't matter to your situation who and what I am. The only thing that matters to you is how you behave. That's what people respond to. I can sense that you are bitter. Bitter doesn't sell. I do know how that feels. I was a bitter young man myself once, but then I decided to change and I did. The nicer I got, the better people were treating me. My life changed because I was making an effort to be liked. Will it get you fame, fortune and seven beautiful wives? No, of course not. But it might get you just enough to look back and not hate all of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@greghansen38 Scattering matrices don't have ontological problems. They are describing the scattering of waves from infinity with the outgoing solutions also being probed at infinity. This eliminates questions like "what is a measurement" completely (not that that's hard to answer in non-relativistic QM but one has to drag thermodynamics into the mix, which is not necessary in relativistic theory). It eliminates the classical-quantum system boundary. Infinity always provides more than enough degrees of freedom for decoherence without having to construct "measurement objects". Phase doesn't matter at infinity, it all automatically boils down to amplitudes, just to name a few advantages.
I do agree with you all the way that we are not teaching classical scattering theory nearly enough. It is extremely important in practice (optics, electromagnetic systems engineering, radar, medical imaging etc.) but the average physics student gets to see almost nothing about it. I certainly didn't, except for a trivial 2-d Coulomb toy problem.
We also didn't learn relativistic dynamics enough to have a solid handle on collisions and high-boost systems. That leaves accelerator physics mostly in the dark, even from a classical perspective. I was taught some nuclear physics, but basically all in the non-relativistic approximation. High energy physics? Forget about it. That, however, is the real "footprint" of the universe. OK, it would have been different at a university that had an active high energy physics program, but even those lectures (I took them later as part of my PhD) were kind of very basic and insufficient to understand QFT on more than a surface level.
One can, of course, learn important lessons about QM from atomic, molecular and solid state physics, but the fact that we are teaching the formalism independently of its applications makes connecting the dots harder, IMHO. I hope that younger professors are slowly getting a better handle on how to give students a working knowledge of QM, because for sure mine didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, it would be if you are approaching it from the mathematical side, which tells you very little about physics. I would suggest you try to understand the physics, first, before you learn the math. That makes it a lot clearer what is going on.
Quantum mechanics is about quanta of energy that get exchanged between systems. It is NOT about objects. It is NOT about particles and it is NOT about waves. When systems exchange quanta of energy, they also exchange momentum, angular momentum and charges like electric charge or leptonic charge. Energy and momentum are not quantized, but angular momentum and charges are. They only come in integer multiples of a minimal quantity (usually expressed in Planck units and electron charge, but these are arbitrary numbers due to the choice of our units - in rational units they should be set equal to 1). In an experiment the detection of one quantum is basically one "click" of a detector. In the ideal scenario such a detector can tell us where and when a quantum was detected and how much energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge it had.
A single detection carries basically no relevant physical information about the systems that emitted these quanta, so we have to bunch an infinite number of them into a quantum mechanical ensemble and then we can form frequentist counts aka histograms aka probability distributions with them. Because we are now working in an ensemble theory, we can assume that each member of the ensemble is isolated and that means that sub-ensembles are statistically independent of each other. This leads to the usual Kolmogorov axioms for probability theory. It turns out that these axioms for statistically independent ensembles can also be satisfied with complex and quaternion based functions (and probably product algebras built from these basic elements, but that's less often used).
The resulting functions are normalized elements in Hilbert spaces (normalized because the number of members in an ensemble does not change during the evolution of the ensemble), which basically leads to unitary dynamics, i.e. rotations in finite and infinite dimensional linear spaces. In the trivial finite dimensional case these rotations can be described by Heisenberg's unitary matrices, in the infinite dimensional case we need linear operators and partial differential equations. And that is basically what quantum mechanics is: the theory of unitary rotations, except that there is not much physics in that because that part is basically a simplifying assumption (that all the copies of the system we start out with are still there when we detect the results). In experiments that's far from true. We actually lose most quanta of energy in most of our experiments. The experimentalists are simply fudging that loss with an arbitrary (experimentally measured) number that we call "quantum efficiency" and the theorists never get to see that fudge, so many of them think that "unitarity" is some god-like property of quantum physics. It's nothing like that. It's just what's left over after the experimentalists have cleaned the data. If you keep that in mind you will start to understand why the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics is so meaningless. It's an artificial construct, not a property of observational reality. It has that in common with Hamiltonian mechanics, but that's another rant. ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheDanEdwards No, it isn't, but if you are learning something real like physics, chemistry, biology, medicine or law, then the money will more or less automatically come. Same in engineering, architecture, nursing and other job categories for qualified people. If you are pursuing Egyptology, however, then you already know that you won't get a job, unless you are one of the five best of your year. That's roughly the number of museum curator jobs that are opening up in the US every year for people who know how to deal with Egyptian artifacts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neillibertine3044 Like I said, a single photon does not produce a measurement that even shows interference. In an interference experiment we need, at least, two measurements. On dark stripe, one bright stripe, for instance. That's a non-reducible number (and it will give very poor statistics).
None of this has anything to do with interaction. Again, it's the total absence of interaction that causes this. In quantum field theoretical terms, if you want to have a self-interacting theory, then you have to have, at least, a phy^4 term (phy^2 is just the energy of a linear field). Light, at least at optical frequencies, is completely without self-interaction. The lowest order photon-photon scattering process is a four-photon gamma_1 + gamma_2 -> gamma_3 + gamma_4 process, which is suppressed by some 50 orders of magnitude for ordinary photon densities in optical light sources if I remember correctly. It's a very hard experimental challenge to make free-electron gamma sources and femto-second laser sources that can actually produce these non-linear interaction between photons without the use of electrons or other charged particles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not a bad article, as far as the mathematical implications of the formalism are concerned, but it still misses the actual physical ontology, which is not surprising. It was written by a capable theoretical physicist. He thinks in terms of formalisms, rather than the physical systems that the formalism stands for. He gets a lot of things right, including the time scale separation in Schroedinger's cat, but that already happened at the level of the nuclear decay that drives the experiment, so he misses that the "cat is alive" criterion is a mere garnish on the actual physics that has already happened long before we ever get to that level. That's the same physics that Schroedinger missed to understand because he was not a nuclear physicist. It is also obvious that he still can't distance himself from the particle picture, which causes most of the confusion among laymen. It is, in some sense, useful among high energy physicists like himself, because detectors are measuring high energy quanta with weak measurements, which leads to particle-like effects, but it is completely wrong in e.g. quantum optics experiments with optical photons, which comprise the large majority of "mystical" experiments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What answers are you disappointed with? The determinism question? That has an absolutely trivial answer but you are asking the wrong guys. Neither philosophers nor biologists have a good handle on it. It's the physicists who do. The trivial answer is that the world is not deterministic. It was never deterministic. For the longest time humans couldn't make any sense of the world. Most processes seemed confusing, at best, and random at worst. Eventually we made a little bit of progress with Newtonian mechanics. Suddenly we could answer questions about the trajectories of single objects. We could, in particular, predict the motion of a planet from first principles. That was the major scientific breakthrough of the 18th century. It was so huge, indeed, that people were immediately over-extrapolating it. If one could predict the motion of one planet with absolute certainty, then shouldn't it be possible to use the same methods to predict the motion of absolutely everything else? That is the idea that lies behind naive determinism. It is as obvious as it is false. Newton himself already noticed that he didn't get anywhere with his methods when he was contemplating the notion of two planets that are interacting with each other. Today we know with absolute mathematical certainty that this motion is NOT predictable. The three body problem is, in general, not solvable. Hard determinism does not apply to it. It's far worse, actually. We know that among all possible systems in Newtonian mechanics (of which there is a very, very large infinity) only a handful are deterministically predictable in the sense of 18th and 19th century determinism. Every other system does not behave in a way that would allow us to predict its long term future.
It gets much worse if we try to apply determinism in special relativity and quantum mechanics. I will spare you the details, but 20th century physics knows that the future is open. It is not only unknowable to us but it is, in general, unknowable to nature. Nature simply doesn't care to pre-select one possible future from all possible futures. It doesn't operate in the way 18th century thinkers imagined. In other words... everybody who is still hunting for determinism in science is hunting for a snark. It's simply the wrong way to think about nature, on all levels, small and large.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ma_X64 You don't have free will. All you have is agency. That's not the same. If the dice had "free will", then they could show 3.14159... on occasion instead of 3 or 4. That can't happen. They do have agency, though, which means that their outcome correlates with some particular future (the 1-future, 2-future... 6-future). In classical determinism this future depends entirely on the past, which makes the present asymmetric. In quantum mechanics, however, the present is symmetric. It depends just as much on the past as it depends on the future, i.e. no amount of navel-gazing about what came before us can tell us what will come after us. What causes this symmetry? Relativity. The energy that leaves "the present" on the forward lightcone moves at the speed of light, i.e. it can not be "caught" by any local physical mechanism. It disappears into the deep future in just the same way as some of the energy that drove the present came from the deep past. So while there is correlation (entanglement) between the past and the present, there is also correlation (entanglement) between the present and the future. That's why what we do here and now has consequences that are not just a function of the past alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
China hasn't achieved anything negotiating either with the Trump or the Biden administration, though. My expectation was that there would be a serious change in relations, but there wasn't, which indicates that Chinese negotiators must have made a serious mistake talking to the non-political employees of the Department of State. I tend to believe that somebody in the Chinese administration, most likely the upper ranks of the CCP, came to the wrong conclusions about the internal dynamics of the US government. That is a hard mistake to undo, if it can be undone, at all. The US seems to have decided to play a long game with China, which China can't win. China is aging rapidly. By 2050 it will be as geriatric as Japan is today and we know how that is playing out economically for Japan. Technologically China will always be limping behind, not because it couldn't do better but because it has a me-too leadership style. China's only hope was to elect young and dynamic leadership but it opted to make Xi emperor for life. An aging country with an aging head of state... when did that ever turn out well? The good news is that Chinese are very long lived, so Xi will be at the helm for, at least, another 30 years. ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ALL_CAPS__ Apologies. Yes, paying for the services one receives is the honest thing to do. I wouldn't even frame it in patriotic terms. It's a business transaction between the individual and society. We usually call it a social contract, but it is, at the end of the day, a service agreement. We protect you, educate you, help with food security and healthcare and in return you pay taxes once you are a healthy, productive adult to provide the same level of services that you were given to others.
Social security isn't mooching, but I am pretty sure the comrades who are so "critical" of billionaires have done little themselves to pay into the systems that support them. The fact is that a guy like Jeff Bezos employs a million people and a a half. We can be critical about the quality of the jobs he provides, but he does provide jobs. We can be critical about Elon Musk's "hobbies", but he has done more than most individuals to propel the world into the 21st century. We haven't seen this kind of active, future oriented action in a long time. Critics of it have to ask themselves what they have done to make the world better, or, at the very least, what they have done to change the world. Wolff and his ilk are, at the end of the day, mothing but reactionaries. They have absolutely no ideas of their own and the ideas they promote have been shown by reality to be destructive beyond belief.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardchapman1592 The wave function is not a description of the state of one system. It's the description of the averages of the quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. of an infinite repetition of the same experiment. Quantum mechanics also doesn't describe particles. That's one of the worst scientific misnomers. Quanta are small amounts of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. The trivial reason why quanta behave so "strangely" is because they are not objects. They are irreversible energy transfers. Energy never behaved like an object, not even in classical mechanics. We could never assign a fixed position to energy. It was always a system property. Once you make these adjustments to your intuition about quantum mechanics all the "strangeness" goes away. The most simple classical analog are dice. A quantum would be the equivalent of an individual outcome of a dice throw, i.e. a "3" or a "5". I would not be the equivalent of the dice. The wave function represents the probability distribution of the dice, i.e. for fair dice that's just the fraction p(n) = 1/6 for every possible outcome. In quantum mechanics that's a complex function, of course and the Born rule is description of the measurement. For dice we could construct measurement operators like "The outcome is even.", "The outcome is odd." or "The outcome is a prime number.", but these are trivial for classical probabilities. We even use these "measurements" in classical games of luck like Blackjack, Roulette etc..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The trouble with statements like that is that there are no "particles" in quantum mechanics. There are only field quanta, which are irreversible energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge exchanges between different artificially defined parts of quantum fields ("systems", usually called "particle source", "particle" and "detector"). The often repeated semi-classical ontology that naive non-relativistic QM assigns to these "systems" is physically (by which I mean in an experimentally testable way) simply not realized. Even in non-relativistic QM the notion of superposition is problematic for the "casual user". Technically a superposition is reserved for an ensemble of a single quantum system, i.e. it is a property of many repetitions of the same experiment. We like to imagine that, just like in classical physics, this ensemble can be replaced by many "independent" quanta at the same time, but that is just not so. The wave function of many quanta is the product of the wave functions of single quanta, which makes for an exponentially larger phase space. This is the very idea behind quantum computing, for instance.
1
-
I have seen the difference between reflectors and refractors (disclaimer - not my own but those of people who are really into it) and, like it or not, the refractor wins and not by a small margin in my opinion as far as visual quality is concerned. Planetary photography requires large focal length, anyway, and the four or five planets that can be resolved in a small instrument (smaller than Hubble that is) are plenty bright even with small apertures. $400 buys a 4" achromatic refractor if I am not mistaken, so under ideal seeing you are trading in half of the theoretical resolution. In practice it might be a little less than that because of the better optical quality of the refractor (no central mirror occlusion).
What you should really do, if you can, is to look through somebody else's telescope first to get an idea of what you can expect to see. What can be photographed at what price point can be easily assessed from the thousands of high quality astrophotographs that are on the internet now.
If, on the other hand, you want deep space, then quality goes out the window and aperture is the only relevant parameter. Buy the largest mirror you can. That's just physics talking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pb0xAF09 So, please, write down the exact kind of documentation that you require for a browser. I dare you. Not for my sake. I already know that it is impossible, but for yours.
I am not saying that it's impossible to write exact requirements for some code. The embedded software that I am writing right now has a couple hundred completely orthogonal functions, all of which do some very specific things in a very specific order, which is ensured by hardware interrupts. The thing is... I don't even need specifications for this code. It's a single developer project, the functionality is fluid because I am the designer of the hardware and I determine which function the software will have. If something turns out to be too hard to implement, I will simply remove it from the list of wants and the customer who buys the product will never know that such a function could even have existed. The control flow will be correct by design (it's a state machine) and all memory is allocated statically, hence I don't have to worry about little buggy things like buffer overflows. This is exactly the kind of software that one could fully specify and test. But why in the world would one? Whether a single function works or not can be tested by hand at the time of writing. That's it.
Now, your web browser OTOH... that's a totally different beast. Anybody can kill that thing with a piece of crappy javascript that calculates pi to the power of e to a trillion decimal places and there is absolutely nothing that your requirements document and test suite can do about that. Javascript is a requirement and it happens to be a Turing complete language, hence you are up against the halt problem. I would suggest you take a few lessons in computer science before you make claims like the ones you made. They don't reflect well on you. :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelcohen5076 The path integral is not a description of a physical process but a quantization procedure. It takes a classical action and converts it into an infinite expression of nested integrals. These integrals are not solvable except in the case of free fields (which is boring, because those mean that nothing happens, at all, except for plain wave propagation). When we try to solve these integrals numerically, we run into an enormous number of problems. They do not converge, at all, unless we sample the classical field in a very special way, for instance (using a midpoint formula, I believe). Even then this quantization procedure predicts an enormous and unphysical ground state energy, which tells us that it way overcounts something. In other words: Feynman's path integrals are not the proper physical representation of these systems. They can be made to work for many predictions, but they certainly do not express the "natural" physical state of these fields.
Even if they did... "all possible paths" are no more physical than the statement that "Santa Claus visits all living rooms in the world through the chimneys in one night" is a statement about physical motion. Quanta are a phenomenon of quantum-classical system boundaries. What nature is trying to tell us with this enormous complexity is that they are not a natural phenomenon "inside" of quantum systems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ckay_real2765 Well, for one thing, Yahweh doesn't even create the universe in Genesis, if we are precise, but for another, you can see that over the course of seven centuries of biblical writing the claims are getting ever smaller. It's an exponentially shrinking god. Pitiful, really. In Genesis he can drown an entire planet in an ocean, by the time of the NT he can only convert a few gallons of water into wine. That's a 20 orders of magnitude reduction in water volume. The latter trick is, of course, well within the capabilities of professional magicians, even at the time of Jesus. Every better potter can make double walled vessels for you. :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, that's just total bullshit. 99% of what I write is either for the console or it has no terminal IO for the user, at all. There are simply different applications for software. What most people are used to are GUI apps with buttons and dials and fancy text fields and custom controls. Games fall into that category, too, except that they have to produce real time responses in addition. And then there is a totally different use of software, which is servers, databases (backends in general) and industrial software tools, many of which are connected to a hard button interface. He is simply not talking about that because his audience (absolute beginners in the field) will not be doing that to begin with (you ain't going to write microcontroller code for hardware that you didn't develop yourself, for instance). Be that as it may, the console is one of the best side channels, even for the GUI developer. It allows you to do quick and dirty things that can simply not be done with GUIs. Learn to use it well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pawelczubinski6413 That's not the physics behind all of this. That's the solution theory of the Schroedinger equation as presented to you by von Neumann, a mathematician who at the time was deeply involved with functional analysis.
A quantum measurement, as in ONE detection of a quantum of energy, is the exchange of one quantum of energy between the quantum system and an external system that we usually call the "measurement system". What "collapse" means is simply that the quantum system before the measurement had either less energy or more energy than after the measurement. If it has the same amount of energy, then a measurement did simply not take place and the ensemble of the system can be described by the unitary evolution of the ensemble's wave function.
If you read Heisenberg's papers on matrix mechanics (1925, I believe), then you will find that the energy differences between "before the measurement" and "after the measurement" (that's the amount of energy which we call "the quantum") are still part of the theoretical description. By 1932 when von Neuman writes his abstract mathematical treatise on the math of the Copenhagen interpretation, that immediate connection between the actual physics of quantized energy transfer and the "state" based theory of the quantum mechanical ensemble had been severed sufficiently so that future generations who are learning von Neumann's math were and are having a hard time to actually derive from it what happens at the level of the physical system.
That's an artifact of the way we teach introductory quantum mechanics. We tell you the math but we don't tell you what it actually means. In this case, of course, you have to understand the actual physics of the process, the mathematical structure of the theory tells you absolutely nothing about what is going on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@V000idZer000 I agree, this argument that one has to put training wheels on a programmer by introducing language restrictions, interfaces and god knows what kinds of business processes (like "agile" development, unit testing etc.) is the most stupid I have ever heard. It's like saying that a young brain surgeon has to be made to operate with one hand tied behind his back because that's "safer" for the patient and, oh, by the way, he only gets to use the butcher knife because it's a tool with thousands of years of experience behind it.
Neither language design nor paradigms can make better programmers and better code. Only education can make both. The OOP crowd is stupid because they do, on average, not know that OOP is merely program documentation and the FP crowd is even more stupid for mistaking a mathematical proof technique for an engineering strategy. In practice every additional restriction, every rule, every requirement makes things worse. How do we know? We have billions of man years of wasted coding effort that proves it.
1
-
@V000idZer000 All of these things are just tools in a large tool box that every programmer should have, of course. They are not "evil" by themselves. What makes them problematic is the purist mindset that is being propagated in the industry. Humans have a tendency to see a good thing and then to pretend that it has to be the best thing ever, the only good thing, that it has to have a godlike quality, that it must be made the only thing that ever matters, and if they have to use fire and sword to enforce that, so be it. It's basically the same psychological delusion that fuels religions.
I have used OOP successfully... on a graphics library. It works beautifully for that. I have used filters and iterators. No problem. But neither was the solution to any real problem for me.
I have to disappoint you on the "better language" thing. A language is either Turing complete or it isn't. All Turing complete languages are identical in what they can do. That includes jokes like Malbolge. The only difference is efficiency. C is a very efficient language and it almost inevitably goes down from there. I believe only things like Fortran and assembly language can do a few percent better. As I said, OOP is documentation. It never makes it into the machine code. Now, I agree... I wouldn't want to write a computer algebra system directly in C, either... so I would probably write a compiler for a custom language for that task, first. ;-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevematthews4489 That's how it sounded like to me when you said that only an Imperial Russia can be stable. That is completely false. Russia would do far better if it had oriented itself toward Europe. The culture and style of Moscow and St. Petersburg are, after all, directly borrowed from France. At this point, of course, Europeans see Russians as the new Mongolian hordes and Stalinism was not an exception but the rule. It will take Russians at least a hundred years to shake that, even with best efforts, which will not be forthcoming, of course. Russia is, at this time, begging to be restrained and, worst case, destroyed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@longcastle4863 That's the problem with laymen. They see bullshit and they immediately swallow bullshit without even doing a smell test. No, "probability wave" is not an actual concept in physics. It doesn't even make sense as a word. A probability is the imaginary continuation of a measured frequency of events in the limit of an infinite number of experiments. First of all it's not even possible to perform the same experiment an infinite number of times, hence not even probabilities are physical, and secondly the process of repetition of experiments does not spread as a wave.
This is irrespective of the fact that quantum mechanics talks about uncertainty and not about probability, to begin with. Uncertainties can be time reversal invariant (and quantum systems are). Probabilities, which are the results of stochastic processes, can not be. You are not just barking up the wrong tree here, layman, you are not even in the right forest. And, yes, that's not your fault. Nearly 100% of the "information" you can find outside of the better textbooks on the subject is about as fake as one of Trump's speeches.
1
-
@longcastle4863 I apologize that I wasn't gentle. Please understand, I am merely here for my own amusement. This ain't physics to me, either, but entertainment. And, yes, I do have a mean streak, but then... I am not asking for your friendship, am I?
If you really care about physics, this isn't the place. The best place on the internet that I know about (and it is fabulous) is the physics stackexchange. There are hundreds of extremely smart people on there who can actually walk you through all the details, if you want. Take care and peace to you, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnSmith-ut5th Don't get me wrong. Feynman's book is great. He gives a great insight into the phenomenon of how path integrals work and how they create semi-classical effects (by destructive interference of rapidly oscillating terms that are far away from the classical trajectory that minimizes the classical action).
One has to understand that he comes from high energy physics background, though. In that particular case, high energy quanta do behave, in a sense, like classical particles when they are being subjected to weak measurements in detectors. A weak measurements is one that does not remove the entire energy of the original quantum but instead only makes many small momentum changes while the energy is being slowly absorbed by a detector medium in many steps. How this happens form the standpoint of a pure wave theory has first been pointed out by Mott in 1929. It's basically an application of the equivalent of conditional probabilities in quantum mechanics: if we localize a quantum weakly at some coordinate x, then we incur a small momentum uncertainty, which for a next weak measurement will give us the same coordinate plus the classical estimate for the location change due to the initial momentum plus a stochastic term that came from the momentum uncertainty of the localization.
In essence, experimental high energy physicist can treat the quanta they are detecting in their experiments like classical particles that make a little random dance around the classical trajectory. In the detector the energy of an e.g. 1Gev "particle" changes in steps of hundreds of eV to MeV per interaction and hundreds and thousands of such interactions occur before all the energy is used up. That's what creates those nice particle tracks that show up in all the high energy experiments.
However, in the interaction point of the beams in an accelerator experiment, that is the point where the actually interesting physics happens during collisions, this weak measurement approximation does not apply. There quanta are exchanging all of their energy/momenta at once and no classical paths exist . That's where we have to go through the entire infinite sum of Feynman graphs to elaborate all physically allowed interaction processes. That is what the path integrals and their perturbation series (Feynman diagrams) were really invented (or shall we say discovered) for. At that point we are back to the same principles that apply in low energy quantum interactions like the photoelectric effect: quanta only exist as physically useful entities during the interaction of quantum fields, when the entire energy of a state is being exchanged. When these fields are not interacting, however, then they behave like wave phenomena.
End rant. :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LateNightRadioe We can agree about all of that. To address your question... do I believe that one can find an algorithm to stop people from hating and doing nasty things to each other? No. Historically mankind has always tried to implement such systems in form of laws and religions and, foolishly, even in the hope that the rule of the one just king (emperor, chancellor, party leader etc.) would set things right. Any and all attempts proved futile, even though some produced short term and sometimes lasting net positive results. Facebook is, on that scale, a rather tiny blip of a phenomenon.
I can even tell you that I do not believe that American Democracy is on the brink because of Facebook or the internet in general. These are just lame excuses. A significant part of the American electorate is merely falling into the same trap as the good German people who cheered for Hitler before the war. They believe that a strong man (it never seems to be a strong woman) can magically make all their discomfort with reality disappear.
That discomfort is real, it is not imagined, it won't go away magically and no strong man can make it go away, either. No algorithm can heal it, no amount of "discussion" on the internet can reduce it. We all have an itch that we can not scratch. It's called being human, it's called being mortal, it's called being lonely, it's called being poor and there are many, many more such limitations that we can't overcome because of the biology of our species.
Having said all of that, communication has become a tool of mass destruction. If we don't want to destroy ourselves, then we will have to regulate it and that is a discussion that has to happen on a much larger scale than that about the algorithms of internet advertising companies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@berryboi1574 You do have a point, of course, that in the US education has been left to the vultures and rent-seekers. The ideal combination for a person is to get a degree in a country with free higher education and to move to the US to make money. That brain drain is, among other things (like the lack of capital for investments and a risk oriented investment culture), a major force why economically smaller countries are at a technological disadvantage. This process has been going on for a long time. We need to reverse it to bring the entire world to the same level of development.
In my opinion Northern Africa can be a very valuable extension of the European economic zone and historically it has been. It was the main grain producer for the Roman Empire, after all. Its fall had a lot do with the loss of its main food sources. Today all of Africa, including the Maghreb countries, are the main untapped source of worldwide human potential. It is young, it is hungry (for knowledge, thankfully a little less for food these days). It has natural resources, not just in form of minerals and beauty (for tourism), but also renewable energy, that could power Europe easily. Instead of the desperate exodus of Africa's poor who will trade the squalor of European immigration camps (at the ultimate risk of their lives) for the instability of their home countries, it's time to make Africa an attractive place to be. Let Northern Africa, in particular, return to its former glory, as the supplier of Europe's lifeblood.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I do understand your sentiment on some level, but let me remind you what happened the last time Germany was a "leading" nation. That didn't go so well for Europe and Germany TWICE. As a consequence the German government has been preaching "Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen" (peace, joy, egg cake) to multiple generations of German students in public schools. That educational campaign actually worked really well. So, yes, now you have a VERY peace loving nation in the center of Europe that will be extremely hard to convince that it should be sending its soldiers into another war with Russia. You may also have noticed that the immigration question has been driving German right wing nationalists (aka Nazis) to the polls lately. The problem with right wing German nationalists is that they don't see right wing Swedish nationalists like yourself as equals. They may see you as a means to an end, just like they saw right win Italian nationalist in WW II as canon fodder, but that's as much as you can hope for. To these people you are still an Untermensch, no matter how much you may think otherwise. So, yeah, I would not advise Europe to wake den Deutschen Drachen. Nothing good will come from it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LennardA320 Yes, the cost+ scheme allows the contractor to charge a lot more than the actual project cost, but not because of the 10%, but because they can quote an almost arbitrary cost base. Now, a naive person may assume that the contractor pockets that money and all the government project managers are idiots. You can hold that religious belief until you actually meet a government program manager. I have. They are not idiots. They know exactly how much materials and services cost. Some of the people I worked with were among the sharpest minded people I have ever met. So why does the government "let" this happen? Because they have other projects with Bechtel that are not publicly disclosed and that they do not want to show up as a Congressional line item. Bechtel gets paid for those projects with excess money from the NASA contract.
Did you never wonder why we are suddenly going back to the Moon? Because it's expensive and the US government needed an endless sink of money that they can hide secret programs behind. Unless, of course, you haven't noticed that there is a hot war going on in Europe and that the Chinese are also extremely active spying on us. Do you really think we are just standing by? Of course not. We simply aren't telegraphing either to the Russians or the Chinese what we are doing about it.
What you should be really worried about, however, is the Saudi Arabian city called "Neom". The Saudis are pretending to dig sand for tens of billions of dollars, which looks even more crazy than the current moonshot programs of both the US and China. Of course they are not digging sand. They are hiding tens of billions of dollars of spending on their nuclear weapons program behind that project. I am sure you can find many similar, although smaller examples of "ridiculous" government spending around the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrDavibu "Refactoring is more about data structures and how data is accessed and management of responsibility."
That's my point. If refactoring moves the implementation or maintenance of a method from one team (member) to another, that's inefficient. People who were familiar with the code are now out of the loop and somebody has to learn it from scratch.
Objects are, in many aspects, a false abstraction. In the real world "things" usually don't perform actions on themselves. A dog, for instance, doesn't walk itself. It is being walked. It may be walked by more than one person. It may be walked all by itself or together with multiple other dogs, which may not even belong to the same owner. So, where does walkingTheDog() belong? To personClass? To a dogOwnerClass that derives from personClass? But then we also need a dogWalkerClass that also derives from person but that does not have a fixed number of dogs as member variables, right? And no, one can not even exclude a more general walkingTheAnimal() method from catClass because there are plenty of people who are walking cats on a leash. :-)
Linking actions to data is, in my opinion, a highly inflexible strategy that forces architects and teams to invent strange hierarchies that don't describe the real world well. Is it beneficial to press everything into such a narrow scheme? I doubt it. The only applications where I find classes and objects useful are GUIs. Everything else constantly tries to break out of this scheme in my experience.
There is, of course, a need for libraries to isolate well defined groups of actions from each other. File IO is a different library than the low level SATA interface hardware library, is different from the file system library, which is different from a string library which is different from a word processor library. There is a natural hierarchy there. The word processor will never need to know about the block structure of a hard drive and the way the file system uses it. But then, again, these functions are so different that we would not be doing ourselves much of a favor by subclassing wordDocumentClass from stringClass from fileIOClass from blockDeviceClass from hardwareDriverClass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@programmertheory Syntactic sugar is just that. It doesn't help you to solve the problem, it just makes the solution look nicer. Your compiler strips it away anyway.
In general I would suggest that the experienced programmer should focus on what matters, not on how it looks. Basically everything they tell you on the internet evolves around looks and/or point solutions to detail problems. Very little, almost nothing really, is about proper system design strategies.
I don't know what Alan Kay thought, but OOP, at the core, seems about design reuse. It's not very good at that, but if you are on a machine that has 32kWords, like Kay may have been back then, then moving runtime stuff (like type checking) into compile time operations might be a reasonable idea. On a 32GByte, 4.5GHz machine it's a ridiculous micro-optimization. Runtime introspection is far more powerful and costs only a few nanoseconds. The easy with which dynamic languages solve problems is proof for that.
1
-
@programmertheory There are no classes in machine code. There are no objects, either. There are only relative addresses, data segments (heap and stack), program segments and jumps/branches/subroutine calls. That's it. None of the beauty/documentation/structure shit that programmers spend 90% of their time on stays alive after the compiler is finished. Not even the execution order of the code.
I used to teach computer science as a TA a long time ago. We didn't teach OOP. We taught machine design, algorithms and compiler code transformations. We wanted the student to understand the difference between code, compile time and runtime. Once you understand that, you will focus on what survives all the way to runtime and the problems that creep in between the two that have absolutely nothing to do with the source code.
OOP is usually procedural. It simply documents data structures and method libraries differently than code that is not based on class hierarchies. Real FP doesn't exist anyway, at least not outside of the madhouse where they put copies of GByte size arrays on the stack to "prevent side effects". That's why our CS class taught pointers/references early on and independent of any language. They have nothing to do with code or even language design. They are a law of nature. It's much easier to point to the mountain than to move the mountain.
The main problem of OOP is that it introduces strong couplings early, often and without any need. Who does it appeal to? The micromanager. It allows the architect to control the team and the business people to measure the performance of employees in meaningless classes/objects/methods per month metrics.
I have mostly given up on OOP. I go with introspection most of the time. In your example there would be a field called whatAmI in my data structure and it would have integer constants for MAN, WOLF, WEREWOLF and NONE in it. Any method that needs to differentiate between these would use a trivial case statement to execute the relevant code. Does it cost one integer and a couple of nanoseconds to execute the comparisons against the constants? Yes. Do I care? No. This saves weeks of refactoring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tom47235 That's a common misconception. We are telling everybody in high school that "Photons are small amounts of energy.". This is, probably more by chance than by design, the correct way of looking at it. Both Planck and Einstein correctly interpreted macroscopic experiments (neither Planck spectra nor the original photoelectric effect measurements are resolving single photons) as signs of field quantization.
Einstein did, however, add a completely superfluous and unfortunately misleading sentence in his photoelectric effect paper that won him the Nobel Prize. In this one sentence he claims that quanta of light have position properties. This doesn't follow from the experiment and it doesn't agree with anything 19th century physics knew about energy. It's just an ad-hoc fallback to Newton's corpuscular theory of light, which is 100% wrong. We can only speculate why Einstein did that. The sentence clearly passed the reviewers and to this day most people who read the paper probably read past it without ever thinking about its validity. The simple fact is that Einstein did not make this statement based on scientific observations. Quite to the contrary: it actually contradicts the experimental facts completely and is not compatible with our theoretical understanding of energy as a system property.
More importantly, all quanta, including electrons, muons, neutrinos, quarks etc. are quanta of energy. They are the amounts of energy that is being exchanged between the free fields and the sources and absorbers in irreversible processes. Even the theory clearly says so if you care to look at it very carefully, i.e. beyond the "shut up and calculate" level, which is unfortunately the most common way that it is being taught.
Curiously physicists have made this mistake twice before. Before heat was established as a form of internal energy, people talked about it as a "Stoff" called "the phlogiston". The phlogiston was supposed to be a material carrier of heat energy that was diffusing from one material into another whenever they made thermal contact. In very much the same way the "particle" nomenclature in quantum mechanics claims, for absolutely no rational reason, that particles are the carriers of the energy that gets exchanged in individual quantum processes.
The second time we invoked a material carrier where there is none was when we claimed that electromagnetic waves were carried by the "aether". That, too, was just a materialist fallacy to explain energy flow as a mechanical phenomenon.
Einstein overcame that fallacy in 1905 when he introduced special relativity. At the exact same time he invented a fallacy of his own that is based on the exact same misidentification of conservation laws with material carriers, by declaring quanta of energy to be material particles. Sometimes even physics is just a comedy of errors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1