The h Bar - 2023-08-29 (page 1 of 2)

« first day (4681 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (545 days later) »

naturallyInconsistent

00:00

@Relativisticcucumber i hated it soooo much

Sanjana

00:16

Why don't we usually include complementary function in solutions to Poisson's equation?
I have seen in Jackson that they would just write the Coulomb solution .$$\phi(t,\vec{r})=\int\frac{\rho\left(\vec{r}',t\right)}{|\vec{r}-\vec{r'}|}dV'$$ with some boundary terms depending on whether it's a Dirichlet or a Neumann BVP.
Yeah, they don't claim it to be the full solution either but I was wondering whether there is some non trivial reason not to include the solution to Laplace equation in the solution to Poisson's equation.

Relativisticcucumber

01:09

@Mr.Feynman have u seen breaking bad

naturallyInconsistent

02:06

@Sanjana When you write down an integral equation as opposed to the differential equation, the boundary condition/initial value is also stated inside. As such, there would be no more complementary function because it is already part of the integral.

Sanjana

I get the first sentence but not the second one...how are complementary functions also part of the integral?

naturallyInconsistent

02:20

@Sanjana By putting the boundary/initial condition inside the integral, you would already fix the complementary part

Sanjana

@naturallyInconsistent Oh...so we are choosing the complementary function in such a way that the boundary condition is obeyed?

Silly Goose

03:17

what is the natural metric on $S^n$, the unit sphere?

is it like the euclidean metric?

2 hours later…

Slereah

05:11

It has a homogeneous metric which is the sphere metric

there's no Euclidian metric on the sphere by the Gauss Bonnet theorem

Well, in even dimension, anyway

Slereah

06:11

Currently trying to figure out who invented spacetime, which is tricky because there are some curveballs

ie if ypu consider Wells' Time Machine

> “Clearly,” the Time Traveller proceeded, “any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and—Duration. But through a natural infirmity of the flesh, which I will explain to you in a moment, we incline to overlook this fact.
There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is, however, a tendency to draw an unreal distinction between the former three dimensions and the latter, because it happens that our consciousness moves intermittently in one direction along the latter from the begi…

Which predates relativity by a bit

I've read the claim that Hinton made some spacetime-like ideas in the 1880's in his book about the 4th dimension, but it is only sort of true

He used time as a tool to help visualize the fourth dimension

Slereah

07:02

Earliest case seems to have been "A friend of d'Alembert"

fqq

@Relativisticcucumber makes you wanna Kubo–Martin–Schwinger?

That's pretty advanced

2 hours later…

nickbros123

09:04

when deriving the energy stored in magnetic field (defined as the work done to set up a current against the back EMF produced), we consider $ \nabla \cdot J = 0$. Is this approximation valid?

Slereah

That's the approximation of when the current is steady

Since the real equation of continuity for charge is $\partial_t \rho - \nabla \cdot J = 0$

nickbros123

when im building the current from 0, its not steady right. JDJ says, "we may imagine the building process ocurs at infinitesimal rate, so $\nabla \cdot J=0$"

but it doesnt occur at infinitesmal rate right?

Slereah

I guess it depends on how fast it is going?

If $\partial_t \rho \ll 1$ then you could use this

nickbros123

in wires i suppose its true?

what about a soup of charges flying in all sorts of directions (plasma?)

Slereah

I mean if it's at equilibrium, the charge density is likely to be constant

if you're doing non-equilibrium stuff it could vary yeah

I don't know that much about MHD though so idk

nickbros123

09:11

the process of building a current from 0 to some I is not a process happening at equilibrium though, right?

i guess the correct word would be "establishing" a current

Slereah

I mean it could be in such a way that $\partial_t \rho = 0$

Since in a wire you have basically just a line of positive charges (the ions of the conductor forming the wire) and a line of negative charges (the free electrons) moving along it

The total charge is zero on average

you could presumably just have this type of process going on at various speeds during the establishing current

nickbros123

hmm, that makes sense

what is mhd

Slereah

I'm not entirely sure how the establishing current works microscopically so I can't guarantee that it happens that way

But it is possible

MHD is magnetohydrodynamics

Study of electrical fluids like plasma

nickbros123

@Slereah I would assume its based on electron electron collisions, modelling it could to be a daunting thing idk.

@Slereah Thats cool. technically, based on the definition, shouldnt plasma physics be the most general study of EnM? its literally a soup of charged particles i dont think it can get any more general than that

Slereah

Nah, the charges have to obey like fluid mechanics laws, too

hence the hydro

Ryder Rude

10:10

There was an infamous question about rolling motion of a circle. do you know what it was

i forgot what it was

it wasnt a physics question. it did not involve any forces. it was a math question. i think they told you to find the rolling speed and it was counter intuitive

it is this one: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3837658/…

it is a cursed problem. i think it may be ambiguous

from the PoV of the smaller circle, it does 3 rotations. But from the PoV of the outside observer, it does 4 rotations

so it is ambiguous in asking "how many rotations"

ACuriousMind

10:26

no it isn't

the second answer there does the correct analysis, this problem is not "ambiguous", it just requires you to think carefully about how the points actually move when the circle rolls

Ryder Rude

@ACuriousMind it is calculating the number of rotations about O1. The number of rotations about O is still 3. So, "how many times does the circle turn around itself" depends on "whose PoV". From the PoV of the smaller circle, it's 3 rotations. From the PoV of the outside observer, it's 4 rotations

when most people give the "wrong" answer to this question, they are just thinking in the PoV of the smaller circle

ACuriousMind

nope, there's no ambiguity here, the number of rotations is not relative to anything

it is a fact that the point P travels a total distance of 4 times the circumference of the small circle, i.e. the small circle has to turn 4 times

there's no "POV" from which there are only 3 rotations - that's just our misleading intuition, not something anyone would reasonably observe

Ryder Rude

@ACuriousMind imagine you are on a planet in isolation in space and you are only aware of the planet's spin. so, you would calculate your number of rotations relative to the planet's center. However, it could be that another far away planet is revolving around the our planet in an orbit. if we switch to the PoV of that planet, then we add an extra rotation to our motion

ACuriousMind

I think it's easier to think about this thinking about O: First, convince yourself that in order for O to move by a distance D (whether on the circle or on a flat plane), the small circle has to turn $D/(2\pi r)$ times

then, observe that for the small circle to travel around the big circle, O moves on a circle of radius $R+r$, i.e. it travels a distance of $2\pi(R+r)$

Ryder Rude

10:43

that makes sense. i will think about it

ACuriousMind

and there's nothing relative about how often the small circle has to turn: There is some apparatus that has to actually make the small circle turn, and that apparatus knows whether it put in the effort to make 3 or 4 revolutions.

Ryder Rude

@ACuriousMind Look at the second image in the first answer. it shows that the circle has completed a full revolution at the 90 degree quadrant of the bigger circle. imagine yourself rolling the smaller circle over that 90 degree quadrant. the smaller circle's boundary has been painted such that, as it rolls, the paint gets removed from it. Now, at the end of the 90 degree quadrant, would you say all the paint from the circle has been removed?

or would you say all the paint gets removed at the 120 degree mark from the first picture in the same answer? @ACuriousMind

ACuriousMind

@RyderRude no, but what does that have to do with anything? it just means that as we roll along the big circle, our point of contact with the circle changes in a manner different from what would happen along a flat plane

Ryder Rude

it means that you would have to re-paint the smaller circle only three times over in order to fully traverse the bigger circle and paint the bigger circle (assuming the paint gets transferred to the bigger circle). This is a measurement apparatus that shows that it's only three rotations @ACuriousMind

ACuriousMind

no

it means you haven't thought carefully enough about what the paint measures

Ryder Rude

10:56

it measures rotations from the PoV of the smaller circle

i am sure that the number of rotations is relative. i will try to come up with a mathematics of this relativenwss

ACuriousMind

what is a "rotation from the PoV of the smaller circle"

sure, if you define a rotation here as everything between "P is in contact with the big circle" and "P is in contact with the big circle again", then there's only 3 rotations

the point is that that's not what a "rotation of the small cricle" is

Ryder Rude

i will try to come up with a definition. i'm sure it's relative. remember that the distance traveles is itself a relative quantity. your argument depends on the distance traveled

when you switch to the pov of the bigger circle, you are adding an additional velocity to the smaller circle

this results is the extra distance traveled

from its own PoV, this extra distance isnt there as it is not moving relative to itself @ACuriousMind

ACuriousMind

what

none of my arguments have anything to do with velocity

Ryder Rude

i explained this in my "isolated planet" experiment. if you switch to the PoV of the orbiting planet, your own planet gains a rotational velocity (as your planet is orbiting wrt thta planet)

ACuriousMind

Again, It's just geometry - the distance traveled by the center of the small circle is the distance of 4 rotations. In the frame where the center of the small circle is stationary, it's the center of the big circle that travels that distance (but it's the same distance - $2\pi(R+r)$).

Ryder Rude

11:03

@ACuriousMind you havent mentioned velocity explicity. but the distance covered is dependent on the frame of reference. the extra distance is arising only because you are looking at it from the PoV of the bigger circle at rest

ACuriousMind

you seem to try to make this into some weird physics argument about different observers but really if you carefully define what "one rotation" means the problem either goes away or you realize you're using two incompatible definitions of "rotation"

Ryder Rude

@ACuriousMind the distance traveled is relative.

ACuriousMind

I'm not saying anything more about this

Ryder Rude

@ACuriousMind but i agree here. the problem works with one particular definition of "rotation".the problem just doesnt specify it

if the problem was like "as you watch the smaller circle go around the bigger circle, how many times does it turn about itself"?, the answer would unambiguously be 4

because it fixes the frame of reference to "us watching"

when people answer 3, they are really doing some version of my paint experiment

Slereah

patents.google.com/patent/US20200130870A1/en

lol

Slereah

11:30

Apparently we have an ancient greek manual for the use of a stelle for astronomical purpose

"Patron set this up for Zeus Epopsios. Winter solstice. Should anyone wish to know: off 'the little pig' and the stele the sun turns."

Where is the little pig

No photo is included

"The little pig was a rock formation way out in the water."

Ryder Rude

11:47

the reason that the paint experiment measures the number of rotations about the center of the smaller circle, is that the paint can only get exhausted when the point has made a full rotation about the center, as this is when all the points on the circle have been in contact with the surface beneath

Ryder Rude

12:18

this answer also talks about the two types of revolutions : math.stackexchange.com/a/1356200

naturallyInconsistent

12:48

@SillyGoose I would have gone for the natural extension: Start with $\mathbb R^{n+1}$ and convert to polar coördinates, then restrict to the hypermanifold of $r=1$. It might be standard, rather than natural.

Ryder Rude

13:30

the mathematical version of my logic is that the rotation speed of a spinning object, and hence the distance traveled by a point on it in a particular time, is dependent on the frame of reference.

to see this, we have to look at the situation in the question in reverse

start with a frame of reference where there's a circle whose center is at rest and its rotating at speed $\omega$.

ACuriousMind

@SillyGoose Define "natural" :P

Ryder Rude

and now switch to a frame of reference where the center of the same circle is now rotating at speed $\omega _2$

in this frame of reference, the circle rotates at a speed higher than $\omega$ and any point on it travels more distance in the same time compared to the distance traveled in the previous frame

in the question, there are just two natural frames of references and it's ambiguous which one to use.

user 726941

@RyderRude yes, they certainly do

Ryder Rude

@user726941 what philosophies have you studied?

the question expects you to use the frame of reference of the person looking at the question

user 726941

ones around consciousness

Ryder Rude

13:43

oh. you mean illusionism, dualism, etc

user 726941

I mean Bohm's contribution to it.

Ryder Rude

i'm not familiar

nickbros123

I have finally come around to read about green function method for BVPs after avoiding it for quite long. It's pretty cool

user 726941

We Distort Everything to Protect the Ego (David Bohm)

Ryder Rude

it's 1hr long...

@user726941 how did this make you change your view of consciousness

user 726941

13:49

I'm still on the fence.

Extended interview with Sir Roger Penrose - from the movie Infinite Potential

@RyderRude this^ is shorter

Ryder Rude

@user726941 thanks

user 726941

np

Ryder Rude

14:13

after 2:36, Penrose talks about the importance of quantum interpretations

Mr. Feynman

14:25

@Relativisticcucumber glad to see you got the reference

Why is $\Pi^{\mu\nu}(q)=A(q^2)g^{\mu\nu}+B(q^2)q^{\mu}q^{\nu}$ the QED boson self energy $\Pi^{\mu\nu}(q)$ most general form?

Slereah

There's only so many tensors of that form you can build with the metric and the momentum

Mr. Feynman

why only metric and momentum in the first place?

I agree that's the most general you can have with metric and momentum

quoting P&S $g^\mu\nu$ and $q^\mu q^\nu$ are the only tensors that can appear in $\Pi^{\mu\nu}$. That's what baffles me

Slereah

I think it's mostly just that if you work out the rules of the QED diagrams you can show that it's basically the only objects to pop up in the theory?

ACuriousMind

@Mr.Feynman what other non-scalar quantity do you think plays a role here?

Mr. Feynman

Mhh, I don't have any to propose but I didn't consider that as a good reason to accept it was the most general ansatz

So we're just saying that since in the calculation only the metric and $q$ are involved, they combine to form the polarization tensor

that's the constraint, isn't it?

ACuriousMind

14:36

sure

Mr. Feynman

ok, that was the same as the fermion self energy being a combination of $\gamma^\mu p_\mu$ and $I$

dummy question :P

Slereah

not the stupidest question, books tend to not really do such things in a lot of details

and you can do it with a lot of details

Ryder Rude

one can divide by zero in a number system called a "Riemann sphere"

user 726941

in there lies the devil

Ryder Rude

why

what is the general abstract algebra statement of which "you cant divide by zero" is a special case of?

user 726941

14:43

I meant the details Slereah mentioned

Ryder Rude

oh

Slereah

A lot of physics does the "These are all the things you can generate from those" without explaining how to prove it

which is of the purview of invariant theory, if you wish to know more on the topic

bolbteppa

A wheel is a type of algebra (in the sense of universal algebra) where division is always defined. In particular, division by zero is meaningful. The real numbers can be extended to a wheel, as can any commutative ring. The term wheel is inspired by the topological picture ⊙ {\displaystyle \odot } of the real projective line together with an extra point ⊥ (bottom element) such as ⊥ = 0 / 0 {\displaystyle \bot =0/0} .A wheel can be regarded as the equivalent of...

Ryder Rude

@bolbteppa yes. i just watched a video about this. the T element eats everything it touches

Slereah

Wheel theory is more commonly used in the computer context where the bottom element is the NaN

They do not like the bottom symbol in their code

Although I think NaN predates wheel theory

Should credit Konrad Zuse for the wheel theory

Ryder Rude

14:50

surprisingly, division by 0 is never required to get the roots of any polynomial while negatives and irrationals and complexes are required

user 726941

whelp, infinity is not a number

Ryder Rude

it's like the field of real numbers is happy without division by zero

all properties hold nicely and all polynomials have roots

there should be general field theoretic version of this statement

because we can talk about polynomials on arbitrary fields

ACuriousMind

"Wheel theory" does not really exist outside of that Wikipedia article and its few references.

Slereah

It doesn't have that many uses except for floating point arithmetic

Ryder Rude

Galois theory relates polynomials to groups

Slereah

14:53

and really in that context the wheel's center is essentially a garbage bin

user 726941

the problem started when people thought light traveled infinitely fast: c = infinity

c = 1/0

ACuriousMind

@user726941 wtf are you talking about

who ever thought light travelled "infinitely fast"

@RyderRude wtf are you talking about, too

Over the reals, not all polynomials have roots.

and that you don't need division by 0 is only "surprising" if you don't understand how either division or polynomial roots work

Ryder Rude

@ACuriousMind yes

user 726941

5

Q: Infinite Speed of Light

I recently watched a video that stated that Newtonian Mechanics assumed an infinite speed of light. That same video, "PBS Space Time: The Speed of Light is Not About Light", stated that if the speed of light had no bound, then space, time, and matter would essentially not even exist. Can someone ...

newtonian-mechanics cosmology speed-of-light causality

ACuriousMind

@RyderRude so what do you mean "it's like the field of real numbers is happy without division by zero all properties hold nicely and all polynomials have roots"???

Ryder Rude

15:00

i mean that, at most, we only care about polynomials over fields, so we are happy with irrationals, negativea and complexes

@ACuriousMind sorry

there is no polynomial which requires the solution to x•0=1

ACuriousMind

what

can we please at least try to say things here which a) make sense and b) are correct?

4

Ryder Rude

i mean you dont need to define this to get the roots of any polynomial

user 726941

2

Q: Contradictions of explanations for the speed of light

I've recently started reading the book Biocentrism, by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman, which in its mind-blowing chapters, discusses the perceptions of reality, space, and time. Lanza states that: If one could travel at lightspeed, one would find oneself everywhere in the universe at once. This ind...

special-relativity spacetime speed-of-light inertial-frames

ACuriousMind

there's an infinite number of nonsense equations which we don't need a solution for to determine polynomial roots

Ryder Rude

why do you think we cant divide by zero?

i'm just looking for a fundamental reason

beyond "let's look what happens when we define it"

naturallyInconsistent

15:07

why do you think h bar is the avenue to throw around falsified/unsubstantiated claims?

user 726941

dividing by zero would mean multiplying by the reciprocal of zero

Ryder Rude

okay so the contradictions follow from the "ring axioms"

i got this comment: "If we assume our algebraic structure of interest satisfies as least the ring axioms, then, as Andrew shows, 0=1, so all elements in the set satisfy x=x.1=x.0=0, and the set consists only of the element 0. So the end result is a very uninteresting and simple set"

this does not assume reals, only rings

naturallyInconsistent

@user726941 this is constructive to the conversation in what way, sorry?

Ryder Rude

and the rings axioms are very natural

user 726941

zero has no reciprocal or multiplicative inverse

Ryder Rude

15:12

@user726941 the discussion is "what happens when you define it to be something"

user 726941

oh

Ryder Rude

if your algebraic structure follows ring axioms, then division by zero causes contradictions

user 726941

isn't that enough?

Ryder Rude

yes.

nickbros123

@naturallyInconsistent , you remember I was having a confusion over self energies being captured by those macroscopic electrostatic energy formulas? Now I have a feeling in some way or the other, a semblance of self energy is being accounted for. I think also, the jump from $\frac{1}{2}\sum q_{i} V_{i}$ to $\frac{1}{2}\iiint \rho V d\tau$ is the primary culprit of most of my problems

Ryder Rude

15:15

this isnt specific to reals or complex numbers. it assumes only rings

naturallyInconsistent

@nickbros123 yay?!?

user 726941

@naturallyInconsistent explaining it in simple terms is important

naturallyInconsistent

@user726941 the standard maths, Peano, ZF, way to explain it is trivial

PM 2Ring

All that stuff about circles reminded me of the trajectory of Venus relative to Earth. I wrote an answer about that a few years ago, which inexplicably got a couple of upvotes a few weeks ago. So I added another diagram or two to the answer. :)

Here's a Sage script that plots the simplified trajectory of Venus relative to Earth, assuming that both orbits are circular, with the period ratio exactly 8/13 sagecell.sagemath.org/… — PM 2Ring Aug 16 at 5:42

2

nickbros123

@naturallyInconsistent I am for now ignoring all the issues that both the mathematicians and material physicists (and I) may have with the assertion that $\langle \rho \rangle \langle \vec E \rangle \approx \langle rho \vec E \rangle $. If I can assert this, I am atleast at ease with the entire fiasco with energy. There are still some issues I hav with polarisation but one step at a time

naturallyInconsistent

15:21

no, you can only ever assert that for constant fields. i.e. it is never going to be true in practice.

nickbros123

Can I get away with saying slow varying fields?

naturallyInconsistent

but there is some linearity involved, and that might force the energy accounting to become true, maybe in some statistical limit

user 726941

@ACuriousMind are those enough examples?

naturallyInconsistent

@nickbros123 oh, even things fast enough to matter to our eyes are usually taken to be a slowly varying field in some circumstances. So yeah, I think there will be quite a lot of leeway for saying slowly varying.

Ryder Rude

@PM2Ring it is very pretty

Wheel theory is breaking the ring axioms by having the bottom element

ACuriousMind

15:23

@user726941 A few crackpots don't really explain what you meant by "the problem started" or how this relates to the rest of the conversation

naturallyInconsistent

@user726941 those are people who are extremely far out of the scientific community, even in their own times.

user 726941

I never said it did.

PM 2Ring

@RyderRude You can edit the code to make patterns for other ratios.

Ryder Rude

this is how wheel theory is able to allow division by zero. it is not a ring

nickbros123

@naturallyInconsistent I think atleast some materials my assertion may be true, no?

naturallyInconsistent

15:24

@user726941 then how are you thinking you are moving the conversation forward?

@nickbros123 Yes; but I think it might also involve a heavy amount of redefining, say, of both terms.

user 726941

There is a common misconception I'm addressing

naturallyInconsistent

@user726941 what common?

Ryder Rude

@PM2Ring yes. i just tried. it becomes closer to a circle when you increase rvenus

nickbros123

@naturallyInconsistent both the terms are subject to change anyways, right? Don't we have like a million and odd averaging procedures for a million and odd materials?

Ryder Rude

it becomes more spiral-ish upon increasing Tvenus

user 726941

15:27

32 mins ago, by user 726941

c = 1/0

Ryder Rude

idk how you decided on the number 13 :P

ACuriousMind

@user726941 This is not a common misconception, literally no one believes that except the few very obvious crackpots you linked.

naturallyInconsistent

@nickbros123 no, it cannot be changing for every material because then Macroscopic Maxwell's theory would have zero predictability. We at most can have different models for a few types of materials, but within a certain type, we must have some scheme that necessarily works.

Ryder Rude

we should note that the ring axioms are not symmetric wrt addition and mulitplication. this is why 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse

naturallyInconsistent

@user726941 and your assertion that it is common is [citation needed]

Ryder Rude

15:29

e.g. multiplication is axiomated to be distributive over addition, but not the other way around

@ACuriousMind did you also mean the ring axioms here

naturallyInconsistent

@RyderRude Please do not treat h bar as your personal echo chamber. Things that are this level of trivially obvious to everybody who have looked at university mathematics should not be something that needs to be particularly noted.

:64290595 When you have a scholastic debate, you made this assertion, you are the one with the burden of proof. If you want us to consider that it is common, you at least do a survey first and publish that data somewhere.

PM 2Ring

Here's a better version with an input GUI. I had to strip the other one down so it would fit into a comment.

sagecell.sagemath.org/…

2

naturallyInconsistent

It is not our job to be doing your debate prep for you

nickbros123

@naturallyInconsistent well, perhaps I was confusing this with the different scales of averaging that exists. Anyways, what did you mean by redefining the terms

Ryder Rude

@user726941 why do you think infinity has to do with the speed of light

naturallyInconsistent

15:35

@nickbros123 Remember that the microscopic E and $\rho$ fields are periodically spiky functions over the length scale of a unit cell, whereas the macroscopic versions are smooth over appreciable regions of the entire macroscopic sample? That shit.

@RyderRude you are not even reading your fellow bleep well enough! He did not say that he believed so.

Ryder Rude

@PM2Ring it's very cool:)

@user726941 sorry.i think you are saying that a few people in the past believed c=1/0

PM 2Ring

That's one reason I like to write code. It can let you simulate stuff related to physics & astronomy. And it's a hell of a lot easier than doing orbit calculations by hand, like people did for millennia.

Ryder Rude

@PM2Ring yes. and it's a very short code too for something this complicates

ACuriousMind

lol

that's because all the actual functionality is hidden in the parametric_plot, not because this would be simple to implement

Ryder Rude

@user726941 a few people in the past may have suspected that c was infinite, but no one credible would use division by 0 to describe it :)

nickbros123

15:41

@naturallyInconsistent if $\langle \rangle$ denotes an averaging procedure we define $ \chi_{macro}=\langle \chi_{micro} \rangle $ right? Are you talking about redefining this itself?

naturallyInconsistent

@RyderRude if this is your takeaway, that explains why you are this uneducated despite all the readings you have done

Ryder Rude

@PM2Ring we are very lucky to have these resources today ;)

user 726941

@naturallyInconsistent do not refer to me as a "beep"

thank you

PM 2Ring

@RyderRude Yep. It still seems like science fiction to me that I can write & run powerful computer programs on my phone. :)

naturallyInconsistent

@nickbros123 I think that we are somewhat defining the macro field (and using the same symbols for the averaged fields), in such a way that the $\left<\rho\right>,\ \left<\vec E\right>,\ \left<\rho\vec E\right>$ are simultaneously kept constant.

Ryder Rude

15:45

@PM2Ring science fiction is just future science after all :)

or some people would say that about magic

ACuriousMind

gnnnnn no it isn't and the point of most science fiction stories is not the technology

Ryder Rude

i didnt mean it as 100% accurate ofc

ACuriousMind

it's literally like 1% accurate at best

the technology is not the point and the technology in lots of sci-fi is impossible or implausible while the actual technology we have is rarely predicted

PM 2Ring

@ACuriousMind Yes. matplotlib is ultimately doing most of the work there. I'm also doing the polar stuff with a symbolic vector function. It's only slightly more compact than using a "traditional" Python function, but it seems a bit more elegant. :)

ACuriousMind

look at 70s and 80s cyberpunk stories where the matrix is entirely cable-bound because no one imagined WiFi, or the bulky screens in any scifi before we actually invented flat screen

or flying cars

Ryder Rude

15:48

flying cars are 50% accurate. they exist now. they just arent used

video calls were predicted too

nickbros123

@naturallyInconsistent but in a paper I read, whose calculations I was not able to understand (if I'm able to find it again, I will link it) , they mention 2 other terms that come up, like $\langle \rho E \rangle = \langle \rho \rangle \langle E \rangle + a few extra terms. This is I think a calculation done using ensemble averaging (let me get back to you after I confirm it though, either Lorenz or ensemble). I ve not seen a method of averaging that fulfils what you are saying

ACuriousMind

this misunderstanding - that science fiction stories are in any meaningful way about the technology rather than about the implications of the imagined technology - is common in certain techy circles

naturallyInconsistent

@nickbros123 Because it might be a fool's errand. I think that no such good averaging technique exists, and there might well not ever be.

ACuriousMind

when you watch the Matrix and you come away with "Boy, wouldn't it be cool if he Matrix existed" or you read Neuromancer and go "Man, AI would be cool" you've missed the point

PM 2Ring

Scifi has certainly inspired a lot of people working in science & technology. But if you read old scifi that talks about stuff we have today, it tends to be very different. Even the most futuristic writers are still products of the era they grew up in and lived in.

naturallyInconsistent

15:52

@ACuriousMind I wonder why you continue to talk to people whose main composition is misunderstandings, especially those who demonstrates an inability to learn to correct those misunderstandings.

ACuriousMind

@naturallyInconsistent I don't want people to come here and see a take like this without anyone dissenting

naturallyInconsistent

@PM2Ring Asimov's take on Orwell is one of the most insightful. It is simultaneously too optimistic, and too pessimistic, but in ways that are wise.

PM 2Ring

I emjoyed reading Asimov back in the 70s. I still enjoy reading him today, occasionally. But some of the tech things in his stories can seem hilarious today. Eg, he has humanoid robots that can walk & talk like a human, but to do serious number crunching requires a device the size of a city block.

naturallyInconsistent

@ACuriousMind Well, there is a point where admin action to take care of trolls is the appropriate action, rather than dissent. I love to dissent against them too, but this is hurting the overall conversation

nickbros123

@naturallyInconsistent there is also another paper I read, and, my physics professor was also suggesting the same: take these energy formulae as axioms and enjoy life xD

ACuriousMind

15:55

→ 4 messages moved to Trashcan

user 726941

what did I do wrong now?

ACuriousMind

@RyderRude Apparently I need to be clear about something again: This was not an isolated warning. You're falling again into this pattern today, and "warp drives" is now like the third topic in a few hours you obviously don't know anything in-depth about

naturallyInconsistent

@nickbros123 Yes, and that is I think what everybody who have seen this particular abyss agrees is the correct way to retain sanity.

ACuriousMind

the disrespect you're earning from users like naturallyInconsistent is a consequence of your continued obstinacy

which, if it came out of the blue would certainly be inappropriate, but it doesn't come out of the blue

Ryder Rude

it certainly came out of the blue for @user726941

you should prevent this behavior, thats all

and i mentioned warp drives in a discussion about sci-fi being possible real. this is like the most comfortable thing anyone can mention in this discussion

« first day (4681 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (545 days later) »

Transcript for

Aug '2329

The h Bar

General chat for Physics SE (physics.stackexchange.com). For M...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2025 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile