I would like to understand how cellular biology processes actually work. Like, how do all the right modules and proteins line up in the right orientation every time? Every time I watch animations, it seems like the proteins and such just magically appear when needed and disappear when not needed [0]. Sometimes it's an ultra-complex looking protein and it just magically flys over to the DNA, attaches to the correct sp…
They don't. This is a pet-peeve of mine, and it's reinforced by animation after animation. Everything is being jostled around randomly. The molecules don't have brains or seeker warheads. They can't "decide" to home in on a target. The only mechanisms for guidance are: diffusion due to concentration gradients, movement of charged molecules due to electric fields, and molecules actually grabbing other molecules. It's…
Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
301–310 of 839 posts
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#302Coroutines in C++.
Coroutines are most easily understood as a way to write a state machine in a way that looks like a function. I.e., it's just a notational trick to make one function do different things according to when it's called. To see it, imagine you have a struct with a data member for each local variable of your function, and replace your function with a member function that has no local variables, but uses "this" to get at wh…
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#303I find most explanations of the Equivalence Principle that lies at the foundation of General Relativity to be very lax. To wit, the idea is that you cannot distinguish whether you are in an accelerated frame or in a gravitational field; alternatively stated, if you’re floating around in an elevator you don’t know whether you’re freefalling to your doom or in deep sideral space far from any gravitational source (thoug…
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#304Crypto and practical security. I get tired of the circular “don’t roll your own crypto unless you’re qualified”. How does one become qualified? I don’t feel like I know how to evaluate many of the arguments people make for or against technologies people argue about on HN, such as Signal or different password managers. I feel like “security through obscurity” is a bad thing, and “layers of security” are a good thing,…
That's from 10 years ago, so you might be able to find video of a more recent version; try to find a year when Wagner taught, he's great.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#305What happens when you actually fall inside a black hole and what is the singularity. I never really understood what happened really when the guy fell inside it in Interstellar and how come he started seeing all those photos. I just accepted it as Hollywood bs. I know my question is based on a movie but would still like to know what will someone witness (assuming of course they somehow live)
Black holes were sometimes called "frozen stars", because time slows down at the event horizon to a stop. If light could escape from black holes and somehow the material continued to emit/reflect light despite time being stopped for it, then as outside observers, what we would see is the star at the moment it collapsed to the size of its event horizon. Though if you entered the event horizon, from your point of view you would see time progressing again inside.
An object falling into a black hole would often go through the process of "spaghettification", being pulled apart because the gravity from the black hole on the close side of the object would be immensely stronger than the gravity on the far side of the object. Though It's possible for a black hole to have an event horizon large enough that the point where spaghettification is beyond it; I think Interstellar had some line to imply that about their black hole.
>I never really understood what happened really when the guy fell inside it in Interstellar and how come he started seeing all those photos. I just accepted it as Hollywood bs.
In the movie, it was supposed to be that the same aliens (well, future humans) that had constructed the original wormhole had also connected another wormhole inside the blackhole. On the inside of the second wormhole, they brought him into a constructed environment to use him as a tool to encode a message to the past to himself that would be able to get him to arrive here in the first place. I think the vague idea of the future-humans was that they used the spacetime-warping nature of the black hole to somehow transcend space and time in our future, but as a nearly one-way trip: they could only interact with our universe / the past through warping gravity (vibrations or making wormholes), and inside the black hole, they had more freedom to do this, and they used that to make the interface for the main character. (Story-wise, I think it seems like good contrivance to allow the mysterious benefactors that ability to give some help, but without being able to do everything and still allow the relatable modern human characters to do all the interesting detail work.)
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#306Crypto and practical security. I get tired of the circular “don’t roll your own crypto unless you’re qualified”. How does one become qualified? I don’t feel like I know how to evaluate many of the arguments people make for or against technologies people argue about on HN, such as Signal or different password managers. I feel like “security through obscurity” is a bad thing, and “layers of security” are a good thing,…
So unless you have a good reason to do something else, and the budget to pay experienced people to bash their heads against it, you should stick to an implementation that has had this effort expended on it.
If you want an intro about common problems in custom cryptosystems, go look at cryptopals or something, but don't get too cocky that you know everything.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#307Has someone that thought they were taking LSD ever turned into a permanent schizophrenic zombie or in a mental institution, or is it all urban legend. If someone that didn't know they were predisposed to mental illness, is it applicable to dismiss their experience in order to maintain how safe LSD is? If any of this is true, are there any sources aside from "my friend's friend's brother took too much and now he is...…
Permanent schizophrenic zombie, maybe a bit extreme, but severe and traumatic long-lasting psychological damage is a not-uncommon phenomena. I had a fling with psychedelics in my teens, and everything was great until the one time it wasn't. I was taking psychedelics pretty much every weekend, and by my count have tried over a dozen of them. Had an experience with LSD which completely shook me to my core and gave me s…
I think it is a bit too reductive to say they're neutral, just yet, but I am willing to say they can be used responsibly if the right information actually existed - but like with any science I am open to changing that if the conclusions were found to be different. Again let's just stick with acid instead of all psychedelics.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#308Lot's of quantum related phenomenon here, but what keeps bothering me is that while I get it that light is both a wave and a particle, but I have no clue what that means. I mean, a wave of sound, is made from air particles, a wave of ripples in a pond is made of movement of water molecules. In the double slit experiment, it's explained that the single photon has to be "interfering with itself", so I don't get it if b…
When talking about light or radio waves, you're probably talking about Classical Electrodynamics, which does not include the notion of a photon. In Classical EM, light is an EM wave in the sense that if you look at the electric field E or magnetic field B (of a plane wave) at a fixed point in space it is varying sinusoidally. So the waviness is in the amplitude of the E and B fields.
Once you talk about photons, you're in the realm of Quantum Mechanics (QM), and yes things are harder to understand.
It's actually all just fields according to the Standard Model (particle physics), a quantum field theory (QFT).
In QFT there's a field for each fundamental particle that permeates the whole universe. E.g. an electron field, a photon field, etc. Disturbances in these fields are what one would call particles in non-relativistic QM.
So Classical -> QM (quantum system, classical observer/apparatus) -> QFT (quantum everything)
In classical EM, light is a wave. In QM, light is particles. In QFT particles are just disturbances in the all-pervading fields.
Binney has said that QM is just measurement for grownups, or some such. What is a measurement? It's when the system you're observing becomes entangled with the measuring device. We don't know the exact state of every atom in our measuring device, but these could all perturb the system we're measuring. So QM is a hack where you treat the system as quantum but the observer/measuring device as classical which is why you need this confusing wave-function collapse. It was a conscious choice in the development of the theory. This last bit might give some insight into why trying to sense the photon at one of the double-slits ruins the interference pattern.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#309Flight. Apparently "air flows faster on the top side of the wing, lowering the pressure" is an incomplete explanation; I even heard we don't completely understand why it works (?!?).
Flat hand, you feel a pressure at the front of your hand. At the back you should notice is a bit dry.
The pressure at the front is dynamic pressure. The gas piles up as your hand plows into it at speed. The pressure you feel is the mass of air you're picking up and carrying with you. The dryness at the back (you don't feel it per se, but you can notice it) is the resulting area of low pressure created by you plowing through the air. This is drag.
Now. Tilt your hand in the stream, and up your hand will go! The ways you can break this down/visualize it are varied, but in reality are all manifestations of the same phenomena.
Newtonian/Conservation of Energy: Each particle of air impacting the bottom of your hand is +1, each impacting the top is -1. +1 & -1 don't neutralize, so up you go.
The vacuum visualization: imagine a density visualization overlaid on the situation. There's a vacuum bubble over the top of your the hand. Nature hates a vacuum, so everything tries to fill it. The end result of that filling, is that air particles that would otherwise be slamming into the top of your hand get "sucked" into the bubble instead. This is important, because without this understanding, you can't account for things like dumping energy into the flow stream via a spinning shaft or the infamous UFO X-plane, where all the engine power was devoted to keeping air flowing faster over the top surface, allowing the darn thing to get lifted by the relatively unaccelerated air beneath even at 0 velocity of the machine relative to the environment. The key to all lift is making that asymmetry in airflow.
Symmetric airfoils can create lift at Angle of Attack, because while they are symmetric at 0 degrees, they aren't at angles offset from dead on.
There are also some weird degeneracies that you can take advantage of, like using a spinning cylinder and flat strip of material just barely offset from it to create lift with near zero relative forward speed of the apparatus to the surrounding space. (This is a function of viscosity, and the energy of the spinning rod is basically picking up the fluid and accelerating it, it separates from the cylinder and follows the strip of material creating a pressure differential, ergo lift).
Then there is the whole bit about about vortex circulation etc, the main thing to remember though is that air that is trying to fill a void created by an object moving through the air is too busy doing that to neutralize the energy gained by air transferring energy to the bottom of the lifting surface. Ergo, lift. Further, the useful "lift" you make, the more "drag" you'll create as well, because in order to maintain that vacuum you're coaxing all that air on the topside of the lifting surface to head into instead, you have to account for the energy expended in 'picking up and carrying' that air/fluid with you.
Fluid dynamics is weird, complicated, and seems like black magic, but at the end of the day it's all about what you convince the fluid to do instead of smacking into you.
There are gobs of seriously bloody weird equations all around it, but they are mostly useless in terms of being able to visualize what is going on.
Imagining a bubble sucking the lifting surface upward, and the airflow on the bottom pushing the lifting surface upward like a stone skipping on water on the other hand? Gets you good mileage on being able to imagine things.
The vacuum visualization is even more relevant at supersonic speeds, as at that point, your "flight regime" becomes "exotic chemistry occurring is a compressed flow" and an ever increasing column of air getting picked up and carried along with you as you rip a gigantic hole in the atmosphere and carry it along with you; turning aircraft operation into a balancing act between skipping off the atmosphere correctly, and not becoming part of the exotic chemistry you're causing.
Once you get the rudimentsdown though, everything becomes averageable vectors, which makes stuff like KSP with FAR a fun thing to mess with.
Re: Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?
#310I don't know if this would be my "one question" if I could ask the most brilliant minds in science, but something that always bothered me: When I took physics they basically said "at first scientists were disturbed by the fact that magnets imply that two objects are interacting without any physical contact, but then Faraday came along and said 'the magnets are actually connected by invisible magnetic field lines' and…