71–80 of 130 posts
EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION. 4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1 DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL. IGNORANCE OF TIMECUBE4 SIMPLE MATH IS RETARDATION AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION. CUBELESS AMERICANS DESERVE - AND SHALL BE EXTERMINATED.
It called the author the wisest human and such, but I don't think it called for extermination? Did it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC reversible computations only take zero energy if you perform them infinitely slowly.
Just curious, is there a difference between infinitely slowly and not at all?
As a concrete example, most of thermodynamics becomes insanely complicated for very rapid changes in pressure and temperature. And in many cases, you cannot actually compute the state of the system (without making a bunch of approximations). But, if you make some assumptions and approximations, thermodynamics becomes much more simple even though you've added some error factors due to your approximations (but it's definitely "good enough").
In general, the first thing you learn as part of a physics degree is that approximations and assumptions are just part of how you do science. Without them, we'd all be stuck dealing with insanely complicated equations that probably are not solvable. And at the end of the day, the unsolvable part of whatever equation you're dealing with wouldn't actually have a significant effect on the result (so you can generally ignore it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting it is a perpetual motion machine, but it works only as long as you don't use it.
Any atomic nucleus with orbiting electrons fulfills that requirement, you could loosely call those time crystals too. Their half life for most stable atoms is so long that perpetual applies for most practical uses of the word. Which makes me wonder if these time crystals have a half-life too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No - oscillators need constant energy input in order to operate. Time crystals require no energy for temporal repetition.
Don't quantum harmonic oscillators oscillate even in their ground state? How is a time crystal different from a garden-variety QHO?
EARTH HAS 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE WITHIN SINGLE ROTATION. 4 CORNER DAYS PROVES 1 DAY 1 GOD IS TAUGHT EVIL. IGNORANCE OF TIMECUBE4 SIMPLE MATH IS RETARDATION AND EVIL EDUCATION DAMNATION. CUBELESS AMERICANS DESERVE - AND SHALL BE EXTERMINATED.
I don't remember the timecube website saying that people should be exterminated? It called the author the wisest human and such, but I don't think it called for extermination? Did it?
>But the laws of physics are not only symmetrical in space but also in time. Can someone explain what this means? It makes sense that physical laws are symmetrical in space. But in time? I thought that would not be the case because of entropy/irreversible processes etc. What am I missing? The whole article rests on this premise.
However, it should be noted that the arrow of time only applies to the macroscopic universe. All of the laws of physics (in this article's case it's quantum mechanics) are time symmetric (if you play the experiment in reverse you couldn't tell it was being done in reverse -- which is what you can see in Feynman diagrams). So at the heart of it, the universe is very symmetric in time.
To quote Primer: "What's the one variable in all of the equations of heat and matter? What's the one variable that you can turn negative and still get rational answers? Its not energy, it's not mass..." [It's time].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Years of practice :-) Seriously though, I don't actually know much about QM, I only know the One Thing that makes the rest of QM easy to understand (kind of like knowing Lisp makes the rest of computer programming easy to understand). In case you want to know that One Thing, it's written up here: http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf There's also a movie version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
Just be aware that while Dr. Garret is very smart (and very accomplished with software) he is not a physicist. When this talk first came out I asked a couple people who do know QFT in detail about it and they were quite dismissive.
When I first wrote the paper 15 years ago I submitted it to Physics Today. It was rejected, not because it was wrong, but because the reviewers thought that it was nothing new, that everyone already knew this stuff. Since then the physics community has bifurcated rather neatly into two camps: the ones who agree with the PT reviewers, and the ones who think I'm a "category 5 loon" (that was Lubos Motl's term). Personally, I think the existence of people like Motl and your anonymous "dismissive" QFT experts -- and the fact that I can still stump card-carrying physicists with the EPRG paradox -- falsifies the hypothesis that "everyone already knows this stuff."
I will also say, because I'm feeling rather annoying by all this, that in 15 years no one has ever pointed out any actual mistakes in the paper (except for a few typos).
I figured this article would fly over my head (which it mostly did), but it was actually a very fun read. My main takeaway was the paradox that the interesting arrangement of matter could be in its lowest energy state, yet still moving. And that no energy could be extracted from this movement. I'm probably butchering the concept with my misuse of terminology but whatevs.
You're not that far off. The particles aren't really moving , i.e. they are not going from one spatial location to another. What is happening is that they are changing quantum spin states, and the spin states are changing in such a way that it appears that a circular arrangement of atoms is rotating. This is a reflection of the fact that an atom isn't really a thing (there are no "things", i.e. there are no particles…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not that far off. The particles aren't really moving , i.e. they are not going from one spatial location to another. What is happening is that they are changing quantum spin states, and the spin states are changing in such a way that it appears that a circular arrangement of atoms is rotating. This is a reflection of the fact that an atom isn't really a thing (there are no "things", i.e. there are no particles…
Sounds almost like how words appear to be moving across a scrolling led (or previously, incandescent bulb) display, when nothing is moving it's just each led/bulb switching from lit to unlit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the great explanation. Serious question: Can I ask how you happen to know so much about this subject?
Years of practice :-) Seriously though, I don't actually know much about QM, I only know the One Thing that makes the rest of QM easy to understand (kind of like knowing Lisp makes the rest of computer programming easy to understand). In case you want to know that One Thing, it's written up here: http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf There's also a movie version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
But I think you give too short a shrift to Many-Worlds because it's not intuitive to you. Plenty of things about QM are not intuitive; I don't think that's sufficient reason to reject it.