12 nines? Yawn. Let me know when they get to 15. j/k
That's some serious precision. I wonder if this would have been possible to calculate on a Pentium?[0] After last week, cloud service providers would be happy for 3 nines.
Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
61–70 of 219 posts
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#62[deleted]
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#63> After months of working on solving the problem, Rafael González recalls, “I remember one morning I was making myself a slice of bread with Nutella, when suddenly, I said out loud: Mothers! It is there!” > He then ran to his computer and started programming the idea. When he executed the solution and saw that it worked, he says he jumped all over the place. It is unclear whether he finished eating the Nutella bread.…
This raises the perennial question of whether product placement is a legitimate source of funding for fundamental scientific research. After placing an ice-cube in my delicious glass of refreshing coca-cola brand carbonated beverage, I yelled Eureka! and jumped out of the bath. Is that really how it happened? Is it not inconsistent with the pursuit of truth?
Do we know the brand of the chocolate that melted when the microwave was discovered? Maybe it's not that important.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gave me shivers reading it. Beautiful example of the incredible mystery of the human mind. Poof! And the solution materialized. Of course, all the groundwork had been laid. All the neurons primed. Just incredible. And that formula. Damn.
That was my thought. Why is it so damn complex? You’d think the solution would be simpler.
It is. Some parts are repeated, the one which caught my eye was (zₐ’(rₐ)²+1)
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#65Is the resulting lens rotationally symmetric?
The formula computes ZbRa; z axis vs radius. So yes, I believe this is symmetric around the center.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#66https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2019/07/formula.gif
definitely generated by mathematica
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gave me shivers reading it. Beautiful example of the incredible mystery of the human mind. Poof! And the solution materialized. Of course, all the groundwork had been laid. All the neurons primed. Just incredible. And that formula. Damn.
Isn’t that how most of us are solving complex problems? Building context and then walking away from the desk for a walk, or perhaps while we’re in the shower in the morning or at night, not focused on the problem but our brain working on it in the background until it is brought forward to our consciousness?
I often do this when I need a good solution to a problem:
Work hard on it for a while, then leave it for one-two days. More often then not this give a way better end result.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#68The article talks about the corners of an image being less sharp than the center. That’s not spherical aberration; that’s off-axis aberration. Spherical aberration causes the image to be less sharp at larger apertures.
I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if this result helps indirectly with off-axis aberration, though — a closed-form solution to the spherical aberration problem may make it easier to optimize for lens shapes that minimize other aberrations.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#69I have not checked the actual paper, but according to the article itself: > Moreover, the solution involved aspherical elements , which are harder to manufacture in a precise way and are thus more costly. > Their findings were published in the article General Formula for Bi-Aspheric Singlet Lens Design Free of Spherical Aberration, in the journal Applied Optics. I’m no expert in optics, but that does not sound like t…
Aspheric lenses are frequently molded and these molds are used to make vast quantities of precision lenses. We've been molding lenses in quantity since Kodak perfected the process in the 70's. Yes, grinding aspherical lenses is more costly (yet still possible,) but there are numerous applications for which molded lenses are entirely sufficient.
Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem
#70I laughed when they tried to translate "Madres!" , but a pissed off Latina mother running at you waving her sandal in the air like a medieval warrior swinging a truncheon is definitely an "Oh shit" moment.
My understanding is that centuries ago in Latin America "madre" became an euphemism for "madame of a brothel", while actual moms are called "mamá". In Spain it carries no such connotation.
Mamá means mom, madre means mother. You use either depending on the context. (I'm only talking about the Mexican use)
Madre is used more often in phrases, such as "Madre de dios!", Or "La madre putria," or "Pinche tu madre", or it's used as a formal to refer to one's mother. It's similar in English, such as "On my mother's side", "Mother fucker", "Mother of God!", etc.
In Mexico, "tu madre" can be a general insult, probably shortened from "pinche tu madre", though in English we have a similar vulgar retort of "your mother". As a weird turn on the phrase, "de puta madre" is slang for a good thing.
I'm not aware of an association with brothels in Mexico, but certainly in some Latin American country it could have.