Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally not
Is anything? Or is there a possibility they didn't intend for an implicit "literally" to placed in there?
It's fair to say "sufficiently advanced technology".
Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
31–40 of 94 posts
Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
#32Can a quantum device speed up a chemical process by the same?
Unfortunately they didn't change the speed of a process. They mapped the process and them change the replay speed to watch it, like changing the play speed on a video.
One technique, with repeating processes, is to observe adjacent very thin slices of time from different cycles. This is how movies of short light pulses moving through space are made.
Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
#33I was reading a book hoping to work out how to derive E=mc2. My idea was to go from being about 400 years behind science to merely being 100 years behind. This sort of reporting makes me realise those 100 years are not linear. I had to go check that this was real - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-023-01300-3 , because it could have as easily been a marketing site for the next Marvel movie for all I could groun…
This is really a bad idea to study anything. Actually this is what sets aside naïve hobbyist interested in Physics vs someone studying Physics systematically and efficiently as part of PhD program. I did this mistake repeatedly. I started with annotated version of Newton's Principia, spent about a year just pulling my hair and gave up to realize how much time I had lost in all kind of minutia, noise and random things…
Yeah the beauty of physics is that the idea can always be abstracted and re-explained in an easier to digest way. It's extremely rare that the first presentation of an idea is a very nice way to understand it.
Also, the fashion of physics changes. Back in the day, physicists seemed much more comfortable writing long intuitive arguments with lots of words, and were always happy with a strong connection to classical physics which they obviously had a strong understanding of (since at the time, that was all physics). These days, it's far more common to prefer a more mathematical oriented approach; people prefer to see an equation rather than paragraphs of intuition dumping. Also, we don't care so much about a connection to classical physics, since most physicists are now quite comfortable with quantum mechanics.
Even as a physics researcher it can be painful and difficult to go back to the original papers for things. This is also reflected in the popularity of wikipedia among physicists. It's much more likely that I'm going to understand the explanation of (for example) Bell's theorem on wikipedia than reading his original paper "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox." People have come up with better examples, emphasised important points better, and refined the understanding.
We also can't forget the impact that LaTeX (or equation typesetting in general) has had on physics. Reading some of these old typewritten equations can add unnecessary cognitive load.
Now, this is unique to physical sciences. None of this can be relied on with philosophy (at least, continental philosophy). Sure, there are good modern summaries like on SEP, but you can never really be sure that your interpretation of the author will be the same.
Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a semantics debate about the meaning of the word "simulation".
No. An analogue system is not a simulation. A simulation is some approximation - a model - of a physical system that you compute with some finite precision. An analogue is a physical entity with the same physics as some other thing. A straightforward engineering example would be scale model of an airplane in a wind-tunnel.
MONIAC was an analogue system which implemented a model - an approximation - of the UK economy. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC
> The MONIAC (Monetary National Income Analogue Computer), also known as the Phillips Hydraulic Computer and the Financephalograph, was created in 1949 by the New Zealand economist Bill Phillips to model the national economic processes of the United Kingdom, while Phillips was a student at the London School of Economics (LSE). The MONIAC was an analogue computer which used fluidic logic to model the workings of an economy. The MONIAC name may have been suggested by an association of money and ENIAC, an early electronic digital computer.
Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
#35Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
#36I was reading a book hoping to work out how to derive E=mc2. My idea was to go from being about 400 years behind science to merely being 100 years behind. This sort of reporting makes me realise those 100 years are not linear. I had to go check that this was real - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-023-01300-3 , because it could have as easily been a marketing site for the next Marvel movie for all I could groun…
[deleted]
Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
#37I was reading a book hoping to work out how to derive E=mc2. My idea was to go from being about 400 years behind science to merely being 100 years behind. This sort of reporting makes me realise those 100 years are not linear. I had to go check that this was real - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-023-01300-3 , because it could have as easily been a marketing site for the next Marvel movie for all I could groun…
This is really a bad idea to study anything. Actually this is what sets aside naïve hobbyist interested in Physics vs someone studying Physics systematically and efficiently as part of PhD program. I did this mistake repeatedly. I started with annotated version of Newton's Principia, spent about a year just pulling my hair and gave up to realize how much time I had lost in all kind of minutia, noise and random things…
As a complete novice, I had a similar revelation naively trying to derive one of Maxwell's mind-blowing insights connecting light to magnetism. It was well accepted that if you just divided the electric constant by the magnetic constant (in their respective inverse square force formulas), you end up calculating the speed of light. The units and numbers matched up nicely using old definitions and units. I wanted to see it soup to nuts in modern terms, but so much has changed not only in the definition of magnetism, but also new standardization of units, more accurate measurements of vacuum permeability... I just gave up. I'll take Maxwell's word for it.
Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
#38What does this mean? Can you slow down time? I would assume you must also slow down physics in order to slow down chemistry. No?
[deleted]
Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is really a bad idea to study anything. Actually this is what sets aside naïve hobbyist interested in Physics vs someone studying Physics systematically and efficiently as part of PhD program. I did this mistake repeatedly. I started with annotated version of Newton's Principia, spent about a year just pulling my hair and gave up to realize how much time I had lost in all kind of minutia, noise and random things…
On the other hand, some of Darwin's original treatise - Origin of species of species in particular, is well worth a read.
From skimming Gallileo he could also be a nice read.His writing is entertaining and has a lot of examples, so could help in internalizing some basic ideas.
Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B
#40I was reading a book hoping to work out how to derive E=mc2. My idea was to go from being about 400 years behind science to merely being 100 years behind. This sort of reporting makes me realise those 100 years are not linear. I had to go check that this was real - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-023-01300-3 , because it could have as easily been a marketing site for the next Marvel movie for all I could groun…
I'm not sure I really "get" the 400 year old physics. Things like the Lagrangian, Lagrangian transform, and the principle of least action and the Hamiltonian. I understand them on a superficial level and I know very well how to use them, but I just don't really get it. Why can we even write equations for this stuff. I have a degree in physics which makes it all the more depressing.