Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B

sydney.edu.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B

#61

Post by verisimi »

You've got to love the declaration at the end of the article:

> The research was supported by grants from the US Office of Naval Research; the US Army Research Office Laboratory for Physical Sciences; the US Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity; Lockheed Martin; the Australian Defence Science and Technology Group, Sydney Quantum; a University of Sydney-University of California San Diego Partnership Collaboration Award; H. and A. Harley; and by computational resources from the Australian Government’s National Computational Infrastructure.

This is sponsored by the military.

Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B

#62

Post by NikolaNovak »

sytelus wrote: post #20
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #9

I 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…

This is also why I don't understand people who insist we need to read the original philosophy texts.

I can't. I tried reading e.g. Plato and I just want to argue with him forever. He starts with assumptions which were "obvious" then, but are just obviously wrong now. It's much better to read a modern interpretation / summary which takes the bits which are still relevant, and Contextualize them with what we know today.

(Note - if you want to study history of something, by all means do read original texts. But if you actually want working knowledge of the subject, it's a horrible horrible way to go).

Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B

#63

Post by p1esk »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #62
sytelus wrote: post #20

Earlier 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…

This is also why I don't understand people who insist we need to read the original philosophy texts. I can't. I tried reading e.g. Plato and I just want to argue with him forever. He starts with assumptions which were "obvious" then, but are just obviously wrong now. It's much better to read a modern interpretation / summary which takes the bits which are still relevant, and Contextualize them with what we know today…

I tried reading e.g. Plato and I just want to argue with him forever.

That’s the whole point of reading Plato. You’re being exposed to the Socratic method.

Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B

#64

Post by NikolaNovak »

p1esk wrote: post #63
NikolaNovak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also why I don't understand people who insist we need to read the original philosophy texts. I can't. I tried reading e.g. Plato and I just want to argue with him forever. He starts with assumptions which were "obvious" then, but are just obviously wrong now. It's much better to read a modern interpretation / summary which takes the bits which are still relevant, and Contextualize them with what we know today…

I tried reading e.g. Plato and I just want to argue with him forever. That’s the whole point of reading Plato. You’re being exposed to the Socratic method.

Then I have not explained myself correctly.

If I take a philosophy class, I can talk to teacher, discuss things,explore questions and Contradictions. And I do :-).

When Plato says "let us all agree there exists a perfect blue independent of any real world blue", I want to argue that no, "blue" is a human construct and dependent on accidental biology. We can't even make sure thay we all experience the same blue and what "blue" is, is purely definitional. There exists no inherent "blue" other than us arbitrarily taking a chunk of EM spectrum and attaching a loose meaning of "blue" to it.

Plato did not know of EM spectrum or cones in our eyes. half the things he starts as "it is obviously true that..." I scream"no it is not! I challenge your key assumptions ".but he's dead and can't argue with me :-). So for me, that's not the whole point of reading Plato - it's the whole frustration.

-----

Edit : you've added "that way you're exposed to Socratic method " which changes the gist of the comment, but I'll still argue it's a horrible way to do so. I understood Socratic method for a decade if not two before I tried Plato. If I tried Plato first, the dubious and implausible arguments would have turned me off completely. Both the teacher's and the student's proposals are frequently at odds with our current understanding, so as a reader I'm not invested in either and the argument feels farcical as opposed to logical.

My point is:

If somebody asks "what is Socratic method", pointing them to Plato is a horrible (and frankly elitist / gatekeeping) way to go. It can rather be explained in a few minutes with excellent, understandable modern examples. You can get working knowledge quickly and effectively. There are circumstances and situations where reading the original is relevant! But if you want to understand the basics, or even intermediate knowledge of actual subject, reading original newton and original Plato are not great ways to start.

Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B

#65

Post by p1esk »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #64
p1esk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried reading e.g. Plato and I just want to argue with him forever. That’s the whole point of reading Plato. You’re being exposed to the Socratic method.

Then I have not explained myself correctly. If I take a philosophy class, I can talk to teacher, discuss things,explore questions and Contradictions. And I do :-). When Plato says "let us all agree there exists a perfect blue independent of any real world blue", I want to argue that no, "blue" is a human construct and dependent on accidental biology. We can't even make sure thay we all experience the same blue and wh…

but he's dead and can't argue with me

But you’re alive and you can supply both sides of the argument, if you believe the topic is interesting. The concept of “perfect blue” is beautiful and powerful - even if it’s wrong! It can lead to very interesting ideas, such as “universe as a mathematical structure”, or having a soul. Just play along and be flexible.

Also, you can prompt GPT-4 to argue with you as Plato would.

Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B

#66

Post by voidmain0001 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #9

I 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…

Mentioning Marvel in this context made me think of Quicksilver saving everyone. https://iv.ggtyler.dev/watch?v=ZnZqB5Z75zI

Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B

#67

Post by marcosdumay »

Panoramix wrote: post #40
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #9

I 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.

> Why can we even write equations for this stuff.

It's a (very) weird way to write the same equations as Newton. It happens to be easier to solve on some cases, because calculus works like that.

It's conceptually not very different from using a Fourier or Laplace transformation to simplify some signal handling. But 400 years ago they didn't have any easy way to understand it, so it got an aura of magic that never got away.

(But you probably already know all that. You probably just didn't internalize it because of that aura.)

Re: Scientists use quantum device to slow chemical process by factor of 100B

#70

Post by [deleted] »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #53

You know, I think these sorts is scientific research explainers would be better if they actually just said what they did, what the insight was, what we can do now or what predictions we can now make. I understand the desire to make the discovery accessible but this does not accomplish that. If we measure information by “what predictions can a reader now make that they couldn’t make before” then this press release is…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN