What the fuck? Its elbow is equivalent to pour wrist??
- 0 Posts
- 8 Comments
gbzm@piefed.socialto
Asklemmy@lemmy.ml•What's your most cynical opinion about the world?
2·21 days agoThat it’s pretty shit from the bottom up. Boring Lagrangian giving rise through great efforts of complexity to an endless dead void. On a mote of dust somewhere, there’s a soup of unusual chemicals making short lived bubbles of flesh that are compelled to eat each other for survival. Some of them organized into a System; it’s bad. It can change for the better or the worse, in increments, if enormous emergent collective efforts are made. On the individual level, though, existence is either painful or less painful but more boring if you’re lucky. But generally you don’t think about it and just kill time waiting for death.
Why is the mercury arc rectifier getting a “what the fuck”? I don’t know much about them, are they more magic than glowing rocks, runes, levitation and demon cores?
It’s ok: you only get this value every two years. That way, even though it’s a decrease from the previous year you have actually no idea whether the figure is higher than two years before
gbzm@piefed.socialto
Science@lemmy.ml•New quantum breakthrough could transform teleportation and computingEnglish
5·3 months agoUnfortunately not. Quantum teleportation is an awful name: it’s called that way because it implies “destroying” a quantum state somewhere, and “recreating” it identically somewhere else, effectively transmitting information. However, the process also requires a classical information transfer at some point, and is absolutely not instantaneous . It’s only useful for cryptography because it’s mathematically impossible to listen in on this information being transferred without disturbing it.
It’s one of the most unfavorable coolness-of-name vs. coolness-of-actual-thing ratio in physics.
gbzm@piefed.socialto
Science@mander.xyz•Physicists Superheated Gold to Hotter Than the Sun's Surface and Disproved a 40-Year-Old IdeaEnglish
1·4 months agoYou know maybe I’m starting to understand your point.
On the surface your question is easy to answer: clock uncertainties are a thing, and are very analogous to space-position uncertainty. Also time-of-arrival is a question that you can pretty much always ask, and it’s precisely the “uncertain t for given x” to the usual “uncertain x for given t”. Conversely you don’t have the standard deviation of “just space”: as universal as it is, Delta x is always incarnated as some well-defined space variable in each setting.
But it’s also true that clock and time-of-arrival uncertainties are not what’s usually meant in the time-energy relation: in general it’s a mean duration (rather than a standard deviation) linked to a spectral width. And it does make sense, because quantum mechanics are all about probability densities in space propagating in a well-parametrized time. So Fourier on space=>uncertainties while Fourier on time=>actual duration/frequency. And if you go deeper than that, I’m used to thinking of the uncertainty principle in terms of Fourier because of the usual Delta x Delta p > 1/2 formulation, but for the full-blown Heisenberg-y formula you need operators, and you don’t have a generally defined time operator of the standard QM because of Pauli’s argument.
But that’s a whole thing in and of itself, because now I’m wondering about time of arrival operators, quantum clocks and their observables, and is Pauli’s argument as solid as that since people do be defining time operators now and it’s quite fun, so thanks for that.
gbzm@piefed.socialto
Science@mander.xyz•Physicists Superheated Gold to Hotter Than the Sun's Surface and Disproved a 40-Year-Old IdeaEnglish
3·4 months agoWhether it’s energy-time or position-momentum, the uncertainty principle is just a consequence of two variables being linked via Fourier transform. So position and wave-vector therefore position and momentum, ans time and pulse and therefore time and energy. Sure, it only has consequences when you’re looking at time uncertainties and probabilistic durations, which is less common than space distributions. And sure it also happens in classical optics, that’s where all of this comes from. And I agree that “quantum fluctuations” is often a weird misleading term to talk about uncertainties. But I’m not sure how you end up with “no link to the uncertainty principle”? It’s literally the same relation between intervals in direct or Fourier space.

“Lapel” was an interesting find. That and “development” really hammered in the importance of accentuation. I’m still unsure of what I want to do with “schedule”. “Burger” sometimes sounds off when I say it.