I don't know how you can describe "equal to the world's fastest supercomputer, which was built less than a year ago" as "quite modest".
1,387 karma · joined May 19, 2016
I'm not familiar with high energy physics, but from your description of supersymmetry: "It implies that for every known particle, there exists a superpartner with the same mass and quantum numbers, but with a different spin. Supersymmetry is not based on any empirical evidence, but on mathematical aesthetics and theoretical convenience.", it is on the same basis as the periodic table was when Mendeleev first published in 1869. It was only later that additional elements were found to validate the arrangement.
>The main difference between supersymmetry and the periodic table or grand unification is that supersymmetry is not a natural consequence of any observed phenomenon, but an ad hoc assumption that has no experimental support.
Can you clarify this? I would argue the periodic table to be "natural consequence of any observed phenomenon", insofar as there was no evidence or only circumstantial evidence to support that grouping. Indeed, that grouping was chosen because of aesthetic reasons and speculation: "I saw in a dream a table where all elements fell into place as required. Awakening, I immediately wrote it down on a piece of paper, only in one place did a correction later seem necessary."
>Therefore, supersymmetry does not make any expected predictions, unlike the periodic table or grand unification, because it is not constrained by any reality check. Supersymmetry can be adjusted to fit any observation or avoid any contradiction, making it unfalsifiable and arbitrary.[4]
Your reference doesn't seem to agree with you here. It claims several predictions that supersymmetry has gotten correctly, and doesn't claim that supersymmetry can be adjusted to fit any observation.
The trouble is, we actually have tens/hundreds of people, all working on their own. The blessing and curse of open source development
https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/B...
Most current implementations are "trapped ion" computers. This is exactly what it sounds like, an ion trapped in an electromagnetic field. However, people are working on many systems, including:
- Photonic (photon) - Superconducting (Cooper pair) - Diamond/silicon carbide (single dopant) - Liquid NMR (molecular spin)
>To remain Newtonian and preserve determinism, we can exclude the singular point by constraining the higher orders to zero whenever the net force is zero. We lose time symmetry for this special case if we do this. If we wish to keep that, then we have to accept that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete and consider higher order differentials.
And from Dr. Norton's article:
>The solutions (3) are fully in accord with Newtonian mechanics in that they satisfy Newton's requirement that the net applied force equals mass x acceleration at all times.
>An important feature of Newtonian mechanics is that it is time reversible, or at least that the dynamics of gravitational systems invoked here are time reversible.
Dr. Davies is saying that there's three options: a) relaxing time-reversal symmetry (at singularities) from Newtonian mechanics, by interpreting Newton's First Law to apply to higher derivatives; b) considering Newtonian mechanics to be incomplete, and make (unspecified) choices about what trajectories of higher-order derivatives are acceptable; or c) accept non-determinism.
Dr. Norton is defining "Newtonian mechanics" as necessarily having time-reversal symmetry, which prevents the first solution. He is also defining it as specifying acceleration only (which I think is quite reasonable), preventing the second solution. Therefore he's concluded the third solution: This mathematical stating of Newtonian mechanics is non-deterministic.
The functional way to make a declarative interface would be to have a single type, `Expression`, and all operators take expressions and return expressions.
However, I would argue the declarative vs. procedural decision is much more important to the resulting code structure then whether you use a single object type or multiple object types with inheritance.
This seems to broadly disagree with your claim that "Turns out that in most societies women do engage in hunting, but only a tiny percent of the time." Do you have a source for that claim?
- Why would seeing a pulse wave in nitrocellulose prove that it's an explosive (as you claim), if you're defining pulse waves as any sonic wave?
I'm having a hard time understanding your position, or your reasoning for why nitrocellulose isn't an explosive. I also still haven't been able to find any resources that corroborate what you're saying.
If you're defining pulse wave as a sub-sonic pressure wave, deflagarations can definitely produce those, even with relatively poor fuels (e.g. wood dust). Why do you expect nitrocellulose couldn't? Not enough gas volume?
>An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume associated with an extreme outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases. Supersonic explosions created by high explosives are known as detonations and travel through shock waves. Subsonic explosions are created by low explosives through a slower combustion process known as deflagration.
Doesn't have to be supersonic to be an explosion. This is a disagreement about definitions, not about the properties of nitrocellulose.
Jerry Martin, the composer for most of The Sims franchise, is a legend. The music is like vaporwave before vaporwave.
Well, it's very easy to make a chair that works a couple times. Whether it holds up for a week or a century is another matter.
Nowadays I don't have as much need for Windows automation, but I'm glad to see the overhaul. I definitely miss a similar program on other OSes.