Chrobin
@Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de
- Comment on Thoughts?? 2 weeks ago:
Also related, I had a psychology teacher with a PhD in psychology. But because in German schools, you need to teach two subjects (with the exception of the arts), he also taught physics. He was a terrible physics teacher, but a pretty good psychology one.
- Comment on UwU brat mathematician behavior 2 weeks ago:
I do understand it differently, but I don’t think I misunderstood. I think what they meant is the physicist notation I’m (as a physicist) all too familiar with:
∫ f(x) dx = ∫ dx f(x)
In this case, because f(x) is the operand and ∫ dx the operator, it’s still uniquely defined.
- Comment on Thoughts?? 2 weeks ago:
That reminds me of a story my bachelor’s supervisor in astrophysics told me: One of his best PhDs applied at an insurance company. They got an Excel sheet with data that they had 1 week to analyze. All the other applicants took the whole week. He just put it in Python, solved it in a few hours, and got the job.
- Comment on UwU brat mathematician behavior 2 weeks ago:
I’d say the $\int dx$ is the operator and the integrand is the operand.
- Comment on UwU brat mathematician behavior 2 weeks ago:
I think you mean operator. The operand is the target of an operator.
- Comment on But I am mighty!! 5 weeks ago:
There’s no fire in the sun. Fire is some material oxidizing, and that’s not what’s happening (or at least not in relevant amounts). What creates the radiation is nuclear fusion.
- Comment on Anon turns on raytracing 5 weeks ago:
Pokémon Ruby/Saphire/Emerald
- Comment on See something you like? 5 months ago:
But don’t spread the bird flu pls.
- Comment on I want a name for this 8 months ago:
Scheiße*
- Comment on The most powerful brain on Twitter 8 months ago:
Is that a ReLife meme?!
- Comment on Hmmmm 9 months ago:
The only field where it’s actually justified: math. In math, every time has an exact definition behind it, and you have to use the exact term.
- Comment on Falling 1 year ago:
Just to add some formality to it, the original commenter might want to look up the shell theorem for classical mechanics and Birkhoff’s theorem for general relativity.
- Comment on Electrons 1 year ago:
Yeah, quantum mechanics lingo: measurement = interaction
- Comment on Electrons 1 year ago:
Actually a good point, tho. And also a good thought: If there is no special direction, what would be up? And that’s where quantum mechanics gets even weirder: It’s either up or down in the direction you measure.
- Comment on Why is there no sound? 1 year ago:
But they don’t use Bluetooth.
- Comment on Physics 1 year ago:
At least cosmology does use some serious quantum physics, even quantum field theory. Source: took 1 year of theoretical cosmology lectures.
- Comment on sweet dreams 1 year ago:
They weren’t talking about radioactive decay, electrons are stable. They were talking about electrically charged particles emitting electromagnetic radiation when accelerated. (Circular movement is accelerated, see centripetal force) Since they use energy for this, they would very quickly fall into the nucleus (if I remember correctly, in around 10^-14s).
Bodies with mass also emit gravitational waves when accelerated, but much less.
- Comment on we are but a gravy train in outer space 1 year ago:
I’m not trying to argue approximations. Physics is just approximations all the way down. But as a physicist, I also love arguing about technicalities, and that’s also kinda the point of science communities for me.
- Comment on we are but a gravy train in outer space 1 year ago:
But the point of general relativity is that a free-floating observer is equivalent to an observer in free space. That means that falling due to gravity, which you call a force, is an unaccelerated movement, i.e. no force.
- Comment on we are but a gravy train in outer space 1 year ago:
In our current understanding of physics, it’s an effect from the curvature of space and not a force. Quantizing gravity results in unphysical divergences. Whether there will be a way to model gravity as an exchange of particles, we can’t know for sure. So according to our current knowledge, it’s not a force.
- Comment on we are but a gravy train in outer space 1 year ago:
Well, firstly, we can quantize gravity pretty easily, it just has unphysical divergences.
But secondly, I think it makes most sense to talk about the current accepted physics because we don’t know how quantum gravity will work.
- Comment on we are but a gravy train in outer space 1 year ago:
Gravity isn’t a force tho…
- Comment on Whoops 1 year ago:
For that, you need Hilbert spaces, linear operators on them, a little spectral theory, …
- Comment on Whoops 1 year ago:
Many people are trying to give a definitive answer, and there are good theories, but honestly, it is still very much an open question. There are multiple interpretations and as people tend to do in popular science, some spread their opinion as a fact, but we don’t have one correct answer.
- Comment on Hasbro exec says Baldur's Gate 3 "proved for us that people really wanted great D&D games," supports Larian's plan to "take the time we need" 1 year ago:
Everyone always says how great and optimized etc the game is, but for me, I had glitches every few minutes with crashes every few hours. Maybe the multiplayer is worse, but how I experienced the game, it was far from being ready to ship.
- Comment on shameless b8 1 year ago:
The only thing I quickly found is this paper, which says that learning multiple things is not better nor worse than one thing at a time, but it also states in the abstract that cognitive psychologists believed up to that point that mixing multiple topics is beneficial.
- Comment on shameless b8 1 year ago:
That is actually not backed by science. Mixing material is a lot more effective than focusing on one thing.
- Comment on "I wish you well in your future endeavors" 1 year ago:
It’s afro American sociolect.
- Comment on 1 already gone 1 year ago:
Obviously, the apartment with the Confederate flag has a swastika inside.
- Comment on STEM 1 year ago:
I think you just have to differentiate whether you want to do mathematically rigorous QM (which gets arbitrarily hard), or just do useful calculations.