Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    And everyone's called Horatio
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2021
     
    Induced flaws in quantum materials could enhance superconducting properties

    https://phys.org/news/2021-10-flaws-quantum-materials-superconducting-properties.html
  2.  
    It's clear that we still don't have the compute power to adequately simulate bulk material properties.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnq
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    As I keep saying, it’s the boundaries that are interesting
  3.  
    It seems self-evident that spacetime is not fundamental; that it's an emergent property of a "deeper layer" which has something to do with entanglement. Our problem is that we are mesoscopic creatures with mesoscopic language and concepts, and our solution can only be via mathematics. Our everyday intuitions about "reality" utterly fail.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    Yep. I think, from what I’ve read about Wolfram’s idea about the universe being an iterative process based on simple rules leading to swirls of complexity, that there are obviously several other ways of looking at “reality”
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021 edited
     
    That's not my take on Wolfram. He seems to be saying that the universe is a automaton of immense size unfolding according to an algorithm. I would see a universe emerving from the relations of its components to allow for more chaos. The loop.gravity people have talked about space being a.thing that emerges from time relations, for example, whatever that means.

    Anyway it points toward a resolution of the old argument about mathematics being invented or discovered.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    I suspect we’re saying the same thing in different ways. But he did say that you can get complexity out of a set of simple rules with enough tessellating.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    I know. That's what put me off. That and his big fat book that led nowhere.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    It’s interesting to me to think of all that tessellating happening in n dimensions-as I understand it, Wolfram was working with a simple tile model, but really those tiles are little bits of stuff that extend in every direction you can perceive and probably a whole lot more. To me, it’s a grand and intricate thing which stems from something deceptively simple.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    Posted By: AngusAnyway it points toward a resolution of the old argument about mathematics being invented or discovered.

    Can it be both? We 'invent' the axioms, everything that follows is discovered as a consequence of those irreducible truths.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021 edited
     
    @loreman That's true. He produced some fascinating analogies to real processes but I found nothing explanatory and nothing predictive after wading all the way through.

    But I have great admiratiom for Steven Wolfram's brains and industry. I have used his Mathematica system since the nineties and still find it an extraordinary accomplishment.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    Posted By: pcstru
    Posted By: AngusAnyway it points toward a resolution of the old argument about mathematics being invented or discovered.

    Can it be both? We 'invent' the axioms, everything that follows is discovered as a consequence of those irreducible truths.


    I don't think that works. You are not free to invent any old axioms if you are aiming to be consistent with mathematics. For example Peano's axioms were invented to allow numbers as we know them. The "invention" is really description.

    And consistency is just about the definition of mathematics.
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    Posted By: AngusAnd consistency is just about the definition of mathematics.

    Sure, that's the point. You have Axioms and everything else follows. The axioms only exist as ideas, so must be invented. The idea of the idea of Mathematics is that consistency. That is an invention of our minds. Given consistency to the axioms and accepted consequences must be adhered to, any new knowledge is constrained absolutely - you aren't free to invent any old rubbish and call it an axiom or a consequence. So you are effectively discovering what is constrained within bounds you have set within the idea of mathematics that you invented.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    Posted By: pcstruwithin the idea of mathematics that you invented.


    But that's the rub. ALL mathematics has to be consistent.
  4.  
    I am finding this lecture series instructive.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn0W_mwA7Q0
    •  
      CommentAuthorpcstru
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: pcstruwithin the idea of mathematics that you invented.


    But that's the rub. ALL mathematics has to be consistent.

    Yes, that is the idea.

    Another clue for me would be the absence of (say) arithmetic operators as particles/fields. Things in the real world aren't waiting around for a + particle to pop up so they can behave additively.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    But everything that goes into the “inventing” process operates according to principles which can be described mathematically-the chemical, electrical and magnetic phenomena that make up living and thinking-just everything-operates in accordance with a basic set of rules out of which the mathematics....develops? If we were all snuffed out tomorrow, and in 2 million years the cockroaches have developed complex intelligence, they’ll still be describing those same relationships, probably using base 6.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2021
     
    Posted By: pcstruYes, that is theidea.


    If mathematical "invention" is constrained by the requirement to be consistent with mathematics, then it seems to me that it is really a process of "discovery" of what fits. Sure you can propose something and check if it fits but I wouldn't call that the invention of something new, but an exploration of an existing structure.

    Maybe the way we understand the words is a bit different.