RE: Precision computer simulations for particle colliders - a window on my research

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Precision computer simulations for particle colliders - a window on my research

View the full context

goldmanmorgan in #steemstem • 5 years ago (edited)

Hello, sensei, sashi bu ri ... (<-rudyardcatling but that one is always short of rc lately) ...

I think i'll put this aside for the morning coffee and put my smart-people hat on before i try to read it :D

I guess (on a scan of the post) all systems suffer from some kind of butterfly-effect and the more complex they get the harder it might be to discern but the more impact a very small notch might have in the long run (and ever-increasing to afterwards ofcourse). I'm still not sure how analogue life can be placed in digital computation, so it must be an approximation at the highest possible resolution (or else the whole universe is not analogue but actual ones and zeroes, which i think is somewhat of a scary concept lol) So you could in essence keep on increasing the accuracy but mathematically between any two given points you always have an infinite number of points so its a bit of a never-ending task you got there ... im gonna try to read the paper but my school-vocabulary isnt all that, long time, hope you're doing well, always a pleasure !!

... good morning then again , i'd say ...

if every physical question can be answered by the theory, then the theory is said to be complete ...

has been proven to be anextremely successful theory ... * its predictions agree well with the vast majority of the datacollected so far* ... Despite its success, however, the SMleaves some deep questions unanswered, and suffers from various conceptual issues and limitations .... truncated ... normalization :D when working with soundwaves that basically means clipping off the outer edges, effectively losing a lot of the original data ... a 30%-45% level of precision ...

It's about probability is it , no one can really say it's "like that" ... if i didnt know any better i'd say the atheists are living on a prayer lol (sorry, you know i respect all the work and i'm a great fan of gravity, entropy and equilibrium) but it often baffles me how much "uncertainty" there is compared to what is accepted to be , with 95% of the universe not having been proven to exist you sure are frontier workers :D that document's gonna take me a while to digest, sensei, i might be back with questions, thank for the post

5 years ago in #steemstem by goldmanmorgan

0.00 BPC

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

lemouth 5 years ago

Hey! Nice to hear from you from this alternative account. I am happy to see that you are still around.

Maybe one thing you could do, instead of trying to read the entire paper, would be to focus on the introduction where we present the problem we are trying to solve and explain why they are important for our field. What do you think?

... good morning then again , i'd say ...
if every physical question can be answered by the theory, then the theory is said to be complete ...

The Standard Model is not complete. Even when Jay Wacker says that the Standard Model of the 1990s is complete, I disagree with the statement. There are still many quantities of the Standard Model of the 1990s that have not been measured, and that we won't be able to measure before at least 50 years. So... until one gets there, there is still work to do, IMO.

It's about probability is it , no one can really say it's "like that" [...]

In particle physics, every theory prediction comes with an error bar, so that the central value is what it is, but it won't be shocking if the right answer would be elsewhere in the error bar.

I hope I clarified a little bit :)

0.00 BPC

3 votes

[-]

goldmanmorgan 5 years ago (edited)

ofcourse :) - i don't think one will simply get there ... once the key Kolwynia has been found, then all is said and done after all (it's a reference to jack of shadows/Roger Zelazny). Unless the universe is digital or mathematics is wrong as a language at the very core then it's virtually impossible to actually ever get there, one could only hope to get close , around somewhere , right ?

You can't really box analogue strings like that, be they soundwaves or any waves, there's always a higher resolution so yea i understand you go for the most likely part of the dataset that has the biggest ... how should i say in my own cat-language ... "density" ? the part where most data would reside as closer to ones than zeroes because that is more like the direction , it's vectors, right ? not a square spreadsheet ... quantum mechanics is fascinating matter indeed as the pun goes, but i have to admit after reading three of the pages i still have to decipher the first word into human language because it seems to be some kind of alien manuscript brought back by the mars rover so far :p but i'm sure some things will dawn as they always do, and once there is a hook to attach to things become clearer
(so i'm probably speaking in tongues to you too, but i'm not, am i ... its just like a way of looking at it from another dimension) i do understand most of the core , its the numbers in your field that are just too much for me as i never really got trained into that and i doubt i still will, unless i'd dedicate my last good 20 years to it ... but i got much life to catch up on , ANYWAY ! i'm gonna keep at it until i get the root of it at least, but i think your advise might be wise

(as usual, that's why you are the sensei ;-)

@lemouth

if i may add, in my semi-mystical viewpoint, living in the metaverse where the first one to explain entropy to me as a kid was Jack Vance in the dying earth ( :) ) ... You and yours are much like the celestial bodies "falling" around the center, trying to reach it but never getting really there" , yet nothing stops searching, it's like the whole universe is actively seeking like euh

the truth ?
the center ... balance ? but if it ever did find that point then all would stop, right ? nothing would move and for lack of friction would there still be anything left as there would be like no energy ?

lol, maybe i should start my own cult :D always a pleasure, sensei !!

0.00 BPC

[-]

lemouth 5 years ago

< [...] one could only hope to get close , around somewhere , right ?

Not even that: we solely can get closer, not more.

From your message, it is not clear. But have you tried to read the actual article? Trying to get the intro would be a nice goal :)

0.00 BPC

1 vote

[-]

goldmanmorgan 5 years ago

i have, and i still have it in a tab, but as opposed to most other articles or newsletters it doesn't seem to be something i can just read in-between like i usually do when i switch screens or tabs heh , i will certainly try to at least get the notion, you know i think it's fascinating matter can't get more cutting edge than looking for the missing 95% of existence imo :-) so far i can deduce it's all about error margins and getting a usable set out of a whole cloud of unstructured data, but i have to admit it's a bit above my braingrade, maybe not the concepts, but the language used is very technical and probably since it's mainly directed at people who are on it on the daily, nonetheless ... i'm not done with it yet :p

0.00 BPC