5 ms·

Someone needs to do a better visual explanation of these particle interactions. If you can describe it mathematically then surely you can create a computer simu

Someone needs to do a better visual explanation of these particle interactions. If you can describe it mathematically then surely you can create a computer simulation.

ddbb33 5y ago
“someone”
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  “somebody”
317070 5y ago
People can and do make computer simulations of particle interactions? It's just that 12 dimensional PDE's are not exactly fast, but we can e.g. use them to compute the dipole moment of fundamental particles like muons. Think of it like knowing the rules, but the rules not being efficient to compute with.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  3D rendering was unbelievably slow for a long time too, the good thing about computers is they have storage so you can render 1 frame an hour if you want and just record it and play it back later.
hirako2000 5y ago
Exactly my thought while reading the prose. A picture is worth a thousand words, a formula a thousand pictures. Yet having a bit of the three kinds is often needed to easily comprehend the concept for those who are neither particularly visual, logical, or patient.
bfvjkfmrmrm 5y ago
Quantum simulations ran on classical computers have exponential complexity class. So it's only doable for tiny N.
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  Even a visual demonstration with a few particles would help. I’m sure the statistical calculations could be visually represented as well.
stared 5y ago
Visualizing particles in an easy way is HARD. To the point, I've founded a startup precisely for that: https://quantumflytrap.com/ https://quantumflytrap.com/
- gambitown 5y ago
  What you have linked is just bog-standard entanglement simulations. There are a dozen free software apps to do that. It's basically just linear matrix algebra with complex numbers. What the parent meant was real particle simulation, for example simulating the collision between two electrons or computing the dipole moment of a muon, from fundamental standard model constants. It requires numerically solving 12 dimensional PDE's. That's much more complicated than entanglement simulations.
  - stared 5y ago
    > There are a dozen free software apps to do that. Put your links when your mouth is. :) There is a handful of interactive simulations for qubits. I don't know any other interactive simulation for quantum many-particle systems. > It's basically just linear matrix algebra with complex numbers. It always has been. For Quantum Field Theory it gets much more complicated, and classical simulations are way to slow to simulate most systems. Quantum computers (or even quantum simulators) are likely to change the game. Anyway, being able to simulate does not result in being able to visualize in a meaningful way.
    - gambitown 5y ago
      > Put your links when your mouth is List of available QC simulators grouped by programming language: https://quantiki.org/wiki/list-qc-simulators https://quantiki.org/wiki/list-qc-simulators I count more than 40 QC simulator projects. All open source. There is an abundance of quantum computer (QC) simulators, as opposed to a paucity of quantum field theory (QFT) simulators (most of them written in Fortran, yuck).
      - stared 5y ago
forgotpwd16 5y ago
Particle interactions are visualized with Feynman diagrams which can be used for mathematical calculations (ref: arXiv:1602.04182). Do you mean something better than them?
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  Theoretical physics is infested with cartoons. Squiggles. Little arrows. Hand-drawn scribbles. I've looked into why there's a total vacuum of numerical simulation, and the reason is simply snobbery. There's a philosophy that numerical methods are what mere engineers do, and not as intellectually pure as symbolic solutions. You regularly hear comments like: "Such and such cannot be solved", what is often meant is: "It can only be solved numerically, but not with closed form algebraic expression." People that say things like the former statement have excluded numerical solutions as valid in their mind. Such solutions may as well not exist, as far as they're concerned. I see this attitude everywhere in theoretical physics. The other issue is that because of the seventeen layers of assumptions and abstractions, most physicists are now at the point where they're not really making theories about physics, but instead they're debating the properties of the abstractions themselves. It's like kids trading basketball cards and saying one player is better than the other because his card is printed better. This can all be boiled down to an acid test: Can you render your equations? As in, full 3D numerical simulation with an image as an output? Not a graph, not a scalar value, but a picture? For simple (non-diffracting) optics? Yes! That's literally every 3D computer renderer! For classical electromagnetics the answer is: yes. For plasma physics the answer is: yes. Even for special and general relativity, the answer is: yes. For QED? Err... maybe? I've seen some toy examples in 2D, and I think I've seen a 3D example once. In principle, it's doable. For anything else? Nothing. Or at any rate, I've seen nothing despite years of searching. E.g.: Can you show me any "rendering" that extends a QED simulation with the weak interaction? Can you find any animated examples of any particle interaction? E.g.: a free electron being captured by a proton, or an electron changing orbitals? Again: Images or animations please. Not graphs or scalars. Everyone I ever challenge gets confused and links me to a paper with a histogram in it. That's not what I mean!
  - drdeca 5y ago
roywiggins 5y ago
Well, there's Feynman diagrams. The problem is that there's a combinatorial explosion that severely limits certain simulations. Apparently this double-copy procedure can be used to cut down on the combinatorics, which is why physicists are excited about it.

Someone needs to do a better visual explanation of these particle interactions. If you can describe it mathematically then surely you can create a computer simulation.

ddbb33 5y ago

“someone”

hungryforcodes 5y ago
“somebody”

317070 5y ago

People can and do make computer simulations of particle interactions? It's just that 12 dimensional PDE's are not exactly fast, but we can e.g. use them to compute the dipole moment of fundamental particles like muons. Think of it like knowing the rules, but the rules not being efficient to compute with.

throwaway316943 5y ago
3D rendering was unbelievably slow for a long time too, the good thing about computers is they have storage so you can render 1 frame an hour if you want and just record it and play it back later.

hirako2000 5y ago

Exactly my thought while reading the prose. A picture is worth a thousand words, a formula a thousand pictures. Yet having a bit of the three kinds is often needed to easily comprehend the concept for those who are neither particularly visual, logical, or patient.

bfvjkfmrmrm 5y ago

Quantum simulations ran on classical computers have exponential complexity class. So it's only doable for tiny N.

throwaway316943 5y ago
Even a visual demonstration with a few particles would help. I’m sure the statistical calculations could be visually represented as well.

stared 5y ago

Visualizing particles in an easy way is HARD. To the point, I've founded a startup precisely for that: https://quantumflytrap.com/ https://quantumflytrap.com/

gambitown 5y ago
What you have linked is just bog-standard entanglement simulations. There are a dozen free software apps to do that. It's basically just linear matrix algebra with complex numbers. What the parent meant was real particle simulation, for example simulating the collision between two electrons or computing the dipole moment of a muon, from fundamental standard model constants. It requires numerically solving 12 dimensional PDE's. That's much more complicated than entanglement simulations.
- stared 5y ago
  > There are a dozen free software apps to do that. Put your links when your mouth is. :) There is a handful of interactive simulations for qubits. I don't know any other interactive simulation for quantum many-particle systems. > It's basically just linear matrix algebra with complex numbers. It always has been. For Quantum Field Theory it gets much more complicated, and classical simulations are way to slow to simulate most systems. Quantum computers (or even quantum simulators) are likely to change the game. Anyway, being able to simulate does not result in being able to visualize in a meaningful way.
  - gambitown 5y ago
    > Put your links when your mouth is List of available QC simulators grouped by programming language: https://quantiki.org/wiki/list-qc-simulators https://quantiki.org/wiki/list-qc-simulators I count more than 40 QC simulator projects. All open source. There is an abundance of quantum computer (QC) simulators, as opposed to a paucity of quantum field theory (QFT) simulators (most of them written in Fortran, yuck).
    - stared 5y ago

forgotpwd16 5y ago

Particle interactions are visualized with Feynman diagrams which can be used for mathematical calculations (ref: arXiv:1602.04182). Do you mean something better than them?

jiggawatts 5y ago
Theoretical physics is infested with cartoons. Squiggles. Little arrows. Hand-drawn scribbles. I've looked into why there's a total vacuum of numerical simulation, and the reason is simply snobbery. There's a philosophy that numerical methods are what mere engineers do, and not as intellectually pure as symbolic solutions. You regularly hear comments like: "Such and such cannot be solved", what is often meant is: "It can only be solved numerically, but not with closed form algebraic expression." People that say things like the former statement have excluded numerical solutions as valid in their mind. Such solutions may as well not exist, as far as they're concerned. I see this attitude everywhere in theoretical physics. The other issue is that because of the seventeen layers of assumptions and abstractions, most physicists are now at the point where they're not really making theories about physics, but instead they're debating the properties of the abstractions themselves. It's like kids trading basketball cards and saying one player is better than the other because his card is printed better. This can all be boiled down to an acid test: Can you render your equations? As in, full 3D numerical simulation with an image as an output? Not a graph, not a scalar value, but a picture? For simple (non-diffracting) optics? Yes! That's literally every 3D computer renderer! For classical electromagnetics the answer is: yes. For plasma physics the answer is: yes. Even for special and general relativity, the answer is: yes. For QED? Err... maybe? I've seen some toy examples in 2D, and I think I've seen a 3D example once. In principle, it's doable. For anything else? Nothing. Or at any rate, I've seen nothing despite years of searching. E.g.: Can you show me any "rendering" that extends a QED simulation with the weak interaction? Can you find any animated examples of any particle interaction? E.g.: a free electron being captured by a proton, or an electron changing orbitals? Again: Images or animations please. Not graphs or scalars. Everyone I ever challenge gets confused and links me to a paper with a histogram in it. That's not what I mean!
- drdeca 5y ago

roywiggins 5y ago

Well, there's Feynman diagrams. The problem is that there's a combinatorial explosion that severely limits certain simulations. Apparently this double-copy procedure can be used to cut down on the combinatorics, which is why physicists are excited about it.