4 ms·

The difference between you breaking a stick and the computer modeling it is that you've measured nothing. You don't know, with any precision, the amount of forc

The difference between you breaking a stick and the computer modeling it is that you've measured nothing. You don't know, with any precision, the amount of force you used, the rate the stick broke at, how much mass remains in the two pieces and how much was lost to splintering, etc. In other words, assuming the computer model has sufficiently accurate data as an input, it can produce significantly more refined output than a human can through trial. In fields where human trial is exceptionally inefficient- molecular physics, chemical synthesis design, structural material design, etc- a sufficiently fast computer will allow for faster design iteration and perhaps even development of new processes and materials. More concretely, if you wanted to design a new stick that breaks under exactly the conditions that you intend it to, then you can skip a lot of trial and error if your computer can accurately model the materials you are designing and testing. Think construction, civil engineering, energetic chemistry, biological processes (medicine design) etc.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BasedAnon 3y ago
Now if we had a way of measuring it, it would be interesting to ask what sort of model of computation we could derive from the breaking of sticks
- reb 3y ago
  I cannot wait to tell you about the cutting-edge technology my team is developing — it's called the twigchain and it's going to change everything.
dataflow 3y ago
> You don't know, with any precision, the amount of force you used, the rate the stick broke at, how much mass remains in the two pieces and how much was lost to splintering, etc. But I can measure those with a ruler and a scale. Both before and after the breakage. Takes a few seconds, and I'd need to do that before punching those numbers into the simulator anyway. And I can be precise with where I apply the force, etc. So I don't see how this gets to the point of the question.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I can literally measure those with a ruler and a scale You can’t measure a number of internal stress-strain conditions during the moment of failure. You can’t repeat the experiment with the same stick. The best way to get a fast intuition for why the simulation is superior is to take an entry-level CAD course with a focus on material design.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    > The best way to get a fast intuition for why the simulation is superior is to take an entry-level CAD course with a focus on material design. I'm sorry but you're completely missing the point of my question. The question was not "what can simulations do that experiments can't". My background in simulation is not zero, and I've never had that question. The question as something else entirely. > You can’t measure a number of internal stress-strain conditions during the moment of failure But what if that's not what I'm interested in simulating or measuring? What if all I care about is something easily measurable, like the length of each remaining piece? Isn't that precisely my point here? There are so many things quantum computers can't compute either - yet we seem to be judging them by what they're really good at. Just like with the wooden stick. So how do I tell if they're the same sort of scenario or not? What's the distinguishing criterion?
    - carabiner 3y ago
      Are you just asking if these are unrealistic, contrived performance benchmarks? Those have always existed and they're fine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231084 Some are more useful than others. There's no strict criteria just as there is no perfect way fully characterize CPU performance.
      - dataflow 3y ago
        "Unrealistic" or "contrived" don't really get to the heart of the matter, at least not as I understand them. The stick example can be extremely useful and realistic - it doesn't really make any difference to the question. Perhaps another way to phrase it (though I'm not 100% sure this is equivalent) is: how do they know whether whatever they're accomplishing is quantum computation, as opposed to something else (like analog computation) that happens to be concerned with quantum physics.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BasedAnon 3y ago

Now if we had a way of measuring it, it would be interesting to ask what sort of model of computation we could derive from the breaking of sticks

reb 3y ago
I cannot wait to tell you about the cutting-edge technology my team is developing — it's called the twigchain and it's going to change everything.

dataflow 3y ago

> You don't know, with any precision, the amount of force you used, the rate the stick broke at, how much mass remains in the two pieces and how much was lost to splintering, etc. But I can measure those with a ruler and a scale. Both before and after the breakage. Takes a few seconds, and I'd need to do that before punching those numbers into the simulator anyway. And I can be precise with where I apply the force, etc. So I don't see how this gets to the point of the question.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> I can literally measure those with a ruler and a scale You can’t measure a number of internal stress-strain conditions during the moment of failure. You can’t repeat the experiment with the same stick. The best way to get a fast intuition for why the simulation is superior is to take an entry-level CAD course with a focus on material design.
- dataflow 3y ago
  > The best way to get a fast intuition for why the simulation is superior is to take an entry-level CAD course with a focus on material design. I'm sorry but you're completely missing the point of my question. The question was not "what can simulations do that experiments can't". My background in simulation is not zero, and I've never had that question. The question as something else entirely. > You can’t measure a number of internal stress-strain conditions during the moment of failure But what if that's not what I'm interested in simulating or measuring? What if all I care about is something easily measurable, like the length of each remaining piece? Isn't that precisely my point here? There are so many things quantum computers can't compute either - yet we seem to be judging them by what they're really good at. Just like with the wooden stick. So how do I tell if they're the same sort of scenario or not? What's the distinguishing criterion?
  - carabiner 3y ago
    Are you just asking if these are unrealistic, contrived performance benchmarks? Those have always existed and they're fine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231084 Some are more useful than others. There's no strict criteria just as there is no perfect way fully characterize CPU performance.
    - dataflow 3y ago
      "Unrealistic" or "contrived" don't really get to the heart of the matter, at least not as I understand them. The stick example can be extremely useful and realistic - it doesn't really make any difference to the question. Perhaps another way to phrase it (though I'm not 100% sure this is equivalent) is: how do they know whether whatever they're accomplishing is quantum computation, as opposed to something else (like analog computation) that happens to be concerned with quantum physics.