5 ms·

This feels like it shoud be bigger news. What's the catch?

by Racing0461 3y ago

bmicraft 3y ago
The replication crisis, probably
marginalia_nu 3y ago
Magnetic monopoles aren't entirely new in the realm of quasiparticles. We've known about them for quite some while.
idlewords 3y ago
Not actual monopoles but quasiparticles
Nthringas 3y ago
their magnetic monopole quasi-exists seems like some sort of virtual or model-like result based on emergen properties
at_a_remove 3y ago
That's a good instinct to have. The answer is that quasiparticles can cover a multitude of sins. My personal Four Horsemen are: -Quasiparticles: We select some property by drawing a box around a set of adjacent particles and computing over those particles. That property is not represented in a single and unattached member of that box. It isn't the real thing but might approximate some nifty functions you wanted if scaled up and embedded in the right material under the correct circumstances. -"...in a simulation": This means that this is only as good as your programming (and databases and libraries) is, on top of how well that programming relates to the math you think represents the system in question. Not only do you not have the real thing, you have bits representing the answer to your imperfect programming based on what you think the math is (and what math can be ignored) in your model. -Analogue of in another system: See sonic black holes. Parallels are drawn between math in one system and math is an entirely different system. Some expect that new inferences can be drawn from the comparison, but you still don't have the real thing, you have a cardboard box with subdividers and you wonder how that applies to high-rises. -Property exists in n-dimensions: Where N is not our three spatial dimensions. It's not the real thing because we don't have anything with just two spatial dimensions, or an extra spatial dimension, but maybe, just maybe, that can lead to some interesting properties on the edge of the thing, or its face, but probably not in the way you would expect. Listen for their hooves during any breathless science press release about physics, materials science, and so on.
- User23 3y ago
  > -"...in a simulation": This position entails climate denialism. Do you?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    What is the connection between distrusting effects that have only been observed in models, and disbelieving climate change?
    - User23 3y ago
      Since you appear to be asking in good faith, despite this being a frankly irrationally hostile environment whenever the subject comes up, I’ll answer. The raw data shows no warming trend. NOAA and NASA admit this, it’s not a conspiracy theory. The adjustments made that show warming are based on models. Hence to trust the warming trend you have to trust the models, which are very computer simulations.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Great comment. You could do a similar one for a lot of different fields. Solar panels, windmills, nuclear fusion, medical advances.

This feels like it shoud be bigger news. What's the catch?

bmicraft 3y ago

The replication crisis, probably

marginalia_nu 3y ago

Magnetic monopoles aren't entirely new in the realm of quasiparticles. We've known about them for quite some while.

idlewords 3y ago

Not actual monopoles but quasiparticles

Nthringas 3y ago

their magnetic monopole quasi-exists seems like some sort of virtual or model-like result based on emergen properties

at_a_remove 3y ago

That's a good instinct to have. The answer is that quasiparticles can cover a multitude of sins. My personal Four Horsemen are: -Quasiparticles: We select some property by drawing a box around a set of adjacent particles and computing over those particles. That property is not represented in a single and unattached member of that box. It isn't the real thing but might approximate some nifty functions you wanted if scaled up and embedded in the right material under the correct circumstances. -"...in a simulation": This means that this is only as good as your programming (and databases and libraries) is, on top of how well that programming relates to the math you think represents the system in question. Not only do you not have the real thing, you have bits representing the answer to your imperfect programming based on what you think the math is (and what math can be ignored) in your model. -Analogue of in another system: See sonic black holes. Parallels are drawn between math in one system and math is an entirely different system. Some expect that new inferences can be drawn from the comparison, but you still don't have the real thing, you have a cardboard box with subdividers and you wonder how that applies to high-rises. -Property exists in n-dimensions: Where N is not our three spatial dimensions. It's not the real thing because we don't have anything with just two spatial dimensions, or an extra spatial dimension, but maybe, just maybe, that can lead to some interesting properties on the edge of the thing, or its face, but probably not in the way you would expect. Listen for their hooves during any breathless science press release about physics, materials science, and so on.

User23 3y ago
> -"...in a simulation": This position entails climate denialism. Do you?
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  What is the connection between distrusting effects that have only been observed in models, and disbelieving climate change?
  - User23 3y ago
    Since you appear to be asking in good faith, despite this being a frankly irrationally hostile environment whenever the subject comes up, I’ll answer. The raw data shows no warming trend. NOAA and NASA admit this, it’s not a conspiracy theory. The adjustments made that show warming are based on models. Hence to trust the warming trend you have to trust the models, which are very computer simulations.
jacquesm 3y ago
Great comment. You could do a similar one for a lot of different fields. Solar panels, windmills, nuclear fusion, medical advances.