4 ms·
The Physics models tend to shake out of some fairly logical math assumptions, and can trivially be shown how they are related. "How Physicists Approximate (Alm
by Joel_Mckay 9mo ago
The Physics models tend to shake out of some fairly logical math assumptions, and can trivially be shown how they are related.
"How Physicists Approximate (Almost) Anything" (Physics Explained)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUMC19IISY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUMC19IISY
If you are citing some crank with another theory of everything, than that dude had better prove it solves the thousands of problems traditional approaches already predict with 5 sigma precision. =3
- nkrisc 9mo agoWhat does “5 sigma precision equals 3” mean?
- Joel_Mckay 9mo ago[flagged]
- nkrisc 9mo agoIt was a serious question but I see I should not expect an answer.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- throawayonthe 9mo agonot sure if you're joking but it's an emoticon: =3 look at it like a sideways face of a cartoon cat, with 3 being the mouth shape so their actual sentence ends at the period
- nkrisc 9mo agoOk, I see it now. I thought the period was a typo and they were trying to write some sort of expression. I still don’t understand why the emoticon is there or its purpose but whatever.
- Joel_Mckay 9mo ago[censored] Cheers =3
- tux3 9mo agoPlease stop jumping to conclusions about what diagnoses you think other people have. That is not helping.
- nkrisc 9mo agoI don’t have autism, but thanks. Ending a (every, apparently) comment with “=3” is not normal so I mistook its meaning.
- magicalhippo 9mo agoApparently there's a lot of dogs[1] that like to pretend they're cats. I just roll with it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_...
- nkrisc 9mo agoYep, there’s always a new kind of weird to discover online.
- Joel_Mckay 9mo agoDon't worry about it... =3
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- magicalhippo 9mo ago=3 is a cat face[1] smiley, the period preceding it ends the sentence. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons
- kitd 9mo ago> The pattern was first discovered in nature in the 1950s in the energy spectrum of the uranium nucleus, a behemoth with hundreds of moving parts that quivers and stretches in infinitely many ways, producing an endless sequence of energy levels. In 1972, the number theorist Hugh Montgomery observed it in the zeros of the Riemann zeta function(opens a new tab), a mathematical object closely related to the distribution of prime numbers. In 2000, Krbálek and Šeba reported it in the Cuernavaca bus system(opens a new tab). And in recent years it has shown up in spectral measurements of composite materials, such as sea ice and human bones, and in signal dynamics of the Erdös–Rényi model(opens a new tab), a simplified version of the Internet named for Paul Erdös and Alfréd Rényi. Are they also cranks? Seems it at least warrants investigation.
- Joel_Mckay 9mo ago>Are they also cranks? That is a better question. =3
- topaz0 9mo agoThis isn't crank stuff, and operates on different kinds of problems/scales than "grand unified theory" type cranks. This is about emergent statistical order in complex interacting systems of sufficient size, not about the behaviors of the individual particles or whatever.
- topaz0 9mo agoUniversality broadly construed is well understood since the 70s. Particular universality classes are newer and will likely continue to be discovered, but they all come to be in a qualitatively similar way.
- topaz0 9mo agoIf anyone has genuine interest, this review from shortly after the clarifying development of renormalization group theory might be a nice place to start: https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.46.597 https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.46....
- Joel_Mckay 9mo ago[flagged]
- blurbleblurble 9mo agoDude you don't know what you're talking about and it shows. They're describing something super fundamental akin to a statistical distribution and how it shows up in a lot of places. That's it. That's all. Nothing crank about it.
- seanhunter 9mo agoI'm going to go out on a limb and say you posted this accidentally on the wrong thread somehow, but this isn't (at all) a theory of everything, nor is it some crank producing anything. Eg https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0510 https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0510 See the authors- in terms of contemporary mathematics they are pretty much as far from a crank as it's possible to be. Universality seems to be some sort of intrinsic characteristic of the distribution of eigenvalues of certain types of random matrices which crop up all over the place. That seems interesting and the work is serious academic work (as you can see from the paper I linked) and absolutely doesn't deserve the sort of shallow dismissal you have applied.