5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spin_liquid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spin_liquid Neat

by zeusdclxvi 5mo ago

Razengan 5mo ago
The animation is pretty good and helps to easily understand the phenomenon
- dekhn 5mo ago
  this looks like those bot comments on youtube videos.
  - Razengan 5mo ago
    "I didn't expect to understand this topic like with most articles about weird shit on Wikipedia but wow, that animation actually brought the DC of grokking that knowledge within the reach of my INT modifier! Like super cool, dude!" How's this? Is it more human-like now? (your feedback may be used to improve the model for everyone)
  - perching_aix 5mo ago
    Maybe you're a bad judge of what comments are botted?
    - dekhn 5mo ago
      I didn't say it was a bot comment, I said it looks like a bot comment. Many of the shorts Youtube shows me are almost identical to that message.
      - perching_aix 5mo ago
        So are you like, tentative about it, or did you conclude that it isn't a bot comment in the end? If the latter, what was the ultimate rationale? Did you check their post history or something?
        dekhn 5mo ago
        Based on this thread, I do not think it was a bot comment. As far as I can tell, it was an organically sourced, honest opinion that just happens to look identical to a common bot post on youtube shorts
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
    - Brian_K_White 5mo ago
      Rather you're a bad comprehender of what words mean. What they said was what it looks like, and in fact it does look exactly like what they said. The comment contains the exact same content and value as a bot comment. It doesn't matter who or what wrote it, the critique of the comment itself holds water. So the critique was not "a bot wrote this" it was "either a bot wrote this, or a human wrote a comment that is no better than the ones bots write". You know what else a human might do even worse than a bot a lot of times? A bot would read this and apologize for getting something so wrong.
      - perching_aix 5mo ago
        I can play this game too: I never actually said they are a bad judge of what comments are botted, just merely suggested it as a possibility. Otherwise: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html https://youtu.be/IJEaMtNN_dM https://youtu.be/IJEaMtNN_dM Suffice to say, I'd thus kindly reject being a "bad comprehender of what words mean", thank you very much. It was a perfectly reasonable initial reading of their comment as far as I'm concerned. It's ambiguous. Happens. The fact that "is this AI? this is AI." is a damn near fixture of every thread these days, doesn't help.
      - dekhn 5mo ago
        It wasn't even a critique of the comment. I was just pointing out the text of the comment resembled a bot comment on youtube shorts- almost an exact keyword match.
        Razengan 5mo ago
        y'all be crazy af Do you even realize the irony of your unnecessary complaint about potential bots generating more noise than actual bots?
        dekhn 5mo ago
        It wasn't even a complaint! I was mainly commenting on the similarity of the text (I've seen text extremely close to that in youtube shorts comments). If it was a genuine, organically sourced comment, you can simply ignore my message.
- pavel_lishin 5mo ago
  And the music that goes along with it is pretty great, too. Apparently done by this artist? https://laoexperiment.bandcamp.com/album/quantum-magnet-sound-design https://laoexperiment.bandcamp.com/album/quantum-magnet-soun...
- perching_aix 5mo ago
  For real, not what I expect to come across when checking out more in-the-weeds topics. Super accessible, even for a layman like me. Not a big fan of the music though, sounded like I left another video playing in the background at points.
ticulatedspline 5mo ago
The animation is great though I don't understand how the collapsed singlet can exist in proximity to the superimposed ones. I would expect the presence of the defined spin to create an "observation" of a neighbor and immediately collapse the entire material.
- vi_sextus_vi 5mo ago
  At a quick glance, I did not see the term "collapsed" in wiki. It isn't a collapse. (The concept is still relevant[0]!) What was drawn like a "defined spin" for pedagogy should only have been coloured different. The lone spins are always part of a longer-range quantum superposition, maybe better represented as blue blobs. The lowest "excitations" are (superpositions of) triplets, for example. Btw I put quotes around excitations because you touched on a mysterious aspect of these systems called the "spin gap". TFA mentions it. They don't even know whether this spin gap exists! Indeed, the term "liquid" means there might not be a spin gap. (It'd be best to colour the singlet blobs orange-red and the triplet blobs red-orange) [0] In your parlance, a "collapse" literally means dropping to a macroscopic ground state across a gap, but a liquid is already "arbitrarily" close to the ground state. "Collapsing into defined spins" will take the system _out_ of the ground state, so it can't happen spontaneously... Or so it's believed..
  - ticulatedspline 5mo ago
    Admittedly I didn't go over the whole article just watched the video. around the 90 second mark they mention that the spin sate can drop into a superposition called a spin singlet. then they show heating the material to break a spin singlet and demonstrate the broken singlet atoms moving around the liquid (~2:00 mark). I'm referring to that breaking as a "collapse" I would expect that a singlet in superposition could not coexist with an adjacent "non-collapsed" atom because it's defined magnetic field would need to interact with it's neighbors breaking the superposition.
    - vi_sextus_vi 5mo ago
      The animation is a good intro but takes many liberties. It is more accurate to think of the spins as always interacting with one another.. at 0K temperature only singlets are allowed, increasing the temperature by just a bit, both singlets and triplets coexist, etc. even that is just a picture. To start with an everyday analogy. if you know you have 51cents in your piggy bank, but not what the precise breakdown is. Then you must have at least one penny. But you don't know exactly how many pennies you have unless you take a look. Unlike pennies though, the singlets and triplets cannot be distinguished from one another. One can only measure how many "excess" triplets there are, one cannot point to where these triplets are hiding. The measurement doesn't "cause" a collapse, after the measurement, you know there is some spin imbalance but it is still in some superposition Anyways.. to fully get what I am going with this, you will have to play with the math on your own. I have, but it's hard to translate all that to English. I'm just trying to point out that the interesting part is not in "collapse" but rather the "failure to collapse"--- the failure to take the system out of superpositions. Because the spins are always interacting. Or maybe I just don't understand enough to explain it like Feynman.. heh.. but if you turn some of what Feynman has said in plain English into math, you would see that some of his stuff is also.. misleading IBM must have some sims you can run on your PC, ask ChatGPT to solve and draw a small "Heisenberg model" that imports their libs. If you can take Taiwanese: https://youtu.be/hHbUytvNLeE https://youtu.be/hHbUytvNLeE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spin_liquid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_spin_liquid Neat

Razengan 5mo ago

The animation is pretty good and helps to easily understand the phenomenon

dekhn 5mo ago
this looks like those bot comments on youtube videos.
- Razengan 5mo ago
  "I didn't expect to understand this topic like with most articles about weird shit on Wikipedia but wow, that animation actually brought the DC of grokking that knowledge within the reach of my INT modifier! Like super cool, dude!" How's this? Is it more human-like now? (your feedback may be used to improve the model for everyone)
- perching_aix 5mo ago
  Maybe you're a bad judge of what comments are botted?
  - dekhn 5mo ago
    I didn't say it was a bot comment, I said it looks like a bot comment. Many of the shorts Youtube shows me are almost identical to that message.
    - perching_aix 5mo ago
      So are you like, tentative about it, or did you conclude that it isn't a bot comment in the end? If the latter, what was the ultimate rationale? Did you check their post history or something?
      - dekhn 5mo ago
        Based on this thread, I do not think it was a bot comment. As far as I can tell, it was an organically sourced, honest opinion that just happens to look identical to a common bot post on youtube shorts
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
  - Brian_K_White 5mo ago
    Rather you're a bad comprehender of what words mean. What they said was what it looks like, and in fact it does look exactly like what they said. The comment contains the exact same content and value as a bot comment. It doesn't matter who or what wrote it, the critique of the comment itself holds water. So the critique was not "a bot wrote this" it was "either a bot wrote this, or a human wrote a comment that is no better than the ones bots write". You know what else a human might do even worse than a bot a lot of times? A bot would read this and apologize for getting something so wrong.
    - perching_aix 5mo ago
      I can play this game too: I never actually said they are a bad judge of what comments are botted, just merely suggested it as a possibility. Otherwise: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html https://youtu.be/IJEaMtNN_dM https://youtu.be/IJEaMtNN_dM Suffice to say, I'd thus kindly reject being a "bad comprehender of what words mean", thank you very much. It was a perfectly reasonable initial reading of their comment as far as I'm concerned. It's ambiguous. Happens. The fact that "is this AI? this is AI." is a damn near fixture of every thread these days, doesn't help.
    - dekhn 5mo ago
      It wasn't even a critique of the comment. I was just pointing out the text of the comment resembled a bot comment on youtube shorts- almost an exact keyword match.
      - Razengan 5mo ago
        y'all be crazy af Do you even realize the irony of your unnecessary complaint about potential bots generating more noise than actual bots?
        dekhn 5mo ago
        It wasn't even a complaint! I was mainly commenting on the similarity of the text (I've seen text extremely close to that in youtube shorts comments). If it was a genuine, organically sourced comment, you can simply ignore my message.
pavel_lishin 5mo ago
And the music that goes along with it is pretty great, too. Apparently done by this artist? https://laoexperiment.bandcamp.com/album/quantum-magnet-sound-design https://laoexperiment.bandcamp.com/album/quantum-magnet-soun...
perching_aix 5mo ago
For real, not what I expect to come across when checking out more in-the-weeds topics. Super accessible, even for a layman like me. Not a big fan of the music though, sounded like I left another video playing in the background at points.

ticulatedspline 5mo ago

The animation is great though I don't understand how the collapsed singlet can exist in proximity to the superimposed ones. I would expect the presence of the defined spin to create an "observation" of a neighbor and immediately collapse the entire material.

vi_sextus_vi 5mo ago
At a quick glance, I did not see the term "collapsed" in wiki. It isn't a collapse. (The concept is still relevant[0]!) What was drawn like a "defined spin" for pedagogy should only have been coloured different. The lone spins are always part of a longer-range quantum superposition, maybe better represented as blue blobs. The lowest "excitations" are (superpositions of) triplets, for example. Btw I put quotes around excitations because you touched on a mysterious aspect of these systems called the "spin gap". TFA mentions it. They don't even know whether this spin gap exists! Indeed, the term "liquid" means there might not be a spin gap. (It'd be best to colour the singlet blobs orange-red and the triplet blobs red-orange) [0] In your parlance, a "collapse" literally means dropping to a macroscopic ground state across a gap, but a liquid is already "arbitrarily" close to the ground state. "Collapsing into defined spins" will take the system _out_ of the ground state, so it can't happen spontaneously... Or so it's believed..
- ticulatedspline 5mo ago
  Admittedly I didn't go over the whole article just watched the video. around the 90 second mark they mention that the spin sate can drop into a superposition called a spin singlet. then they show heating the material to break a spin singlet and demonstrate the broken singlet atoms moving around the liquid (~2:00 mark). I'm referring to that breaking as a "collapse" I would expect that a singlet in superposition could not coexist with an adjacent "non-collapsed" atom because it's defined magnetic field would need to interact with it's neighbors breaking the superposition.
  - vi_sextus_vi 5mo ago
    The animation is a good intro but takes many liberties. It is more accurate to think of the spins as always interacting with one another.. at 0K temperature only singlets are allowed, increasing the temperature by just a bit, both singlets and triplets coexist, etc. even that is just a picture. To start with an everyday analogy. if you know you have 51cents in your piggy bank, but not what the precise breakdown is. Then you must have at least one penny. But you don't know exactly how many pennies you have unless you take a look. Unlike pennies though, the singlets and triplets cannot be distinguished from one another. One can only measure how many "excess" triplets there are, one cannot point to where these triplets are hiding. The measurement doesn't "cause" a collapse, after the measurement, you know there is some spin imbalance but it is still in some superposition Anyways.. to fully get what I am going with this, you will have to play with the math on your own. I have, but it's hard to translate all that to English. I'm just trying to point out that the interesting part is not in "collapse" but rather the "failure to collapse"--- the failure to take the system out of superpositions. Because the spins are always interacting. Or maybe I just don't understand enough to explain it like Feynman.. heh.. but if you turn some of what Feynman has said in plain English into math, you would see that some of his stuff is also.. misleading IBM must have some sims you can run on your PC, ask ChatGPT to solve and draw a small "Heisenberg model" that imports their libs. If you can take Taiwanese: https://youtu.be/hHbUytvNLeE https://youtu.be/hHbUytvNLeE