prof-dr-ir

14 ms·

61.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
Sarcasm aside, I really do not think you are making much sense. Obviously one first introduces the relevant probability distributions (at least the micro-canonical ensemble). But once you have those, your comment still does not offer a bett
62.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
> is far from “being it” as a definition of the concept of entropy in physics. I simply do not understand why you say this. Entropy in physics is defined using exactly the same equation. The only thing I need to add is the choice of pr
63.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
You are completely right of course. I am merely a professor in theoretical physics who has been teaching this stuff for a number of years now.
64.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
Of course that is not my statement. See all my other replies to identical misinterpretations of my comment.
65.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
As of this moment there are six other top-level comments which each try to define entropy, and frankly they are all wrong, circular, or incomplete. Clearly the very definition of entropy is confusing, and the definition is what my comme
66.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
The above evidently only suffices as a definition, not as an entire course. My point was just that I don't think any other introduction beats this one, especially for a book with the given title. In particular it has always been my sta
67.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
Correct! And it took me just one paragraph, not the 18 pages of meandering (and I think confusing) text that it takes the author of the pdf to introduce the same idea.
68.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
If I would write a book with that title then I would get to the point a bit faster, probably as follows. Entropy is just a number you can associate with a probability distribution. If the distribution is discrete, so you have a set p_i, i
69.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
There should be word for the fallacy where you conflate a group's average opinion with that of the inevitable subgroup that sends angry tweets about a topic.
70.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
> probably being the person who most deserved a Nobel prize but didn't get it You probably want to read up a bit on the remarkable life of Lise Meitner.
71.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
Randomizing the grading order just hides the problem at the level of an individual course, but at least it helps in the average. More worrying is when e.g. job candidates are discussed (often in alphabetical order) and people simply tire ou
72.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
Ah, I see that it is time to raise my objection again. As I wrote before [0], I think that what Aaronson's calls "the theory" is a somewhat bastardized version of quantum mechanics that might suffice for quantum computing but
73.
by prof-dr-ir 2y ago
The actual proposed regulation [0] is definitely worth having a look at. For example: 5. This Regulation shall not create any obligation that would require a provider of hosting services or a provider of interpersonal communications service
74.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
The Peter Higgs example that people throw around is just not a good one. Higgs was simply among the first to publish an idea that several other people came up with basically simultaneously. He then essentially sat on his hands for the remai
75.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
I am not so sure about that. She got her PhD in 2003 and is somehow still a "postdoctoral researcher" [0]. In Europe anyone with that academic age is normally a full professor, perhaps with some country-specific exceptions for som
76.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
> The real problem I had, I think, is that I was bad at lying to myself. Or perhaps dr. Hossenfelder's grant proposal was simply bad and the ideas proposed clearly made no sense. Who knows? It might be hard to judge for the HN crowd
77.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
Fair enough - newspaper coverage can only give so much detail. But as a physicist and long-time reader I have come to really appreciate the high quality of the articles by this NYT reporter (Dennis Overbye) on physics and related discipline
78.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
I think your definition of enthalpy is not wrong. My ranting is how most of thermo starts with U(S, V, N) whereas I would prefer with S(U, V, N). Either way the differential reads: dU = T dS - p dV + mu dN which, if we follow the standard w
79.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
Agreed, the way thermodynamics is often taught is such a mess. My personal and controversial [0] take is that the free energy should really be seen as the Legendre transform of the entropy, not of the energy. I know it is ultimately semanti
80.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
It is probably all in the book "Why String Theory?" from 2015 by Joseph Conlon.
81.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
Thank you for your reply but I do not think you really engaged with my reasoning? First, I was explicitly talking about the handful of brilliant people who literally no longer have to apply to grants, or, if they do so, they are all but gua
82.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
What I meant by "trust" is evidenced by this entire comment section, which is full of laypeople who appear convinced by Woit's arguments but seemingly do not wonder why the physicists in question were never swayed. Witten has
83.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
What Woit could never explain properly was why some of the very best theoretical physicists, who were entirely free to work on whatever they wanted, continued working on string theory for so long. I am pretty sure that all these people simp
84.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
> Ah, I see. You've changed from talking about concepts and conceptual understanding to talking about computations. No, or at least I did not mean to: I said "know how to compute", not "compute". One typically us
85.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
In my definition, someone cannot claim to know QM if they do not know (a) Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, (b) how to compute interference patterns or (c) how to compute the spectrum of hydrogen. Aaronson claims that QM "can be
86.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
With conceptually straightforward I meant that the concepts are easy to pick up. For example, the paper you cite is entirely understandable for anyone with some training in hermitian QM. In contrast, good luck trying to understand element
87.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
I would like to stress what is also mentioned in a sibling comment: quantum mechanics' original formulation was not in terms of a wave function and differential equations. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics was the first, and formula
88.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
To counter your enthusiasm I must say that I rather disliked his reasoning. My problem is essentially that what Aaronson's calls "the theory" is a somewhat bastardized version of quantum mechanics that might suffice for quant
89.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
Hah so at least Worldcoin no longer has to explain why nobody in Spain uses their product. I am afraid that they may not have an equally compelling explanation for the same problem in the rest of the world.
90.
by prof-dr-ir 3y ago
All teaching? So which position am I taking when I teach students how to compute the determinant of a matrix? Of course I can imagine that, say, constitutional law might currently be a bit more difficult to teach. But I still do not see wha

More ›