The proper time (that is, the time the traveler measures on a clock) goes to zero very quickly towards the end. Even with both axes plotted logarithmically, it's just a sudden drop at the end towards light speed.
Funnily enough, I use Cloudflare Warp at work, and it breaks my site for what I think are DNS related reasons. Maybe there are some more exotic DNS keys that I need to add.
Or I could go back to IPv4 with dynamic DNS, but that would mean changing domain registrars.
NS record for domains usually can be pointed at someone else than the registrar it's on, just fine(unless DNS infra of either one or both goes down). That's entirely separate to registrar transfer.
I found it hard to believe that they accounted for other forces precisely enough that they could attribute the phase change to gravity, but this is beyond me so I trust the result.
At first I thought "they showed that you can measure a particle falling in gravity," which seemed dumb because we already know that particles fall in gravity. But they showed that you can measure a single (aggregate) particle falling in gravity, which is pretty cool because if gravity is quantum then that means that they observed an interaction between the graviton and their rubidium atom.
Actually, we do need evidence for premises which are not definitions or basic assumptions (axioms). Graviton is still a hypothetical particle and falls under neither of two categories - Definitions or axioms.
The statement "if gravity is quantum, this was an interaction with a graviton" is true even if it ultimately turns out that gravity is not quantum. The statement is about the consequences of a premise, and is not falsified if that premise is false.
The only way this statement could be false would be to have quantum gravity but no particle that mediates this interaction - which doesn't seem plausible almost by definition.
That's quite an exotic claim! If Sound and Temperature can emerge without a sound particle or temperature particle, why is it not plausible for gravity to exists without graviton?
Though, I get it that mainstream view from physicists is Graviton is the most 'likely' cause, if the gravity is proven to be quantized. But even they would have the humility to accept that this is a theory yet to be proven and observed!
A: If gravity is quantum, then (B) there must be some particle-like think that we call a graviton that mediates the interactions, and then seeing a rubidium atom fall must have been an interaction with this particle.
not A: If gravity is not quantum, then they are making no claims about a graviton.
If you think gravity is not quantum, then you go to the "not A" branch, and they make no claims about that branch - so there is no contradiction with their IF.
However, for me to claim that quantum Gravity is only emergent without a particle like graviton's mediation, I would need to present evidence. Just like this claim - quantum gravity is only possible from gravitons.
Ohh, yes, I had not at all understood that this was what you were referring to, especially as I had already suggested this is a real, though to my mind implausible, possibility.
Now, as to how plausible this is, we'll actually get into semantics. To me, saying that "gravity is quantum" would mean that it is a real force/interaction, and that this force obeys the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So, I wouldn't say "gravity is quantum" if it turns out that the Entropic gravity theory is true, as in that theory gravity is only an apparent interaction. However, I admit that this may only be my perception of what these terms mean together, and that others may use "gravity is quantum" to refer to any theory that explains the macroscopic effects we call gravity in a way that matches quantum theories.
So, basically Gravity is quantum if Gravity is fundamental (not emergent)?
If I am understanding your counterpoint correctly, then this argument can only be concluded satisfactorily if either Graviton is observed (proving is existence) or something more fundamental and deeper is observed (proving that quantum gravity can emerge without graviton).
This is a global issue with modern particle physics - scientists imagine something and then blink, and two decades and a hundred of books had been published while that something is still not present in any test. It would be fine if that happened rarely, but it seems that it's just par for course nowadays.
It's a quiet test of Penrose's idea that gravitational interactions cause objective collapse of superposition.
Maybe there's something subtle in the details which explains why it isn't that, but it certainly looks adjacent to it - although maybe not deliberately?
Maybe part of it is that fully functional notation necessarily preserves certain properties of the computation, while imperative style doesn't have to. For a complex piece of code, all of the hairiness is manifest in a functional style, but can be made implicit in an imperative style. So there's an economy to the imperative approach as things get complex, but in a sense we're just laundering the complexity from understanding the machinations of the code to understanding the correctness of the code.
Hence, objects; keep alternating between functional (stateless) and imperative (stateful) as you ascend the abstraction tower, so that the hairiness does not leak between layers and hence accumulate.
This is beside the point, and I'm being pedantic, but the unix pipeline and the clojure expression don't quite do the same thing.
The clojure expression reads the entire file into memory first, and then operates on that memory representation.
The pipeline processes the input in chunks. The two `sort`s might read the entire contents into memory, but an implementation like GNU sort will instead, for large inputs, create temporary files for sections of the input and then merge sort them to the output.
You could make clojure do the same thing, but it might not be as "simple" as the pipeline.
> Now, let's say we want to make a small change: show the output in the original file order. In Clojure, this is fairly straightforward: store an ordered sequence of the words in word_seq, store a map from each word to its frequency in freq_map, iterate over the sequence, and look up each word in the map:
Emphasis on just "storing" something. The author seems to not understand that this change makes the solutions categorically different.
It's a little like critiquing the efficiency of moving a piano up a stairwell by saying why didn't they just use a crane via the window? Using a crane isn't a better way of getting a piano up the stairwell.
Yeah I figure I'm "well educated" and I never took a real statistics class and so never learned the definition of a p-value. I also don't know about the Wars of the Roses or Millard Fillmore. I did learn about Hildegard von Bingen and Laguerre polynomials.
reply