When a physicist want to impress a mathematician he explains how he tames infinities with renormalization.
- 2 Posts
- 15 Comments
Chicken thinking: “Someone please explain this guy how we solve the Schroëdinger equation”
corvus@lemmy.mlto LocalLLaMA@sh.itjust.works•Are you using any MCP servers? If so, what?English5·1 month agoI use jan-beta GUI, you can use locally any model that supports tool calling like qwen3-30B or jan-nano. You can download and install MCP servers (from, say, mcp.so) that serve different tools for the model to use, like web search, deep research, web scrapping, download or summarize videos, etc there are hundreds of MCP servers for different use cases.
corvus@lemmy.mlto science@lemmy.world•New quantum theory of gravity brings long-sought 'theory of everything' a crucial step closerEnglish1·3 months agoJust came across this beautiful video of Richard Feynman.
corvus@lemmy.mlto science@lemmy.world•New quantum theory of gravity brings long-sought 'theory of everything' a crucial step closerEnglish2·3 months agoThat’s not how physics works. If you are really interested in such issues read a book on foundations of physics or history of physics to see how physicists arrived at the most famous equations (Einstein,Dirac, Schroedinger or Newton), they are basically “bets” guided by physical and mathematical assumptions, but that is far from being “proved” or “derived”, there are no rigorous proofs or derivations involved. The uncertainty remains until an experiment or observation confirms it or rejects it. There’s no such a thing as “proving” a physical theory, for the simple reason that any physical theory works in a limited regime or range of validity. Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are both valid and succesfull theories within their range of validity, but they contradict each other mathematically, in one theory gravity is a scalar field and in the other is a tensor field, so you could use the mathematics of one theory to refute the other, so it makes no sense the concept of proving a physical theory mathematically. You only try to axiomize a theory once is well established, but it’s irrelevant concerning its validity.
corvus@lemmy.mlto science@lemmy.world•New quantum theory of gravity brings long-sought 'theory of everything' a crucial step closerEnglish3·3 months ago“The bonus of string theory is that it has the tenets of a unified theory of all interactions, electro-magnetism, weak and strong interactions, and gravitation” https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.1036
corvus@lemmy.mlto science@lemmy.world•New quantum theory of gravity brings long-sought 'theory of everything' a crucial step closerEnglish13·3 months agoYou have no idea what you are talking about. You can’t prove mathematically Einstein’s equations. No fundamental equations in physics were proved mathematically.
corvus@lemmy.mlto science@lemmy.world•New quantum theory of gravity brings long-sought 'theory of everything' a crucial step closerEnglish61·3 months agoI am a physicist. String theory already unified QFT and GR and that doesn’t mean it’s a verified physical theory, you need to validate it through experiment. It’s physics 101. Just watch some Sabine H. videos to see how she speaks about string theory being a failure besides being mathematically consistent.
corvus@lemmy.mlto science@lemmy.world•New quantum theory of gravity brings long-sought 'theory of everything' a crucial step closerEnglish515·3 months agoAlthough the theory is promising, the duo point out that they have not yet completed its proof
Physics is not math, you can’t “prove” a physical theory. You make predictions and through experiment or observation Nature has the last word.
corvus@lemmy.mlto Privacy@lemmy.ml•Privacy is a team sport - how do we get more people to play?4·3 months agoTell them how governments, employees and scammers buy from data brokers the data collected from apps in their phones to surveil, blackmail or scam them. Do a research and send them a good summary with the links. When a told my brother in law about this, he was stunned. He’s still using his phone as always lol, so don’t have too much expectations.
“Good morning daughter, how it was the date last night? great motel uh? ;)”
Your toxic partner: “What were you doing at that cafe at 5:42 PM”
corvus@lemmy.mlto Privacy@lemmy.ml•Your phone isn’t secretly listening to you, but the truth is more disturbing1·3 months agoTwelve years ago Moto X was launched by Motorola, at that time controlled by Google. I had it and at any moment you could say “Hello Google, what time is it?” and it responded. I was constantly listening. All the time. And it was a perfectly normal phone regarding battery life or data usage. TWELVE years ago, imagine how much easier would be to implement that now, with more powerful and efficient chips and bigger batteries.
From an article about Moto X back then: “If you want to take a selfie, you should be able to simply say “Take a selfie!” In short, your smartphone should live up to its name. That’s the goal with the Moto Voice and Moto Assist software integrated into the second generation Moto X smartphone. And to do that, the Moto X is always listening, for verbal commands from the user and also ambient cues of the context. That emergent behavior is spawned by complex interactions between the software and hardware”
Only much latter I came to the conclusion that with Moto X Google was making its first tests on using the microphone for mass surveillance.
No psychopath would.