ook_the_librarian

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

Since photons are indistinguishable, it’s hard to say too much concretely, but it some sense a diffracted photon is different photon. In order for a photon to interact with say, a diffraction grating, the interaction is done with “virtual photons”.

So for a photon to change course, aka accelerate, it does it by absorbing a virtual photon and emitting another. Whether that is the “same photon” after the interaction is kinda more philosophy than physics, at least to me.

Feynman diagrams are surprisingly accessible for how much information they contain. It’s one way to think about photon (and other particle) reactions.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

Are you claiming this is done without a force carrier? If you are working outside the standard model, I guess that’s fine, but I don’t want to spend time arguing with you.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago (edited 1 year ago)

Ah, I see. Sorry for the snark. I was thinking more in line with the Compton effect, and thought you were talking about something like that too. (Even though it’s clear that you were explicitly not. I thought you were denying photon-virtual photon interaction because I was talking about it in a funny way.)

I would still say it’s still philosophical whether photons experience acceleration, but I concede that photon-photon interaction is not done by virtual photon exchange.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

Someone asked if diffracted light accelerated. I said no. A diffracted photon is a different photon.

I gave some lip service to the Feynman “there is but one electron” idea, and you seemed to take that personally.

If someone asks you if diffracted light accelerates, answer them how you want. I just thought it’d be cool to show them Feyman diagrams.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

You’re right. And I’m the one being less than friendly. It’s nothing personal. It’s just something I’ve noticed about myself. It’s that I hate talking about physics on the internet.

I’m high on lemmy, not in my office. I read a terrible meme. So I open the comments, and see your comment. It was exactly what I was thinking. “Photons don’t accelerate.” Which I took to mean “your meme is bad and you should feel bad”. And again, I agree, it is horrible, this meme.

I like to shoot the shit about, say, quantum loop gravity (i’m honestly clueless about it) with people at the office, but on lemmy, academics piss me off. I don’t know why.

So from your reply, natural question arises: What about diffraction?

You went academic. I’m high. So I just steer them to a right answer while bringing up less academic (but valid (maybe)) ideas about philosophy. I did that because I hate when academics try to seriously discuss that “there is only one electron idea” and similarly unfalsifiable crap. That shit belongs on dumb internet forums with bad memes. And man did I find a bad meme. So was angling for a stupid debate about whether any particle can ever accelerate. You can’t trace them from idenitical copies. Are they the same particle after an interaction knowing that force carriers exist in the standard model? Not an actual quantum field theory debate.

But to give you some closure. I do see that I clearly did imply a tree-level interaction in my initial reply. It is wrong to say a photon emits anything. You were also very direct in your correction. I read it along with other comments and must have confused myself. So in all the back-peddling I was doing, I was avoiding defining “an interaction”. I was just trying to say any influence is an interaction. Not two photons touching on a diagram.

Also, I have a vague memory in grad school. Two people smarter than me were debating whether in a universe consisting only of 3 photons, would they be able to interact? I couldn’t focus on what was said. I was having an existantial crisis. So I had that clacking around in the back of my head. So I’m just going to stop writing now, because as I mentioned, I’m high. So I should just stop.

ook_the_librarian, 1 year ago

I’ll level with you. I only called it philosophical so I could hide behind that as a shield against an actual physics debate. But then I so showed my ass and mentioned the standard model. Thus leaving philosophy. I can’t hide behind unfalsifiable bullshit.

So I hope someone read this and went down some wikipedia rabbit holes. I’ll happily be “Cunningham’s fool”. I’ll give you, weird reader, some more wiki nuggets below.

I don’t think you should let some rando make you doubt anything. I don’t have a Ph.D. in physics. I only have a mild intro this stuff. I was on my way to getting a phd in physics (nuclear at that, not particle) and got distracted by math.

I don’t want to be super specific so as to not dox myself with a research fingerprint, but my research has crossed paths with things like Agmon metrics. Which although feels like I’m doing physics, it doesn’t change the fact that physicists don’t read my papers.

So I do find myself saying “apparently these graded algebras show up in quantum mechanics” and stuff like that. Maybe some day I’ll go back and learn it deeper, but I doubt it.

But I do love knowing that there is a connection even if I don’t see all the details. Like I don’t think I’ll ever understand sentences like “One way to incorporate the standard model of particle physics into heterotic string theory is the symmetry breaking of E8 to its maximal subalgebra SU(3)×E6.”. I need to know about Lie symmetries, but I’m not in physics or algebra. So I don’t think I’ll flesh out this connection, but it really makes me ponder The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.

So online, I’d rather play the role of a street preacher spouting things like “nature can’t take a derivative. there is no continuum.” and hoping people read the links when I claim nature solves differential equations by means of weak solutions thereby only integrates. Integration is what nature does. I know that the phrase “nature solves differential equations” is nonsense. But it’s fun. So going deeper, nature can’t take a derivative because the idea of point particles destroys continuity. This is what saves the natural world from pathologies like the Banach–Tarski paradox. Those ideas are kinda basic, but I’m shooting for 1 in 10,000 read to whom the topic is both new and interesting for.

Sorry that you engaged with an internet crazy person. I hope it wasn’t too infuriating.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

I second that. The friendliness of the main help forum(s) for the distro is what’s really the key, moreso than the software itself.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

I was just making a joke, but I use xinput to disable my laptop keyboard and put my 60% on top. But I was not seriously recommending you change your keyboard.

I feel a bit like Groucho when it comes to keyboards. If you want my honest advice, I don’t trust your judgement.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

Very cool. What did you use for a remapper?

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

I would like to tell you that everyone on lemmy hates your laptop keyboard. Please get a mechanical one.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

That explains the extra kitten. Where’s the other Mom cat?

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

By all medical logic, steam should be shooting out of your ears.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

Only if it negatively impacts your life.

This is also, generally speaking, the line between, say, having obsessive compulsions and having OCD. So if anyone is looking for a way express “haha, I’m totally ocd” without sounding dismissive of people with a serious disorder, just say “sometimes I have obsessive compulsions”. That would imply it’s nothing serious.

Same for PTSD. It’s ok to experience post-traumatic stress after something “rather banal”, like I don’t know, seeing a stranger break their leg. And calling post-traumatic stress is fine. Just don’t say “that baby on the airplane gave me ptsd.” That’s quite dismissive.

Anyone that needs help, go get it. Don’t let that your problem feels banal be an impediment. If something is impacting your life negatively, tune it up.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago (edited 2 years ago)

Yes

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

That’s sad. I liked the TV version of Good Omens better than the book, and I was hoping American Gods would be similarly good.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

When I bought a system76, I didn’t think for a second to check whether it was on Canonical’s list. I didn’t even know there was a certification.

So I believe the poster meant, a buyer can be sure they are getting hardware with linux support regardless of a list kept by ubuntu. But if you are buying from a brand that has no pledge to be linux friendly, a list of what works out of what’s available helps.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

Notice as the person bows to their third opponent as it bows back.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

Vi Hart is calm and mathy. Here’s the story of Wind & Mr ug.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

Then replace the magic smoke.

ook_the_librarian, 2 years ago

You’re the worst. I don’t care if you pirate, but geezus these loud-and-proud ethical bankruptcy proclaimations can just stay in your head. You are exactly who the lobbyists point to in order to get drastic roadblocks on the internet.