SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times published an article in its magazine about one of the greatest mathematicians living today, Terry Tao. The first paragraph should whet one's appetite for the rest of the article:
This April, as undergraduates strolled along the street outside his modest office on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles, the mathematician Terence Tao mused about the possibility that water could spontaneously explode. A widely used set of equations describes the behavior of fluids like water, but there seems to be nothing in those equations, he told me, that prevents a wayward eddy from suddenly turning in on itself, tightening into an angry gyre, until the density of the energy at its core becomes infinite: a catastrophic ‘‘singularity.’’ Someone tossing a penny into the fountain by the faculty center or skipping a stone at the Santa Monica beach could apparently set off a chain reaction that would take out Southern California.
There are some people who are just too smart, and this guy is one of them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Justin Case on Saturday July 25 2015, @09:13PM
I think sometimes these equation people get too clever for their own good. They say there can be multiple parallel universes created every trillionth of a second because that's what their formula produces, but until you have observational confirmation, what is it but a bunch of future chalk dust?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday July 25 2015, @10:02PM
Math and reality occasionally have nothing in common, and math must suffer an intrusion of reality once in a while just to balance its own equations.
When a math musing suddenly suggests that water may suddenly in a chain reaction, when this has been observed exactly NEVER, you have your first clue that another fudge factor is needed in the equation. Instead of looking for that missing factor, this math wizard just assumes the boom.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by maxwell demon on Saturday July 25 2015, @10:55PM
Actually, physicists already know what's going on: It's the second law of thermodynamics. Certain things can happen in principle, but have an astronomically low probability to happen, and therefore won't actually happen. There's also nothing in the equations of notion that forbids the scattered pieces of a broken glass to suddenly jump from the floor, combine at some place on the floor to form the complete glass, and jump up onto the table. We know that can happen in principle because we know that the reverse process, the glass falling down and breaking into pieces that get scattered around, can happen, and the fundamental equations are symmetric under time reversal; therefore the self-forming glass is also a solution of those equations. But don't expect it to happen; it's so unlikely that even if there had been pieces of a broken glass lying around on every square meter of the surface of every planet in the known universe since the big bang, it would not have happened once.
Indeed, if you only go for what the equations allow without caring for the probability, you might also survive a nuclear bomb going off right above your head.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @08:17AM
Entropy says the glass isn't putting the band back together. Hollywood isn't about to make a movie about it.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday July 26 2015, @06:07PM
Well, for that statement to work you need a few modifications to the experimental conditions. If friction is present, e.g., reassembling the glass isn't symmetric to shattering it...you need to totally eliminate friction and have a closed environment with totally elastic walls. (I think the elastic walls are needed because otherwise you get heat loss when the pieces of glass encounter the wall.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday July 26 2015, @06:13PM
Microscopically, friction is also nothing else but ordinary motion. The non-reversibility of friction is again the second law in action. If you look at the fundamental equations, everything is indeed symmetrical. Including the interactions which macroscopically we see as friction.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Saturday July 25 2015, @10:59PM
RTFA! He obviously doesn't believe the boom can happen. He is quite clear that there is something missing in the math and wants to find out what.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @11:32PM
That was implied in the summary, I thought.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday July 26 2015, @01:00AM
I know I'm being pedantic,
But your comment is mixing mathematics with physics.
Mathematics is not a science, it has absolutely no requirement to describe the physical world, real or otherwise.
The application of mathematics to describe the physical world is physics.
Now mathmeticians are interested and draw inspiration from the physical world but the truth of their formula has nothing to do with whether they are observed (hence why mathematics is not a science). Mathematics can be wrong or incomplete but only because the logic is incorrect not because it is falsified in a Popperian sense.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday July 26 2015, @07:15AM
They say there can be multiple parallel universes created every trillionth of a second because that's what their formula produces, but until you have observational confirmation, what is it but a bunch of future chalk dust?
A really common speculative fiction trope [tvtropes.org]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @08:14AM
When is he going to explain how he thinks water could possibly maybe someday one day explode? It's in the article.
It's horseshit plain and simple and many "pure math" bums have ran this and other scams for far too long.
Don't defend them. They love the press enough to defend themselves when it comes to funding.
Yes they know the press butchers info and they still don't dictate the terms?
It's not by accident. It's called CYA.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday July 26 2015, @06:10PM
If you want the explanation, read the math. The English is merely a very rough translation of what the math is saying.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Sunday July 26 2015, @05:56PM
There is nothing more true to reality than mathematics.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Sunday July 26 2015, @06:14PM
While in a sense that is true, there is also nothing more false to reality than mathematics. Math is both the truest and falsest description of reality, because it's the most precise and consistent.
This is why an earlier poster said that math was not a science. It's also why Einstein said:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Sidelights on Relativity
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Monday July 27 2015, @11:16AM
So Math is useful but current mathematics is still very far from reality. What math can you use for the experience of "Chocolate"?
And language can help communicate the truth and reality of stuff like that. If someone likes chocolate and has tasted vanilla ice cream, but hasn't tasted chocolate ice cream before, you can say chocolate ice cream is like vanilla ice cream but with a chocolate flavour. And the person could go "hmm yes I would probably like that".
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Saturday July 25 2015, @09:30PM
There is not a single line of sanity in that article.
But, if you just shrug and walk on, you passed the test, and understood that you life is over and techsupport will start to wake you up from this incarnation.
If you find it made any sense to you, and you find it interesting or inspirational in any way, you are clearly malfunctioning, and you must be woken up slower, or maybe spend an entire lifetime in this simulation. Maybe you even have to grow old...
I am not certain what shitposting based on this article means... Maybe very good, or maybe you are just to rebellious... Further mindfucking necessary? Maybe a lobotomy?
Anyways... TECHSUPPORT!!1!! TECHSUPPORT!!!111! HEEEEEELLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!11111
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 25 2015, @09:35PM
Did you say that only the good die young?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKSpzi9lKyQ [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @08:23AM
Thank you for the reference. I also agree with you.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday July 25 2015, @09:41PM
I guess we must have just been lucky so far. I mean, if any random vortice has nothing stopping it from generating a singularity, we have been really lucky so far. Or, my g-d! Perhaps not?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25 2015, @10:04PM
The density of the energy may become infinite, but the total energy cannot increase - conservation of energy. So the spectacular explosion would contain all the energy of a tiny eddy. As the diameter of the gyre decreases, the velocity of the water must increase - conservation of angular momentum.
However:
1 - as the energy density increases, so will the temperature. As the temperature increases, heat gets released to the surroundings, dissipating energy.
2 - as the speed increases, it reaches the speed of sound in water, requiring an increase in energy to move faster.
Never use an equation in isolation.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Sunday July 26 2015, @04:24PM
I think you may have meant arbitrarily large, rather than infinite. Conservation of energy is more about local conservation, that "energy" cannot teleport, and the only way for energy to become infinite would be for it to teleport from an infinite number of locations.
(Score: 4, Funny) by frojack on Saturday July 25 2015, @10:11PM
And all those screw propellers we've been putting on ships! We've been living on the edge.
Just goes to show you that even things that have NEVER happened are the fault of mankind.
This is why we keep the Mathematicians safely ensconced in universities where they can't do much damage.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @03:43AM
now if only we could convince the climate change fearmongers of this
not likely
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday July 26 2015, @07:55PM
I thought the largest employer of mathematicians was the NSA?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday July 25 2015, @10:29PM
Hollywood beat him to it. [imdb.com]
Not too bad a movie, actually. Saw it in the theater.
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Saturday July 25 2015, @10:52PM
So this story breaks then explosions at a pool [go.com] in Las Vegas. Its in the wild I tell you!!!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by purpleland on Saturday July 25 2015, @11:22PM
Good article. He's also a prolific blogger: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]
Does a lot of collaborative work - article mentions he made discoveries with over thirty collaborators before getting his Fields medal. Unusual because we are given the impression genius mathematicians tend to work secretively in fairly specialized domains. Terence on the other hand thrives working with others, and has breadth as well as depth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @08:31AM
Recruitment piece for Tao. Only freak out if he attempts to become "One of the President's tech advisers". ; or if he does it defacto through major corps, like CTO of MSFT, etc. The man is a charlatan and the article is a fraud.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @12:30AM
Interesting excerpt, and then this
dumbass WTF comment. Some kinda adolescent crush?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @12:54AM
I thought that the author, Gareth Cook, did a pretty good job of writing about math -- not the easiest topic. Looked back and found another article by him on mapping neuron connectivity,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/magazine/sebastian-seungs-quest-to-map-the-human-brain.html [nytimes.com]
which I also enjoyed.
He clearly puts time in, interviewing his subjects in person. I'd be happy if SN posted links to all his science/tech articles automatically.
Cook might not be John McPhee (look him up -- science/tech chronicler extraordinaire), but I think he's OK.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @03:57AM
We could possibly arrange that. There are bots connected to the SoylentNews IRC [soylentnews.org] server that have the ability to read feeds and make submissions.
Currently submissions can be made from IRC manually (stories submitted by "exec" for example) but it would be possible to adapt the scripts to automate submissions from a popular RSS feed (or a scrape with change detection). Would need to be tested fairly thoroughly on the SN dev server first, but if it's something you'd like to see, consider hopping onto SN IRC and getting involved in the process.
There is also a couple of feed channels that popular sources are monitored from, so initially you could suggest adding a feed.
http://logs.sylnt.us/#rss-bot/index.html [sylnt.us]
http://logs.sylnt.us/#feeds/index.html [sylnt.us]
(Score: 4, Informative) by mendax on Sunday July 26 2015, @03:02AM
Since I am the person who wrote the "dumbass WTF comment", I thought I should say something about it.
There are some people who are currently are or have lived on this planet who are very scary intellectually, and this guy is one of them. In reading this article, he reminds me a lot of John von Neumann, the brilliant Hungarian-American mathematician, scientist, early computer scientist, government bureaucrat, etc. etc., who accomplished incredible things in his far too short life. His intellect was like Terry Tao's: he made the rest of us look as smart as our dogs by comparison. However, Tao and von Neumann shared one very special important characteristic: they were both "super-normal", the term used by the article to describe Tao in the article, and as a result they were able to keep their respective egos in check. Von Neumann was an outgoing, gregarious man, who loved attending parties, telling dirty jokes, wearing funny hats, but despite his extraordinary intelligence was also very friendly and patient with "normal" people.
So, I wouldn't say my comment is "[s]ome kinda adolescent crush", but rather a form of admiration and envy. It's difficult for super-intelligent people to come down to everyone else's level.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2015, @04:05AM
GP AC here. I take that back (for what that's worth).