Physicists to look for quantum time dilation inside nuclear reactor:
We're all too familiar with the inexorable march of time, but why exactly it flows in one direction remains a mystery of physics. A few years ago Australian physicist Joan Vaccaro proposed a new quantum theory of time, and now a team is planning to test the hypothesis by searching for time dilation in a nuclear reactor.
[...] But according to Vaccaro's quantum theory of time, entropy is more of a symptom of the flow of time, rather than the root cause. She uses the analogy of a tree blowing in the wind – while the leaves (entropy) may appear to be shaking the tree, they aren't responsible for the motion themselves, but are the result of another force (wind). In this new theory, the "wind" is created by time reversal symmetry violations (T violations).
Vaccaro points out that physics regards space and time as being interconnected, as spacetime. But nature seems to treat the two differently. From experience we know, for instance, that objects are localized in space – a particular book or tree or person can only be found in one specific spot. Yet that's not the case for time – that same book or tree or person can be found in a range of times. Because spacetime is one thing, theoretically objects localized in space should be localized in time as well, popping in and out of existence.
Obviously that's not our experience with the universe, and it goes against the laws of motion and conservation of mass. But, Vaccaro proposes, T violations make it impossible for matter to remain localized in time. Because of T violations, objects don't appear and disappear at random, they exist continuously. What we know of as the laws of motion and conservation of mass are instead symptoms of these T violations.
Vaccaro proposes that something on the quantum scale creates T violations locally, and if enough of them occur it could begin to have a wider effect on the macro scale – essentially producing the dynamics we see as time moving forward.
Vaccaro's quantum theory of time is a pretty major departure from accepted physics, and she freely admits that it's controversial and may very well be wrong. But importantly, like any good hypothesis there's a way to test it experimentally.
And the results could be fascinating. It's almost expected that there would be a null result, returning us to the established path of physics. But if the experiment does find evidence of time dilation, it could be a huge breakthrough. That's a big "if," but one worth at least checking.
[...] "All I've said could completely be wrong," Vaccaro says in a video presentation from 2017 (below). "But it's not me that decides whether this is a good theory or not – it's nature. And if nature is showing this, this would be quite remarkable. So this is where the efforts should be, I think."
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:10PM (1 child)
They should look for dark matter.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @07:41PM
They already found it - it was in your mom.
(Score: 3, Funny) by nostyle on Saturday February 06 2021, @03:29PM (3 children)
There may come a time when the march of time itself is violated...
... but not on my watch!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @03:56PM
A/C takes nostyle's watch and replaces it with a cuckoo clock.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @05:36PM
You're wearing it wrong.
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Sunday February 07 2021, @07:57AM
So your watch is not able to show violations of the march of time? You really want to know if that happens. Thus you should replace your watch by one that is able to do that; if it is a smartwatch, installing an appropriate app might suffice.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Gaaark on Saturday February 06 2021, @03:34PM (9 children)
Just like i said here https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=41975&page=2&cid=1108862#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] , Einstein saw what appeared to be a push on a door, but was really a pull.
We need to rethink physics to get rid of a lot of problems, such as
DinkDark Matter.--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 06 2021, @06:39PM (1 child)
Dink matters!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dink_Smallwood [wikipedia.org]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday February 08 2021, @12:11AM
Yes! Just ask Peter Dinklage: he got all the boobage in GOT! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @03:14AM (6 children)
Or time is just a concept we use to measure rate of change?
For example, say you have a simulated world running in a VM. From the perspective of those in the simulated world there is no past to go back to. Yes the people running the VM might have saved snapshots of the entire VM, but for those in the simulated world there's no past state they can access (unless of course the creators of the world created such a thing). The people in that world can have a concept of time where they can compare the rate of change of stuff relative to other changes. But if the VM runs slower or faster they don't notice. And there certainly isn't a past they can travel to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @03:24AM (1 child)
The rate of change implies something is changing. Time is the measurement of change. If on one axis you have time and the other one you have displacement you can't measure time without displacement. You need something to change. The rate of change would then be the derivative of displacement with respect to time.
Of course, when measuring time elapsed with respect to a given benchmark we assume that the 'displacement benchmark' we use to measure time with has a constant 'velocity'. Who knows, it might not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @11:21AM
But lots of people seem to assume there's an accessible past. Is there any scientific evidence that backs up this belief?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday February 07 2021, @03:49AM (2 children)
Einstein originally considered time and space separate (as did Mach), but then realized the math would be a beyotch to do so put them together as space/time and now we have them as inseparable.
depends on if you think Einstein could make a mistake or not.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @11:44AM (1 child)
If there isn't then the space-time stuff is just for convenience of calculation. Just like the square roots of negative numbers can be useful for calculating electrical AC stuff but they don't actually have a direct physical representation.
And if there is no accessible past, all that time traveling stuff is lots of resources barking up the wrong tree.
OK another example, take speed for an example (not talking about velocity, talking about speed). Maybe there's a world where there can be negative speed, and a world where there's no such thing. But negative speed could be useful in math for both worlds. But in reality is there negative speed in our world? If there isn't then it's wrong to assume there is just because the math is simpler.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday February 07 2021, @05:14PM
Well, yes: for math, time and space being inseparable or not is basically a non-issue, but for physics it is crucial.
1. If time and space are inseparable, then time travel (which we have no examples of in reality) is possible and SHOULD BE LOOKED AT.
2. If time and space are separate, then time travel is less likely (or not possible?) and can be ignored.
The important thing is resources, time and money being spent: where do you spend it?
Just like with dark matter: should we keep spending resources, time and money on that dog that has no bark or put them elsewhere?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:53PM
You're really asking two different questions:
>Is there even time as a dimension?
Yes, Einstein's Relativity states that time is an actual dimension, and both relative speed and gravitational distortion rotate your local coordinate system relative to an outside observer so that some of what you perceive as motion through space, they perceive as motion through time, and some of what you perceive as motion through time, they perceive as motion through space. Of course the theory might be completely wrong, but for the moment it represents our most accurate model of space and time.
>something like time where it's a dimension where we can travel to a past state?
And that's where things get complicated. Theoretically... yes, sort of, but only in some fairly useless ways unless you *also* presuppose the existence of some sort of exotic negative-mass-energy matter that can bend space in ways normal matter can't - and we have no particular reason to believe that such matter can exist.
First the fairly useless ways: if you could somehow survive crossing the event horizon of a black hole you would actually swap time with a spatial dimension. A "time arrow" pointing to the future, now points through space at the center of the black hole, and if you were looking up at Earth you could fly around to see any point in its past or future within the lifespan of the black hole, in any order you wanted. But you're inside an inescapable black hole, so you can't influence anything.
For more "practical" timetravel... you'd need traversable wormholes, warp drives, or other FTL-capable technology that we have no reason to believe is possible. Why? Well...
In one interpretation of Relativity, everything in the universe is traveling at the same constant speed, but that speed can be rotated (through some complex non-euclidean geometry) between space and time.
Light exists at one end of the spectrum - 100% of that speed is moving it through space, and it doesn't move through time at all. From its own reference frame a photon has no duration - it gets emitted by one atom, crosses a billion light-years, and gets absorbed by another, all in the same instant.
We exist at the opposite end of the spectrum - a perpetually stationary object within our personal reference frame. From our reference frame we're still traveling at the same maximum speed, but we're stationary in space, and 100% of that speed is traveling through time at a speed of 1 second per second. So you could interpret that as time is BIG: if 1 second-per-second through time is equivalent to 300,000km/s through space, then our past selves one second ago are roughly the same spacetime distance from us as the moon.
So essentially everything is traveling towards the future at light-speed as the "default setting" - meaning the past is retreating at lightspeed. And so to travel towards it, we'd have to to travel faster than light. Which we have no particular reason to believe is possible.
So really, the only time travel we have reason to believe is possible is into the future via relativistic effects - by traveling faster through space, we travel slower through time, and can watch the rest of the universe race ahead of us.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday February 06 2021, @04:41PM (25 children)
I think we don't need to go looking for effects that subtle. There's something more fundamental to us that doesn't treat both directions of time equally: our brains. We don't remember the future.
I think it would be worth considering a thought experiment. Suppose we have a quantum system which somehow has a representation of an irreversible Turing machine (you can pick a simpler machine, the key needed characteristics are that it has well-define flow of operations and has some irreversible operations), including its operation, in it. It doesn't even matter if the representation doesn't evolve over a time coordinate of the system, say, if the representation of the Turing machine and all its possible inputs and outputs, and the progress of the machine from input to output, are frozen, constant with time.
From the point of view of the Turing machine, there is a time coordinate - in the direction of the machine's usual operation. Further, there is an entropy of the machine. Every irreversible operation loses information from the viewpoint of the machine. That becomes a local entropy and the lost information is pushed over some sort of event horizon which need not be physical.
So the machine operates from its point of view with a well-defined direction of time and some sort of entropy even though the containing quantum system need not have either. I think this shows strongly the dependency on the observer's characteristics. The human brain, for example, is irreversible on many levels and has a time direction. So it shouldn't be a surprise that its view of the universe inherits this irreversibility and time direction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @04:59PM
"We don't remember the future."
Time is the passage of events. We use past and present events to try and anticipate future events. Sometimes we remember past events incorrectly. The longer in the past an event occurred the worse we are able to remember it. History can get distorted and lost. Sometimes we anticipate future events incorrectly. The further into the future we attempt to predict the less likely we are to be correct. We have the best understanding of the present and even then our understanding of the present is very limited. There exists way more variables than what any one person can know.
IOW, it's confusing, complicated, and time consuming.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @05:02PM (8 children)
...sez the one who has never dreamed about a future event, and seen it come to pass. Else "deja-vu" is a meaningless expression. Physicists still argue about how many dimensions are curled up inside of us.
Yet even in dreams, time seems to have a singular direction - in my experience.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 06 2021, @06:51PM (4 children)
I don't see you saying "We don't remember the future." Sorry, I don't buy that a "dream" about such is remembering the future. It's rather a lucky guess combined with confirmation bias.
Not buying that either. The human brain does some weird stuff. False familiarity and certainty is a big one.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Saturday February 06 2021, @09:54PM (3 children)
Yeah, but deja-vu can be exceptionally powerful. I wouldn't characterize it as remembering the future, as much as being deeply, deeply confused about what point in time the event happened, or when those memories were formed in the first place. Perhaps a corruption of metadatas so to speak.
There are a few times where I've been absolutely convinced that years ago I experienced the exact same memories I was literally creating in real time. What's so powerful about it, is when these new memories are so strongly associated with the old experience of remembering those memories that weren't even created yet. It's like the brain injects the new memories into past data, creates connections that never existed, and rewrites the timestamps. God hacking your brain for shits and giggles :)
I've only had two instances of it being this powerful. Every other instance is like waking from a dream, and it dissipates about as quickly. Those two instances I can remember as if they are happening now. Yes, it feels exceptionally weird.
The most powerful one literally feels like a wormhole connecting my brain at 11 years old, and my brain at around 30 years old. I to this day, cannot get rid of the feeling that at 11 years old, while reading a very specific passage of LOTR, that I was experiencing the thoughts I was having at 30 years old, while reading the same passage. It feels as if both moments in time are merged and the same. I'm connected to my thoughts at 11, while at the same time I'm having different thoughts at 30, but being absolutely convinced that I'm not only remembering have "remembered" those thoughts at 11, but also the same feelings of situational awareness. Meaning, I'm in two rooms at the same time, in two places at once, experiencing two sets of thoughts, while reading the exact same paragraph of text. Not fuzzy like a dream, but as crystal clear as lucid dreaming is described. I can see through the window of my childhood home, while also looking across the room at 30 years old at my computer.
It was needless to say, bizarre. So bizarre, I'm still open to the idea of time being able to move backwards in special rare conditions. I've heard the human brain being compared to a quantum computer. I wouldn't rule out that in some special conditions that information can move backwards in time within the human brain. It's probably unlikely and will be explained as something else, but I can't help noticing how widespread the phenomenon of Deja-vu is.
Glad to see your still around. Hope everything is going well with you, and your surviving these times well.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Saturday February 06 2021, @10:11PM
It sounds very interesting but I don't ever seem to get deja vu. Maybe I'm wired differently; I don't know. My memory's not really the best so maybe having access to fewer memories limits the chances for it to happen. The closest thing I've had is a memory seeming to sort of double up in that I couldn't remember for sure if it was of one occasion or two separate occasions in my past but that was looking back on a past event, not relating anything to a present experience.
I guess I live in my own head a lot as well, so maybe a deja vu experience would have to be of some really striking external stimulus for me to notice it. If my own internal thoughts repeat, that's nothing special, because it happens a lot anyway.
Anyone else not get deja vus?
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @08:51AM
Honestly, the fact that you were reading the same passage is a pretty good explanation for the sensation.
You simply ended up in the same state of mind, and the new memories of reading the passage collided with the previous memories of reading the passage.
I was personally excited about the feeling of deja vu until I saw that there are rigorous studies showing the occurence of deja vu can be related to epilepsy.
Furthermore, there are drugs that are known to make people susceptible to deja vu.
sorry to disappoint you, but it's just your brain messing up.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:43PM
I had persistent dreams when I was a teenager and young adult. They were often multi part dreams as well and not necessarily in chronological order. Since I already "watched" them many times I knew the future while dreaming. For example I could dream a story where in the end I would be killed and I knew I would and I tried to change it and the dream would take a slightly different direction but the result would be the same. So, I am somewhat used to knowing the future. Some of those dreams were in strange places I've never been before or ever seen in movies or books. The wired thing is I actually found some of them later in life. The dreams were violent - wars, including terrorism and nuclear as well as crime. I am actually worried I will see them in reality.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @07:45PM
Strange because I see the anti-future moving backwards in time. Which makes every stock I buy go down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @08:23PM (1 child)
It could be possible. I've had a few experiences like that. Strange images in my head that seemed like memories, but of places I could not possibly have been. Then eventually I happen upon those places and it clicks. It could be some part of me is temporally entangled, but I'm relying on spacetime being an emergent property of quantum entanglement. Also using quantum voodoo to stipulate that no information can come from a future event that would prevent that event; the logic of the universe makes such quantum states impossible. Stable time loops could exist, i.e. a quantum state exists such that I require vague information in the past to lead myself to the future it comes from.
However, human cognition and perception is squishy. Déjà vu and jamais vu can be explained without time travel, and so can my time loop future images. After all, I probably subconsciously chose my current apartment where two came from on the basis of those images and my belief that they were from the future. The others could be random dreams, vague enough that any number of places would match.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday February 07 2021, @08:01AM
It is also possible that after seeing the place, your mind generates a false memory of having seen it before in a dream or vision.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @12:08AM (2 children)
So many words to obfuscate the use of petitio principii fooling around the entropic arrow of time.
Reverse the time I wasted to read this garbage, I want it back.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:12PM
you needed to spend the time reading it, to properly assess it as garbage.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:18PM
Truisms aren't tautologies. That we observe and that we do not know the future as well as we know the past aren't trivial.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Sunday February 07 2021, @07:58AM (2 children)
It has occurred to me that a complete representation of my mind could exist as a gargantuan stack of punch cards, even as being in the state of believing that I'm thinking and time is passing. To me there would be no difference.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday February 07 2021, @03:18PM
Yeah the brain usually provides a sense of the rough order the remembered events occurred, analogous to the order the cards are stacked, but we don't know that they really happened in that order, or even happened at all. We can look for evidence like watching a video recording of a series of events, maybe writing down the order of the events onto a single piece of paper as we watch it, but even that could be fallible, especially if Descartes' demon has anything to do with it.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:21PM
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday February 07 2021, @05:29PM (8 children)
>I think we don't need to go looking for effects that subtle. There's something more fundamental to us that doesn't treat both directions of time equally: our brains. We don't remember the future.
That establishes THAT there's a difference - I don't think anyone is seriously questioning that. The question is WHY is there a difference? Falling back on "irreversible operations" is just sidestepping the question - why are irreversible operations possible?
I'll use your "frozen Turing Machine" as an example:
First, lets make sure we're visualizing the same thing:
Lets start by assuming we can build a 2D mechanical Turing machine - a bunch of gears, levers, and whatnot lying on the surface of the table, and moving only in that plane. We load up our program and hit "start" and watch the machine do its thing as a progression through time.
At the same time we take a continuous series of snapshots as it runs, stacking them into a perfectly aligned continuous 3D volume - every gear becomes a fluted pillar whose grooves spiral back and forth when the gear rotates.
So, two versions of the same machine: a (functionally) 2D machine that operates through time. And a 3D equivalent that operates through the extra spatial dimension, and doesn't care about time.
The big question about time is - why are those two machines different? The 2D machine can perform an irreversible operation because time flows in one direction. The 3D machine cannot, its operations can be traversed in either direction.
If information could be destroyed then it'd make more sense, but to the best of our understanding the universe is not a Turning machine, and information cannot actually be destroyed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 08 2021, @01:36AM (2 children)
Irreversible operations happen whenever there's a point of view/frame of reference that loses information. For example, information is sliding away from us over an event horizon about 13.8 billion light-years away.
From our point of view, information that is lost forever is as good as destroyed.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday February 08 2021, @02:44AM (1 child)
No information is lost over a distant event horizon when scrambling an egg. All the information necessary to unscramble it is still available in the local environment. Why we can't readily do so is one of the great mysteries of the universe.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 08 2021, @06:16AM
Actually, yes, it is. Once those photons get radiated to deep space, there's not much stopping them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 08 2021, @01:39AM (4 children)
There may well be a point of view in which we appear as the 3D equivalent.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday February 08 2021, @02:38AM (3 children)
There may indeed. That doesn't change the fact that, from our perspective, there is a definite, irreversible arrow of time. And all philosophical arguments aside, we don't know why that is - either there's something special about time that makes it flow in only one direction, or there's something special about our perspective, that makes it look that way. Either way an evidence-based answer to that question could have a HUGE impact on our understanding of the universe, and possibly even eventually have technological applications.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 08 2021, @06:23AM (2 children)
Nor should it. But you have the key here, "our perspective". Our perspective creates the arrow of time.
I just gave an evidence-based example. We have one-way memory. And it's had technological applications for hundreds of thousands of years.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday February 08 2021, @05:34PM (1 child)
>Our perspective creates the arrow of time. [...] I just gave an evidence-based example
That is certainly a reasonable assumption, and there is no doubt a good philosophical argument to be made for that position - but it is not evidence based because you have offered no solid evidence that time is in fact simultaneous, nor of that there exists a process that prevents us from remembering a simultaneous future that's just as concrete as the past we can remember.
Science exists where philosophy meets testable reality. Experiments like these seek evidence of the actual nature of time. If time actually flows, then there are various things that might cause it, and we can dream up experiments like this that would test for the existence of those things. Ditto if the flow of time is a perspective-based illusion - there should be ways to test the illusion, "tricks" that can be performed that would not be possible if the illusion were real. There's researchers chasing those possibilities as well.
But until someone finds some concrete evidence one way or another, all we have is speculation.
>We have one-way memory. And it's had technological applications for hundreds of thousands of years.
And the world, including all our technology, was based on Quantum Mechanics long before we dreamt it existed - but it's only once we started understanding how it worked that we could develop transistor-based electronics, lasers, etc,etc,etc.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 09 2021, @03:49AM
I see multiple issues with definition that need resolution. What is the concept of "simultaneous time" and how does that differs (in a way relevant to this discussion), from the apparently more general concept of "time"? Why are you allowing for the possibility of "remembering a simultaneous future" for which we have no evidence? Why would failure of "remembering a simultaneous future" require a "process" to obstruct it? Why are my empirical observations of the human brain considered at most mere "good philosophical argument"?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday February 06 2021, @05:24PM (6 children)
However, I'm not going to read it because of the website's horrible UI and lack of readability. Flaws:
Sans-serif typefaces are easier to render but hard to read.
Gray on white is brain-dead stupid and unreadable but the kids think it's cool.
Typeface is way too small.
I refuse to read anything that makes reading a chore. Anybody got a better layout of the same information?
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @06:31PM
You're not missing anything that isn't in the summary above by not reading it. I'm looking for better material as well, as this was about as informative as a phys.org post.
In that article is a YouTube link [youtu.be] to a presentation she gave on the topic. I haven't looked at that yet, so I don't know the audience to which it was presented.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 06 2021, @06:50PM
I read your post, and I'm thinking, "McGrew is being a douche because he's an author, and just because he can." THEN, I clicked on the link.
Sorry, man, you're right. That page is worse than utter shit.
Out of curiosity, I loaded the page in a different browser, with the Dark Reader extension installed. There, the page looks perfectly readable. Of course, I don't use online fonts, either. The browser uses the fonts I assigned to it, in this case, Times New Roman. (Most of my other browsers use system fonts, Noto Sans.)
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Informative) by beernutz on Saturday February 06 2021, @11:50PM
Here is the source article if you want a different place to read it:
https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/neutrinos-atomic-clocks-and-an-experiment-to-detect-a-time-dilation [ansto.gov.au]
Though i have to wonder what site you visited? The one linked at the top of this article had a serif typeface, and the color while not black maybe was still extremely easy to read. rgb(51,51,51) according to chrome dev tools.
As for the size, control key and plus seem to work fine for me. Though i browse at 125% everywhere anyway, so i did not have to increase it at all.
One final note: The typeface on soylent news is Sans-serif. Yet you still managed to read the article ok, right?
I don't mean to be overly critical, it just seems like your criticisms are a little harsh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @11:01AM (1 child)
It's not that bad - I took a screenshot and it's 0x333333 on white (0xffffff). Black on white would be better, but for me it's dark enough that it is easily readable.
You might need to calibrate your monitor (brightness/contrast). In my personal experience most monitors ship with terrible factory settings. They might look good in the store when they show colourful photos, but are really not accurate. One example is the chart here - you should be able to see that all areas have different shades: https://www.reddit.com/r/VIDEOENGINEERING/comments/b5vicj/new_monitor_calibration_test_pattern_for_peer/ [reddit.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:27PM
I do. The font is still terrible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @11:39AM
> Sans-serif typefaces are ... hard to read.
This is not actually the case. You simply think they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @06:37PM (1 child)
Time flows in all directions simultaneously. I oughta know, being a presumptive 'social offender' suspect-for-life. I've been being investigated since 1970, for any and all crimes that exist, that have existed, and that will ever exist.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @07:47PM
Mr. Former-President, is that you?
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Saturday February 06 2021, @08:06PM (1 child)
I haven't read TFA; do they describe the nuts and bolts of the experiment? Are they going to try and measure the resonance of cesium inside a fast flux reactor or somesuch?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @08:15PM
They are going to put multiple cesium atomic clocks at different distances from the reactor core and look for de-sychronization between clocks. The article provides scant details, but one apparently would not expect time dilation to occur in the reactor.