all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 54 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Whatever you add to both sides of the equation neutralises each other.

So essentially you don't need it.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 22 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Even if they had a complete model of all of physics, it still wouldn't answer all questions, as a lot of important data is just random. Whether nature decided to go with D-molecule or L-molecule is essentially random.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I would argue that the choice of L- or D-molecules is not a physics question so much as a chemistry/biology one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    still an important question

    sometimes you hear people say that when we have "figured out everything about physics", then we'd have figured out everything about the world, as the world is guided by physical principles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    The hubris of that statement could only come from a physicist! We would indeed have a foundation upon which to understand everything many things, if only we could keep up with issues like scale, events happening far away, and historical choices as you pointed it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Even if you have an equation, doesn't mean you can solve it. N-body problem is a perfect example.

    You cannot determine all the Parameters of the equations accurately. Changing the parameters could drastically alter the output behavior. Finally, you don't know the initial conditions too.

    These are the challenges that classical physics have to deal with. Quantum is not even factored into, yet.

    Welcome to the land of Nonlinear Dynamics. We have bifurcations, strange attractors and of course, whole lotta chaos.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    iirc L-aminoacids and D-sugars, that is these observed in nature, are very slightly more stable than the opposite because of weak interaction

    probably it's just down to a specific piece of quartz or soot that got lucky and chiral amplification gets you from there

    also it's not physics, or more precisely it's a very physicy subbranch of chemistry, and it's done by chemists because physicists suck at doing chemistry for some reason (i've seen it firsthand)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    is the evil funding man going to eat the gimp pepper

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    📱 = "Ah just another phone"
    📱 + AI = "Wow! Great! I'm going to buy this!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    seeking for

    1. Looking for
    2. Seeking

    You can choose only one lane.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 7 months ago)