all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 60 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 76 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I guess that's the joke - this is so stupid and obviously won't work, but that perspective is subverted when it turns out to actually work, causing humour.

    I quite like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    My interpretation was that pink lady shouted out some crap formula FBI guy does not understand anyway so they would be left alone again.

    Last panel half contradicts it, half just leans harder into the absurdity of it all. I wouldn't expect physicists to care much about Rubik's Cubes, I think even the cliché fits mathematicians much better.

    Basically, my spontaneous takeaway was "government and media are so science-illiterate that nobody understands anyone anymore".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Your argument collapses once you consider spaghetti.

    Left alone, spaghetti just lies there, limp and purposeless. Only through firm, boiling authority does it reach al dente perfection. Scientists, like noodles, sometimes need that structured heat to avoid sticking together in chaos. Maybe the government isn’t crushing freedom but just straining out the excess sauce of indecision.

    After all, nobody eats raw noodles in a democracy of boiling water.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    I take umbrage with the idea that gravity is necessarily quantisable- for all we know, it can’t be quantised.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    ugg fiiine you can try to gravitize quantum mechanics, if you really must

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Nah, quantum fields all rest on another dimensional layer. The quantum foam experiences a weak cohesion force that doesnt drop off with distance. This results in clustering of the foam, resulting in clustering of the deeper field. This is emergent on the macroscopic scale as the folding of space time, which is really just the tendancy of energy to condense on the quantum scale.

    Or maybe partical interactions being dependant on locality results in a sort of local energy spike as the two particles get closer. This results in time dilation between the two particles, altering the expected rate at which their interactions would occur, effectively setting a hard limit on how close two particles can get without fusing. This time dilation could also be responsible for the emergent property of gravity. Kinda like how doubling the passage of time effectively doubles the measured heat in a volume, given that heat is a measure of particle interactions per second. Twice the seconds, twice the interactions. If time gets fucky when two particals get close enough to interact, that could result in an illusionary force that emerges macroscopically as gravity.

    This is all me fucking around but i think theres maybe a nugget of legit speculation in there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I understood some of these words

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    My theory runs as follows:

    Take two partcles, and measure the energy found in both if them and the space between them. It is my speculation that as they get closer, the energy in the space between them raises. It follows that with higher energy in a smaller area, the curvatureof spacetime would be warped, explaining the differance in expected values between quantum and relativity.

    Basically im saying an oversight caused a math error.

    I am not a quantum physicist and i only study it as a hobby, this is almost definitely not the actual solution

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

    But energy is quantized. By your explanation, distance should also be quantized as a consequence.

    Or distance might not be actually quantized, just that we can't place things in between like the pieces on a chess set.

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

    Is distance not quantized? It was my understanding that the planc length was the "grid size" of the universal array, so to speak.

    That being said, gravity as we detect it is not confirmed to be quantized, which is where the confusion comes in. That implies that there is a fundamental factor that is non quantized, possibly with other factors that may be quantized. What I'm getting at here is that while energy is definitely quantized, gravity may be a product of energy/distance, with distance being non quantized, resulting in non quantized gravity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    Is gravity originates from an interaction of mass and distance, and both are quantized, doesn't it necessarily follow that gravity is also quantized?

    Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    We actually don’t know if distance is quantised- while distances smaller than the Planck length don’t make any sense with our current understanding of physics, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the quantum of distance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    No actually the blue dream bunny told me its hops are quantized, ergo distance must be quantized.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    "Knapsack?" That is a bindle, you Philistine!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    Is it just me or is the whole comic image too blurry to ready any of the text?

    EDIR: Oh, there's a HD button

  • source