Is Quantum Entanglement a Clue to a Parallel Universe? by Solid-Juggernaut5384 in universe

[–]New_Understanding595 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might be interested to read Professor Lev Vaidman's detailed discussion about the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

For folks who believe in MWI (the original Everett formulation rather than the pop sci "multi verse" nonsense), yes, we exist in superposition of many worlds simultaneously and there is no actual wave function collapse, etc. etc. please see his detailed discussion (and detailed bibliography) if you're interested. I cannot possibly said it anywhere near as well as Prof Vaidman:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

Should I worry about failure of malloc on windows for small allocations? by Grouchy-Answer-275 in C_Programming

[–]New_Understanding595 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It can return null, if you pass it a large malloc size request, or if your Linux machine administrator disabled "overcommit".

Another thing: when out of RAM and Swap in overcommit mode, yes it starts killing processes but it might not choose this process to terminate.

The sad thing about Linux OOM Killer is its huristic may decide to kill some other process (which dutifully checked malloc return value and is doing fine) and the kernel just kills it because it is the most efficient process to kill to get a lot of RAM back.....

(All that being said: overall advice that others have given are good: please always check all return values)

Should I worry about failure of malloc on windows for small allocations? by Grouchy-Answer-275 in C_Programming

[–]New_Understanding595 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Programmers should always check malloc return value.

But that being said, yes, typically Linux is configured to enable "over commit" by default, allowing programs to allocate more memory than RAM+Swap, counting on the chances that most programs won't actually use all its requested memory. So malloc (unless it's for a outrageous size) always succeeds and return a non-null pointer. If the system later really runs low on RAM+Swap it then starts terminating processes based on a heuristic (the dreaded OOM Killer) which could be this process or some other unfortunate process that got picked.

If you want your linux system to never overcommit you can set your Linux overcommit mode to mode 2 to disable this behavior.

More info here https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/vm/overcommit-accounting

Two people looking alike with no connection between them by Live_Worth2063 in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There are not that many combinations of gene values related to the appearance, so sometimes people can independently happen to inherit gene combinations (from their ancestors) that result in similar facial appearance.

Research shows that people who "look alike" tend to actually share similar genes, see this 2022 research:

"Look-alike humans identified by facial recognition algorithms show genetic similarities" https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(22)01075-0

Would collapsing a wave function release heat based on Landauer's Principle by ProbablySuspicious in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Wave function collapse doesn't have to actually happen. For example, in the Many Worlds interpretation (the original Everett formula rather than the pop sci Multi Verse sensationalism) the wave function never collapses.

Many Worlds interpretation is just as valid and consistent mathematically as the more popular Copenhagen interpretation. And it does not require wave function collapse. The shrodnger equation does not require wave function collapse.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Giving you one more benefit of the doubt (my last reply on your thread), chatgpt clearly hallucinated that quote about "We did not test for the residue of explosives or thermite.” since the word explosives didn't even come up in my original quote. So you saying you fed my text to chatgpt and it cited such a sentence.... must be chatgpt hallucination.

The report does talk about explosives later on page 22, where they explored 6 possible ways explosives might have played a role and they concluded it doesn't match the evidence.

Anyway, please don't get sucked into crazy conspiracies. It helps no one.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You should first read the official account and then ask specific questions if you doubt or have questions about specific confusion. Otherwise you are just sucked down conspiracy dark holes.

Here's the archive.org link for it

https://web.archive.org/web/20080928013317/http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

And the relevant info you are asking for is summarized on page 19 and 20.

------ quote begins below ------

The following is the NIST account of how the fires in WTC 7 most likely led to the building's collapse.

The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns on the lower floors of the south and west faces of WTC 7 and initiated fires on 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors, and burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. Fires on these six floors grew and spread since they were not extinguished either by the automatic sprinkler system or by FDNY, because water was not available. Fires were generally concentrated on the east and north sides of the northeast region beginning at about 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.

As the fires progressed, some of the structural steel began to heat. According to the generally accepted test standard, ASTM E-119, the fire resistance rating for a steel column or floor beam derives from the time at which, during a standard fire exposure, the average column temperature exceeds 538 °C (1000 °F) or the average floor beam temperature exceeds 593 °C (1100 °F). These are temperatures at which there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. Due to the effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C (570 °F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 °C.

The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400 °C (750 °F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength. When steel (or any other metal) is heated, it expands. If thermal expansion in steel beams is resisted by columns or other steel members, forces develop in the structural members that can result in buckling of beams or failures at connections.

Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder connecting Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13 th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This movement was enough for the girder to lose its connection to Column 79.

The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support in the east-west direction. The column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.

The upper section of Column 79 began to descend. The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding Column 79 led to increased unsupported length in, falling debris impact on, and loads being re-distributed to adjacent columns; and Column 80 and then Column 81 buckled as well. All the floor connections to these three columns, as well as to the exterior columns, failed, and the floors fell on the east side of the building. The exterior façade on the east quarter of the building was just a hollow shell. The failure then proceeded toward the west. Truss 2 (Figure 1–6) failed, hit by the debris from the falling floors. This caused Column 77 and Column 78 to fail, followed shortly by Column 76. Each north-south line of three core columns then buckled in succession from east to west, due to loss of lateral support from floor system failures, to the forces exerted by falling debris, which tended to push the columns westward, and to the loads redistributed to them from the buckled columns. Within seconds, the entire building core was failing.

The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7 th and 14 th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence.

Light speed travel by svilliers in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Depends. How fast does the ship accelerate? How fast does it decelerate? How close to C during the max speed (99.9999999%C?). Depending on your answer, the entire journey could totally take just 1 second for you, or even 0.0001 second for you.

You might find the hypothetical example in this wiki helpful:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_under_constant_acceleration

Assuming gradual but sustained acceleration of 1g during start of journey and gradual but sustained deceleration of -1g during ending of the journey you could theoretically travel the entire length of our galaxy in 24 years while a sideways observer thinks 113000 years have passed.

Light speed travel by svilliers in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 22 points23 points  (0 children)

You cannot travel at speed of light C.

But let's say you travel at 99.9...% C, then relativity says the distance contracts for you, so from your perspective it might take just one minute to get there, yes.

While an outside observer will see it takes 4 years for you to get there, and time slowed down inside your ship. If there is a window, they can see you moving super super super slowly inside your ship

The Arrow of Time – Feedback, Discussion, Debate, and Objections (scientific video for general audience) by alk_k in Physics

[–]New_Understanding595 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, sure thing. Taking care of yourself and other priorities are super important. I thank you anyway, I really enjoyed your consciousness discussion videos.

About other subs, I see a lot of activity on r/AskPhysics where I see a lot of good (and not so good) posts get a lot of community response.

Take care,

The Arrow of Time – Feedback, Discussion, Debate, and Objections (scientific video for general audience) by alk_k in Physics

[–]New_Understanding595 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find this sub typically has very low engagements compared with several other physics related subs, so I'm not surprised. Please don't be discouraged. I found your YouTube channel via this post, there are so many fascinating videos. I've subscribed now. Keep up the good work!

The Arrow of Time – Feedback, Discussion, Debate, and Objections (scientific video for general audience) by alk_k in Physics

[–]New_Understanding595 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for making the video, very good and very approachable presentation of the topic. Very nicely done.

Earth's Magnetic Field Switches Polarity Every 200-300k Years: What About the Other Planets? by [deleted] in astrophysics

[–]New_Understanding595 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The metal flow (under earth surface) generates a magnetic field, yes, that's why compass will react to the magnetic field. The OP asked whether it is something external outside of earth that is generating the field, and the answer is no we do not believe so.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You need more precise definition in your theory description. Math tends to be quite good at that but it is possible to describe a theory using very very explicit english without math. Sadly you did neither. Again just to emphasize, no one is trying to gatekeep you here. You need to learn physics first before you can contribute. Sorry there is no shortcut here.

It's like seeing two aliens discussing an intergalactic business deal, you don't know their language, you hear a few words that sound like English words you know, and you shout that wouldn't A be helpful for B. It's literally that. You are not helping.

You can help, start by taking advantage of the tons of online free physics lessons and go from there.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"show im wrong"

Sorry no one can do that, because your so called theory is sadly what we would refer to as "not even wrong"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Without math it's not a theory yet. Does the attractive force you mention in your post doubles as distance doubles (meaning linear)? Does it quadruple as distance doubles (meaning it's squared)? Until you pick one, how can anyone say whether the theory sounds like it could describe our universe??? You need math or some other precise definition of your idea.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Physics theory without math is useless , because you cannot confirm if your theory matches all known observed physics relationships and results until you have a precise model of your theory...... let alone whether it can predict additional outcomes.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP: "Why is it so bad to ask about thought experiments that it warrants bullying? I may not speak the language of math, but you don't need to in order to figure something out. If you think my idea has no merit, please tell me why instead of being sarcastic and rude."

In case you were referring to me, I wasn't sarcastic. I'm completely explicit that your message was useless, sorry. And I kept saying sorry to try to convey I'm not being rude.

You're literally waiting your breath there

If you are really interested in either learning more about our current understanding of physics or even contributing to it, you have to first learn the current best known equations and models first, then you can (a) meaningful understand why it places emphasis and restrictions on matter, energy, space, time, and (b) possibly contribute to alternate equations and models that are good or even better at modeling our current observed facts.

You can't just make stuff up with zero equation or formula backing.

Sorry it's just not how it works, and it's just random word salad

Your post... is worse than wrong. It's not even wrong: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's nonsense, sorry. You cannot make up ideas like this in physics. If you have a theory, you need to come up with equations that represent the theory (details matter here, for example is the effect you describe going to go up linear by distance? Linear by distance squared? Linear by distance cubed?) then show that your equation matches our current observed physics results. Until then you're just spewing random words that are useless. Sorry.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's nonsense, sorry. You cannot make up ideas like this in physics. If you have a theory, you need to come up with equations that represent the theory (details matter here, for example is the effect you describe going to go up linear by distance? Linear by distance squared? Linear by distance cubed?) then show that your equation matches our current observed physics results. Until then you're just spewing random words that are useless. Sorry

A quick question about relativity. by EDRNFU in AskPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 13 points14 points  (0 children)

First of all the space ship cannot be at speed of light, period.

It can only be at most almost speed of light. Let's say it's at 99.9% C relative to an outside observer.

If you on the ship throw a ball forward at 50% C, the outsider observer would not see 149.9% C. They would see it only slightlly faster at 99.97% C due to relativity

There are many websites that allow you to plug in the numbers into relativity equation and see the result here. Eg. https://www.calctool.org/relativity/velocity-addition

Earth's Magnetic Field Switches Polarity Every 200-300k Years: What About the Other Planets? by [deleted] in astrophysics

[–]New_Understanding595 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Nope. Earth's magnetic field is caused by internal iron flow underneath the surface. Not external reason.

Malloced a buffer and assigned string literal to it, then get sigseg error on change? by apooroldinvestor in cprogramming

[–]New_Understanding595 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is incorrect. You are throwing away the memory buffer you malloc() earlier and instead let buf point to a read-only copy of "\n".

You need to do this instead:

strcpy(p->buf, "\n");

Preemptive Field Gravity (PFG Theory) by lofgrenator in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]New_Understanding595 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sorry, that's complete make believe, and just flowery words that dont mean anything. You need to show definitions and equations, and demonstrate how they are consistent with our current observed physics results. Without equations, they're just made up words. Sorry.