I would suggest, instead, that "Classical Physics" is created by entanglement:
the non-quantum reality at our scale is just what happens, when everything is entangled, to the point of clogging-up-the-works of quantumness, as it were..
.: you get things like .. as you scale up from quantum-level .. the everything-is-discontinuous/everything-is-turbulence .. turns into, once enough entanglement is happening, "laminar flow" in fluid-dynamics, even-though NOTHING in QM is laminar-flow, so there's simply no basis for "laminar flow" at the lower-level...
Do we know if this is going to be implemented per device or it's done via geolocation or something? I skimmed the article, didn't seem to say besides "don't get excited if you're outside of Europe" or something to that effect. Basically wondering if this benefit can be gained in the future by importing a phone.
My dislike of Apple is... decades old. But Google sucks too. I need to dig into how Apple treats privacy (someone mentioned that it might not be great on another of these posts) and see how the software ecosystem outside of the Apple store shakes out. I'm hopefully several years out from needing a phone replacement, so I can wait and see how it goes.
Well Google sucks but at least they opened the door to sideloading and open-sourced Android so things like Graphene and LineageOS exist. You don't have to put up with the spying. Apple spies less, but whatever is there is unavoidable right now. Same with controlling what you're allowed to put on your phone.
I bought my first Android phone in late 2010. Its 600 MHz single-core CPU just barely ran a GBA emulator at playable speeds. The screen wasn't multitouch and a bug in the operating system (fixed about a year or two later by the manufacturer) meant that any time the screen was being touched, CPU load would shoot up to 100% and everything slowed down to a crawl, which meant I could only play turn-based titles. That's how I discovered Advance Wars.
On a related note I was recently incredibly impressed to see how well Dolphin Emulator runs GameCube and Wii games on Android, though even fully working touch controls aren't really viable for anything other than glorious turn-based combat!
PS2 emulation is my recent surprise. If you have a powerful enough device, then AetherSX2 will run games extremely well on it. Less powerful devices can still run PSP games using the remarkable PPSSPP emulator.
Then there's the whole business of emulating Windows PCs. There's a number of impressive apps that can be used to play even fairly new titles. I believe Winlator is the latest.
I've only used it with older games so far, but it works really well already. If you don't mind a bit of fiddling with the configuration, I highly recommend trying it out.
Edit: ETA Prime's video on the emulator is a few months old already, but it's a good starting point:
And in other parts of the world where it's just a standard. I was surprised when I saw WhatsApp numbers on advertisements with the WhatsApp logo. Hard not to be on WhatsApp in those places.
Also my friends and Family, but this is why I don't use this shit, I can also communicate with them, better still, with a simple call, perhaps with an SMS (yes, it still exists) or directly in person, accompanied with some beers.
It absolutely does depend on your reference frame. I remember one of my physics 3 test problems was a ship in it's own reference frame was a standard 3 4 5 right triangle. We had to calculate what the observed lengths and angles from a reference frame where it was moving at .96c.
I would be careful of confusing "reality" (whatever that is) with our model of reality. Relativity, which treats time as a dimension, is a good model that fits well with most of our observations. It's not perfect, though, and it doesn't fit well with some other observations. That's how we know that it doesn't fully match reality, and why we're looking for a new model.
Paraphrasing the old saying: all models of the universe are wrong, but some are useful.
What effect does the distinction between that and "the best way we have for our minds to think about it" have on it?
Also, unless i remember it wrong, I thought it was relativity that showed the flaws explanation quantum physics' had for time and not the other way round. I mean, I might be but that's my understanding of it right now.
If I interpret your question correctly, you are basically asking what the practical difference is between interpreting a model as a reflection of reality and interpreting a model as merely a mathematical tool.
A mathematical model, at its core, is used to allow us to make testable predictions about our observations. Interpretations of that model into some kind of explanation about the fundamental nature of reality is more the realm of philosophy. That philosophy can loop back into producing more mathematical models, but the models themselves only describe behavior, not nature.
A model by nature is an analogy, and analogies are always reductionist. Like any analogy, if you poke it hard enough, it starts to fall apart. They make assumptions, they do their best to plug holes, they try to come as close as they can to mirroring the behavior of our observations, but they always fall short somewhere. Relativity and Quantum Chromodynamics are both good examples. Both are very, very good at describing behavior within certain boundaries, but fall completely apart when you step outside of them. (Both, to expand on the example, use constants that are impericaly determined, but we have no idea where they come from.)
The danger is in when you start to assume that a model of reality is reality itself, and you forget that it's just a best guess of behaviors. Then you get statements like you first made. "Relativity assumes time is a dimension. The model for that works. Therefore time must be a dimension in reality. That must mean that not treating time as a dimension anywhere must be wrong." That line of thinking, though, forgets that a model is only correct within the scope of the model itself. As soon as you introduce a new model, any assumptions made by other models are no longer relevant. That will pigeonhole your thinking and lead you to incorrect conclusions due to mixed analogies.
That is how you get statements like your first one. "Model A treats time like an illusion, but model B treats time like a dimension. Ergo, all dimensions are illusions ." That is mixing analogies.
Interesting, I appreciate it thanks. I see what you're saying and I think you're right. Its not right to the exclusion of something else. That was too far. I must have gotten way too excited lol.
You know what it is? I just straight up dont like it. Its about time people started calling out time on its bullshit.
bgr.com
Top