Theoretical physicist by training (PhD in quantum open systems/quantum information), University lecturer for a bit, and currently paying the bills as an engineer working in optical communication (implementation) and quantum communication (concepts), though still pursuing a little science on the side. I'm interested in physics and math, of course, but I enjoy learning about really any area of science, philosophy, and many other academic areas as well. My biggest other interest is hiking and generally being out in nature.

Last Notes

- reply

@nprofile…xsrv @nprofile…qz4x I'm really fascinated by the idea of this mirror universe where (a presumably goatee-wearing) Cory Doctrow has been convincing the world to love DRM and palling around with Metallica.

2025-01-15 14:44:40 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…u9ha My impression (based on discussions with people who talk about their research on both platforms), is that Bluesky has a considerably more vibrant research community than the Fediverse at this point. Indeed, many of the researchers I follow who migrated to Mastodon in 2022 seem to have stopped posting here. And generally Bluesky has a larger and more rapidly growing user base. So I suppose I'm saying that it seems highly unlikely that Nature would move here, despite the advantages in principle.

2025-01-12 23:10:56 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…m2ru @nprofile…fa4k But I believe the change in which is the "north star" has less to do with the relative motion of stars and more to do with the changing orientation of the Earth (precession of the equinoxes).

2025-01-06 03:27:44 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…gt5c There was actually a recent thread by @nprofile…fa4k that was sort of on what you're terming the string theory "brain drain".

2024-12-18 14:00:27 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k What about criticisms of LQG? That's something I've seen and heard a lot less about (but maybe I would have if I'd spent more time reading/listening to string theorists).

2024-12-18 00:23:12 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k Interesting. None of my research involved high energy physics, so much of what I heard about string theory was the nonsensical stuff you get through popular science reporting, and I was totally unaware of this thread of discussion.

2024-12-17 23:23:45 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k I listened to an interview of Cumrun Vafa by @nprofile…nxt0 about the swampland program that almost made it sound like one could get down to predictions, but I think it falls into your characterization of making assumptions and leaps in logic to get predictions, and then just choosing a different set when your predictions fail.

2024-12-15 00:22:52 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…e5g0 @nprofile…fa4k Yes, I guess any orbit could be thought of as a continuous function R -> C, and then the epicycles would just be a Fourier transform, so they could under suitable conditions be convergent under some norm rather than asymptotic like a perturbative expansion.
I'm not familiar with the amplituhedron, but wouldn't the problems to be resolved be generic to perturbation theory (not specific to quantum field theory)?

2024-12-14 23:22:08 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…e5g0 @nprofile…fa4k Is it the case that with epicycles, as with Feynman diagrams, that adding more and more eventually gets you into trouble?

2024-11-22 13:06:06 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…dr5j @nprofile…e5g0 Right. The situation with your arm is different, and that's where the conformal diagram that @nprofile…fa4k posted is helpful. If you imagine an extended object falling into the black hole you can see that light from the left side (closer to the center) will always reach the right side at a later time. If, however, the object stops falling inward while partially over the horizon, light from the portion inside the horizon will never reach the portion outside (correspondingly meaning no causal force law can possibly keep them from tearing apart).
I think that another way to think of it is that near the horizon light is moving outward from the center more and more slowly (in terms of Schwarzschild coordinate distance vs. coordinate time), at the horizon it's standing still, and inside the horizon it's actually falling inward. If you're stationary outside the event horizon, the light from inside never reaches you. If you're falling inward, you will catch up with with the light from stuff further toward the center, because while it is falling toward the singularity, it is doing so more slowly than you (or any massive body).

2024-11-22 03:12:35 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k I can only hope that the application for Adjoint School is one form.

2024-11-22 03:02:06 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…fa4k But presumably @nprofile…e5g0's statement that "you'd see the horizon as a black surface coming at you" is true at some level, because what you see in the distance is not only a function of local spacetime (unless you're inside an enclosure, which is the usual conceit of equivalence principle thought experiments).

2024-04-27 03:26:27 UTC

- reply

@npub1rkt…sqek Is this in response to something specific, or just sort of general? My guess was maybe his podcast episode with Dario Amodai (which I haven't actually heard, but the description sounds annoyingly credulous).