| ▲ | The Universal Pattern Popping Up in Math, Physics and Biology (2013)(quantamagazine.org) |
| 84 points by kerim-ca 4 days ago | 27 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | readingnews 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Not sure why you have to read 3/4 of the article to get to a _link_ to a pdf which _only_ has the _abstract_ of the actual paper: N. Benjamin Murphy and Kenneth M. Golden* (golden@math.utah.edu), University of
Utah, Department of Mathematics, 155 S 1400 E, Rm. 233, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090.
Random Matrices, Spectral Measures, and Composite Media. |
| |
| ▲ | blurbleblurble 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Well I'm not sure why I have to dig my way past this comment to find the substantive discussion. Quanta is not doing hypey PR research press releases, these are substantive articles about the ongoing work of researchers. | |
| ▲ | troelsSteegin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | heres's a corresponding video: https://www4.math.duke.edu/media/index.html?v=3d280c1b658455... "We consider composite media with a broad range of scales, whose
effective properties are important in materials science, biophysics, and
climate modeling. Examples include random resistor networks, polycrystalline media, porous bone, the brine microstructure of sea ice, ocean eddies, melt ponds on the surface of Arctic sea ice, and the polar ice packs themselves. The analytic continuation method provides Stieltjes integral representations for the bulk transport coefficients of such systems, involving spectral measures of self-adjoint random operators which depend only on the composite geometry. On finite bond lattices or discretizations of continuum systems, these random operators are represented by random matrices and the spectral measures are given explicitly in terms of their eigenvalues and eigenvectors. In this lecture we will discuss various implications and applications of these integral representations. We will also discuss computations of the spectral measures of the operators, as well as statistical measures of their eigenvalues. For example, the effective behavior of composite materials often exhibits large changes associated with transitions in the connectedness or percolation properties of a particular phase. We demonstrate that an onset of connectedness gives rise to striking transitional behavior in the short and long range correlations in the eigenvalues of the associated random matrix. This, in turn, gives rise to transitional behavior in the spectral measures, leading to observed critical behavior in the effective transport properties of the media." | |
| ▲ | magicalhippo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | From the abstract: In this lecture we will discuss computations of the spectral measures of this operator which yield effective transport properties, as well as statistical measures of its eigenvalues. So a lecture and not a paper, sadly. |
|
|
| ▲ | FjordWarden 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe also heap fragmentation |
| |
| ▲ | redleader55 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is interesting, do you have a link to any research about this? | | |
| ▲ | FjordWarden an hour ago | parent [-] | | No, it is a hypothesis I formulated here after reading the article. I did a quick check on google scholar but I didn't hit any result. The more interesting question is, if true, what can you do with this information. Maybe it can be a way to evaluate a complete program or specific heap allocator, as in "how fast does this program reach universality". Maybe this is something very obvious and has been done before, dunno, heap algos are not my area of expertise. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cosmic_ape 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 2013
But still cool |
|
| ▲ | dist-epoch 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is the well known problem that "random" shuffling of songs doesn't sound "random" to people and is disliked. I wonder if the semi-random "universality" pattern they talk about in this article aligns more closely with what people want from song shuffling. |
| |
| ▲ | pegasus 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not that a random shuffling of songs doesn't sound random enough, it's that certain reasonable requirements besides randomness don't hold. For example, you'd not want hear the same track twice in a row, even though this is bound to happen in a strictly random shuffling. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >For example, you'd not want hear the same track twice in a row, even though this is bound to happen in a strictly random shuffling. Why would it be? A random shuffling of a unique set remains a unique set. It's only when "next song is picked at random each time from set" which you're bound to hear the same song twice, but that's not a random playlist shuffling (shuffling implies the new set is created at once). | | | |
| ▲ | topaz0 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You could think of it as wanting your desire to hear the song again build up to a sufficient level to make it worth a relisten, sort of how a bus driver might want potential passengers to accumulate at a bus stop before picking them up, and therefore delay arrival. Very plausible to me that a good music randomization would have similar statistics if you phrase it right. | |
| ▲ | nkrisc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Random shuffling of songs usually refers to a randomized ordering of a given set of songs, so the same song can’t occur twice in a row if the set only contains unique items. People don’t usually mean an independent random selection from the set each time. | |
| ▲ | jonathanstrange 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If the list of songs is random shuffled, you can only hear the same song twice if there is a duplicate or if you've cycled through the whole list. That's why you shuffle lists instead of randomly selecting list elements. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | anthk 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11109248/ DNA as a perfect quantum computer based on the quantum physics principles. |
|
| ▲ | Joel_Mckay 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Physics models tend to shake out of some fairly logical math assumptions, and can trivially be shown how they are related. "How Physicists Approximate (Almost) Anything" (Physics Explained) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUMC19IISY If you are citing some crank with another theory of everything, than that dude had better prove it solves the thousands of problems traditional approaches already predict with 5 sigma precision. =3 |
| |
| ▲ | topaz0 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This isn't crank stuff, and operates on different kinds of problems/scales than "grand unified theory" type cranks. This is about emergent statistical order in complex interacting systems of sufficient size, not about the behaviors of the individual particles or whatever. | | | |
| ▲ | kitd 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The pattern was first discovered in nature in the 1950s in the energy spectrum of the uranium nucleus, a behemoth with hundreds of moving parts that quivers and stretches in infinitely many ways, producing an endless sequence of energy levels. In 1972, the number theorist Hugh Montgomery observed it in the zeros of the Riemann zeta function(opens a new tab), a mathematical object closely related to the distribution of prime numbers. In 2000, Krbálek and Šeba reported it in the Cuernavaca bus system(opens a new tab). And in recent years it has shown up in spectral measurements of composite materials, such as sea ice and human bones, and in signal dynamics of the Erdös–Rényi model(opens a new tab), a simplified version of the Internet named for Paul Erdös and Alfréd Rényi. Are they also cranks? Seems it at least warrants investigation. | | | |
| ▲ | nkrisc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What does “5 sigma precision equals 3” mean? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | andytratt an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| woah this is amazing, 10x upvotes!! love the example of bus spy. yes at this point we can confidently say, even though academia won't admit it ever -- and in case people don't know, YC killed replaced beat Harvard so institutions predating America are dead and truth is decentralized internet culture -- the universe is a computer and both Friston's Free Energy as well as ComputerFuture.substack.com are simply correct. Quantum confusion and all probability theory is Godel incomplete in that a deterministic computational universe is the unifying theory physics will never grasp. Seth Lloyd articulated it in Turing Test for Free Will paper. Eric Weinstein and Stephen Wolfram are trying to tell us. People who don't understand me or disagree happen to have P vs NP baked into their brains. Also a false dichotomy. PG has mentioned the insufficient resolution of English recently, and confused people will see why he's so obsessed with Lisp shortly as Terry Tao will confirm all this within 10 years. Or he won't and we'll wait another 10-20 for the ASI. Curt's podcast TOE will probably get there soon. |
| |