• 0 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 4th, 2023

help-circle

  • The UK spent decades convincing everyone that all bad decisions are made by the EU and all good decisions are made by Westminster. That’s the first mistake.

    If the UK had properly educated its citizens about what the EU actually was and did, no remain campaign would’ve been necessary whatsoever. But it was politically convenient to have a scapegoat.

    And let’s be honest, remain aka “remoaners” had a ton of arguments all the time. But brexiteers just wanted to enter the magical land where the UK still mattered and they’d eat their cake and have it still.



  • NIF can’t really ever reach Q>1. All the statements of having reached that only include the energy that reaches the capsule. The energy the lasers actually use is orders of magnitude larger.

    This theoretical Q>1, where the plasma emits more radiation than it receives, have been reached by other reactors before.

    But while tokamak or stellerator designs need a 2-3× improvement to produce more energy than the entire system needs, the NIF would need a 100-1000× improvement to reach that point, which is wholly unrealistic with our current understanding of physics.


  • Most fusion attempts try to keep a continuous reaction ongoing.

    Tokamak reactors, like JET or ITER do this through a changing magnetic field, which would allow a reaction to keep going for minutes, the goal is somewhere around 10-30min.

    Stellerator reactors try to do the same through a closed loop, basically a Möbius band of plasma encircled by magnets. The stellerator topology of Wendelstein 7-X was used as VFX for the closed time loop in Endgame. This complex topology allows the reaction to continue forever. Wendelstein 7-X has managed to keep its reaction for half an hour already.

    The NIF is different. It doesn’t try to create a long, ongoing, controlled reaction. It tries to create a nuclear chain reaction for a tiny fraction of a millisecond. Basically a fusion bomb the size of a grain of rice.

    The “promise” is that if one were to just repeat this explosion again and again and again, you’d also have something that would almost continually produce energy.

    But so far, the NIF has primarily focused on getting as much data as possible about how the first millisecond of a fusion reaction proceeds. The different ways to trigger it, and how it affects the reaction.

    The US hasn’t done large scale nuclear testing in decades. Almost everything is now happening in simulations. But the first few milliseconds of the ignition are still impossible to accurately model in a computer. To build a more reliable and stronger bomb, one would need to test the initial part of a fusion reaction in the real world repeatedly.

    And that’s where the NIF comes in.


  • If you actually calculate the maximum speed at which information can travel before causing paradoxes, in some situations it could safely exceed c.

    For two observers who are not in motion relative to each other, information could be transmitted instantly, regardless of the distance, without causing a paradox.

    The faster the observers are traveling relatively to each other, the slower information would have to travel to avoid causing paradoxes.

    More interestingly, this maximum paradox-free speed correlates with the time and space dilation caused by the observers’ motion.

    From your own reference frame, another person is moving at a speed of v*c. The maximum speed at which you could send a message to that observer, without causing a paradox, looks something like c/sqrt(v) (very simplified).













  • If you’ve got 14 billion years, a theft takes a minute, then you need 53 recursion levels of binary search to find the moment of the theft. (14 billion years can be split into about 7.3e15 1-minute segments, 53 levels of binary search allow you to search through 9e15 segments)

    That means OP assumed that it’d take 1 minute to decide whether at a certain still frame the theft had already occured or not, to compute the new offset to seek to, and the time it’d take to actually seek the tape to that point.

    Not an unreasonable assumption, but a very conservative estimate. Assuming the footage is on an HDD and you’ve got an automated system for binary search, I’d actually assume it’d take 5 seconds for each step, meaning finding a 1min theft on 14 billion years of footage would take 5 minutes.