|
At explaining Higgs fields and gravity in an understandable manner? Just came across this, and it seems as foo-foo as every other explanation I've heard: How the Higgs Field (Actually) Gives Mass to Elementary Particles | Quanta Magazine[^]:
> "...As I mentioned earlier, these standing waves are nothing more nor less than motionless elementary particles, rippling in their respective fields."
The engineer in me says that particles must move in order to create waves/ripples, so they aren't 'motionless' 
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Anyone care to take a stab ... At explaining Higgs
Shouldn't they then write their own article and get it published? After all the link you provided is attempting to do just that.
Myself I feel it comes down to just as the article says is that the problem is in trying to fit the theory into the preceding theories. But that is the point, the new theory is needed because the preceding ones don't work.
I feel it helps to realize that Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to disprove the increasing evidence as it went along that his theory was not in fact complete. Because of course that evidence did not fit into his theory. So one either learns the new discipline completely or just accepts it as unknowable at the personal level.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting.
The key point "I think" is the example of the ball and string. The ball floating in space can be moved but exhibits no vibration. In a gravity field the ball is held in place by the string and force must be applied to move it. The ball then swings (vibrates) so it exhibits a repetitive motion within the boundaries of the swing (the vibration) but no motion outside of the vibration. The ball exhibits mass via the frequency of the vibration. Now gravity is basically one direction. The Higgs field acts like it but in all directions. So it causes the vibration of stationary particles and the vibration is related to what we call mass to set the particle in motion (outside the range of their normal stationary vibration) we must overcome the inertia of that mass.
(Now my head hurts).
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote: (Now my head hurts).
That makes two of us. But I can understand what you are getting at through the pain!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks?  Now it is just couched in a different set of obscurations.
|
|
|
|
|
My understanding of the ripples / standing waves etc. is this refers to the field whose ripples give rise to a particle moving or not. When he stated earlier "... Higgs field makes the elementary particles vibrate at higher frequencies ..." I assumed he was referring to the field associated w/ the particle which does the actual vibrating not the particle itself. There must be better foo foo articles than this. Have you seen this one How the Higgs Mechanism Give Things Mass - YouTube[^] He's a bit above foo foo.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is my stab with a rusty spoon (i.e. a very bad analogy based on the link you provided)
Particles are like boats on a flat lake, the 2D surface of the lake representing our 3D universe.
Without an anchor (massless objects) they go racing about the lake, as the current directs them.
If they have mass then they have an anchor hanging down into the lake. This will not simply hang down, as the water is not thick enough, but will swing back and forth like a pendulum. This will cause the boat to oscillate and that will cause ripples.
(Just about everything in the analogy is wrong, I'm afraid, but I was trying to emphasize the role the anchor plays and how something can be stationary and still cause ripples.)
|
|
|
|
|
It occurred to me the other day that Chat GPT might be able to convert a C# WinForms form to HTML, or at least it would be interesting to try. ChatGPT 4o[^] seems to be a bit improved over ChatGPT 4. I would not be surprised others have tried the same.
So, I created a simple Windows Form, with some labels, textboxes, a drop-down list, a checkbox and a button. I then uploaded the contents of the Form1.cs, Form1.designer.cs, and Form1.resx files to the chat, and asked it to return the code for an HTML page. I also asked it to return a Blazor razor component page.
It did a pretty good job. Not perfect, but for trying to convert the UI portion of a WinForms application, it could save time from simply manually doing the conversion.
I did not try anything complicated, and I would not expect it to translate the C# code to code for Blazor, but I plan to experiment further.
Since this forum is not for programming questions, I am hesitant to provide files, but you should be able to replicate the process yourself.
For those interested, it might make an interesting thread.
|
|
|
|
|
"AI" writing code makes me paranoid to the point where I'd have to review every line to feel good about it.
Most of the time, that means between prompting and review, I'd blow more time than I would solving it myself.
I don't know if that's true in this case, but certainly the review part is an issue.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
That is not the problem here. I am having it do one page from one form.
Yes, of course, I review and revise. I don't expect AI to produce complete, bullet-proof code. I don't have that much experience writing HTML and the byzantine world of CSS. Compared to WinForms (with a designer) and C# code, HTML/CSS (with no designer) is so backwards and unnecessarily convoluted, it saves me time. I have written HTML/CSS by hand like the cavemen did, but it takes less time to design the page in WinForms, then export it via AI (all within Visual Studio) than hand coding the HTML/CSS.
I've known many web front end coders, and they all think they can write a fairly complex page quicker than a designer, but in real world projects, the WinForms folks have always finished well ahead of the hand coders.
The trick is to realize I just want the WinForms to have the UI components and validation code (events in WinForms, things like onclick or mouseover), and let Copilot in Visual Studio generate the Blazor page file(s). From there, almost all of it is just C#. In short, just have AI do whatever takes me more time by hand. I keep it as simple as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing that a lot of you, here on this site, have read this book.
Star Trek Cats[^]
A lot of you mention cats & a lot of you are 100% geek. 
I haven't read it...yet.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: I'm guessing that a lot of you
I am guessing not. Unless the word "lot" has a different meaning than I understand.
There is a vast array of stuff out there for various cultural themes. Very few attempt to acquire all of it even if price itself was not an issue.
After all if ones spends all their time and money on Star Trek then what is left over for Pokemon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I see that you don't deny that you've read it.
Busted!! 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: you don't deny that you've read it.
Check your logic.
To the best of my knowledge, you've never denied committing murder, armed robbery, and drug dealing. Does that imply that you have committed these crimes? 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Duh...this is how the modern world works. Guilty until proven innocent.
|
|
|
|
|
Even though I've been writing code for a long time, I often find that I don't understand things the way I should.
I've been reading Grokking Data Structures[^] (Manning publishers -- I mention because they do a great job on books)
A few years ago I read, A Common-Sense Guide to Data Structures and Algorithms, Second Edition: Level Up Your Core Programming Skills 2nd Edition[^], so along with the experience I have I had a good foundation.
However, this book goes in depth explaining how Data Structures are built on top of UDT (User defined types) and it is absolutely fascinating. The only problem I have with the book is that the samples are written in Python.
I've used a Bag data structure in ASP.NET (ViewBag) but I never really thought about how it is implemented and this book explains that type of stuff.
I'm 70% thru and it's a really great book.
Have you read it?
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Have you read it?
Nope, but totally applaud you for peeking underneath the hood to get your learn on.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Have not read it. Even though I guess that it wouldn't have taught me very much new stuff, I might have considering buying it, just to pick up the way things are formulated today. But ...
The Amazon sample pages doesn't give me a single sample. I can flip through from the title page, colophon, the brief table of contents, the foreword, the preface, the acknowledgements, the About this book, About the author, and then, finally, eight text lines from the first chapter, which is essentially 'Welcome to this book' (as if all the preceding blurb is not enough of 'welcome'!). There is nothing to show the style of problem discussions, nothing to show the expected knowledge level.
This book is so new that there are no revealing user reviews. The amount of blurb is so large that I honestly do not think this is any sort of directly-to-the-point-with-a-minimum-of-fuzz book for seasoned professionals. So for now, I will not order a copy.
That being said: For the major part of my university, data models (a.k.a. data structures) was an essential part. We spent quite some time on creating database schemas (this was in the CODASYL-relational transition, so we were into both models), we did a lot of work on entity-relationship models (which I still think of as one of the lost pearls of information technology), and class based data modeling.
In our senior year, the last semester, our entire class was split into a number of subproject teams, each assigned to a different main module of a complete software system. The idea was that we should gain experience in cooperating with other teams. The professor in charge had just been caught by some 'functional design' ideas, demanding that all interactions between modules should be through function calls and their parameters, with no common data whatsoever. No data structure design - each module might have some static structures, if they preferred, but none of it should be revealed to others. Seen in a bird's eye perspective, there were no other data than those passed as parameters.
To say that the project failed miserably is to put it in rosy, romantic terms. None of the teams were able to produce anything useful. One significant part of the explanation was that we all had been taught the importance of well designed data structures. Without it, we were lost. But the professor's ideas were coming in like a tsunami, so maybe five years later, when data structures / models teaching had been completely abandoned, those students would have made a greater success.
I have not seen good data modeling returning to the mainstream yet. I still miss it. I still tend to sketch data structures on paper to make clear to myself how complex information sticks together, but whenever I present it to any programmer younger than myself, they are unable to see the data as entities independent of the operations you do on them, but defined by their relationships. Modern programmers immediately start attaching various methods to them, replacing data relationships with one, two or more specific method calls for changing object attributes, pushing aside the relationships of the data model.
From the table of contents of this book, it does not seem to point to data model design. 'Arrays', 'Queues', 'Stacks' is at a very elementary level; it does not suggest system design by data model design. Furthermore, it points towards coding techniques, not modeling techniques.
So I guess that if some youngster comes to me for advice on data structuring, I will have to dig into my basement to find my old textbooks, published 40-50 years ago. Unless someone can suggest newer textbooks on how to do system design based on a data model. Not system implementation and coding - design.
But I guess that doing proper system designs is not agile enough in today's software development environments. System design is intitiated by first typing 'int main(int argc, char **argv){}' and take it from there as ideas and requirements come to mind.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Amazon sample pages doesn't give me a single sample
Oh, that's unfortunate. I'm reading the book from my oreilly.com subscription where I can read all of these books so I didn't notice that.
trønderen wrote: I have not seen good data modeling returning to the mainstream yet.
There is a weird movement (probably caused by Universities getting stuck on the Functional Paradigm) where new devs are literally saying that OOP is evil. It's crazy.
Instead of learning from the past and building on it, they burn everything to the ground & then start out with dirt & say, "We've built the newest thing. It's dirt and we can make the best structures from it with a little water. And also, we are so much smarter than those who came before us."
Yeah, I've noticed the move away from any type of planning too.
Anyways, the book isn't actually written on that it just gets to the basics of Data Structures.
If you're interested, but you probably aren't.
The Manning book site is actually much better.
Check out this link and you can click on chapters[^] in table of contents and read actual chapters.
I just thought the book was interesting. I've discovered over the years that I often believe that other devs ("architects") know all of this foundational stuff and then I discover that they don't know it either.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: demanding that all interactions between modules should be through function calls and their parameters,
Ah...the good old days of RPC (Remote Procedure Calls). Everything was a RPC - even get/set. What more could one want from an ideal world?
trønderen wrote: So I guess that if some youngster comes to me for advice on data structuring,
I will stick with "Algorithms" by Sedgewick.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: I will stick with "Algorithms" by Sedgewick.
That may very well be an excellent book, but from the table of contents and the available pages, it doesn't at all look like a data structure design textbook. More like a data structure implementation textbook. (It may be excellent at that.)
My rule of thumb is that a design can be implemented in any programming language. Hence, it can be presented and described without resorting to any specific programming constructs. An architect presenting a floor plan to you doesn't go into the kind of wood panel that will be used. The exterior drawing, showing the windows and doors, doesn't go into the mechanism of the window hinges. Maybe the exterior shows the outer walls as flat surfaces, like concrete walls, but you may take the drawings to a carpenter who will build you a wooden house.
To me it looks like the Sedgewick book is not primarily aimed at teaching you how to draw neither the exterior of the house nor the floor plan. Nor the placement of the technical installations. When a designer has created a room of 10,000 data elements, Sedgewick can teach you alternative ways to manage those 10,000 data elements - but not why those data elements were placed there. And how they relate to another 1000 elements. And which properties are shared by those 10,000 elements and how to handle the sharing. And so on.
The title is honest: The book describes algorithms, not data structures. Well, trees and lists and arrays are data structures at the coding level, but they are not made for designing information interrelationships at the problem domain level.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Hence, it can be presented and described without resorting to any specific programming constructs
My opinion is that code examples make it more clear.
And the Sedgewick book comes in a number of different languages.
trønderen wrote: When a designer has created a room of 10,000 data elements,
Books that claim to teach you how to design 10,000 elements are no better than books that claim to teach you how to sell or manage people.
trønderen wrote: The book describes algorithms, not data structures.
Do you think you can create a entire book, lets say 400-500 pages about data structures and not discuss algorithms at all? For example how do you discuss, in detail, the algorithmic differences between using a hash/dictionary versus a single link list without discussing searches?
Sedgewick has a lot of discussion about how to create a hash value. You better understand that before you attempt to use a dictionary.
The other book I have specific to the subject is "Data Structures and Algorithms" by Aho, etc. Chapters
Chapter 1 - Design and Analysis of Algorithms
Chapter 2 - Basic Data Types
Chapter 3 - Trees
Chapter 4 - Basic Operations on Sets
So even Chapter 1 is Algorithms and back to those in Chapter 4. But even Chapter 2 has an entire section labeled "Stacks and Recursive Procedures"
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: My opinion is that code examples make it more clear.
Have you ever designed a non-trivial relational database schema? Like, with a few dozen tables interconnected through foreign keys, various constraints, and all in 3NF?
If you have, did you describe the database through SQL code? Did that help making the database design more clear?
I suspect that your answer is "No - I never designed any non-trivial relational database". I also suspect that you never went into any complex organization trying to grasp the kinds of information they are handling, how it interrelates, which is the authoritative value from which other copies can be made, which parts of the information structure is managed by which software system, which actor is the responsible for each (set of) entities, which information needs special consideration e.g. due to confidentiality or security concerns etc. etc. And after doing such an analysis, identifying an interconnected subset of the information elements, and shaped into 3NF to be realized as database relations.
What I am saying is that from your arguments, it sounds as if you have never been even close to such a data modeling and design task. To phrase it somewhat more rudely: It sounds as if you don't have a clue what data design is about. I may be wrong; my only basis for drawing this conclusion is the arguments you have presented here.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
