212 pointsby Brajeshwar13 hours ago15 comments
  • wasabi99101112 hours ago
    For those who feel weird about the whole "forbidden transitions being only possible with quantum tunneling" thing and want an alternative interpretation:

    It's only true that the transitions are forbidden under a given simplified model of the atom. It is very much possible to calculate the transition probabilities under a more realistic model, and the previously "forbidden" transitions are now just regular transitions that occur with lower probability.

    In this case, the simplified model is that of the electric dipole approximation, where the atom is taken to be an electric dipole (reasonable when the wavelength of light emitted during an atomic transition is much larger than the size of the atom).This means it interacts with electromagnetic radiation only through electric dipole interactions, which implies that energy transitions must change orbital angular momentum, hence the 21cm transition is "forbidden". However, in reality, the atom is not truly an electric dipole, and so the 21cm transition is possible by the magnetic dipole interaction, just with low probability. (This low probability is due to the relative strength of the magnetic interaction compared to the electric interaction).

    • petsfed10 hours ago
      I've never liked the definition of forbidden transitions as "transitions not predicted under the broader approximation", because its rare that anybody actually lays out why a given approximation is used, and therefore why that approximation is inappropriate for the "forbidden" situation.

      The reality is that with e.g. 21 cm Hydrogen, or 500.7 nm Oxygen (which I knew by heart, back in the day), its hard to keep a given atom in the appropriate state long enough for it to relax by emitting the appropriate photon. Indeed, we can't create a pure enough vacuum in a large enough chamber that such things happen frequently enough to be measurable.

      • Calwestjobs7 hours ago
        laser, maser, like, other excitation / energy saturation does not work here ?
  • mjd11 hours ago
    This 21-centimeter transition was chosen by the designers of the Pioneer plaques (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque) to explain to any alien readers how big we are. At top left is a cartoon of two hydrogen nuclei in opposite spin orientations, and a ruler in between them marked "1". Over on the far right you can see another ruler that measures the height of the female figure, marked with binary numeral "8" ("|---") to indicate that she is approximately 8×21 = 168 cm tall.
    • arghwhat11 hours ago
      If only we could somehow share a physical entity of known dimensions to reference together with the drawing so that we did not need to use a physics riddle to indicate scale...
      • aylmao10 hours ago
        Unsure what the tone of this message is, so I don't know if you're aware, but that's included too:

        > Behind the figures of the human beings, the silhouette of the Pioneer spacecraft is shown in the same scale so that the size of the human beings can be deduced by measuring the spacecraft.

        It's good to have redundancy, not just so someone interpreting the plaque can confirm their hypothesis, but also in case one of the messages fail. In this case, the spacecraft could break, but we can assume quantum transitions will always be observable.

        [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque

        • arghwhat10 hours ago
          I sarcastically referenced the plaque itself, which is a convenient disc of a known size to anyone observing the drawing, unlike the space craft or physics riddles.

          Using quantum transitions is quite ridiculous in my opinion due to requiring not only the observer to have a perfectly compatible understanding of physics (even a more advanced understanding might not be compatible - maybe they don't categorize elements by electrons, or even treat elemental particles as a quantifiable entity), combined with the sheer number of deductions required to understand what was meant with two circles and a few lines.

          I doubt we would ever have decoded this had we been the recipient rather than author, and that's with a perfectly compatible understanding of physics.

          • mquander6 hours ago
            If we picked up that plaque from space with an illustration of some aliens and an alien solar system and someone Tweeted it, the correct hypothesis for the numbering would develop plurality consensus within one hour.

            I don't know if aliens would decode it but it's not right that humans wouldn't decode it.

            • adonovan3 hours ago
              I highly doubt it, but it might deliver some memorable zingers about nude aliens.
              • bigiain16 minutes ago
                And probably complaints about "wokeness" from the Galactic Twitter owner because it used a woman as the size reference...

                :sigh:

                I hope I never live to see Galactic Twitter.

          • petsfed9 hours ago
            I submit that if the concept of quantum transitions is alien to whatever recipient of that probe (if ever), then any attempts to communicate are hopeless anyway. That is, if the recipient's physical reality is so different from our own that they can't at least get back to "oh, this distance means that transition, now the rest of the plaque makes sense", then no asynchronous communication will bridge that gap.
            • arghwhat7 hours ago
              There is no relation between the ability to communicate and a shared understanding of our concept of quantum transitions - case in point, our invention of the technology we use to communicate with deep space far predates us learning these concepts ourselves.

              I'd also hold that the only thing this plaque could ever give is clear sign of artificial creation, and by virtue the (possibly past) existence of some entity capable of creating it. Maybe they'll get a vague idea of what we look like, but if "their" culture does not commonly depict themselves in 2D as we do, or "they" have vastly different morphologies, even that would be unclear. The context needed to understand our attempt at showing our location might also be lost if the thing went far enough.

              • fc417fc8025 hours ago
                > our invention of the technology we use to communicate with deep space far predates us learning these concepts ourselves.

                Maxwell published in 1873. The double slit experiment was 1803, subatomic theory developed throughout the 1800s, and Planck proposed quanta in 1900. The first radio transmission across the Atlantic came approximately 2 years after Planck's theory.

                I doubt it is plausible to develop anything resembling industrial technology without stumbling across certain fundamental truths in the process because doing so requires a sufficiently accurate model of physics.

          • jdhwosnhw3 hours ago
            The 21 cm line was chosen specifically because it’s the brightest line in the radio regime in our galaxy. Any civilization in the Milky Way capable of developing electromagnetic sensors would see that emission. There is a game theoretic component to this, as these other civilizations would also know that we could also see that line, and thus understand its importance
          • spullara9 hours ago
            Do you think that physics is somehow subjective? We absolutely would have decoded the message.
            • wongarsu7 hours ago
              Physics is a model of reality. Reality is objective, but the model we have chosen is very much "subjective" (maybe arbitrary is a better term).

              It's easy to imagine that another species might have never conceptualized electrons as little balls orbiting around a nucleus. They are neither balls nor are they flying in circles, those are simply abstractions we like because they appeal to the way we perceive reality. The way we conceptualize electrons leads to issues like the wave-particle duality, so it's likely just a local optimum we got stuck in. Another species might not even think of Electrons as being distinct entities, maybe they think of the electron field as one large ocean with some waves in it, or they subscribe to the single electron theory, or something we have never thought of and might never imagine from our perspective.

              • mannykannot3 hours ago
                "Arbitrary" ("existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will", "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something" [1]) is a very poor term. Not only is physics highly constrained by what can be observed in the universe, it is also capable of demonstrating (when it is actually the case) equivalences between apparently dissimilar modes of presentation. It is not perfect, but can you present anything that does better?

                [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

                • freehorse29 minutes ago
                  > is physics highly constrained by what can be observed in the universe

                  It is also very highly constrained by how _we_ observe the universe. Beings with different sensory/cognitive capacities could develop very different models.

                  > equivalences between apparently dissimilar modes of presentation

                  If there was some mathematical equivalence between their models and ours, which is already a leap to assume, there is still a question about whether the specific measure used would be translated to something equivalent to our object length measure in their model, which gets much stronger than just some equivalence assumption. And it’s even stronger to assume that this equivalence could just be inferred without any other information apart from the disk.

            • monadINtop7 hours ago
              As a theoretical physicist, yes physics could definitely be subjective between different species. Physics is the way HUMANS describe nature to themselves. I don't doubt that it describes some greater nature outside of us that is invariant, but it is only a description - not the thing itself. Like mathematics it is an anthropocentric conceptualization that has many arbitrary and historically contingent choices in its choice of representation and its chosen objects of study.

              How could we ever be certain than another intelligence (whatever that means) would be capable of understanding the intended message? Unless of course we are already starting off with the major assumption that the only things that can be intelligent are things like us. I'm not even sure that intelligent has any meaning aside from denoting behavior "similar to us".

            • cuttothechase8 hours ago
              Our understanding evolves, course corrects, spins off etc., we can use some static value as purported from the dark ages or by newtonian or later einstenian points of view. They all are measurably correct for the problems that they are trying to solve for the people who lived during those times. A million years from now would these values still be relevant or be considered as having the same value of importance or will they be replaced by even more finer and precise and contextually different values that could be more precise and more accurate etc.,
              • arghwhat7 hours ago
                Indeed. Say, maybe a civilization didn't start out with trying to build the world of particles of progressively finer size, but started directly with a model of fields, waves and charges and therefore never had a concept of a discrete elemental particle, and in turn a system built around that to categorize elements.

                Or to them, an atom is as large an arbitrary macro structure as proteins are to us, and so they would never consider two empty circles with a single line to represent something so big and chaotic. Or maybe they had the crazy idea of building everything of vibrating strings!

                Who knows what the abstractions and approximations would be when the foundation of it all isn't "getting hit on the head by an apple".

            • 7 hours ago
              undefined
          • m4rtink8 hours ago
            What if you end up with a picture of the record & everything else gets lost - that riddle will still work. Say the civilisation that found it collapses & leaves behind some garbled data, including a picture of the record.

            Or even future human data archeologists digging through a mix of 20 & 21 century data heavily polluted by AI slop. ;-)

            • lodovican hour ago
              I really wonder how future archaelogists are ever going to decode our timeline. Imagine a meteor strikes, civilization falls apart, and in 20,000 years they dig up a data centre. Even if they get the computers to work and the hard drives are still readable, everything will be encrypted.
            • cuttothechase2 hours ago
              What if extraterrestrial "intelligence" didn't have a reason to "evolve" functional equivalents of a visual cortex. Even on earth where having vision gives a distinct evolutionary advantage over non-vision based living forms, species without vision far outnumber those with vision.
            • arghwhat7 hours ago
              Making the data fault tolerant to the discovery by another civilization, its collapse and later rediscovery by another civilization seems a bit of a stretch goal. :)
              • fc417fc8025 hours ago
                Compared to a cold object being detected and then picked up from somewhere out in deep space?
              • mannykannot3 hours ago
                It was always a very long shot, regardless of who might be the recipients. Would we have been better off if it had not been done?
      • mjd10 hours ago
        We did that too. There is a cartoon of Pioneer itself, drawn to the same scale.
        • arghwhat10 hours ago
          (I was sarcastically pointing to the plaque itself, a physical entity of a well known size to anyone capable of observing the drawing on it, unlike the space craft or physics riddles.)
      • pdabbadabba8 hours ago
        Yeah. It would be pretty funny if an alien reader of the plaque concluded that 1 refers to the actual length of the line between the two circle thingies and concluded, therefore, that we're only a few cm tall.
        • 7 hours ago
          undefined
      • linschn10 hours ago
        The plaque also provided a drawing of the probe itself next to the two human figured, at scale.
    • 10 hours ago
      undefined
  • kccqzy13 hours ago
    Amazing article! It seems incredibly to weird to hear about transitions causing photons at 21cm wavelength; I guess I'm only used to seeing (no pun intended) much shorter wavelengths at hundreds of nanometers.
    • 10 hours ago
      undefined
    • AnimalMuppet12 hours ago
      Yeah, it's weird to me that an atomic transition can create something with a wavelength so much longer than the atomic radius.

      (Yeah, I know that it's a really low-energy transition, and I know about the relationship between energy and wavelength. But the net result I still find highly counter-intuitive.)

      • jpmattia11 hours ago
        > Yeah, it's weird to me that an atomic transition can create something with a wavelength so much longer than the atomic radius.

        Then it will be even weirder during an MRI: The protons in your body produce a wavelength that can be of order 1-10 meters.

      • strongpigeon11 hours ago
        What helps me is thinking of it in term of period instead given that the wavelength is the spatial propagation of a change in field. It’s big, but that’s because C is high.
      • arthurcolle9 hours ago
        Segmentation fault! Core dumped
    • BurningFrog12 hours ago
      It does feel a little odd that something the size of 5.29×10⁻¹¹ meter can create something 10 billion times larger.

      I mean, I understand how and why, but it feels odd.

      • IshKebab12 hours ago
        Wavelength isn't an object though. Like if you walk around the world you haven't made something the size of the world.
        • nomel10 hours ago
          Wavelength is a time thing though. To make something that low frequency (1.4GHz or 7ps), things have to happen pretty slowly.
          • tlb10 hours ago
            * 714 ps
        • pixl9712 hours ago
          At the same time any one individual walking around the world is a highly improbable event.
      • justlikereddit11 hours ago
        My subwoofer is approximate cubic with 30 cm to a side.

        But the wavelength of sound it makes at 20Hz is approximately 17 meter.

        Wavelength is merely a human conceptualization. If we reconceptialize it as peak-to-peak interval it suddenly stops being length and becomes a time instead

        • ttoinou11 hours ago
          The sound pressure wave does take 17 meters in the air to make a full cycle, no ? It’s real, same for the photon
          • MaxikCZ11 hours ago
            It's not about measuring peak to peak in distance, it's about measuring how long it takes for one spot to encounter second peak after first. The fact that the first peak traveled some distance is irrelevant, as its entirely dependent on propagation speed, which doesn't affect the frequency, only vawelenght.
            • 5 hours ago
              undefined
            • ttoinou10 hours ago
              Would you then say that the wavelength is meaningful for the sound example as its properties are really of a wave propagating, and meaningless for the light as the wave analogy isn’t a full description of the light phenomenon behavior ?
  • hackrmn10 hours ago
    I find it disturbing/puzzling that there is this fundamental physical behaviour like emission of light with wavelength of _exactly_ 21cm -- assuming one centimeter wasn't based on any such property but was just a "random" unit measure that stayed with us historically and through sheer volume of use (in U.S. inches filled the same niche; still do). I mean what are the odds that the wavelength is _exactly_ (the word used in the article) 21cm?
    • allemagne10 hours ago
      The article does say "precisely 21cm" in the subtitle, repeats it in the "key takeaways" section, and then close to the end of the article these's this:

      >By measuring light of precisely the needed wavelength — peaking at precisely 21.106114053 centimeters

      Which I assume is the actual measurement every time "21cm" is brought up in this article.

    • petsfed10 hours ago
      No more probable than any other value, whole or otherwise. In particular, its (per wikipedia) 21.106cm.

      Its funny how our brains find nice whole numbers unsettling in the natural world. I was always sort of weirded out by the distance light travels in a nanosecond: just shy of 1 foot. How weird it is that it flops between systems!

    • nemomarx10 hours ago
      isn't a cm now defined based on the distance light travels in a vacuum in a very small period of time?

      so it's not arbitrary really, or rather it probably goes the other way around. a cm used to be based on an arbitrary physical distance but was I think redefined to avoid needing to keep a standard meter cube in Paris.

      • hnuser12345610 hours ago
        It started with the grandfather clock. Everyone's clock pendulum needed to be the same length to have the same length of a second. So a meter also happens to (approximately, this was before we could easily be precise to several decimal places) be the length of pendulum that cycles at 0.5 hz (each swing back and fourth is a second) in 9.8 m/s^2 gravity.
        • geuis10 hours ago
          It started with the French.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metric_system

          The meter was originally based on the measured dimensions of the Earth.

          • arlortan hour ago
            I think there were multiple competing suggestions at the time, the grandfather clock was one while the standard ended up being the French proposed one that you mention
          • hnuser1234568 hours ago
            Ah yes, you're right. Another nice coincidence that a seconds pendulum is less than 1% away from 1/10 millionth the distance between the equator and poles.
            • Calwestjobs5 hours ago
              tanach still does not acknowledges science. so does 1/10 millionth error even matter in grand scheme of things ?
      • SiempreViernes9 hours ago
        The standard metre was a rod 1 metre long, you might be thinking of the standard kilo which is a compact cylinder?
  • mcswell8 hours ago
    The 21cm wavelength is also the wavelength that was proposed for potential SETI radio communication, I guess because of its distinctiveness. Of course modern SETI searches look at a wide range of frequencies.
    • Calwestjobs7 hours ago
      if that frequency can be generated by natural phenomena then why it is so good for seti ? should not signal distinctive from natural fenomena be used instead ?
      • wiml7 hours ago
        SETI uses the gap between the H line and the OH line (the "water hole"). The whole region of the spectrum is kind of quiet for reasons, and the H/OH area is (perhaps parochially) thought to be a natural place for other water-chemistry life forms to look.
  • joemag11 hours ago
    Loved this article! I initially was confused by how this transition would work with the conservation of angular momentum (since the electron would be flipping from spin ±½ to the opposite one). But then remembered that photons are spin 1 particles, so the math works out. Neat.
  • lud_lite7 hours ago
    Precisely 21cm or a precise amount that is approximately 21cm?
    • Calwestjobs5 hours ago
      it is not 21 in binary number system nor in mayan, so does not matter, it is just number. same importance for physics as horoscopes, numerology ...

      but i was pretty annoyed after i read in article - "exactly 21 cm" and then inside of first diagram - "v=1.4GHz" ...

  • imoverclocked12 hours ago
    It’s neat to see theory that allows us to practically see further into the past.
  • CamperBob211 hours ago
    From the article:

    Of course, there’s another possibility that takes us far beyond astronomy when it comes to making use of this important length: creating and measuring enough spin-aligned hydrogen atoms in the lab to detect this spin-flip transition directly, in a controlled fashion. The transition takes about ~10 million years to “flip” on average, which means we’d need around a quadrillion (1015) prepared atoms, kept still and cooled to cryogenic temperatures, to measure not only the emission line, but the width of it. If there are phenomena that cause an intrinsic line-broadening, such as a primordial gravitational wave signal, such an experiment would, quite remarkably, be able to uncover its existence and magnitude.

    Isn't that basically an H-maser? Not something found every day on eBay, but not really all that exotic either. Every VLBI site has one or more.

    Given a suitable state selection mechanism, which is what masers rely on, I don't see why it would be necessary to flip the states "manually" through ionization or any other mechanism. Keeping the state-selected atoms away from the container walls is the real trick.

  • belter13 hours ago
    In Contact the alien beacon arrives at 4.4623 GHz. Pi times the Hydrogen line...
    • teraflop12 hours ago
      Yup. And interestingly enough, that detail wasn't in the original novel by Carl Sagan. It was added for the movie, based on (AFAIK) a 1993 paper by David Blair and Marjan Zadnik: https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1993A%26A...278..669...
    • diego_sandoval12 hours ago
      But do they know what is a second?
      • phkahler12 hours ago
        Don't need to. It's the hydrogen wavelength / pi.
      • luma12 hours ago
        Wouldn’t be required. Take any frequency, Hydrogen in this case, and multiply it by pi which is unitless. The resulting frequency is pi times whatever you started with no matter how you count the passage of time.
      • pajko12 hours ago
        Out of the question, it has no definition which is only related to physics. Well, there's the "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" definition, but this was chosen to match the celestial-based unit related to the Earth's rotation (which does not tell anything to extraterrestrials).
    • zem10 hours ago
      "ringworld" had a nicely poetic passage about how the 21cm band had been swept clean by all the hydrogen in the universe and was therefore a natural frequency for aliens to try establishing communication over
    • nine_k11 hours ago
      That could be some freaky case of Doppler effect. To rule that out, the aliens could send both 21 cm * pi and 21 cm * e.
      • nullc11 hours ago
        It's ruled out by the signal being modulated.

        The question the choice is answering is where do you put a signal where other intelligent minds might look for it, yet which isn't at a frequency where the universe is particularly loud in ways that will make detecting your signal harder.

        • TheOtherHobbes10 hours ago
          The signal is always going to be modulated, unless the source is maintaining a position with zero relative velocity to the Earth, or deliberately compensating for same - both of which would be far more impressive as a "hello" than a random-ish number which will always be distorted by orbital and proper motion.

          Otherwise it's going to have a varying frequency - maybe not by much, and maybe not quickly, but certainly not static.

          • nullc9 hours ago
            Fair, I should have said "modulated by something other than obvious physical processes".
    • birdiesanders12 hours ago
      Oh wow. That’s wild.
  • amiga38613 hours ago
    > precisely 21 cm

    Imprecise use of "precise" in the strapline. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line the best measurement of it so far is 21.106114054160 +/- 0.000000000030 cm

    • raldi12 hours ago
      That not just imprecise usage of that term; it’s completely incorrect. The correct term would be its exact opposite, “approximately”.
      • boothby12 hours ago
        Indiscreet discrete mathematician checking in. If they said "exactly" we'd have a real problem. Instead, "precisely" in this context means "human eye cannot distinguish from exact value at a stone's throw."

        Yes, physicists and engineers hate me, why do you ask?

      • LeifCarrotson12 hours ago
        I expect the non-technical author/editor was playing the telephone game and originally wanted to emphasize that the frequency is always the same value, not that the hydrogen emissions frequency is related by arbitrary factors of 9192631770.000 Hz, 1/299792458.000 seconds, and then exactly 21.000/100.000 to the caesium-133 frequency.
      • hexhu12 hours ago
        so the claim is inaccurate by 1mm and missing precision data. I'd call it inaccurate and imprecise XD
      • cluckindan12 hours ago
        The exact opposite would be ”imprecise” or ”inaccurate”
        • raldi12 hours ago
          Accuracy and precision are orthogonal concepts. “Approximately 0 light years” is accurate but not precise.
    • barbazoo12 hours ago
      Would have been odd if it had magically matched the arbitrary distances we use in the metric system. It's not that 1m is in any way a "natural" distance that was chosen for anything but practical reasons.
      • dcrazy12 hours ago
        I was expecting some spectacular revelation that the definition of the second, the period of a Cesium atom, and the speed of light were somehow related to the definition of a meter by a factor of 0.21.
      • timewizard11 hours ago
        If our system was based on Planck units then it would be interesting. It would also cause tons of other fundamental constants to be greatly simplified to either integers or integer multiples of known transcendental constants.
    • mota712 hours ago
      Yes that bugged me too. If you replace 'precisely' with 'approximately' everywhere in the article it becomes much improved ;)
    • rwmj12 hours ago
      On the other hand, since it's a property of the universe maybe now's the time to define 21 cm as this value.
      • xnickb12 hours ago
        then cm will become a bit longer and it'll break many things
        • ncoco10 hours ago
          Like the width of an A4 sheet of paper.
    • lud_lite7 hours ago
      But everyone's hand is precisely 21cm long, of course
    • dang12 hours ago
      Ok, we've made the title not be precise now.
    • 12 hours ago
      undefined
  • Suppafly13 hours ago
    I had a CS professor that used to hold up a length of string roughly that length and talk about how that is how far a bit of data can travel at the speed of light during a clock cycle or something. Honestly don't remember the point he was trying to make.
    • cogman1013 hours ago
      Probably trying to recreate this lecture by Grace Hopper [1]

      [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eyFDBPk4Yw

      • MomsAVoxell12 hours ago
        I still have my nanowire, received directly from Grace herself during one of her last lectures I attended in the 80’s.

        Of course, it’s in among about a thousand other wires and cables and nonsense.

        One of these days I should sort it out and try to identify it by length.

        She had a very firm handshake, and a very definite glint in her eye as she handed those out to her star struck fans ..

      • Suppafly12 hours ago
        I'm sure that's what it was. I probably should have remembered that, but it was such a small part of one of his lectures it didn't resonate as deeply as it should have.
    • pvg13 hours ago
      That's a different thing, the signal travel length in a nanosecond, roughly. This is about the 21 cm RF wave that glows from the sky - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line. One of the (hyper) finest names of things in nerddrom - "hyperfine transition".
    • Night_Thastus13 hours ago
      I suppose it's interesting to think about. At today's clock rates, the distance between the CPU and RAM actually adds a small, but still significant delay.
      • cogman1013 hours ago
        It's ultimately what killed having a memory controller on the northbridge of a motherboard. Having the CPU talk to a separate chip to ultimately talk to the RAM simply added too much latency into the entire process.
        • Night_Thastus13 hours ago
          And it may end up causing CAMM2 to end up being the next standard. The physical layout of the chips on the board means the traces can be shorter - leading to lower latency and higher stability.
          • cogman1012 hours ago
            I really hope CAMM2 takes off. It'd be a rare standard that could be used for both laptops and desktops. Having upgradable memory in a laptop again would be great. Using the same standard a desktop would make it easy to find sticks as time goes on.
          • 11 hours ago
            undefined
    • jpollock13 hours ago
      Admiral Hopper[1] used to use string to demonstrate how long pieces of time are:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eyFDBPk4Yw

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper

      • ColinWright13 hours ago
        She didn't use string, she used wires, and would sometimes hand them out after lectures.
      • ivape13 hours ago
        Woah. Imagine extrapolating that for life. What does it mean to throw away a day?
    • whartung13 hours ago
      Well everyone knows if you want your network to be twice as fast, just cut all of the cables in half.
    • Someone13 hours ago
      https://youtu.be/9eyFDBPk4Yw: Admiral Grace Hopper Explains the Nanosecond
    • James_K12 hours ago
      The point of how fast computers are, and why you need to make them smaller to make them faster. Think about the bus between the CPU and GPU, not much shorter than that. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so there is a hard constraint on how quickly the GPU can respond to commands. The same is true for RAM and even within the CPU, signals take time to propagate across it. The total length of your circuitry for a single instruction can't be longer than 21cm if that's how far light travels.
    • 13 hours ago
      undefined
  • GIVEMEGO11 hours ago
    [dead]
  • dang12 hours ago
    [stub for offtopicness]

    [come on you guys]

    • dredmorbius3 hours ago
      But do you know where your towel is?
    • pineaux10 hours ago
      Its clearly only half of the answer.

      The complete answer of the universe would of course be 42cm.

    • nine_k13 hours ago
      The article gives the answer to the question in the title in the first paragraph. This is really commendable. (Suspense is—wait for it!—overrated.)
      • dang12 hours ago
        We've replaced the magic title with the more informative subtitle now. Standard mod trick.
        • 6 hours ago
          undefined
    • pixelbeat13 hours ago
      42/2
      • baxtr13 hours ago
        When I replied, the article had been posted 42 minutes ago and had 42 upvotes.

        That can’t be a coincidence.

        • fragmede12 hours ago
          The people running our simulation are just fucking with us at this point.
      • 13 hours ago
        undefined
      • sedatk13 hours ago
        [flagged]
    • quantumHazer13 hours ago
      Though 13 is totally the average!
      • 13 hours ago
        undefined
    • omegacombinator12 hours ago
      Ah, so the answer to life, the universe, and everything was actually 42/2 …
      • simiones12 hours ago
        Is this going to be τ vs π all over again?
        • o11c11 hours ago
          I recently did a bit of programming exploration using tau exclusively instead of pi (and `sintau` instead of the new `sinpi` function etc.)

          In almost every aspect this was far simpler, but there was the curious case of the constant `M_2_SQRTPI = 2 / sqrt(π)`. Even after looking up what weird formula that constant is used in, it wasn't at all clear to me where would be the most sensible place to put the constant.

      • 12 hours ago
        undefined
    • hnthrowaway031512 hours ago
      Damn that's 42 / 2!
      • zhengyi1312 hours ago
        ... so the question is "What is twice the magic quantum light length?"

        Doesn't seem all that great, but I'm probably missing something.

    • staticelf12 hours ago
      Chickens take 21 days to hatch and give us the most protein rich food you can eat. Does this mean that chickens are the magic creature of the universe?
      • wafflemaker12 hours ago
        Pretty sure newly hatched chicks are not the most protein rich food you can eat. But the crunch must be amazing.

        Is this why cows and horses eat them?

    • m3kw912 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • 11 hours ago
        undefined
    • ddalex12 hours ago
      How many inches is that
      • imoverclocked12 hours ago
        It is 21.1061… cm worth of them.

        Fun fact, your computer is really good at answering this question for you. So is (say) Google Search.

        • barbazoo12 hours ago
          Or an LLM, or even just using MacOS spotlight search autocompletes "21cm how many inches " to the right answer.
      • 12 hours ago
        undefined
    • karol13 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • bhaskara213 hours ago
        Apt
      • 13 hours ago
        undefined
    • mightysashiman13 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • dang12 hours ago
        Please don't do this here.
      • 13 hours ago
        undefined
      • kittoes13 hours ago
        [flagged]
    • mystifyingpoi13 hours ago
      [flagged]
  • arthurcolle8 hours ago
    I posted this thread to o3 and found the results interesting. https://chatgpt.com/share/680aad8d-ce54-800c-8973-df4258bbe1...