BB84 @ BB84 @mander.xyz

Posts

14

Comments

81

Joined

1 yr. ago

As stupid as that sounds, you are not totally wrong.

@don@lemm.ee and @kopasz7@sh.itjust.works you are misunderstanding what "observable universe" means. The observable universe is defined by the particle horizon, but the universe that can affect us in the future is defined by the event horizon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon says

The particle horizon differs from the cosmic event horizon, in that the particle horizon represents the largest comoving distance from which light could have reached the observer by a specific time, while the cosmic event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future.

But even the cosmological event horizon distance is dependent on our model of the universe's expansion, which in turn depends on the content of the universe. An event such as a vacuum collapse will drastically alter the content and the expansion rate, rendering our calculation of the event horizon invalid. So "snap changes..." may in fact be the case.

It kinda works you just gotta be careful with what you use and keep some human in the loop curating the outputs.

This meme was about training on model outputs. But would be nice if they got some trade secrets as well. Intellectual property is cancer and these IP-stealing Chinese companies, if they exist, are doing god's work 😊 hope Indian companies steal from China next as well

That's why I wanted to confirm what you are using lol. Some people on Reddit were claiming the full thing, when run locally, has very little censorship. It sounds somewhat plausible since the web version only censors content after they're generated.

You're probably running one of the distillations then, not the full thing?

I just really hope the 2023 "I asked ChatGPT

<abc>

<xyz>

@jerryh100@lemmy.world Wrong community for this kind of post.

@BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one Can you share more details on installing it? Are you using SGLang or vLLM or something else? What kind of hardware do you have that can fit the 600B model? What is your inference tok/s?

I think we just differ on the terminology of invention versus observation. What draws the line between a well-supported theory and an observation in the end comes down to how tangible you think the data is.

The concept needs to be able to predict and explain new observations, or else it has no utility and is still essentially just a placeholder.

They first came up with it to explain galactic rotation curves. After that, many new observations came in and the model successfully explained them. To name a few: bullet cluster dynamics, gravitational lensing around galaxies, baryon acoustic oscillation.

Like, relativity, you have to accept and account for or GPS wouldn’t work nearly as accurately as they do.

It is neat that general relativity is used in GNSS, but I'd bet that GNSS could still be invented even if we don't know general relativity. Engineers would probably have came up with a scheme to empirically calibrate the time dilation effect. It would be harder, but compared to the complexity of GNSS as a whole not that much harder.

There’s no real value in having an explanation (other than personal satisfaction, i.e. vibes) for something unless that explanation helps you to make predictions or manipulate objective reality in some way.

You can make a lot of predictions with Lambda CDM. But yeah they're not going to help anyone manipulate objective reality. Even so, >95% of math, astronomy, and probably many other fields of research don't help anyone manipulate reality either. It's harsh to say they have no value, but perhaps you're right.

At least let me say this: finding explanations to satisfy personal curiosity (doing it for vibes, as you put it) is different from projecting personal feelings onto objective understanding of reality (the vibes-based astrophysics I was referring to in the meme).

The ball can quantum mechanically tunnel out to the true minimum. In this sense the local minimum is actually not perfectly stable.

I must admit I don't know that much about MOND being tested. But yeah, from a Lambda CDM point of view it is unsurprising that MOND would not work well for every galaxy.

Yeah it's not settled by any means. Far from it.

But the hypothesis that it exists and is some kind of matter is pretty well supported through observing gravitational effects.

It's a classic MEMRI TV meme. What MEMRI TV is would require a ..... "nuanced" explanation that I don't want to get into here. Look it up on Reddit or start a thread on !nostupidquestions@lemmy.ml

WIMP is only one model of dark matter. A favorite of particle physicists. But from a purely astrophysics point of view there is little reason to believe dark matter to have any interaction beyond gravity.

But it is a model we invented no? To explain the astrophysical and cosmological observations.

Among all those observations, a commonality is that it looks like there is something that behaves like matter (as opposed to vacuum or radiation) and interact mostly via gravity (as opposed to electromagnetically, etc.). That's why we invented dark matter.

The "it is unsuited" opinion in this meme is to poke at internet commentators who say that there must be an alternate explanation that does not involve new matter, because according to them all things must reflect light otherwise it would feel off.

Once you believe dark matter exists, you still need to come up with an explanation of what that matter actually is. That's a separate question.

(I'm not trying to make fun of people who study MOND or the like of that. just the people who non-constructively deny dark matter based on vibes.)

Particle physicists love the Weakly-Interacting Massive Particle dark matter model. But from a purely astrophysics point of view there is little reason to believe dark matter to have any interaction beyond gravity.

I'm still far from convinced about MOND. But I guess now I'm less confident in lambda CDM too -_-

I'm inclined to believe it's one or many of the potential explanations in your second link. But even then, those explanations are mostly postdictions so they hold less weight.

MOND is a wonderful way to explain rotation curves but since then with new observations (bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, ...) MOND doesn't really hold up.

I've heard of something similar that is able to predict an effect of dark matter (the rotation curves), but AFAIK it couldn't match other observations (bullet clusters, etc.) correctly.

Do you have a link for the model you're talking about. I'm curious.

This is a very fair take, but I'd say dark matter is harder to falsify, but not totally unfalsifiable.

You can't see it, true. But what makes sight so special? We can't smell stars either. You just need to sense dark matter in some other way. Namely gravity! We have seen the way visible matter orbit, and that points to dark matter. We have seen gravitational lensing due to dark matter. Hopefully soon we'll observe gravitational waves well enough to sense dark matter around the regions the waves are being emitted from.

Most individual dark matter models are falsifiable (and many have already been falsified) through non-gravitational means too. People have been building all sorts of detectors. The problem with this is that detectors are expensive and there are always more models beyond any detector's reaches.