# Talk:505: A Bunch of Rocks

- Weird thing with lines in it

probably has something to do with relativity -- two objects moving, arriving at different points at the same time, or maybe a diagram of spacetime. 66.202.132.250 16:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a Feynman Diagram 206.174.12.203 19:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Toby Ovod-Everett

- I did add the incomplete tag because this comic and also the explain is still really complex. More important: People without a proper physics background never will understand. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a short story called "SOLE SOLUTION" by Eric Frank Russell which is quite similar to the one in the story. Just in case that matters. -- Maob (talk) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

Re Rule 34 - the point is that this comic _is_ cellular automaton porn (as are the YouTube videos of Minecraft calculators and the like). Rule 34 works, bitches! 141.101.98.241 (talk) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

Not sure what's incomplete about the explain. 0100011101100001011011010110010101011010011011110110111001100101 (talk page) 22:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yo *calculus* is the latin word for pebble! I learned this and had to come straight to this page! ahhh connections! 173.245.50.88 Sawyer Biddle

As it turns out, Rule 110 seems to be a *really bad* way to simulate a universe- you would be much better off using a Cyclic tag system, since Rule 110 takes dozens of generations and potentially hundreds of cells to simulate one step in such a system, or a more sophisticated cellular automaton, such as Wireworld. --Someone Else 37 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

To whoever objected to panel number references, does what I did with first words fix that? 199.27.128.99 (talk) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

Well, that's a pretty unfair comparison in the last panel, the protag is immortal after all, if I'm immortal I might do the same thing, but hey we got a much shorter life to live 103.22.201.168 (talk) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

The diagram to the right of the Epitaph of Stevinus looks like a system of coupled pendula, often used in math physics courses to illustrate Lagrangian mechanics. Also may relate to elasticity theory. See for example here: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ThreePendulumsConnectedByTwoSprings. 108.162.221.96 03:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

- If this is true (which seems like the most probable solution so far) then what do the symbols inside the boxes represent? 108.162.216.209 (talk)
*(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*- Spring constants, masses, lengths, etc 108.162.221.220 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The symbols on the top seem to be K and the bottom W. W is often used for angular momentum and K for potential energy. If you are not exactly right you are very close to being so.108.162.216.209 13:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

- Spring constants, masses, lengths, etc 108.162.221.220 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The "diagram to the right of the Epitaph of Stevinus", also described as "A weird diagram with lines in it", or "partitioning of phase space into fundamental cells", or " system of coupled pendula, often used in math physics courses to illustrate Lagrangian mechanics", can be described more literally:
*There is are two horizontal rulers with divisions 13 pixels apart and 17 pixels apart, respectively; and diagonal lines showing the correspondence between the first four markings of the upper ruler with those on the lower. The intervals seem to be labeled.*Returning to speculation, I think this suggests an illustration of**Length contraction (Lorentz coordinate transformation) in Special Relativity**. Mrob27 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)- That seems highly unlikely due to the top labels on this graph. In your explanation they can’t represent anything relevant. Also if this diagram is used to represent spatial contraction, it does not do a good job of it. 108.162.216.209 13:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I imagined the labels were, top row: O', x', (2x)'; bottom row: O, x, 2x, Δv; or perhaps top row: Δx₁', Δx₂', Δx₃'; bottom row Δx₁, Δx₂, Δx₃, 0.7c. I don't think Randall put enough thought into those tiny squiggles for us to be able to use pixel-counting as a hint to which labels interpretation is more likely… but what of it? We can make up labels that fit any interpretation. I did say "Length contraction (Lorentz...)" was just
*speculation*. I do like the "four pendulums coupled by springs" idea, though the horizontals look too ruler-like to me. It might be better just to say "two horizontal ruled lines linked by some diagonals" ! Mrob27 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)- You are totally right, this one may always be pure speculation. Though I am pretty sure the bottom points are labeled w, the top is by no means clear. 108.162.216.209 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I propose that we change it again, from (current text: "A depiction of length contraction, with two lines of the same length locally but different lengths as one is viewed in motion") to something like
*"A depiction of length contraction with two rulers in relative motion, or of several pendulums coupled by springs"*. Or mention the pendula idea first, I don't want to decide. Mrob27 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)- Though it's in panel before that one, there's the text "and then some" referencing going beyond what we currently know in a field - could it
*possibly*be that this is supposed to represent something we haven't derived yet? -- Brettpeirce (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

- Though it's in panel before that one, there's the text "and then some" referencing going beyond what we currently know in a field - could it

- I propose that we change it again, from (current text: "A depiction of length contraction, with two lines of the same length locally but different lengths as one is viewed in motion") to something like

- You are totally right, this one may always be pure speculation. Though I am pretty sure the bottom points are labeled w, the top is by no means clear. 108.162.216.209 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

- I imagined the labels were, top row: O', x', (2x)'; bottom row: O, x, 2x, Δv; or perhaps top row: Δx₁', Δx₂', Δx₃'; bottom row Δx₁, Δx₂, Δx₃, 0.7c. I don't think Randall put enough thought into those tiny squiggles for us to be able to use pixel-counting as a hint to which labels interpretation is more likely… but what of it? We can make up labels that fit any interpretation. I did say "Length contraction (Lorentz...)" was just

- That seems highly unlikely due to the top labels on this graph. In your explanation they can’t represent anything relevant. Also if this diagram is used to represent spatial contraction, it does not do a good job of it. 108.162.216.209 13:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like to point out that all three diagrams unify the theme of "working out the kinks in quantum mechanics and relativity": The first illustrates a region of the bell curve where a particle might occasionally fall if it is about to exhibit quantum tunneling; the second relates to perpetual motion, thus hinting at general questions like "does quantum mechanics or relativity allow us to violate the laws of thermodynamics in any way?", and the third is from special relativity. Mrob27 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Having studied (and knowing the fundamentals about what profile is needed to create a device that performs quantum tunneling) I have never seen this graph as a representation of this, and frankly it makes no sense. If this diagram was an energy band the hole or electron would have no need to tunnel to go up or down the energy band as it is a gradual slope. If a device had a profile like this, it would not result in a significant number of tunneling events, especially at the positions that are marked on the diagram. For this to occur there would need to be a peak between the two points, and the points would need to be at similar heights (energy levels). 108.162.216.209 13:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right: all we know is that it's a bell curve (normal distribution), and mentioning "tunneling" might make the reader think we were saying it is a potential function. I was reading a bit much into it. Why are there two vertical dotted lines at roughly +σ and +2σ? I thought they indicated a "range" as if the graph were illustrating some discussion of things that fall within that range. I also incorrectly remembered what the Epitaph of Stevinus was about, so thanks for the corrections :-) Mrob27 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think we could reasonably add that the function represents a probability distribution of a partial, therefore tying in the quantum aspects. with a minor explanation of the probibility of 1 and 2 sigma. 108.162.216.209 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

- Yes, you're right: all we know is that it's a bell curve (normal distribution), and mentioning "tunneling" might make the reader think we were saying it is a potential function. I was reading a bit much into it. Why are there two vertical dotted lines at roughly +σ and +2σ? I thought they indicated a "range" as if the graph were illustrating some discussion of things that fall within that range. I also incorrectly remembered what the Epitaph of Stevinus was about, so thanks for the corrections :-) Mrob27 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

- Having studied (and knowing the fundamentals about what profile is needed to create a device that performs quantum tunneling) I have never seen this graph as a representation of this, and frankly it makes no sense. If this diagram was an energy band the hole or electron would have no need to tunnel to go up or down the energy band as it is a gradual slope. If a device had a profile like this, it would not result in a significant number of tunneling events, especially at the positions that are marked on the diagram. For this to occur there would need to be a peak between the two points, and the points would need to be at similar heights (energy levels). 108.162.216.209 13:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The bigger picture that's missing on this explains it that this comic seems to suggest that Cueball is God, as in being stuck in Eternity who happened to build a simulated universe, which we all live in. Seeing how he addresses the reader "So if you see a mote of dust vanish from your vision in a little flash or something I'm sorry. I must have misplaced a rock sometime in the last few billions and billions of millennia." {{141.101.105.238 10:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)}}

- I understand that English might not be your first language, but please clarify. The explanation covers Cueball being godlike. How can we add something that is already covered? Do you require further detail? Are you disagreeing with this assessment? Are you considering this observation irrelevant as your summary for your first comment "added not about Cueball being God" seems to imply? If so why?108.162.216.209 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- nm. I blatantly overlooked the exisiting sentence in the explanation. i blame the layout of this page. inline text that spans the whole available screen width is not pleasant to read on large displays ;) ...as for my English... the confusion stems from my bad keyboard/typing. it was meant to read "added notE about Cueball" for instance, or "as in A being stuck". 141.101.105.233 08:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- you could shrink your window and display narrower lines of text(?) -- I guess it comes down to preference for masochism(?)... idunno. I think one of the most confusing parts of your question (and which may have contributed most to the ESL idea) is "missing on this explains it that...". Also, "as in being stuck" makes more sense than "as in a being stuck", though it seems you're suggesting otherwise (?) and I don't see any text mentioning added not(E) about Cueball) -- oh wait; is this a troll? -- Brettpeirce (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

- nm. I blatantly overlooked the exisiting sentence in the explanation. i blame the layout of this page. inline text that spans the whole available screen width is not pleasant to read on large displays ;) ...as for my English... the confusion stems from my bad keyboard/typing. it was meant to read "added notE about Cueball" for instance, or "as in A being stuck". 141.101.105.233 08:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Who or what is Nugui and why is it relivent.108.162.216.209 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

is randall not assuming that his universe (and by implication ours) is finite? if not, one iteration of the machine would still take infinite time. --141.101.98.201 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

- I think it's good enough to assume that the universe is finite, but really really huge. Hypothesizing that adding one particle to the model requires twice as many cells in the cellular automaton, that means that Cueball's cellular automata rows could be about 2^(10^80) cells long, allowing simulation of a physics system containing 10^80 particles. Of course, each planck-time would require 2^(10^80) steps of simulation in the CA. If 10^80 isn't big enough for you, then just make it 10^1000 or Graham's number, or anything finite. Mrob27 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Don't forget that Rule 110 has 000 -> 0. Cueball can just add columns on either side as his universe expands, consequently taking more and more time to compute steps as the number of columns increases. 108.162.216.42 (talk)
*(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

- Don't forget that Rule 110 has 000 -> 0. Cueball can just add columns on either side as his universe expands, consequently taking more and more time to compute steps as the number of columns increases. 108.162.216.42 (talk)

Did anyone notice that the binary numbers pointing to the particle are both 42? 108.162.241.16 19:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Just as a curiosity -- there is a somewhat similar concept in "Permutation City", a book by Greg Egan. 141.101.88.211 (talk) *(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

- And dust is probably a reference to Dust Theory: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/PERMUTATION/FAQ/FAQ.html 141.101.98.187 (talk)
*(please sign your comments with ~~~~)*

I don't understand how it's possible to simulate a universe this way. Assuming that quantum mechanics is correct, and some forms of particle decay are truly random, wouldn't it be impossible to simulate this with a purely deterministic system? KingSupernova (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

- The universe Cueball is simulating would have to conform to digital physics. I can't speak about the fine points of quantum mechanics, but observably random events in a simulated universe could be the result of a pseudorandom number generator with a very large state. Srimech (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)