explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2666: Universe Price Tiers

2023-02-03T22:28:52Z

Adeblanc: enlarged prior comment

We seem to be in Universe Standard, based on the cosmic speed limit
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 22:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Is the price per user (human)? Or payed by the "god" who runs the universe?
The interpretation would change quite a bit. If per user, some could travel fast while others would not see ads and could even be immortal.
If per universe, would the concept of ads disappear?
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 22:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
::The tree sound can't be a particular human's experience, and the speed limit seems intended to be per universe.

General comment, I think each line of the table should have a separate one-line or one-paragraph explanation, rather than squishing it into one column of a table which mostly reproduces the comic text. i.e. we don't need the table in the explanation, although it works fine in the transcript imo. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.71|172.69.62.71]] 23:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)edit: a word

"Yes, and he cheats" may be a reference to a quote from ''Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri''.
::I fully expected something like ''"Most gods throw dice, but Fate plays chess, and you don't find out 'til too late that he's been playing with two queens all along."'' (from ''Interesting Times'' by Terry Pratchett) [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 01:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::The SMAC quote is "Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded. - Chairman Sheng-ji Yang", from the Probability Mechanics tech. Also, the "God does not play dice" quote is stated during the Supercollider secret project movie. I doubt the comic is referencing any particular media here, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.5|172.69.22.5]] 02:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::Meanwhile, Stephen Hawking said "Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 16:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Under ''Number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin'', '64' is 2⁵ and may be making reference to the Nintendo 64 game system. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::And just for the record, 4096 is 2¹². [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]])
:::64 = 26 != 25 = 32. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.17|172.68.50.17]] 19:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:: Note that the philosophical question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin turns to have much more useful meaning if we realize that the question wasn't if 64 or 4096, but if it's a finite or infinite number, that is, if angels are subject to {{w|Pauli's exclusion principle}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::: I think the answer is [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8071704/characters/nm0000531 to be found elsewhere]. And it is a different power of 2! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
:::: Damn, now I want to see that scene again to see what the hell the gavotte is, LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 15:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
::::: Here is an [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQtUr7-wMYw extended version] (with uploader's additional soundtrack?), but it seems like the most demonstrative publically available clip at first glance. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.211|172.69.79.211]] 18:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:No. You can't use the 64 to try to inject a reference, 64 is too important and common a number, Nintendo and Randall simply got the number from the same place, being 2^6 (it's 6, not 5, 5 is 32. One to six is 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64). You need SOMETHING else to wonder if there's a question/reference. Like if the N64 had some game where angels dance on the head of a pin (or at least dancing angels). In which case it'd be a reference to that game. In the same way you could claim it's a reference to 64-bit versions of Windows, or about how iOS switched to requiring 64-bit apps and dropped support for 32-bit apps a couple of years ago, both of which are more recent and thus could be considered more likely. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 15:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:Not only are the numbers all powers of 2, they're all perfect squares as well. This might imply 2x2, 8x8, and 32x32 "resolution" on the universe, as in "how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin?" --[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is paying our subscription? How do we ensure we don't get demoted to lite?

Here, the sound of one hand clapping is pretty much "toop." Put your hand out flat fingers together, and no thumb involved, quickly make a fist. Toop. Edit I'm not making a fist. Im keeping the last joints straight and smacking my hand[[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.95|172.70.134.95]] 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
:But two hands each doing that (or slapping another bit of body) aren't "two hands clapping", but more like two hands ''clasping''/something-or-other-like-that.
:If you could bring your one hand to a sudden stop in mid-air ''as if'' hitting another hand, it might be closer, but there's no sudden stop possible like a contact-stop. Plus a full-fledged clap for maximum ovational volume involves cupped hands trapping a resonant volume of air between them, almost sealed (wet hands so positioned can be used to force a squeaky-fart sound out from between them), and neither an "air clap" or the toop-clasp can do anything so dramatic with a solo hand. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.154|141.101.99.154]] 17:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
: the sound can be more clap like if you bend your hand upwards and keep it like that. Then loosen your fingers, and smash your upward lower arm to the front and back. My one armed brother taught me. It's handy (hehe) if one hand is holding a drink. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.204|172.68.51.204]] 07:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "Bad things..." portion. ''If'' I was a bad person, then I would never pay for the universe, as I would be better off in the free version, where nothing bad would ever happen to me. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The "bad things" section is a bit bothersome: good things don't exist without bad things. Without bad things, good things are just...things. So maybe awareness of bad things is still extant in UniPro? That way, good things would still be at the upper end of a theoretical scale.

But the subjectivity of badness is concerning in a bad-things-don't-happen realm. I reckon plenty of people who could spring for fifty bucks a month would list rum, Katharine Hepburn movies, gay people and Jews as bad things that therefore won't happen. If I stump up my Pro subscription, do I have to share the universe with these douchebags, or do we each get our own? And if it's the latter, how much of a douche must you be to be excluded from my universe? Can we differ a little and still coexist, or do we have to gel perfectly? And how would that ever happen...and would it be tolerable to live surrounded by my opinion-clones? Is this...is this the too-perfect Matrix v.1.0? Am I buying a ticket to a simulated utopia while my body atrophies?
You monster! Guards! Guards! Let me out.....

[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.35|172.71.178.35]] 23:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that Universe Lite is marked as trademark, Universe Standard as a registered trademark, and Universe Pro as...BOTH. This is a joke; more is better, esp. in lists of features. But there's no point in claiming a mark is both a trademark and a registered trademark.

How to clap with one hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwoq3QBaQAY [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, then there is NO SOUND. The act of the tree falling will create vibrations in the air, but those vibrations only become 'sound' when they impact on a tympanic membrane (such as an eardrum) that is connected to a brain. Sound happens in your head, folks. Of course, in practice, the likelihood of a tree falling in an area that contains NO tympanic membranes at all is impossible given the abundance of miniature scaled life on Earth. That said, we have no idea whether insects actually perceive those air vibrations as 'sound' in the same way that humans do - the fairy fly, for example, is so small that it can 'swim' through air rather than flying, so probably perceives sound waves the same way that humans experience ocean waves.
[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 05:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
: <-----Pish-Posh. Sound happens regardless of aby tympanic membranes. Sound: noun 1. vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear. The definition is CAN be heard, not ARE heard. Sound vibrations cause MANY things to happen besides vibrating tympanic membranes, and it's STILL SOUND.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.60|172.70.100.60]] 11:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
::These two viewpoints are ''exactly'' why this is a point of philosophical discussion instead of a solved problem. [[User:Noëlle|Noëlle]] ([[User talk:Noëlle|talk]]) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes, it comes down to how one defines "sound". Is it a set of air vibrations with a certain set of characteristics, or is it someone's ''perception'' of such a set of vibrations? The question about the tree falling is indeterminate as stated because of the lack of that definition. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 21:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We should do a comparison of universe standard vs our universe see if that's what we're doing [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 08:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:...hang on, I already downloaded a crack to repatch the executables to get around the pesky copy protection/licence-key manager. The patcher utility says it might take some time, and I've had to give it superuser access to the entire system for some reason, so it might be a good idea to save your current session and let it do its job before messing about in the menus or we might find unexpected results! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 11:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:I looked in the leaked payment notes, and found that biblicalGod31, the current payer, refused to pay 2 geomagnetic reversals ago, so our subscription got demoted to standard. Looking in the End God License Agreement, it seems that next geomagnetic reversal we will be demoted to lite. (Sorry if I didn't do humor well). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.11|172.70.126.11]] 13:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
::I definitely want to see this movie/read this book now. Our heroes discover that the universe is in fact a simulation. Not a malevolent one like The Matrix, but a for-fun one like implied by this comic. The heroes come to realize that the entity playing the simulation is about to screw it up somehow (possibly by not paying the subscription fee), and they have to figure out how to break out of the simulation and convince the apathetic entity to care about the inhabitants of the universe and save it from annihilation or demotion to the free tier. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.65|172.70.178.65]] 15:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Meanwhile, the apathetic entity realizes that his universe is a simulation, so he has to figure out how to break out ... Hey, how many levels up does this go? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 06:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Except for the Cosmic Speed Limit - which I didn't know what speed this meant until the explanation - I found it quite clear THIS is UniverseLite! We ARE using it free. Bad things DO only seem to happen to good people. God DOES seem to play dice and cheat. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I seem to remember a recent Jeopardy episode referenced a question similar to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" (I think "What are angels?" was the correct answer but no one got it.) Could there be a connection between that and the mention of that question in this comic? [[User:Brian-K-1016|Brian-K-1016]] ([[User talk:Brian-K-1016|talk]]) 05:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In the Universe Pro Edition, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewill_(song) Freewill] comes with a signed 8x10 photo of your choice of Geddy, Alex, or Neil.

To extend an idea mentioned above by "Ragbrat",stating the number of angels that can occupy a volume implies they are fermionic. The fact that there are 6 types (choirs, ranks, species, whatever ...) of them hints at a possible symmetry similar to that found in quarks and leptons and raises the question whether angels might be elementary. That seems unlikely, though, since reports of observation of their interactions indicate a complexity difficult to imagine in an elementary particle. Odds are they are composite particles. There have been enough reports concerning angels to be confident that they are macroscopic. That, in turn, implies that their binding energy does not owe to strong, electromagnetic, weak, or gravitational interactions; they are bound tightly enough to retain an identity even in a fairly strong gravitational field - or to their being from another universe in which values of h and other fundamental constants are different from those in our own universe. Of course, they could also be composite, de-facto fermionic quasiparticles, in which what appears to be a particle is a process in equilibrium. People are quasiparticles of this kind, since it takes 1E-10 sec or so for an oxygen molecule to form a chemical bond to atoms which are clearly part of the body and a typical human body needs more than 2E10 oxygen atoms/sec in order to work. People are also effectively fermionic, although what actually holds their shape is an indirect expression of electrons' fermionic nature and electrical charge - electrons are in discrete states, which means how they repel other electrons depends on what state they're in. So maybe angels are some kind of people from another dimension or something.

Talk:2666: Universe Price Tiers

2023-02-03T22:15:42Z

Adeblanc: riffed on angels

We seem to be in Universe Standard, based on the cosmic speed limit
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 22:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Is the price per user (human)? Or payed by the "god" who runs the universe?
The interpretation would change quite a bit. If per user, some could travel fast while others would not see ads and could even be immortal.
If per universe, would the concept of ads disappear?
[[User:Victor|Victor]] ([[User talk:Victor|talk]]) 22:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
::The tree sound can't be a particular human's experience, and the speed limit seems intended to be per universe.

General comment, I think each line of the table should have a separate one-line or one-paragraph explanation, rather than squishing it into one column of a table which mostly reproduces the comic text. i.e. we don't need the table in the explanation, although it works fine in the transcript imo. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.71|172.69.62.71]] 23:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)edit: a word

"Yes, and he cheats" may be a reference to a quote from ''Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri''.
::I fully expected something like ''"Most gods throw dice, but Fate plays chess, and you don't find out 'til too late that he's been playing with two queens all along."'' (from ''Interesting Times'' by Terry Pratchett) [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 01:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::The SMAC quote is "Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded. - Chairman Sheng-ji Yang", from the Probability Mechanics tech. Also, the "God does not play dice" quote is stated during the Supercollider secret project movie. I doubt the comic is referencing any particular media here, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.5|172.69.22.5]] 02:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::Meanwhile, Stephen Hawking said "Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 16:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Under ''Number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin'', '64' is 2⁵ and may be making reference to the Nintendo 64 game system. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 01:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::And just for the record, 4096 is 2¹². [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]])
:::64 = 26 != 25 = 32. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.17|172.68.50.17]] 19:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:: Note that the philosophical question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin turns to have much more useful meaning if we realize that the question wasn't if 64 or 4096, but if it's a finite or infinite number, that is, if angels are subject to {{w|Pauli's exclusion principle}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
::: I think the answer is [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8071704/characters/nm0000531 to be found elsewhere]. And it is a different power of 2! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.147|172.70.162.147]] 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
:::: Damn, now I want to see that scene again to see what the hell the gavotte is, LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 15:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
::::: Here is an [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQtUr7-wMYw extended version] (with uploader's additional soundtrack?), but it seems like the most demonstrative publically available clip at first glance. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.211|172.69.79.211]] 18:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:No. You can't use the 64 to try to inject a reference, 64 is too important and common a number, Nintendo and Randall simply got the number from the same place, being 2^6 (it's 6, not 5, 5 is 32. One to six is 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64). You need SOMETHING else to wonder if there's a question/reference. Like if the N64 had some game where angels dance on the head of a pin (or at least dancing angels). In which case it'd be a reference to that game. In the same way you could claim it's a reference to 64-bit versions of Windows, or about how iOS switched to requiring 64-bit apps and dropped support for 32-bit apps a couple of years ago, both of which are more recent and thus could be considered more likely. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 15:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
:Not only are the numbers all powers of 2, they're all perfect squares as well. This might imply 2x2, 8x8, and 32x32 "resolution" on the universe, as in "how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin?" --[[User:Account|Account]] ([[User talk:Account|talk]]) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is paying our subscription? How do we ensure we don't get demoted to lite?

Here, the sound of one hand clapping is pretty much "toop." Put your hand out flat fingers together, and no thumb involved, quickly make a fist. Toop. Edit I'm not making a fist. Im keeping the last joints straight and smacking my hand[[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.95|172.70.134.95]] 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
:But two hands each doing that (or slapping another bit of body) aren't "two hands clapping", but more like two hands ''clasping''/something-or-other-like-that.
:If you could bring your one hand to a sudden stop in mid-air ''as if'' hitting another hand, it might be closer, but there's no sudden stop possible like a contact-stop. Plus a full-fledged clap for maximum ovational volume involves cupped hands trapping a resonant volume of air between them, almost sealed (wet hands so positioned can be used to force a squeaky-fart sound out from between them), and neither an "air clap" or the toop-clasp can do anything so dramatic with a solo hand. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.154|141.101.99.154]] 17:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
: the sound can be more clap like if you bend your hand upwards and keep it like that. Then loosen your fingers, and smash your upward lower arm to the front and back. My one armed brother taught me. It's handy (hehe) if one hand is holding a drink. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.204|172.68.51.204]] 07:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a problem with the "Bad things..." portion. ''If'' I was a bad person, then I would never pay for the universe, as I would be better off in the free version, where nothing bad would ever happen to me. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The "bad things" section is a bit bothersome: good things don't exist without bad things. Without bad things, good things are just...things. So maybe awareness of bad things is still extant in UniPro? That way, good things would still be at the upper end of a theoretical scale.

But the subjectivity of badness is concerning in a bad-things-don't-happen realm. I reckon plenty of people who could spring for fifty bucks a month would list rum, Katharine Hepburn movies, gay people and Jews as bad things that therefore won't happen. If I stump up my Pro subscription, do I have to share the universe with these douchebags, or do we each get our own? And if it's the latter, how much of a douche must you be to be excluded from my universe? Can we differ a little and still coexist, or do we have to gel perfectly? And how would that ever happen...and would it be tolerable to live surrounded by my opinion-clones? Is this...is this the too-perfect Matrix v.1.0? Am I buying a ticket to a simulated utopia while my body atrophies?
You monster! Guards! Guards! Let me out.....

[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.35|172.71.178.35]] 23:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that Universe Lite is marked as trademark, Universe Standard as a registered trademark, and Universe Pro as...BOTH. This is a joke; more is better, esp. in lists of features. But there's no point in claiming a mark is both a trademark and a registered trademark.

How to clap with one hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwoq3QBaQAY [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 04:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it, then there is NO SOUND. The act of the tree falling will create vibrations in the air, but those vibrations only become 'sound' when they impact on a tympanic membrane (such as an eardrum) that is connected to a brain. Sound happens in your head, folks. Of course, in practice, the likelihood of a tree falling in an area that contains NO tympanic membranes at all is impossible given the abundance of miniature scaled life on Earth. That said, we have no idea whether insects actually perceive those air vibrations as 'sound' in the same way that humans do - the fairy fly, for example, is so small that it can 'swim' through air rather than flying, so probably perceives sound waves the same way that humans experience ocean waves.
[[User:MarquisOfCarrabass|MarquisOfCarrabass]] ([[User talk:MarquisOfCarrabass|talk]]) 05:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
: <-----Pish-Posh. Sound happens regardless of aby tympanic membranes. Sound: noun 1. vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear. The definition is CAN be heard, not ARE heard. Sound vibrations cause MANY things to happen besides vibrating tympanic membranes, and it's STILL SOUND.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.60|172.70.100.60]] 11:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
::These two viewpoints are ''exactly'' why this is a point of philosophical discussion instead of a solved problem. [[User:Noëlle|Noëlle]] ([[User talk:Noëlle|talk]]) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes, it comes down to how one defines "sound". Is it a set of air vibrations with a certain set of characteristics, or is it someone's ''perception'' of such a set of vibrations? The question about the tree falling is indeterminate as stated because of the lack of that definition. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 21:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We should do a comparison of universe standard vs our universe see if that's what we're doing [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 08:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:...hang on, I already downloaded a crack to repatch the executables to get around the pesky copy protection/licence-key manager. The patcher utility says it might take some time, and I've had to give it superuser access to the entire system for some reason, so it might be a good idea to save your current session and let it do its job before messing about in the menus or we might find unexpected results! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.5|172.70.85.5]] 11:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:I looked in the leaked payment notes, and found that biblicalGod31, the current payer, refused to pay 2 geomagnetic reversals ago, so our subscription got demoted to standard. Looking in the End God License Agreement, it seems that next geomagnetic reversal we will be demoted to lite. (Sorry if I didn't do humor well). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.11|172.70.126.11]] 13:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
::I definitely want to see this movie/read this book now. Our heroes discover that the universe is in fact a simulation. Not a malevolent one like The Matrix, but a for-fun one like implied by this comic. The heroes come to realize that the entity playing the simulation is about to screw it up somehow (possibly by not paying the subscription fee), and they have to figure out how to break out of the simulation and convince the apathetic entity to care about the inhabitants of the universe and save it from annihilation or demotion to the free tier. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.65|172.70.178.65]] 15:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Meanwhile, the apathetic entity realizes that his universe is a simulation, so he has to figure out how to break out ... Hey, how many levels up does this go? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 06:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Except for the Cosmic Speed Limit - which I didn't know what speed this meant until the explanation - I found it quite clear THIS is UniverseLite! We ARE using it free. Bad things DO only seem to happen to good people. God DOES seem to play dice and cheat. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I seem to remember a recent Jeopardy episode referenced a question similar to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" (I think "What are angels?" was the correct answer but no one got it.) Could there be a connection between that and the mention of that question in this comic? [[User:Brian-K-1016|Brian-K-1016]] ([[User talk:Brian-K-1016|talk]]) 05:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

In the Universe Pro Edition, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freewill_(song) Freewill] comes with a signed 8x10 photo of your choice of Geddy, Alex, or Neil.

To extend an idea mentioned above by "Ragbrat",stating the number of angels that can occupy a volume implies they are fermionic. The fact that there are 6 types (choirs, ranks, species, whatever ...) of them hints at a possible symmetry similar to that found in quarks and leptons and raises the question whether angels might be elementary. That seems unlikely, though, since reports of observation of their interactions indicate a complexity difficult to imagine in an elementary particle. Odds are they are composite particles. There have been enough reports concerning angels to be confident that they are macroscopic. That, in turn, implies that their binding energy does not owe to strong, electromagnetic, weak, or gravitational interactions - or to their being from another universe in which values of h and other fundamental constants are different from those in our own universe.

Talk:2719: Hydrogen Isotopes

2023-02-02T14:57:15Z

Adeblanc: added description of bulk nuclear matter; suggested dark matter as central force

This shows as a 404 on xkcd.com but in my RSS feed i can see the comic
: Works for me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.9|172.69.34.9]] 02:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
::works for me now too but it didnt before
::: It works on m.xkcd.com and on the homepage of xckd, but the direct link gives me a 404. Various services such as the Wayback Machine show it as loading though. Could be a bad cache on some service. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.86|162.158.63.86]] 02:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Could someone add an explanation of Nydnonen? I don't get it and it's google proof [[Special:Contributions/172.71.210.209|172.71.210.209]] 05:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Benzodiakanine
: Nothing. Was hopeful about {{w|List of Greek and Latin roots in English/N}} but nope. Tried stemming on all the Wiktionaries too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.91|172.71.158.91]] 05:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
::Kudos to whomever figured it out, lol! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 08:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Seems someone already did. There are four N's in that word replacing three of the consonant in Hydrogen so there are now four Ns one for each of the four neutrons in Nydnonen. ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Are these to scale? I recently read that the Helium is smaller in terms of measured atomic radius than the Hydrogen. Possibly this is true of Deuterium as well? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.45|172.70.85.45]] 06:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:They are almost the same size but it depends on temperature: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.200800063 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.153|162.158.90.153]] 08:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
::Is the reason Helium is smaller not that there are double the positive charge which the electrons thus orbit in a lower orbit (I know this is not the correct in reality with the orbit). But if true then Deuterium would not have this effect as it is not the weight but the charge that changes the orbit. And Deuterium has the same charge as Hydrogen as does Tritium. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

::[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] is right, it is essentially the charge of the nucleus that determines orbital size, not its mass (which is always thousands of times larger than the mass of the electron). Nuclear mass has only very small effects on the electron orbitals. The most prominent effect probably would be that with a heavier nucleus, the center of mass of the atom would shift a little bit closer to the center of the nucleus (or, in other words, the reduced mass of the electron would increase a little bit), where the "little bit" is on the order of less than 10^-3. Other effects like nuclear size (distribution of the positive charge) or gravitation would be even much smaller. Note that the paper [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.200800063 cited above] does not deal with the size of atoms. Instead, it describes the effect of temperature on the molecular volume of benzene (C6H6) versus deuterated benzene (C6D6). This makes sense, since the apparent volume of a molecule depends on, among others, the amplitudes of intramolecular vibrations, which in turn depend on bond strength, mean energy (temperature), and atomic mass (hence the isotope effect). However, temperature does not affect the size of an atom. In fact, for a single atom, "temperature" has no meaning at all. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.201|162.158.86.201]] 13:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is "oops all neutrons" distinct from Neutronium, which is also all neutrons? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.131|172.70.100.131]] 07:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:Neutronium is ultra-dense and bound by gravity, with a minimum of about 1.2x1058 neutrons in a 40 kilometer diameter sphere. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.153|162.158.90.153]] 08:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
::Well actually a {{w|neutron star}} is only 10 km in radius (20 km in diameter) according to Wikipedia. And it is 1057 neutrons acording to this [https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/ryden.1/ast162_5/notes21.html lecture on Neutron Stars]. {{w|Neutronium}} was actually used as a name for neutrons without protons and suggested to be placed as number 0 on the periodical table. But is has also been used as a name for the matter in the center of neutron stars, but usually not in scientific papers! There it is called degenerate matter. The wiki article mentions how a single neutron decays to proton/electron/neutrino in 15 minutes. It also mentions that two neutrons could form for very short periods in nuclear decay. An then mentions that more than two neutrons together is not likely to exist. Specifically mentioning the three from Randall's Oops particle as not being stable for even the shortest of times. Of course a neutron would also not be able to orbit a group of neutrons. But even the three at the center is impossible. More neutrons together would be isotopes of number 0 element... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
::: My bad memory; thanks. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.38|172.71.154.38]] 05:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think "Maximum Strength" is a reference to medicines marketed as such - in particular brands of Ibuprofen "Maximum Strength Tablets". --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.132|172.69.79.132]] 14:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
: Yes - typically meaning that it contains far more of whatever its active ingredient is than is necessary to be efficacious.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.128|172.70.91.128]] 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Considering that Deuterium is derived from Greek and Tritium works in both Greek and Latin, wouldn't the correct name for ⁴H be Tetartium?
:Tetrium maybe? Tetraium? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.38|172.71.154.38]] 05:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it just me or have the recaptchas gotten much more difficult over the past week, to the point of ambiguous or indiscernibly blurred images and frequently rejecting correct responses (i.e. "please try again" in red)? Granted, I'm not saying this behavior makes it any less valid as a captcha, but it's a little surprising to always get several-step challenges lately. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.38|172.71.154.38]] 05:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
: Captchas are in a continual arms race with bot writers, and wax and wane in difficulty as new attacks and counter-measures are deployed. ReCAPTCHA occasionally becomes more lengthy when they refresh their image library; we may be experiencing that. It sure doesn't seem to be slowing down the creation of new phantom usernames -- does registration even have the captcha? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.159|172.71.154.159]] 07:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:: Firstly yes, and that might be the problem, because ReCAPCHA is still quite mild on other sites. Whomever is automating username registration here (which has been going on at least five years) may have fallen prey to a new countermeasure increasing their failure rate and making our site's angry. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.150|172.70.206.150]] 12:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::: As a habitual IP of long-standing, I had not had a reCAPTCHA for ''soooo'' long, I realised, when I suddenly had one the other day.
::: It didn't like my first and second answers (traffic lights and crosswalks? ...typical 'on this single image' ones with edge-conditions that I never know what it's fully asking for/used to getting as an answer, inclusive or not of the poles/backdrop surround to the actual lights, tiles with just a sliver of painted road shrface, etc) before passing me on an "of these images" (all with buses/tractors? ...better than the time when it had two tractors, but clearly had been trained by others that its traditional third item counted as a tractor even though I knew it was something like a road-building scraper/planer thing) which worked.
::: But, so far at least, that was the only one (set) I got. And I had noted mysterious 2+hour gaps in silly-name new account creations, at times (notable due to the gap between the new account history and the midnight cutoff/restart in the Recent Changes compilation) - it would be nice to imagine that they were being blocked more. Though I think an immediate account-creation failure probably redoubles their next effort to create an account of some kind. (It's only the failure to ''use'' the account, subsequently, that throttles back the obvious presence of such scripted interventions. Perhaps actually by spending time hammering the server but without any visible results as far as reaches my own limited awareness of server activity via the changelog.)
::: As described, it's an arms race. And while I know I don't hanker back to the days of ''every.'' ''single.'' ''post.'' requiring a reCAPTCHA (sequence) from me, that'd be much nicer than an unusable platform due to scriptspamming. Currently seems to be about right, IMO, especially with theusafBOT's handy high-speed autoreverts on those spams that are (somehow, by using a wetware processor?) momentarily getting through on Unreliable Connection and the others... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.156|172.71.242.156]] 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Re "ium": Shouldn't we try to keep the explanation short and to the point? This comic is about "isotopes", i.e. about different options of how to construct a single atom (or atom-like entity). IMO, there is no need to include many-body effects in a set of multiple electrons ([https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2719%3A_Hydrogen_Isotopes&type=revision&diff=303973&oldid=303971 "Fermi velocity"] or [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2719:_Hydrogen_Isotopes&oldid=304060 "electron degeneracy pressure"]); just as there is no need to discuss, say, the kinetic theory of gases made up of these isotopes, or how they would be able to form fluids or solids. It is good to see that people who contribute here know about these effects, but I think that the explanation does not benefit from extending the discussion too far beyond the subject of a given comic. If anything, it might be worthwhile to include a reference to {{w|ion trap|ion traps}} - especially since in a Penning trap electrons actually go in circulating orbits (although not exactly circular). --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.246.210|172.70.246.210]] 11:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
: Go for it. We all agree to have our "writing to be edited mercilessly" in the fine print just below the Summary. Editing on whims is good because if someone else liked something earlier they will just merge it back in somehow. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.150|172.70.206.150]] 12:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I love the administratium joke, but adding more jokes in the description seems antithetical to the purpose of this website :) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.107|172.70.100.107]] 21:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:+1, same here. But if the joke's too good to delete, it might be moved to the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Editor_FAQ#What_belongs_to_the_trivia_section.3F trivia section]. Also, a proper reference would be in order, as the joke's been around the web since [http://web.mit.edu/amgreene/athena/Humour/Science/administrium 1989] at least --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.28|162.158.87.28]] 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

One thing about this cartoon strikes me as impressive. "Hydrogen, maximum strength" is about 5-10 % protons. Bulk nuclear matter, which is what makes up most of the body of a neutron star, has a neutron/proton ratio between 10 and 20 (probably close to the higher value). Hydrogen (maximum strength) is what holds up a neutron star, and that qualifies as pretty strong in anybody's book. And, while on the topic, there is no such thing as "neutronium". The cores of neutron stars are covered by a "nilium ocean" of free neutrons - but that term applies to bulk properties of the ocean. Go to the microscopic picture, and its just free neutrons; it is not a substance in its own right.

A second point, if I may. An electron can orbit an empty place quite easily if you put it in a magnetic field - but there is another possibility. Dark matter exerts gravitational attraction on electrons. Given enough room, an electron will orbit dark matter. Perhaps "ium" should be called "darkium".

Talk:2062: Barnard's Star

2023-02-02T14:44:31Z

Adeblanc: added info. about Gliese 710 and clarified issue of red-dwarf lifetime

Uh . . . I'm pretty sure that stars don't talk. {{unsigned ip|172.68.58.113}}
: And [[1578|squirrels don't ring]]. This comic can be absurd sometimes. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.141.58|172.68.141.58]] 17:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{Citation needed}} --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.160|172.68.54.160]] 18:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
:Why are you so sure that stars don't talk? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.70|162.158.38.70]] 18:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
:I think it was a NOVA doco where they describe the inner workings of the sun and how hydrogen atoms, photons, plasma, and magnetic flux interact, and it sounded a heck of a lot like the function of neurons and signals in the brain. Maybe I was just high, but I got to thinking that, with photons from every star in the universe connecting to every other star, the stars are in constant communication with eachother in some sort of neural-like network with each star having it's own neural-like network complete with it's own sentient thoughts (albeit probably far outside the realm of our imagination). FORTY TWO! {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.27}}
:Obviously, stars, being in vacuum, don't talk in classic acoustic way. But they emit lot of light, which includes radio emissions ... and remember that properly encrypted signal is hard to recognize from random noise. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Stars can talk but usually don't. Maybe because they are under a lot of pressure ? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.45|141.101.69.45]] 08:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) BadJokeNinja

Am I'm the only one, who is reminded by the beginning "...AAAA" and the ending "EEEEEAAA..." to the [https://xkcd.com/417/ "The Man Who Fell Sideways" comic]?--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.20|162.158.94.20]] 12:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"a small Red dwarf has a lifespan of about a trillion years." A trillion years? Any source for this? The universe is around 14 billion years old. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)comicreader

:That doesn't mean it's that old now. It means it will last that long, which means it's a relative youngster at this stage of its life. I'm sure a trillion years is a very general estimate for its lifespan, which is highly dependent on its mass. As for the source of this estimate, it's probably well-sourced on Wikipedia that serves as the source of much of the explanation's current content. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
::And click the Wiki link for {{w|Red dwarf}} in the explanation. You will read: "...Red dwarfs therefore develop very slowly, maintaining a constant luminosity and spectral type for trillions of years, until their fuel is depleted. Because of the comparatively short age of the universe, no red dwarfs exist at advanced stages of evolution." --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Faster comunication than photons could be possible with plasma entanglement but I'm still skeptical as to whether or not stars are big giant sentient brains. Why is it traveling so fast I wonder... a remnant of some previous galactic merger?

Two points. First, a star called Gliese 710 will pass through the Solar System in about 1.3 million years. Predictions of how close it will come vary, but seem to cluster around 0.3 lighyears (ly) and 0.05 ly. Both estimates mean the star will pass through the Oort cloud. There is even a small chance it will pass just outside the Kuiper belt. This star is informally called "Uncle Jimbo's Star" because it's coming right at us. Second, your basic star-shaped star is an easy thing to study in detail and an easy thing to model. The sun has a radiative core; it cannot add fresh fuel. As a result, it burns up about 10% of its hydrogen and goes out. Barnard's star is convective throughout, so it constantly mixes fresh hydrogen into its core. As a result, Barnard's star will consume 50 - 80 % of its hydrogen before going out. The reacting masses of the Sun and Barnard's star are almost the same. Since the bolometric luminosity of Barnard's star is around 0.0035 that of the sun, it can reasonably be expected to last around 300 times longer - around 3 trillion years. That's a crude guess. More accurate models give an even longer life. Some of the really little ones will still be shining some 10 trillion years from now.