Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2014-02-20 17:11:28 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2014-02-21 00:08:21 +0000 UTC]

How've ya been?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-03 07:55:44 +0000 UTC]

Hey! Thanks for the birthday wishes sorry for the long response delay, I'm rarely on here. I'm doing good, hope everything's been going well with you since graduation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-04 07:50:28 +0000 UTC]

It's been pretty alright. Been accepted to UF, awaiting responses from UW and Johns Hopkins, and rejected everywhere else I applied. So it goes. Actually just got back from touring Gainesville since I haven't been in awhile and my last impression was incomplete, so to speak.

How've you been?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-04 20:36:42 +0000 UTC]

UF, nice! Well, I hope you like wherever you end up.
I've been good, very busy though. I'm still going to school in Florida, enjoying grad school and teaching a few introduction to mechanical engineering and aerospace practicum labs which is a lot of fun.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-05 03:08:20 +0000 UTC]

Ah, good for you. Are you still going to FL Tech or did you move over to UCF or Embry Riddle or something?
Also, do you have any tips for teaching labs? I dunno if UF will give me a research fellowship or a TA position, but if I wind up with a TA position, anything would help. I'm not great with public speaking.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-05 04:08:39 +0000 UTC]

Same school as before. They gave me a full ride for grad school.
I guess, for TAing, I'd say to remember that the people your talking to aren't just random people off the street. They're similar enough to you to have picked the same major as you, and probably have a lot of other things in common with you, similar mindsets in many cases. In another setting they might have been your colleagues and friends, people you'd want to hang out with. So don't feel too pressured, instead take the opportunity to build off of those common interests and get them excited about what you have to teach them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-05 04:37:21 +0000 UTC]

So maybe...approach them like younger siblings, but in a platonic sort of way?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-05 05:27:01 +0000 UTC]

Well, while they are younger than you, and you are teaching them... it's not a good idea to immediately categorize them as "junior" to you, especially intellectually. You just happen to know more about that particular topic that you're teaching, then them. But they'll know more than you about other things, and would be perfectly qualified to be your teacher in some other subject. Just treat them with respect, don't take yourself too seriously, maintain a good rapport to the best of your ability, and have fun! Take advantage of the opportunity given to you, to get them excited about the subject you're teaching them, and they'll appreciate you for it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-05 10:36:07 +0000 UTC]

Huh...I didn't realize the hierarchy was that fluid.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-06 04:53:05 +0000 UTC]

For the most part it is. But of course, every student is different. For example if you teach freshmen in their first semester, some of them will be scared and homesick never having been on their own away from family before, causing them to act out. Other's will still have the class clown mentality they had in high school, be immature, etc. While in later semesters, the students are a little more comfortable with college, and consequently more jaded. It's a mixed bag. But for the most part, people like learning things if you make it interesting, and then that's what they'll focus on in class and you won't have to worry about anything else.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-06 06:12:21 +0000 UTC]

So what do you do to make it interesting? Be humorous? Draw good diagrams? Do demos?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-06 07:55:21 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, just make a good effort of it basically. Humor, clarity, cool YouTube video demos are all good things. What I like to do is start out with a speech about a real life practical use of the skill I'm about to teach them, since generally students hate abstract concepts without a purpose. For example I could teach them matrix multiplication, and then they'd know matrix multiplication and have no idea when it's supposed to be used, and probably be pretty bored, maybe bored enough to forget it as soon as they leave my class. Or I can teach them how to find out how fast planes fly by solving a couple equations in a matrix. They're much more interested in the plane's speed which holds their interest, and yet they've still learned the same math.

Another thing I like to do is show them the "ironman" version of everything before I start the lesson. What I mean by that is, if I'm teaching them a topic, I show them the exciting glorified version first to get them paying attention, and tie that in throughout the lecture. That way, they want to learn it, rather than feeling like it's just a chore to learn it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-08 00:10:14 +0000 UTC]

When you say the exciting glorified version of the topic, do you mean how it appears in popular media or how it shows up in the latest news/research?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-08 01:48:09 +0000 UTC]

That and anything else. There isn't some topic limit. For example, if I'm introducing them to the material sciences, I might talk a bit about space elevators because I know they'll be interested, and for an engineer that topic is exceptionally relevant on many levels. I could bring up a science news article I just read, or Jules Verne. Just as long as it keeps them learning and interested.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-08 02:21:05 +0000 UTC]

*taking notes*
Really appreciate the advice, dude.
Hey, have you seen this? [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-08 02:39:54 +0000 UTC]

Hahaha no problem, It's not like I'm some expert though, I'm just having fun with it.
Oh yeah totally, when I first read about the decay of the false vacuum back in high school it got me thinking that if we could somehow harness it, such a propagation of forces could potentially create exotic enough environments (locally if we're controlling it properly), and that might produce never before imagined materials and elements that just couldn't have existed before. Very very cool stuff.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-08 02:46:49 +0000 UTC]

I just like how this explanation simultaneously makes for a plausible end-of-universe scenario and a plausible source of the Big Bang that would also resolve the homogeneity problem without needing to invoke inflationary theory. It ties the beginning and end of time into a nice neat little bow that makes a great case for the cyclic universe model.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-08 03:27:01 +0000 UTC]

I'm not exactly sure where it ties in as a plausible source of the big bang... But I get that knowing the energy state of our vacuum and the curvature of the space around it can help us determine the rate of expansion for the universe, and that the decay of that vacuum can change our view of space from de Sitter space to anti de sitter space because of the drop in energy of the vacuum, which could mean a hyperbolic space time with a negative energy density and therefore a cyclic universe (we'd get a big crunch). But I don't think it tells us anything about how the cycles are punctuated, just that they happen. Pretty cool nonetheless though, too bad it adds another point of complete destruction to everything in the universe in addition to the big crunch.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-08 03:50:35 +0000 UTC]

I guess it wasn't in this article, but I looked up more in-depth coverage on it, and in at least one of the other articles, it explained that the vacuum instability that would wipe out our universe simultaneously creates another universe inside the universe it's destroying. Depending on what, if anything, exists external to our universe, there maybe nowhere left for the dying universe to go except to sort of blow itself inside-out into the new universe.
I could've read it wrong, of course, but that was how I interpreted it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-08 04:15:56 +0000 UTC]

Ah, I see. The prevailing thinking that I'm aware of is that the decay of the vacuum would cause a destruction of the universe's structures (atoms, molecules, etc.), not the universe itself. The new vacuum state that comes after this would allow for all sorts of new structures to reform. What I really think is crazy is that they think that this process occurs through the phenomenon of bubble nucleation, sooo.. depending on the homogeneity of the universe, the decay of the vacuum could have already happened somewhere else and at this very moment a wave of some giant nucleating decay phenomenon could be traveling at us at the speed of light, and we'd have no way of knowing until the instant we're disintegrated! Of course, I'd like to think that the universe is more on the homogeneous side and so that hasn't happened yet haha

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-08 04:34:40 +0000 UTC]

Maybe the Big Bang was a new vacuum state sweeping through the universe and the previous vacuum state was either contracting or steady in volume.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-08 05:11:44 +0000 UTC]

I doubt it very much, the two are completely distinct from each other. A vacuum decay, is a decay in energy from a higher energy state to a lower energy state that occurs in a volume of space. It changes which particles and forces can exist in that volume, but the entropy of that energy is conserved. The lowest state in the volume is always called "the vacuum", although it is only a true vacuum if it is at the lowest possible state after all of the decays. So If I wanted to find the space with the lowest amount of energy, I would go to the "vacuum" of space.

Directly after the big bang, the universe had several false vacuum states (at very high energies compared to our current vacuum). And as the universe expanded in size and increased in entropy, the vacuum states lowered in a variety of decays which we call "phase transitions". What happened after baryogenesis would be a good example of this, or better yet: the symmetry breaking phase transitions which occurred around 10^−20ish seconds after the big bang.

So, a vacuum decay is not really related to the creation or destruction of space itself. And saying that the big bang was a new vacuum state is implying that there was previously the same space at a higher energy level that caused it, but since space did not exist before the big bang (which created space), that can't be right.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-08 07:22:34 +0000 UTC]

OK, I see what you mean by a vacuum requiring a space to exist in, but how do we know for sure there was no space before the big bang? All we know for sure is that there was a point at the beginning of our particular universe in which the universe occupied an infinitesimally small volume, but who's to say whether or not it collapsed to that state from some previous macroscopic state? After all, the objects that form black holes have infinitesimal volume, but they, like the universe insofar as we can observe, have a finite mass and finite energy. And their progenitors were macroscopic objects. We know the Big Bang was a singularity in spacetime but that doesn't mean there was nothing before it. If further observations lead cosmologists to conclude there was no "inflationary epoch" (not likely for the time being but still possible as it is kind of an empirical, ad hoc solution), we'll have to fall back on the possibility that the universe existed in its infinitesimal size for a finite time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-08 21:08:26 +0000 UTC]

Oh btw, you should totally listen to this if you like these sorts of topics, it's my favorite short story:

[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-11 04:53:36 +0000 UTC]

It's so poetic I almost cried at the end. I mean literally, the end made me so happy and encouraged that my eyeballs got hot.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-11 04:03:16 +0000 UTC]

Downloaded it!
Also, you'll probably enjoy this, unless sent it to you already: [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2013-03-08 20:45:25 +0000 UTC]

That's fine to say that before the big bang there was still some space in our universe, we can't really say for sure anyway. But that logic brings about an infinite recursion in which we never ask the real question we were trying to address by the big bang theory in the first place: what created space and time in our universe? A slightly smaller and slightly higher energy space... well then what created that space? and so on and so forth.

If you say a black hole created the big bang, then I assume you mean a black hole in another universe. In which case that's not a "new vacuum state sweeping though the universe", it requires the universe to pass through a singularity from another universe.

Or if you say that we have a cyclic universe where no singularity is involved, where it bounces from a small space to a big space and back again, you still need some other mechanism besides vacuum decay to explain the restoration of energies.

Or even if a space-time tunneling event similar to vacuum decay created our universe, it would have had to originate from a region in another universe, or again, we'd get infinite recursion within our universe saying that there was always a space in our universe with a higher energy level: That our universe never had a beginning, because it's always been decreasing in energy. That doesn't make sense, or answer anything.

So as for postulating a mechanism for the creation of space and time in any universe, I'd say one that does not require an infinite recursion (like a vacuum decay mechanism implies) is more likely. Which is pretty exciting if you think about it, because then we can have things like multiverses, or even closed cyclic universes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2013-03-11 04:00:54 +0000 UTC]

Well, here's another possibility with recurring universes that makes since if you consider the nature of our universe as a whole is chaotic: recursion may still occur, if only for a limited number of cycles, if there is a multiverse and they are all chaotic. Of course, this is just supposition and dependent on having at least some physical laws of our universe hold beyond its bounds.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Algorithmic In reply to porkyXI [2012-05-08 15:44:02 +0000 UTC]

Thanks! Yeah it was great, keep up the good work!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2012-02-23 22:25:01 +0000 UTC]

Thanks, same to you! Man I haven't been on here in forever, looking around is making me want to make something.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsterHyakinthou In reply to Algorithmic [2012-02-23 23:22:16 +0000 UTC]

BTW, found the Troy's page too. [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Algorithmic In reply to AsterHyakinthou [2012-02-23 23:44:01 +0000 UTC]

Aha cool, I'm so bad at remembering names...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0