29. September 2021
21. September 2021
Do you remember the geek code in the 90s? It encoded how geeky you were and your thoughts about geeky topics.
I am a physicist and I want a ScienceCode that tells in short what I think about various science, physics and cosmological theories.
My ScienceCode is:
bb+/un ci0 eu+ dm+/sn de- mv/rp sm+ ss- st- lqg+ gr+ sr++ gut- fp++/gf sh0
What is your ScienceCode?
We are starting with a format that is a bit more regular than the original Geek Code. Roughly:
[ theory rating [ "/" modifier ] ]+
rating: "--" | "-" | "0" | "+" | "++"
bb--: Never Happened. There was nothing resembling a Big Bang like starting point.
bb-: No Big Bang, maybe close, but no singularity.
bb0: I am not sure if there was a Big Bang. Things could be completely different. Maybe it only appears like there was a start.
bb+: I think there was one. Maybe more, but our universe began with a singularity.
bb++: There was a Big Bang almost 14 billion years ago starting with a singularity. After that the laws of nature unfolded.
bb++/1: There was a Big Bang and only one. No cycles, no big crunch, no bounce, no conformal transformation.
bb--/ss: No Big Bang, because the universe is in a steady state.
bb-/cc: Conformal cyclic cosmology has a state that almost looks like a singularity for the new phase.
bb+/un: Universe from nothing. Happens "all the time" if you wait "long enough" in a non-universe without time.
ci--: There was no initial inflation. Maybe even no Big Bang. All made up. Just one theory constructed after the data to fit the data, without another independent proof.
ci-: Probably no initial inflation. It is just not necessary in order to generate the measured homogeneity in the microwave background. Also, the large-scale homogeneity of the current structure of the universe is in question.
ci0: I don't know if there was an initial inflationary phase. There could be other explanations for the structure of the microwave background. I think we're still figuring that out
ci+: There probably was an initial inflationary phase resulting in the homogeneity we see in the microwave background and the current large-scale structure.
ci++: For sure there was inflation after the Big Bang. That's what explains the observational data.
eu--: The universe is not expanding. It is infinite, static. What would it expand into? Also: science does not agree on the expansion rate.
eu-: The universe is not expanding. May be tired light, may be another effect that only shows on a very large-scale.
eu0: The jury is still out on continued expansion. It might just look like expansion. Sure, far galaxies are increasingly red. But that's so far away that even a small yet unknown effect might accumulate to let it look like redshift. We don't know enough.
eu+: Looks like the universe is expanding. Also, the expansion is faster for galaxies farther out.
eu++: The universe expands at an accelerating rate. That's what the data show. There is a Nobel price for that (a universe can be from nothing but not a Nobel price)
dm--: Not necessary to explain the observations. Conclusions are misled by observation bias and by the desire to find "classical" answers. Sure, there are measurements, but they will be disproven or explained one at a time without dark matter.
dm-: Something, just not matter. No particle, no heaps of frozen energy. There is an effect but it does not result from something in our universe, maybe not even from inside our universe. Should not be called dark gravity or not even "dark", just unexplained large-scale gravitic effects.
dm0: Could be anything: modifications to gravitational theories, yet unmeasurable discrepancies in electromagnetic forces, shadow gravity from other universes. Or it might be a yet undiscovered not event theorized particle. Impossible to tell as long as the standard model is not the last word.
dm+: Dark matter explains all the data better than any other theory, so I'd say 50:50 that there is stuff in our universe.
dm++: There is dark matter, because it explains so many different observations. I also have a preferred theory on what it is made of. We just need more time to prove it.
dm++/ax: with axions
dm++/w: with WIMPs
dm++/bh: with black holes, tiny ones, and/or primordial or big ones.
dm++/sn: with sterile neutrinos
de-: Nope, no dark energy, because there is no explanation required. Even if it were, dark energy is a big gun. Any measurement can be explained with the properties "dominating the universe", "ubiquitous", "unknown".
de-: Some measurements look like there is a need for a driving force that might even increase. Unfortunately, it has been called dark energy which is an even worse term than dark matter. There are no doubts about the measurements, but about their interpretation and about some assumptions that went into the calculations.
de0: I am not sure if there is the need for dark matter. That's not even a theory yet. "Fills the universe uniformly" sounds like a modern Aether, the medium where EM-waves used to propagate. It might evaporate like its predecessor.
de+: Something causes the universe to expand, and it is not the momentum from the Big Bang.
de++: A field that uniformly fills the universe. Universe grows, so its power grows, hence accelerated expansion. As simple as that. You are the 4%.
Standard Model of Particle Physics
sm--: The Standard Model is wrong. The interpretation of probability amplitudes is unclear. The theory is too complex, has too many parameters, is not unified with gravity, not even close. Also, there are experiments with statistically significant measurements that clearly show something is missing. It barely covers 4% of the universe. We need a new theory.
sm-: The Standard Model works for everyday purposes just like Newton without Einstein: usually delivers the right numbers, but that does not make it the truth. The truth is very different and not yet known. May be strings or any supersymmetry, may be a holographic theory or something we do not yet grasp.
sm0: The current Standard Model is just the current model. It is workable, but there have been many "standard" models. It is a set of equations that mostly return the numbers we find in experiments. The equations may be almost right or totally off. I don't care as long as they work. Future generations may develop totally different models.
sm+: The Standard Model works very well. There might be small corrections necessary. But for all practical purposes now and in the foreseeable future the Standard Model (and General Relativity) is all we need. Even if there are measurements significantly above reasonable doubt which are not covered by the Standard Model, they will never lead to new physics that changes anything in our lives.
sm++: Nature is not a collection of formulas. It just is. If we really want to cover nature by mathematics, then the formulas we call Standard Model are the best we can get. We won't come closer to the truth. The symbols in the Standard Model are good models for the particles and forces at play.
ss--: Definitely not Supersymmetry. Too much new stuff for too little gain. None of the extra particles materialized. Complete failure. We need something else.
ss-: Hardly Supersymmetry. Claiming that 50 % of all required particles have already been found sounds like a win, but it does not solve the problem of the missing supersymmetric partners. Unlikely, but not impossible, though.
ss0: May be Supersymmetry. Difficult to tell without any experimental confirmation.
ss+: It's probably Supersymmetry. But it is difficult to choose which one. Looks kind of arbitrary.
ss++: Supersymmetry it is. The future will tell which version exactly. Everything will fall into place.
st--: Vibrating non-entities is nonsense. You are not even allowed to ask what vibrates. Also, too many extra dimensions necessary. Nice try, but that is not how nature works.
st-: Probably not. String Theory is not even complete. Too many open questions and some answers are problematic.
st0: Could be true. Elegant approach, but too incomplete (yet?). Reproducing the observed spectrum of elementary particles needs arbitrary parameters. Unclear if they are emergent or if it is just another theory with a parameter set that is larger than desired.
st+: String Theory unifies the forces, produces dark matter and even has inflation. Needs more research, but the direction is clear.
st++: All particles are just oscillation modes of strings. Period. Problem solved.
st++/26: Bosonic string theory, 26-dimensions
st++/10: Superstring theory
Loop Quantum Gravity
lqg--: Spacetime is continuous on small scales. It is neither quantized, nor foamy.
lqg-: Kind of pointless. A theory that has no measurable effect is useless. It is not even a scientific theory, because that needs a model and fitting data.
lqg0: Undecided. Could be true or not. I don't care because it will never affect the real world.
lqg+: Space is quantized and spacetime fluctuates on the Planck length. There is just no way to prove it or use it.
lqg++: Loop Quantum Gravity merges quantum mechanics and general relativity. Experimentalists will find ways to show it.
mv--: There is only one universe: ours.
mv-: Practically there is no multiverse. Our universe seems to be much larger than our observable universe. We cannot even decide if our universe is infinite or just very large. Anything beyond our light cone should be beyond consideration.
mv0: Impossible to tell. Our universe may be part of a multiverse. But we will never know.
mv+: There are many universes. Very many, but the number would be countable if anyone could count. They might induce each other. They might follow after each other sequentially. Black holes might spawn new universes. Our universe might be the inside of a black hole. Or maybe universes are branes and a Big Bang happens when 2 universes collide in the higher dimensional multiverse.
mv++: There is a (practically or literally) infinite number of universes popping in an out of existence in the multiverse. Ours is just one of them that allows for life to emerge.
mv++/rp: Many with any combination of parameters. Some bear life, many do not, but who can tell what "some" and "many" mean with respect to an infinite number.
gr--: General Relativity only seems to work. It is made to fit the data. Actually, the universe is driven by other forces. Gravity is so weak compared to other forces that even unmeasurable discrepancies or imbalances in the other three would completely dominate the universe. This is much more probable.
gr-: General Relativity is an approximation. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, we are getting closer to the truth. But it is not the end of the road.
gr0: Just one theory. A good one, but it could be the wrong model. Imagine there are 2 models. Both returning the same numbers in the value ranges we are used to. But their interpretation is completely different. Both cannot be true. Yet we know only one such theory. We cannot compare. And because General Relativity works so well in practice, we are convinced that there is a 4-dimensional spacetime that is warped by matter and in turn creates geodesics for said matter. Even though General Relativity works, this may be the wrong picture. Just saying.
gr+: General Relativity works really well. But it is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics as we know it. There will be a theory that harmonizes probabilities of Quantum Mechanics with determinism of General Relativity.
gr++: General Relativity is all we need to understand the interaction of matter, energy, and spacetime.
sr--: FTL is possible. Tachyons are real. Special Relativity is an oppressive pseudo theory.
sr-: Quantum entanglement might be usable for communication in the future. An Alcubierre-like drive might move spacetime with less requirements than currently theorized and without being suppressed (I am talking to you, firewall).
sr0: There may be more elaborate theories in the future. Maybe a grand unified theory has loopholes for paths beyond Special Relativity.
sr+: Special Relativity doubtless works. Though we might find limited ways to work around it. Maybe causality is not "that badly violated" for purely inactive observers.
sr++: The fact is: c is the limit. Not just for speed, but also for effects. No FTL travel, no time machines. Any theoretically possible path that seems to circumvent Special Relativity is practically forbidden by infinitesimal probabilities, by firewalls, by event horizons. No chance.
Grand Unified Theory, Existence of
gut--: The three fundamental forces of the Standard Model plus General Relativity is all there is. Gravity is an effect of warped spacetime. It is an effective force, but not a fundamental one. There is no such thing as a spin 2 graviton (for that matter :-). No particle mediated force, no gauge theory, nothing to unify. Period.
gut-: A unified theory does not have to be a gauge theory, not even a field theory. Maybe the field theory thing is wrong. Maybe the standard model is wrong. Maybe String Theory is right. Maybe Richard Feynman made computations easy and erected a smoke screen at the same time. It needs a new way of thinking. For sure there is a theory that harmonizes quantum and relativity, because they do co-exist in this universe. So, there must be a way to unify them. But it is not the GUT you expect.
gut0: Not sure if we will ever get there. The ways of the universe might be above us mere humans, even if we let our best specimen work on it.
gut+: It takes longer than physicists thought, but sometime in the future the fundamental forces will be unified by a new theory, a new way to see the universe.
gut++: There is a unifying theory, and its name is X.
fp--: Not a paradox. There are no aliens.
fp-: Irrelevant until the aliens land
fp0: Many intelligent people talk about it, so it seems to be a thing. I don't know if we'll ever know and if we should care. Fun exercise, though.
fp+: Interesting question. I wonder what the solution is. We'll find out.
fp++: It looks like a paradox, but that's only because of our limited knowledge. It has a solution, and the solution has serious implications for humanity.
fp++/gf: The solution to the paradox is great filters in general
fp++/re: No aliens because of rare earth.
fp++/ri: No aliens because of rare intelligence that is detectable.
fp++/zoo: We live in a galactic zoo.
sh--: This is the real world.
sh-: There is no indication. I don't believe that we are living in a simulation. That would be weird.
sh0: Undecided and not interested. If this is a simulation, then it's a good one. It definitely looks like the real world, so I treat it like that. Knowing this would not change anything.
sh+: That could well be. The probability argument is very much in favor of this being a simulation. Also, the delayed-choice quantum eraser is a hint that the simulation fixes things after the fact if any simulated consciousness looks at the result. This is - in turn - a hint that consciousness is not emergent, but really special, because it gets extra treatment by the simulator. Which - again in turn - is an argument for a simulation. Furthermore, quantum entanglement works exactly as it would if the entangled particles were not really separated in space because they are all simulated. There is no spatial separation for the simulator, hence it is easy to update both states at once.
sh++: This is a simulation.
sh++/n: We are at the n-th level.
10. April 2021
We take privacy seriously.
[...long text with markdown...]
10. Februar 2020
Let me explain:
17. Januar 2020
Beim Berlin Sci-Fi Filmfest hatte ich einen schönen Galactic Developments Stand. Das Berlin Sci-Fi Filmfest ist pure SciFi ohne kein Fantasy. Deshalb viele viele SF interessierte und immer was los. 2 Tage je 12 h von 12 h bis 24 h. Ein neues customisables Rollup und 2 schöne Lego-Raumschiffmodell. Das sind echt Publikumsmagneten.
13. März 2019
In short: EU article 50 is a timer. It can be cancelled and restarted any time. Just like the programming timers we know. So, the solution is exactly what we do in programming: cancel and restart.
On 4 December 2018, the responsible Advocate General to the ECJ published his preliminary opinion that "a country could unilaterally cancel its withdrawal from the EU should it wish to do so, by simple notice, prior to actual departure".
Meaning, that the UK can cancel Brexit any time. But the UK can also restart Brexit at any time again. There are no time limits, no grace periods, no rate limiting on article 50 cancelling and triggering.
That makes the solution obvious: send two letters to the EU back to back.
- the first with the cancellation of the article 50 process,
- the second with a new trigger of article 50.
The result would be (almost) the same as the already planned 2 year transition period. The March 2019 date is only the legal departure date. for all practical purposes, the UK leaves 2 years later after the transition period (December 2020). Let's get rid of the transition period and call it a second article 50 process, another two years. Practical separation would then be March 2021, only 3 months later than already planned.
Just make a law in parliament to cancel article 50 AND trigger it immediately again.
Gives you time for a referendum or a general election or just a good transition period. Anything you want. Gives you time and changes nothing. The move just gets rid of the threatening no-deal timer.
Bonus: an extension of article 50 requires the agreement of all EU members. But the cancel/restart-move can be done by the UK alone.
Bonus Bonus: 2 years transition is what the Brits wanted, but the EU wanted a clean end of year date. So they settled for 21 months. A simple timer reset makes that 24 months again. Owned!
The ECJ handed this solution to the UK. They know what they do. This was not an accident. They mean it. That's the way out. Just do what every programmer does with timers: reset.
PS: it's clearly an exploit and a bit shady. But it's legal. The contract is not meant to be used this way. But many contracts are "stretched". What happened to "no bailout" in the Euro zone? Giving Greece money to be (maybe) payed back in 50 years, is a stretch. What happened to the "prohibition of monetary financing"? Ah, yes, The ECB buys government bonds not directly from he governments, but from the "secondary markets". The ECB so much that the "intermediate" banks are actually straw men, being paid to circumvent Article 123. Another stretch. So, contracts are stretched, if deemed necessary. All we have, unfortunately, is the written word. The written words allow it AND it's necessary.
PPS: If people ever wanted to make exploit proof contracts and laws, then they could ask the gaming industry for advice. They have thousands of specialists who make a living by preventing the exploitation of coded rules. If computer games as an example are too low for you, then ask IT security experts or turn to academics in the field of game theory, the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction between rational decision-makers.
PPPS: In the long run: if you can do it twice, then think n+1. We can do this every other year. Maybe the UK and EU get used to it. Gives the UK a feeling of independence. And that's what it's all about, anyway. Every two years, UK activates article 50 and cancels it two years later. In practice: every other year, Brussels receives a briefcase with 2 letters from London. Could be a nice tradition in the long run. A typically British exception from EU rules.
28. Februar 2019
|Superboys: Edict-Abhilekh on Pixabay|
In der realen Welt brauchen wir mehr Rollen, als die bekannten Rollen im Scrum: Scrum Master, Product Owner und Entwicklerin.
Außerdem gibt's da noch:
- Tester, die Test-Ingenieure sein sollten, nicht Durchklicker, sondern Integration-Test-Entwickler und Test-System Managerinnen,
- Admins, früher Operator, jetzt Devops, also Devs mit Leidenschaft für Betrieb,
- Systemarchitektinnen, die sich oft aus den Entwicklern rekrutieren und auf jeden Fall aktiv in den Entwicklungsteam sein sollten, vielleicht organisiert in Communities of Practice, aka Chapters,
- UX-Designer, ständig ein bisschen gebraucht, denn bei jedem Feature mit Business-Value für Benutzerinnen ist UX wichtig,
- Visual-Designer, soll ja auch gut aussehen, oft zwischen mehreren Teams geteilt oder sogar extern bei einer Agentur oder beim Auftraggeber. Burst-artige Arbeitslast und deshalb immer in der Gefahr, die Entwicklung aufzuhalten.
- Produkt Managerin, die auch gewillt ist mit dem Agile-Team ins Eingemachte zu gehen und zusammen was umzusetzen. Phantastisch, wenn sie nicht aufhört bei Marktpotential/Marktbeobachtung und Anforderungen, sondern selbst die User Stories scheibt.
- Marketing, Vertrieb, Controlling, Management… sind auch nötig, damit was geht, schon klar.
- Frontend und Backend, jeweils mit ihren aktuellen (und schnell wechselnden) Frameworks,
- Unit Tests ohne Zeit-Overhead während des Codings "einfließen" zu lassen,
- Integration-Tests und GUI-Tests aufzusetzen und up-to date zu halten während sich UX Workflows ändern,
- Beherrschung von Continuous Integration/Deployment Systemen,
- Container und Orchestrierung,
- Virtuose Bedienung von Code Repositories für Quellcode, Pakete, Container (Stichworte: GitFlow, nuget/PEAR, Dockerhub). Nicht nur benutzen, sondern auch bereitstellen, intern und extern.
- Code Reviews und Refactoring
- Kenntnis und Benutzung von Monitoring-Systemen für Alarm, Dashboard und KPIs,
- Clean Code, Design Patterns, Entwicklungsumgebungen und deren Extensions,
- Security (in Code, Libraries aus Repos?, Operating),
- Skalierung (Up and Out)
- Konfiguration der APIs und GUIs diverser Cloud-Anbieter und Meta-Cloud-Services,
Superpower #1: Agile-Coach mit agiler Technologie
Superpower #2: Product Owner mit UX-Design
...und weil wir schon dabei sind. Das wäre auch toll:
Superpower #3: Visual-Designer mit Frontend-Programmierung
Superpower #4: Entwicklungsleiter mit Technik-Coach für Product Owner