Log in

No account? Create an account
current entries friends' entries archives about me Previous Previous Next Next
29th January 2005 - cellophane — LiveJournal
the story of an invisible girl
read 17 comments | talk to me!
mevam From: mevam Date: January 29th, 2005 06:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
That picture is hilarious! Physics rocks.
greyyguy From: greyyguy Date: January 29th, 2005 06:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
Hehe... I like it :)
simplykimberly From: simplykimberly Date: January 29th, 2005 06:34 pm (UTC) (Link)


Oh I love a good geek joke, I do, I do!!!
shadowriderhope From: shadowriderhope Date: January 29th, 2005 07:16 pm (UTC) (Link)

I love it. Where did you find it? I'll have to print one up for my office....

But is it "Schrodinger" or "Schroedinger," or does it matter? ;)

Interestingly enough, I just ran across this, in my search for the correct spelling - an explanation in poetry.
renniekins From: renniekins Date: January 29th, 2005 08:09 pm (UTC) (Link)
Hm, good question. M-W.com has an entry for Schrödinger. I wonder if it needs the .. on top, if it's all in caps?

Actually I made it myself, that's my kitty Mocha. The quote I stumbled over years ago, probably in a sig file or something similar. It always made me laugh, and I thought it'd be a fun picture to create!
stephe From: stephe Date: January 30th, 2005 02:03 am (UTC) (Link)
Schrödinger = Schroedinger. In typesets that don't have umlauts, they are replaced with a vowel+e.
renniekins From: renniekins Date: January 30th, 2005 06:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
Ahh, that makes sense. I seem to remember that in French, capital letters don't get accents. But in asking around a bit more, it seems that the umlaut is appropriate even on a capital O, so I've updated the image. Thanks!
jeffreyab From: jeffreyab Date: January 29th, 2005 07:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
OK what did Mocha do now?
anarmyofjuan From: anarmyofjuan Date: January 29th, 2005 08:16 pm (UTC) (Link)

with capital ümlauts...

lahabiel From: lahabiel Date: January 29th, 2005 10:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
Too cute.

Remind me to bring Mouse some catnip; I think I have a Klein bottle of it lying around somewhere...
renniekins From: renniekins Date: January 30th, 2005 06:21 pm (UTC) (Link)
*giggle* But that's Mocha!
From: nirbhao Date: January 29th, 2005 10:45 pm (UTC) (Link)
wow. I lauged out loud at this. not in the "lol" way, but in the surprising-my-partner way.
homeless_one From: homeless_one Date: January 30th, 2005 11:21 pm (UTC) (Link)

Revision Needed

If you really wanted to honor the good Dr. Schroedinger, the poster should have read:

Dead ***AND*** Alive"

zenmondo From: zenmondo Date: February 1st, 2005 02:04 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Revision Needed

Now, now, brush up on your boolean algebra. I think "OR" is the correct operator for this.

DEAD && ALIVE = "undetermined"


Or is that getting too geeky?
homeless_one From: homeless_one Date: February 2nd, 2005 12:18 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Revision Needed

> DEAD && ALIVE = "undetermined"

And that is the essence of the pun, my friend.

> Or is that getting too geeky?

We wanna get geeky, eh? Okay, I can do that!

If you have ever done hardware design, especially digital logic design using descrete components, the discussion between Mssrs. Schroedinger and Einstein boils down to a bias issue or a time base issue.

First the bias issue.

Let's your really slick digital design sees -- say -- 2.3 volts at an input instead of zero or five volts like it is supposed to. Well, that little puppy does all kinds of wack job stuff like getting stuck in between two states. Just like the cat. How do you get the wrong voltage? One way is to have a problem with your reference point. Which is hysterically funny given that Einstein was all about reference points.

The second way you get stuff like this in digital design is if you don't get your timing right. In which case you miss state transitions and wind up with the ultimate output stuck in some indeterminate state. Just like the cat. And how do you mess up the timing? Well, you can screw up your propagation delay calculations or you can work off two different time bases with no way to synch up. Which is also hysterically funny given that Einstein was all about bringing everything to a common reference point.

Einstein is actually pretty readable.
zenmondo From: zenmondo Date: February 2nd, 2005 01:46 am (UTC) (Link)

Re: Revision Needed

But is the indeterminate state actually desired? As soon as that box is opened, the AND equation will always be false, and the OR one will always be true. Though with a closed box, what would the state of "Cat = Dead XOR Alive" be?

I like the conversation between Einstein and Schroedenger, pretty entertaining, since I actually do have experience in desiging digital circuits, though I used TTL ICs and didn't build the logic out of a bunch of resistors, caps, and PnP's.

I probably know more about timing issues than anyone with a measly AAS in Electronics Technology should. But, most of that was learned running the DAS in a lab at Intel -- a piece of test equipment that cost nearly the same as my annual salary.

Einstein is extrememly readable. I'm not one for a mathmatical vocabulary, but I read a book he wrote without math for the layman explaining relativity and the like. It was very, very neat.

I think you are neat, too.
thatguychuck From: thatguychuck Date: January 31st, 2005 10:57 pm (UTC) (Link)
read 17 comments | talk to me!