tgarrett

I'm a plasma physicist, and personally I love weird results - new mysteries to solve! That said, there are a wide range of personality types out there. And I would also be extremely surprised if the correct solution to some particular weird result was, for instance, that the Maxwell equations are broken for that regime (other than expected quantum corrections, e.g. the Schwinger limit).

The supermassive black hole in the giant elliptical galaxy M87 is merely ~53 million light years away, close enough that we have now imaged it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87#Supermassive_black_...

If you're worried about bad pixels or noise, it seems like there is an easy fix: point it in a direction specified by some angles theta & phi, wait long enough to accumulate light from distant faint objects (high redshift galaxies etc), then shift Webb's orientation by a small amount to theta+delta_1 & phi+delta_2, which will have a significant overlap with the original image, and after taking the 2nd image check to make sure that all the objects have shifted over together by the same amount...

> That isn't the vast majority of traditional software engineering work, and arguably is better called applied physics or applied science.

Fair enough, and yeah definitions are always going to be somewhat fuzzy. Still it seems safe to assume there are also a lot of novel things going on in games, embedded, finance, AI itself of course... Generally I can't help but feel that we have only dipped our toes into the vast ocean of program space, and I'm curious what else is out there.

> Outside of the very few computer scientists working on novel algorithms,

It's a quite a bit broader than that: for instance most of science and engineering is heavily supported by simulations (very useful when the system you're considering doesn't have perfect spherical or cylindrical symmetry), and there is still tons of algorithm development going on. The world is vast, and thus so is the domain of programming.

And halfway through 2026, AI has become a very interesting and helpful partner in algo research too. If it does continue to pull away and zip off to ASI land, hopefully we can leverage the resulting magical technology and catch back up with it...

I've seen From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball I'll have you know.

I did provide the data in my first comment, here it is again:

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.htm...

The analysis is easy: copy and paste the data from that link into a new text file, then write a python script that goes through it and counts the number of Cat 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 hurricanes that make landfall per year (the "Highest Saffir-Simpson U.S. Category" column), and then make the plots: I used gnuplot. You can then do fits to the data if you'd like, but the flat trend lines over the last 175 years are obvious.

I encourage you to not trust me and to do it yourself, but I'm also happy to share my script, let me know.

As far as the hurricane trajectory trend lines go, they are clearly highly stochastic: check out e.g. both the spaghetti plot predictions for various storms from previous years, and ask google for a map of where they grow (grew...) oranges in Florida.

So what you are saying is that, yes there has not been an overall increase in hurricanes hitting the US over the last 175 years, but climate change has been specifically and precisely steering the hurricanes towards the orange growing regions of Florida in recent years, and is therefore to blame for the crop failures.

You have to diagnose a problem correctly in order to have a chance at solving it.

Yeah, exploring data is always interesting, sometimes super interesting, and it's also healthy to approach things with a mixture of open-mindedness and skepticism - a sort of zen habit you can get better at with practice. Ideas serve me, not the other way around.

> That's not the point being made: the article clearly states that those areas did not previously get hit by storms at this level.

This is the conventional wisdom, and it is completely falsified by the actual data that I linked to. I wrote a python script to go process and plot it, and there has been zero increase in Cat 1, 2, 3, or 4 storms hitting the US since 1851 (there are only 4 Cat 5s listed total).

Try it for yourself.

>The areas they grow the oranges never used to get hurricanes.

That's not correct: we have good data going back to 1851:

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.htm...

Search for "FL": hurricanes have been hitting Florida frequently for the last 175 years.

Plasma physicist here, I haven't tried 5.4 yet, but in general I am very impressed with the recent upgrades that started arriving in the fall of 2025: for tasks like manipulating analytic systems of equations, quickly developing new features for simulation codes, and interpreting and designing experiments (with pictures) they have become much stronger. I've been asking questions and probing them for several years now out of curiosity, and they suddenly have developed deep understanding (Gemini 2.5 <<< Gemini 3.1) and become very useful. I totally get the current SV vibes, and am becoming a lot more ambitious in my future plans.

If the electron starts with zero energy at infinity (e.g. a parabolic orbit, a natural default assumption), and some of the potential energy is converted into free EM radiation due to acceleration of the electron as it is falling down the potential well, then it will become bound to the proton. My reading of phkahler's original statement is that the electron will wind up going faster than the speed of light (which is incorrect, due to gamma) due to falling down the potential well, and not due to having non-zero kinetic energy at infinity...

In pure GR an infalling observer will sail past the EH and not notice anything unusual since spacetime is locally Minkowski (ignoring tidal forces, which is valid e.g. for humans falling into supermassive BHs). If the (GR+QM) firewall hypothesis is correct (a big if), an infalling observer will instead be promptly incinerated within a Planck's length of the EH. The intuition one builds from a pure GR understanding of BHs may be dramatically wrong, not just at the singularity, but all the way out at the EH.

In a hypothetical pure GR universe what you're saying is correct, but our universe also includes QM and that makes BH physics much more subtle, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics) and we can't state things with such certainty...

To follow on a bit, the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung links to a paper by Weinberg: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11168 and a quick skimming shows that he's perfectly happy to use the Coulomb field as an approximation...

Hi greysphere, you are definitely correct that one primary thing preventing velocity of the electron from exceeding than the speed of light is the presence of gamma in the relativistic force law, aka \partial_t (m_e \gamma v ) = q_e(E + v \times B), although the LHS doesn't quite equal \gamma m_e a, since \gamma also depends on v...

In general I think it's fine to use Coulomb's law as an approximation in this case because the proton is much heavier than the electron and so we can just stay in the proton's reference frame and let the electron fall in from infinity (and we're ignoring QM and just doing relativistic EM here). We could also switch to a tritium nucleus and make it a bit better of an approximation, or indeed add a whole bunch more neutrons and get lucky that they don't beta decay to make it an arbitrarily good one. It is true that if the proton starts moving that you will no longer have a pure Coulomb field with respect to the original reference frame, as after a Lorentz boost the E field gets squished into the transverse direction somewhat, and you'll gain a B field swirling around the proton...

Staying with the frozen proton approx, if we plug numbers in we get quite a bit of energy: set the proton radius r_p to 1E-15, and we get U = q_e^2 / ( 4 \pi \eps_0 r_p ) ~ 1.4 MeV, or a gamma of about 4, so yeah, it would be moving faster than c if we stayed with Newtonian mechanics. But there's another wrinkle: the 1.4 MeV of liberated potential energy won't all go into the electron's relativistic kinetic energy, because it is accelerating like crazy, especially in the final femtometers, and that acceleration (essentially Bremsstrahlung, although its not braking here) will generate an intense pulse of EM radiation as well - a decent fraction of the 1.4 MeV will go into that instead. You could perhaps estimate how much using the Larmor formula (in general calculating this radiation reaction force precisely becomes very complex, because the excitation of the EM wave modifies the acceleration, which modifies the excitation of the EM wave etc... And, now looking on Wikipedia, I'm not surprised to see that the first QM version of the calculation was done by Sommerfeld).

So yeah, the electron will zip through the proton, with much of the potential energy converted to an EM pulse that zips off to infinity, and so the electron is now bound to the proton, and will continue to zig zag back and forth, emitting more radiation until it comes to a rest inside the proton. So yeah, we do need QM after all.