News You Can't Use

[BlackTalon]

I can't believe they focused on this. The resolution of pi was already better than we can perceive. The University should have improved the features and user experience instead. I'm sticking with the last version.

 

[mhardy6647]

Well, I mean, their user experience for pi is off the charts, man!

 

[Blumlein 88]

I can't believe they focused on this. The resolution of pi was already better than we can perceive. The University should have improved the features and user experience instead. I'm sticking with the last version.

You mean like a user friendly version such as 22/7?

 

[eriksson]

"News you can't use"
Please don't get me started, we don't have all year.. or do we?

"News" today?!

Never mind - please ingnore and carry on.

 

[LTig]

https://gizmodo.com/the-new-longest-pi-beats-previous-record-by-12-8-trilli-1847503360

On Monday, a team of Swiss data scientists announced that their supercomputer calculated the mathematical constant pi to a new length of 62.8 trillion digits, extending the constant beyond its previously calculated end by some 12.8 trillion digits. And to think I never even memorized 3.141592653.

My first pocket calculator (from end of the 70's, with LEDs!) showed Pi as 3.14159265359 and this is what I memorized until today - so the number you posted is not properly rounded...

 

[phoenixdogfan]

https://gizmodo.com/the-new-longest-pi-beats-previous-record-by-12-8-trilli-1847503360

On Monday, a team of Swiss data scientists announced that their supercomputer calculated the mathematical constant pi to a new length of 62.8 trillion digits, extending the constant beyond its previously calculated end by some 12.8 trillion digits. And to think I never even memorized 3.141592653.

According to a statement from the University of Applied Sciences of GraubUnden in Switzerland, the research team knew over the weekend that they had achieved the most exact-yet summation of the constant, which describes the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

Pi has numerous applications, including in construction and space flight, but as David Harvey, a mathematician at the University of New South Wales in Australia, told The Guardian, “I can’t imagine any real-life physical application where you would need any more than 15 decimal places.” Other computer scientists have said that 39 digits should do, because that specificity gives you the circumference of the observable universe to within the diameter of a single atom.

---

My question, if 39 digits gives atom vs universe precision, is how they perform the calculation with any clue to its accuracy?

I think they need to have sufficient digits to specify the circumference of the observable universe to within the diameter of the Planck length which should be only another 24 or so digits beyond 39.

 

[JSmith]

On Monday, a team of Swiss data scientists announced that their supercomputer calculated the mathematical constant pi to a new length of 62.8 trillion digits, extending the constant beyond its previously calculated end by some 12.8 trillion digits. And to think I never even memorized 3.141592653.

JSmith

 

[RayDunzl]

https://www.llnl.gov/news/national-...nt-puts-researchers-threshold-fusion-ignition

"The experiment was enabled by focusing laser light from NIF — the size of three football fields — onto a target the size of a BB that produces a hot-spot the diameter of a human hair, generating more than 10 quadrillion watts of fusion power for 100 trillionths of a second."

10,000,000,000,000,000 watts for 0.0000000001 seconds

1000000000000000 watts for 0.000000001 seconds
100000000000000 watts for 0.00000001 seconds
10000000000000 watts for 0.0000001 seconds
1000000000000 watts for 0.000001 seconds
100000000000 watts for 0.00001 seconds
10000000000 watts for 0.0001 seconds
1000000000 watts for 0.001 seconds
100000000 watts for 0.01 seconds
10000000 watts for 0.1 seconds
1000000 watts for 1 seconds
100000 watts for 10 seconds
10000 watts for 100 seconds
1000 watts for 1000 seconds
100 watts for 10000 seconds
10 watts for 100000 seconds

Don't think I can use that.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/labonta1/

The average human, at rest, produces around 100 watts of power. [2] Over periods of a few minutes, humans can comfortably sustain 300-400 watts; and in the case of very short bursts of energy, such as sprinting, some humans can output over 2,000 watts.

Nope.

More news I can't use.

---

Ooh. I left off three zeroes on my quadrillion.

Seconds in a day: 86,400

So it could power my DAC for a little over a day.

But still could barely power me.

 

[JayGilb]

We used to run pi calculations on the big iron Cray machines during system checkout to keep the processors busy.

 

[Raindog123]

Over periods of a few minutes, humans can comfortably sustain 300-400 watts; and in the case of very short bursts of energy, such as sprinting, some humans can output over 2,000 watts.

I’ve read somewhere that when we rush up the stairs, a few steps at once, we generate about one horse power (~750W). “Like a horse!“

 

[Wes]

No one not doing fusion research can use the ignition news. But if it ignites new interest in fusion research we may eventually be able to use it.

Remember fusion is just 30 years away!

 

[sergeauckland]

No one not doing fusion research can use the ignition news. But if it ignites new interest in fusion research we may eventually be able to use it.

Remember fusion is just 30 years away!

And always has been!

S

 

[mhardy6647]

You mean like a user friendly version such as 22/7?

That's so... analog.

 

[mhardy6647]

10,000,000,000,000,000 watts for 0.0000000001 seconds
.
.
.

10 watts for 100000 seconds

Don't think I can use that.

Just don't squander it.
Be green.

 

[RayDunzl]

Just don't squander it.
Be green.

@amirm once mentioned he used a ton of electricity to perform only one test.

I haven't come close to that, even lifetime usage, by my reckoning.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well if you replace your 10 quadrillion watt incandescent bulb with an led it would burn 6 times longer.

 

[mhardy6647]

@amirm once mentioned he used a ton of electricity to perform only one test.

I haven't come close to that, even lifetime usage, by my reckoning.

is this like E = m * C^2 stuff?
'cause, like, a ton of electrons would be a lot of electrons, you know?
To say nothing of a tonne of electrons. Whoo-boy.



https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...inear-power-supply-for-dacs.7021/#post-158501
Oh, yeah -- heh. You realize that this suggests that you think like I do.
If so -- be afraid... be very afraid.

 

[Blumlein 88]

is this like E = m * C^2 stuff?
'cause, like, a ton of electrons would be a lot of electrons, you know?
To say nothing of a tonne of electrons. Whoo-boy.



https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...inear-power-supply-for-dacs.7021/#post-158501
Oh, yeah -- heh. You realize that this suggests that you think like I do.
If so -- be afraid... be very afraid.

In the link Ray specified metric tons. Now myself, I would have called it a metric sh*t ton of energy.

 

[mhardy6647]

In the link Ray specified metric tons. Now myself, I would have called it a metric sh*t ton of energy.

Yeah, I read the link after I typed my quips -- but I liked my quips, so I left 'em in.
I still particularly do like that mass/energy equivalence thing. It gives me a sense of awesome power when I think about the fireball that would result if my mass would all suddenly be converted to energy a la Einstein's equation. It really gave me that sense when I was overweight -- which (thankfully) I am not any more.

 

[Raindog123]

Well if you replace your 10 quadrillion watt incandescent bulb with an led it would burn 6 times longer

Unfortunately, it would not work for LLNL guys in the original paper - as they used a [monochromatic] laser already….