In condensed matter physics, a time crystal is a quantum system of particles whose lowest-energy state is one in which the particles are in repetitive motion. The system cannot lose energy to the environment and come to rest because it is already in its quantum ground state. Because of this, the motion of the particles does not really represent kinetic energy like other motion; it has “motion without energy”.
And I’ve got good news for you. You can just email the researcher to get a free copy. Because they don’t get any of the profits from scientific journals, so they have no incentive to hoard their own research. Or hell, there’s always Anna’s Archive.
I wouldn’t even try to defend OP, but I once heard someone say that if you have more than four apples, then it is also definitely true that you have four apples.
That’s true in a very literal sense, but there’s a whole branch of linguistics called pragmatics that’s concerned with things like why it’s usually safe to conclude that when someone says they have four apples, they mean that have only four apples. When there’s any ambiguity I talk like a mathematician and use phrases like “at least four apples” or “exactly four apples”.
OP treating his statement as a correction requires that he’s not using this interpretation. If he were to use this defense, so could the teacher, so he’d just be changing how he’s wrong, not that he is.
As a teacher, this type of response is a great jumping off point for the discussion of curriculum vs truth, what is the extent of reality vs what is going to be on the assignment / exam etc.
It’s also a great way to stick it to the know-it-all who is trying to undermine my credibility, and has the added bonus of perking up the rest of the class.
If you can actually have a reasoned discussion about it, instead of simply getting angry at being questioned, then you are better than 90% of teachers.
In my experience most teachers don’t like being questioned, which of course is directly antithetical to their supposed vocation.
For me it matters how the question is asked. I love getting questions beyond the scope of the curriculum as it varies up my classes from year to year. However, “Actually there are 4” as in the meme is disrespectful, challenging and undermining. “I heard something about a fourth state of matter, what’s up with that?” is a prompt to reasoned discussion.
Sounds like you just don’t want your authority to be challenged.
If you’re wrong and a student points that out, own it. Instead you expect them to question their own knowledge while submitting to your authority for confirmation or denial. But if the student already knows, they don’t need your confirmation. They need you to admit that you were incorrect, and move forward with the correct information. Otherwise you’re just demonstrating that you’re an authority that cannot be trusted to be fair.
Authority that cannot be challenged is authority that cannot be respected. Authority must continually earn the respect of its constituents, or it will lose its power over them.
Oh I’ll admit I’m wrong either way, but yes I do not like my authority to be challenged. It makes the class significantly harder to manage when students feel like it’s OK to dunk on me at any opportunity and provides a bad environment for learning. My preference would be respect, but I will settle for being treated with respect. If a student won’t offer it to me with their questions, then I won’t offer it to them with my response. But I will always admit they are correct (if they are).
Authority that cannot be challenged is authority that cannot be respected. Authority must continually earn the respect of its constituents, or it will lose its power over them.
I sort of agree with this. In a classroom, you can challenge me, my knowledge, my abilities. I like to think I earn the respect of my students with all of these, as well as my compassion, my fairness, my humour.
The reality is that I am an authority however. I wrote the assignments and the exam and I mark them too, and I do it all in accordance with the state-mandated curriculum. If they “know” something because they read about it elsewhere, I should be treated as a equally valid source of information because I am. I know the curriculum inside and out. They dont “need me to admit that I was incorrect, and move forward with the correct information”, they need me to tell them why the thing they “know” is not the thing I’m teaching them. I offer that I was incorrect out of humility, not necessity.
I disagree. Telling the students there are three states of matter is just wrong and they have all the right to point it out. They keep that information for decades if not corrected/challenged and will give non true statements to others, their children, etc.
What the teacher instead should have said could may be: “There are many states of matter, currently we know of (amount). The most common however are these three: solid, liquid and gas. Maybe you will encounter a fourth: plasma. The others form in very specific situations that are very outside of our everyday life. You can look them up if you want to know more. But for this class, we only focus on the three most common.”
Everything is correct, everything is clear. The scope has been set. Teacher still looks knowlegdeable and reliable. And most importantly: does not lie, tell false facts, he provides options for individual interests and builds trust and does not offer himself for attacks on his position by misusing the trust of the students by telling them factually false content.
Relying on groveling students is morally very bad as that’s no relationship based on trust and respect for the pupils and can easily be challenged, like in this example. You would only be offering yourself for failure and risk your “dethroning”, which is a bad foundation to build on from the beginning.
Depending on class structure another way could be to include the students and have the whole class collect the states of matter they know of. That way the “plasma” ones could shine and get heard. That way you will probably get to the common 4 but maaaybe someone heard of the BE condensat, which would be extremely cool and impressive. Wrap it up with “Great work everyone! Actually, we currently know of (amount) different states, insane, right? For this class we will focus ourselves on…” That gives bonus points for teamplay and class strengthening.
Because if we weren’t then no class would ever learn anything, as the teaching would move at a glacial pace and cover material that isn’t relevant until you start on your PhD.
pretty sure theres more than 4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_matter
I identify as degenerate matter.
Degenerate lives matter
“Strange matter” 🤔
“Time Crystal”
In condensed matter physics, a time crystal is a quantum system of particles whose lowest-energy state is one in which the particles are in repetitive motion. The system cannot lose energy to the environment and come to rest because it is already in its quantum ground state. Because of this, the motion of the particles does not really represent kinetic energy like other motion; it has “motion without energy”.
Physics girl did a great video on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieDIpgso4no
“Programmable Matter” tf
deleted by creator
Honestly fine with it as long as any profits aren’t privatized.
I’ve got bad news for you.
And I’ve got good news for you. You can just email the researcher to get a free copy. Because they don’t get any of the profits from scientific journals, so they have no incentive to hoard their own research. Or hell, there’s always Anna’s Archive.
What does that to do with anything here?
Good. Maybe we can kill religion with enough physics.
Theorized form of matter that could exist in the cores of neutron stars.
Essentially matter compressed beyond a critical point where protons and neutrons break down and dissociate into quarks.
If this quark matter contains strange quarks, then it is called strange matter.
Stranger Things
Glass 🙂
Superglass 😎
🦸♂️ glass
Well first of all, fuck you smartass.
But also yes, you’re right
I wouldn’t even try to defend OP, but I once heard someone say that if you have more than four apples, then it is also definitely true that you have four apples.
That’s true in a very literal sense, but there’s a whole branch of linguistics called pragmatics that’s concerned with things like why it’s usually safe to conclude that when someone says they have four apples, they mean that have only four apples. When there’s any ambiguity I talk like a mathematician and use phrases like “at least four apples” or “exactly four apples”.
It’s technically correct, like saying at least 4 people died from covid.
More specifically: “4 people died from covid” is also true
On the other hand, adding a single world like “only” in there suddenly makes it completely false. Language is fun.
OP treating his statement as a correction requires that he’s not using this interpretation. If he were to use this defense, so could the teacher, so he’d just be changing how he’s wrong, not that he is.
What if there’s a worm in one of them?
Like, you think you habe more than four apples.
Then you find out that most of them have worms.
In the end, you are left with two apples.
So now, it is not true that you have four apples.
As a teacher, this type of response is a great jumping off point for the discussion of curriculum vs truth, what is the extent of reality vs what is going to be on the assignment / exam etc.
It’s also a great way to stick it to the know-it-all who is trying to undermine my credibility, and has the added bonus of perking up the rest of the class.
If you can actually have a reasoned discussion about it, instead of simply getting angry at being questioned, then you are better than 90% of teachers.
In my experience most teachers don’t like being questioned, which of course is directly antithetical to their supposed vocation.
For me it matters how the question is asked. I love getting questions beyond the scope of the curriculum as it varies up my classes from year to year. However, “Actually there are 4” as in the meme is disrespectful, challenging and undermining. “I heard something about a fourth state of matter, what’s up with that?” is a prompt to reasoned discussion.
Sounds like you just don’t want your authority to be challenged.
If you’re wrong and a student points that out, own it. Instead you expect them to question their own knowledge while submitting to your authority for confirmation or denial. But if the student already knows, they don’t need your confirmation. They need you to admit that you were incorrect, and move forward with the correct information. Otherwise you’re just demonstrating that you’re an authority that cannot be trusted to be fair.
Authority that cannot be challenged is authority that cannot be respected. Authority must continually earn the respect of its constituents, or it will lose its power over them.
Oh I’ll admit I’m wrong either way, but yes I do not like my authority to be challenged. It makes the class significantly harder to manage when students feel like it’s OK to dunk on me at any opportunity and provides a bad environment for learning. My preference would be respect, but I will settle for being treated with respect. If a student won’t offer it to me with their questions, then I won’t offer it to them with my response. But I will always admit they are correct (if they are).
I sort of agree with this. In a classroom, you can challenge me, my knowledge, my abilities. I like to think I earn the respect of my students with all of these, as well as my compassion, my fairness, my humour.
The reality is that I am an authority however. I wrote the assignments and the exam and I mark them too, and I do it all in accordance with the state-mandated curriculum. If they “know” something because they read about it elsewhere, I should be treated as a equally valid source of information because I am. I know the curriculum inside and out. They dont “need me to admit that I was incorrect, and move forward with the correct information”, they need me to tell them why the thing they “know” is not the thing I’m teaching them. I offer that I was incorrect out of humility, not necessity.
But you’ve just proven yourself to not be an equally valid source of information because you spread misinformation.
I disagree. Telling the students there are three states of matter is just wrong and they have all the right to point it out. They keep that information for decades if not corrected/challenged and will give non true statements to others, their children, etc.
What the teacher instead should have said could may be: “There are many states of matter, currently we know of (amount). The most common however are these three: solid, liquid and gas. Maybe you will encounter a fourth: plasma. The others form in very specific situations that are very outside of our everyday life. You can look them up if you want to know more. But for this class, we only focus on the three most common.”
Everything is correct, everything is clear. The scope has been set. Teacher still looks knowlegdeable and reliable. And most importantly: does not lie, tell false facts, he provides options for individual interests and builds trust and does not offer himself for attacks on his position by misusing the trust of the students by telling them factually false content.
Relying on groveling students is morally very bad as that’s no relationship based on trust and respect for the pupils and can easily be challenged, like in this example. You would only be offering yourself for failure and risk your “dethroning”, which is a bad foundation to build on from the beginning.
Depending on class structure another way could be to include the students and have the whole class collect the states of matter they know of. That way the “plasma” ones could shine and get heard. That way you will probably get to the common 4 but maaaybe someone heard of the BE condensat, which would be extremely cool and impressive. Wrap it up with “Great work everyone! Actually, we currently know of (amount) different states, insane, right? For this class we will focus ourselves on…” That gives bonus points for teamplay and class strengthening.
Solid, liquid, and gas. A fluid is something that flows. Both liquids and gasses are fluids.
thanks, fixed.
This is the ‘senses’ argument, or the ‘moons of Jupiter’ argument.
I identify as degenerate matter
Edit: Whoops, someone already commented that elsewhere in the thread. Oh well.
Thanks to Lemmy’s Hot algorithm though, we see your joke first!
It’s only a matter of opinion.
There is that ice that turns all other water into ice!
I mean, all ice turns “other water” into ice, as long as it’s cold enough
Holy butt munch Batman! Why are we taught lies!?
Because if we weren’t then no class would ever learn anything, as the teaching would move at a glacial pace and cover material that isn’t relevant until you start on your PhD.