By the way, here is some reporting from TPM about how JD Vance has been making a special interest of whipping up hatred and slander against Haitians for some months now, even before Trump brought him on as Vice Presidential candidate.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/how-jd-vance-and-a-virulent-neo-nazi-group-inflamed-tensions-over-migrants-in-springfield

I am very unhappy that the republican party's angle in the closing days of this election is "we will bank everything on broad-spectrum attacks against Haitians, specifically". I do not know what to do about it.

@molly0xfff I was absolutely, *absolutely* not expecting what the headline of this piece turned out to be

@molly0xfff On a semi-related note, you may be way ahead of me on this, but I was looking at https://melaniatrump.com/ where Mrs. Trump is teasing preorders for an autobiography, and I discovered this interesting line in the side page for her jewelry line:

"Those who purchase Her Love & Gratitude can also receive a limited-edition digital collectible."

Depending on what this means, is it possible every member of the Trump family is running a separate cryptotoken hustle?

@steve let me get back to you about this comment once i've thought about it for three weeks

@mark time dilation is not so bad because einstein was able to come up with a picture you can intuitively visualize¹ that demonstrates it happening. The fact he could not ever find an equivalent visualization for quantum physics seems to be why he rejected it to his death.

¹ "Universe's lumpy"

"What?"

**Einstein, reloading gun, getting back into sublight rocket** "Universe's lumpy"

@inthehands Essentially the Big Problem in physics is that every single thing got named before they understood what it did or how it worked (naturally, since they couldn't start trying to explain how it worked until it had a name to talk about it with)

@BenAveling Somewhere, Feynmann nods in approval

@mark @ianholmes @BillyGlennHoya What's this?

FERMION is evolving!

FERMION became ANYON!

@Catfish_Man @mark @BillyGlennHoya It makes a lot more sense if you just disassemble one but maybe let's just let Chappel Roan keep her sense of wonder

@mark @BillyGlennHoya Me: Fuckin gauge perturbation of U(1). How does it work

@josh_clone @tess the Feynmann Interpretation, I will tolerate

@clacke Note I am not sure I am completely right in my description. But the videos are interesting.

There are another two plus one just on spinors.

https://mastodon.social/@mcc/113000879836189669

@josh_clone @tess fr tho screw the copenhagen interpretation

@tess Yeah, it… I think there's some point at which that's valid but maybe one can get *too* used to doing it.

@nex Imaginary numbers are easier for me to understand because numbers are not real. Imaginary numbers are fake but natural numbers are also fake. It doesn't really matter if they behave one way or another. They behave how we decide to define them.

But magnets are real. They interact with things I can see and touch. So it is harder for me to just go "I guess it's just an arbitrary mathematical object with arbitrary mathematical properties"

@jamiemccarthy An example would be 0:48 in the "electrons do NOT spin" video above, where he describes, but does not fully explain, an experiment involving the basic "an EM field can make a metal thing rotate" behavior.

I have also seen an experiment described where you fire a beam of particles with a specific quantum spin at a macroscopic object and eventually it starts rotating. Because I don't have a cite on this experiment, it is possible that I have misunderstood it.

He gives this useful visualization where he shows that the cube-with-attached-streamers example (which I've seen before) can be expanded to like, a high-N N-gon with a streamer on each face. So I imagine a 3D grid of 26-gons, each streamered to its adjacent/adjacent-diagonal neighbors. Then I imagine every n-gon simultaneously spinning with *random* orientations and speeds. Do they avoid tangling?

PBS-ST-G suggests thinking about phase, not rotation. But does my 26-gon idea *work*? (2/3)

Here is what I am trying to figure out:

* PBS SpaceTime Guy suggests the spinor nature of fermions is best understood as the behavior of lines of connection between particles, rather than behavior of particles themselves. He notes "twisting" the lines of connection produces spinor behavior (2 rotations to return to original state) whereas a regular rotation doesn't. Fine. Here is my question:

Does this "lines of connection, not an object" kind of rotation *also* explain non-orientation?

(1/3)

Okay so the video was pretty good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlk1gLkF2Y and did a better job of explaining spin than anything else I've ever seen (it's sort of in a series of 3, in the next one they're gonna take a go at the spin statistics theorem… looking forward to that, that's another thing I've tried and failed to comprehend before) but I'm still lost and I'm not sure if I'm lost the expected amount or more lost than normal