xkcd

by **KTC** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:01 am UTC

Alt-text : I wanted us to try finding an approximate numeric solution, but noooo.

http://www.xkcd.com/613/

Oh dear, oh dear...

by **pimanrules** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:03 am UTC

Why so much sex these days...?

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:*facepalm*

Randall, this is a new low. A truly awesome new low.

Agree'd!

by **SocialSceneRepairman** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:04 am UTC

*facepalm*

Randall, this is a new low. A truly awesome new low.

by **Omegaton** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:05 am UTC

I learned something new from xkcd again. I had to look this one up... Not really much of a physicist. But still funny!

by **Kwiz** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:06 am UTC

All in favor of renaming the n-body problem to "the gravitational orgy problem"?

by **glasnt** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:07 am UTC

See, this is what happens when I'm not around

Spoiler:

by **Steve the Pocket** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:11 am UTC

Good show. I also would have accepted: anything related to the Double-Slit Experiment.

by **Aradae** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:23 am UTC

BOOOOOOOO!

by **Shale** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:26 am UTC

Oh god my BRAIN.

by **guyy** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:29 am UTC

To be fair, no one else can solve the three-body problem, either. I guess that's why most people are monogamous...and not physicists.

by **sunami** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:31 am UTC

I read this twice as "psychiatrist" instead of "physicist". What does this say about me?

by **Pazi** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:32 am UTC

Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.

by **nomulous** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:33 am UTC

sunami wrote:I read this twice as "psychiatrist" instead of "physicist". What does this say about me?

Same here. Maybe a psychiatrist could tell us why?

by **K^2** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:39 am UTC

Lies!

We have some three-body solutions...

by **SummerGlauFan** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:40 am UTC

Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.

Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.

by **Pazi** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:45 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:
Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.

Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.

Sweet. ^_^

by **obituary** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:47 am UTC

well, i can't really say i get it but sex comics are always good fun.

by **axlemn** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:48 am UTC

I likez teh cookies.

The comic felt a bit like Randall's overplayed this type of idea. It's fine and all, but so many is one summer?

by **10nitro** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:48 am UTC

FINALLY, another xkcd I don't get! I'm going to cut myself off right there and prevent myself from writing a sociology paper on why xkcd is so awesome. Because I was about to write one, explaining why that was a good thing.

sunami wrote:I read this twice as "psychiatrist" instead of "physicist". What does this say about me?

It's okay, the green ducks are playing trickses on us all the time. Now if only I could find my magic tape dispenser...

[edit:]fix. punctuation
[edit:]Woo! This is my hundredth post. Yes, it says 99, but it starts counting at 0.
[edit:]So the forum DOESN'T start counting at 0 (somehow I had seen a post by someone with 0 posts, it was their only post). So it's not really my hundredth post

by **Josephine** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:54 am UTC

Pazi wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:
Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.

Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.

Sweet. ^_^

I'm afraid I have to revoke that cookie.

Richard Feynman wrote:Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

I apologize.

by **Pazi** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:58 am UTC

nbonaparte1 wrote:
Pazi wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:
Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.

Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.

Sweet. ^_^

I'm afraid I have to revoke that cookie.
Richard Feynman wrote:Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

I apologize.

She hadn't seen that. ;p

Really, if you're gonna take the cookie, why not point out that she just did see someone make that comparison, by authoring the comic?

by **gmalivuk** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:59 am UTC

Lame, guys. Quicksilver's topic (42875) was before this one, albeit by less than a second. But then everyone went and discussed it here, so I had to boneyard that thread.

Sorry Quicksilver.

by **howdyhamster** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:00 am UTC

I rarely post here, but I do have to point to this:

[link deleted]

by **Achmos** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:03 am UTC

Gee Willikers! An xkcd comic I actually get! And I'm not even a Physics Major! :mrgreen:

Thank goodness I discussed with my Astronomy teacher if there was any drastic difference in calculations between two body and three body gravitational trajectories.

by **SummerGlauFan** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:12 am UTC

Pazi wrote:
nbonaparte1 wrote:
Pazi wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:
Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.

Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.

Sweet. ^_^

I'm afraid I have to revoke that cookie.
Richard Feynman wrote:Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

I apologize.

She hadn't seen that. ;p

Really, if you're gonna take the cookie, why not point out that she just did see someone make that comparison, by authoring the comic?

You still get to keep my cookie.

Shame on the cookie-stealer! :cry:

by **Mr Jack** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:13 am UTC

That made my day. I was in a bad mood after an irritating physics lab. And Pazi's comment double-made my day, thank you!

(edit: I should add: Pazi's comment is still worth a cookie).

by **Simon17** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:16 am UTC

Terribly contrived setup. The pun wasn't too bad, but overall this was a poor comic.
This could have been much better with a little more effort.
You can do better, randall!

I spilled the nachos in my lap when I read about the people who didn't even get the joke but thought it was a good comic because it was about sex! You're the primary reason for the xkcd backlash!

by **Simon17** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:19 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I really hope that you were being ironical but for some reason, I doubt it.

by **kharidiron** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:26 am UTC

You know, I've never posted on here before, but I just feel I should point out: there is in fact a stable three-body solution. The only problem is, it involves chasing each other around. Just sayin...

(Too much of a newb to post a link. >_< Search 'Montgomery three body problem.' Pretty easy to find)

Otherwise, kudos on the comic! =D

by **KTC** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:28 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Lame, guys. Quicksilver's topic (42875) was before this one, albeit by less than a second. But then everyone went and discussed it here, so I had to boneyard that thread.

Sorry Quicksilver.

Blame the forum software. Mine appeared lower down (to me anyway) than Quicksilver when we both submitted at the same time even if it did give Quicksilver's a lower thread number. Anyway, this one was more complete from the start, Quicksilver's only had the picture on submission.

Anyhow, given the thread number, I give Quicksilver a cookie in compensation for "stealing" today's thread.

(I actually pressed "Save" by mistake before I press back on the browser and found the right button for "Submit"

)

by **Sir-Taco** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:46 am UTC

Argh I had to look this one up. But have we hit the sex summer comics limit? 4 weeks left to tell (for me anyways)

by **Eternal Density** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:50 am UTC

I don't get this at all.

I do however fully understand it and appreciate the humour

by **linguistic** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:35 am UTC

nomulous wrote:
sunami wrote:I read this twice as "psychiatrist" instead of "physicist". What does this say about me?

Same here. Maybe a psychiatrist could tell us why?

What? Why would a physicist have any idea?

:-P

by **Math_Mage** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:46 am UTC

"A reasonable starting point for a discussion of the many-body problem might be the question of how many bodies are required before we have a problem. Prof. G.E. Brown has pointed out that, for those interested in exact solutions, this can be answered by a look at history. In eighteenth-century Newtonian mechanics, the three-body problem was insoluble. With the birth of general relativity around 1910, and quantum electrodynamics around 1930, the two- and one-body problems became insoluble. And with modern quantum field theory, the problem of zero bodies (vacuum) is insoluble. So, if we are out after exact solutions, no bodies at all is already too many."

Richard Mattuck, A Guide to Feynman Diagrams and the Many-Body Problem (1976)
http://alexpetrov.com/memes/sci/simplicity.html

So the question is, how knowledgeable does a physicist need to be before he can't even masturbate anymore?

by **DVC** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:51 am UTC

When it comes to relationships, physicists have enough trouble trying to solve the two-body problem.

by **9squirrels** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:06 am UTC

Perhaps she should have got some bondage gear involved to turn it into a restricted 3-body problem...

Great strip, I had to look it up to fully appreciate it, but that just adds to the fun, humour AND learning!

by **Max2009** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:20 am UTC

I'm surprised that so many people didn't get this one.

Just the other day we were discussing futility in physics, and one of my TAs said that physicists can solve one, two and lots.
Randall, I give you permission to stay in my head (for the time being).

by **Kalos** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:30 am UTC

omigawd, Randall's aware of sex!

by **Quercus314** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:28 am UTC

Computer Scientists, on the other hand, would have less problem with three bodies, and more so with 3-SATisfaction...

by **Landak** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:45 am UTC

Has anyone pointed out that, as a physicist, I can provide solutions to the three body problem - albeit not in a closed form, and chaotic. The details were worked out by Lagrange, and a Finnish dude called Sundman (iirc).

Does this mean I can haz polygamy, albeit in the form of an infinite sum of r^{1/3}?

Who is online