Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Haggis said:

There is a huge difference between fathering a child and looking after one lol

But the people in the south don't know who the real father is. All I'm saying is, he did kinda break an oath there, by taking on that role.

2 minutes ago, Zathras5 said:

So that guy who rescued Bran is Ned's brother? Was he in the show before, I don't remember him...

He's the one in episode one who brought Jon Snow up there.

9 hours ago, Syanide said:
  Reveal hidden contents

Brotherhood without Banners got namedropped, Freys are back, and both Jaime and Brienne are heading towards Riverrun. LSH hype, anyone?

I don't get why people are so obsessed about seeing her in the show. Dropping her was one of the positives over the books IMO. She was stupid while alive and she's even more brain-dead now (get it?). Let the Manderley's of the North enact revenge.

7 hours ago, Syanide said:

But the people in the south don't know who the real father is. All I'm saying is, he did kinda break an oath there, by taking on that role.

The oath is to the Night's Watch, not to "people in the south" and the Night's Watch knows who the real father is.

Edited by Luc2k
4 hours ago, Luc2k said:

I don't get why people are so obsessed about seeing her in the show. Dropping her was one of the positives over the books IMO. She was stupid while alive and she's even more brain-dead now (get it?). Let the Manderley's of the North enact revenge.

It was a really wtf moment in the books. And I still can't see how the whole

 

Jaime and Brienne conflict can play out without her.

11 minutes ago, Syanide said:

It was a really wtf moment in the books. And I still can't see how the whole

  Hide contents

Jaime and Brienne conflict can play out without her.

 

No point looking at the books for a timeline now, and besides, Brienne already found Sansa, therefore making LS even more redundant. I'd love more Thoros though.

12 hours ago, patseguin said:

He's the one in episode one who brought Jon Snow up there.

And I guess for anyone that's read the book, that may be confirmation that he's Coldhands who plays a slightly bigger role in them.  I was wondering if that was going to be him, but I'd like to have seen him on the big elk.  Although they did say Coldhands was supposedly old, but who knows what they're going with now.

On ‎30‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 1:19 PM, Syanide said:

But the people in the south don't know who the real father is. All I'm saying is, he did kinda break an oath there, by taking on that role.

Well as Jon once said, the Night's Watch had been failing in it's oath for god only knows how long.

(The realms of men reference)

8 minutes ago, soniqstylz said:

There's a "Fight Club" theory about with Waif and Arya.

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-06-07/this-ingenious-game-of-thrones-theory-suggests-arya-and-the-waif-could-be-the-same-person

  • Like 4
  • 2 weeks later...
Spoiler

 

Great episode tonight ... I thought.  Finally got to see some dragon action (which probably ate their budget).  She also got her ships. :) The Battle for Winterfell was great....I was having trouble breathing when Jon was suffocating.  Ramsay got a fitting death...so glad he is gone now.

 

Anyway...it was fantastic on so many levels.  

 

 

16 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:
  Hide contents

 

Great episode tonight ... I thought.  Finally got to see some dragon action (which probably ate their budget).  She also got her ships. :) The Battle for Winterfell was great....I was having trouble breathing when Jon was suffocating.  Ramsay got a fitting death...so glad he is gone now.

 

Anyway...it was fantastic on so many levels.  

 

 

Yea, glad to see the ending to that.  About time.

And what the hell is it with the meters high stacked corpses? Sigh, I'd better finish this before commenting again.

 

Anyway, the dragons were nice, although I'm not surprised there was no opposition knowing who helms the show.

 

LE: Could have been great, however the writing made it just mediocre for me.

Edited by Luc2k
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!