Comments by "Jake Johnson" (@ElectronFieldPulse) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. ​@TonyBaseballs23 - They are in two states though, which is why measurement can affect the outcome. The hidden variable hypothesis has long since died
    10
  2.  @ScreamingManiac  - That I'd the hidden variable hypothesis, and it has been disproven. I have to think this video did a pretty bad job since so many people are taking away outdated ideas about what is happening.
    9
  3. ​@jamesnicholl4730 - But even though the collapse is fundamentally random, it is still heavily weighted to certain outcomes. I like to think if it as determinism by large numbers, if you get what I mean. Over time, you will get the most likely outcome repeated over and over, so it still looks deterministic because of the statistical probabilities
    8
  4.  @ItsEverythingElse  - So many people think it is similar to Einsteins "left and right shoe" analogy. But that is exactly what was proven wrong, the hidden variable hypothesis, so this video wasn't great.
    7
  5.  @TonyBaseballs23  - It doesn't communicate any information faster than light. It communicates a correlation. If the wave function collapses around a certain point, you can correlate certain values, but you cannot communicate actual information.
    6
  6. It would seem to be impossible anyways, a singularity is just the limits of math.
    6
  7. @awesomedavid2012  - Because of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. They had this debate.
    5
  8.  @TonyBaseballs23  - Look up the quantum eraser experiment from PBS spacetime
    5
  9. @ - Singularities can’t describe physical things though, as all matter and energy would have to be concentrated in a point with no volume. I think singularities are needed for the models to work, but I would think they just represent a cutoff point where our understandings of physics breaks down. I am only a chemist though, so my layman interpretation might be off. I would guess we can only make valid mathematical models based on the empirical evidence we have, and we don’t have the empirical evidence to show how physics behaves inside a black hole, so all we can do is say the physics trends a certain way towards a singularity. That doesn’t mean we can say an actual singularity exists though. Feel free to correct me as I would love to learn more about this
    5
  10. @TonyBaseballs23  - Measuring one will affect the outcome of other, it doesn't just reveal it. They are correlated wavefunctions, so the wavefunction appears to communicate correlations faster than light. I like to imagine it as long wave functions that collapse instantly, even if they are far apart, because that is basically what the math says. Imagine a really long wave, and how if you were to change it on one end it would change the whole wave instantly, that is kind of what is happening.
    4
  11.  @SolidSiren  - That is why I think this video did a bad job. The hidden variable hypothesis is long dead, but it seems most got that as the take away from the video.
    4
  12.  @Barbreck1  - I think there are some interesting questions to ask though. How long does decoherence take? Some expirements show it isn't instantaneous, so what does that imply? What is carrying the information of the collapse if the probability wave isn't actually real? Can it be blocked or altered?
    4
  13.  @fermansmith6042  - You seem off your rocker mate. I suggest you leave physics to adults and those with the mental faculties to handle it. Your "chi" is pseudoscience garbage that has no place among the educated class. Sabine will never respond to you the same way a physics professor will never respond to a scientologist babbling on about thetans.
    3
  14.  @nonethelesszero7950  - Well, I certainly don't consider the social sciences to be actual sciences. They have no predictive power, the models they develop are post hoc rationalizations that are more akin to philosophy than science. It really annoys me when people say that sociology has proven something, because they act as if it is a scientific discovery. It isn't. It is just an ideological scribble with little value.
    3
  15. @carlhitchon1009  - No, it is random, that much is confirmed. Underlying mechanisms would require a whole rework of modern physics, which doesn't seem likely. But hey, anything is possible.
    3
  16.  @softan  - That is actually incorrect. I was told something similar in college, but I have since learned that is a false explanation. It actually does change speed because of the electromagnetic fields generated within the medium. If your idea was correct, light would come out all scattered and it wouldn't represent the original image since atoms eject photons at random directions. Fermi lab has a great video on this if you are interested. Light actually does change speed in mediums. It is only at velocity c in a vaccuum.
    3
  17.  @SolidSiren  - Would that be some global wave function that communicates correlations in wave functions instantly if they are entangled? That is kind of the picture I have developed.
    2
  18. @Retired Bore - I am a biochemist, not a physicist, but I am curious about something. With methods like "renormalizing" and other clever approximations, are we ever going to be able to really understand quantum physics? It seems like the calculations are so complex, so innumerable, that clever approximations are the best we can do. Yet, how do you develop a full understanding of the universe like this?
    2
  19.  @fermansmith6042  - You think Sabine made a video because of a comment you made? Not only are you off your rocker, you seem to have narcissistic personality disorder as well. I am a biochemist with plenty of experience in physics. When modeling dynamic molecular interactions, using Schrodinger's wave equations and a hose of other quantum related modalities is a must. Do you know whar SAR is? Make sure you answer that question, because I am sure you will meander all over the place when you respond with your nonsense.
    2
  20. So, I have enjoyed her videos, although I watch them sporadically. I have read on reddit from physicists that she inserts her personal opinion as a scientific fact, or that she doesn't clarify when her explanation starts to veer off into speculation. Can anyone who watches her more regularly chime in on this?
    2
  21.  @Achrononmaster  - I wish I understood what you are talking about. I enjoy physics as a hobby, but you clearly have gone further than that. One question, you say Hilbert spaces are not relegated to QM, but I have literally only seem them used in QM. They exist to describe fields and probabilities of actions in those fields, right? Where else would you see them except QM?
    2
  22. @BryanLu0  - Ya, but it kind of fundamentally changes what is happening. What is happening is a wave function communicating correlations faster than the speed of light, suggesting an overarching information theory in a sense. Basically saying that wave functions collapse instantaneously throughout spacetime if they are entangled/correlated. That gets into the weeds, but it has some profound implications, so it feels wrong to gloss over. This is why Bell was so famous.
    1
  23. @Retired Bore - Well, isn't there a theory related to information theory, which posits that it actually does run by calculations?
    1
  24. @Retired Bore - No idea, but the theory basically says it is information before it is a physical phenomena. You'll have to look it up as I don't know much about it, just saw a video talking about it.
    1
  25.  @fermansmith6042  - So, I specifically ask you to answer a question since I knew you would go on a tangent, and that is exactly what you did - go on a tangent and ignore my question. I am humble, but your responses have been so bizarre that anyone would call them out. You are an odd fellow, and I don't mean that as an insult, you are genuinely odd. You believe in "chi" for God's sake. I know your type. You don't have a good education, you fall for pseudoscience easily because it allows you to think you are smarter than most people without having to actually do the groundwork to gain knowledge. It is a similar phenomenon with conspiracy theorists. So, please answer my question about SAR, and then I would like to know if you believe in any conspiracy theories. I have been polite and responded to you, I think it I'd fair to have you answer two short questions. So, please don't change the topic until you have answered my questions.
    1
  26.  @theultimatereductionist7592  - Yes, it is very easy developing a model when you know the outcome and all the variables. It isn't science though. Science should develop a theory that can be used in future, unknown situations to make accurate predictions. It really annoys me to no end when people say "sociologists have proven this or sociologists have proven that". No, they didn't prove anything except that they can make up stories to explain past events. Their "stories" fall apart the second you try to use them to predict future results.
    1
  27.  @fermansmith6042  - Have you ever been to a psychiatrist? Your type of grandiose thinking coupled with crazy ideas might indicate that you have some type of schizo affective disorder. Sabine is a real physicist, she does not care one bit about your ideas on "chi" or the other crazy stuff you believe.
    1
  28.  @fermansmith6042  - I'm done talking to you, you are boring. You refuse to answer questions that I have asked multiple times now. And it isn't entertaining talking with a mentally ill person who believes in crazy things. Best of luck to you, I hope you get the professional help you need.
    1
  29.  @fermansmith6042  - You have refused to answer a single question I have asked you multiple times now. You scared to answer because it would make you look stupid? Don't worry, you've already accomplished that. How about you ANSWER MY QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED MANY TIMES NOW
    1
  30.  @fermansmith6042  - I asked you about SAR. I asked you about some physics stuff. I was asking you simple questions to see if you even had a baseline understanding of physics. And you are STILL IGNORING MY QUESTIONS. So, it is obvious you refuse to answer my questions because you don't have a rudimentary understanding of physics. Sabine doesn't believe in Chi. Only idiots believe in Chi, and Sabine isn't an idiot. You have made it clear you have nothing substantial to add to this conversation. And let me make it clear, Sabine never made a video because of anything you said. She doesn't believe in Chi, nor does any respected physicist. Spend your time learning actual physics instead of pseudoscience bullshit. Chi isn't real dude, you can't even define what it is. So just take the L and move along.
    1
  31.  @fermansmith6042  - Sabine doesn't believe in pseudo science bullshit just because she made one video on dark matter. And she certainly didn't make the video because of you. That is grandiose thinking on your part. Let me make this real, real simple for you. What is chi? Define it for me.
    1
  32.  @fermansmith6042  - So what is Chi? You failed to answer my question again. What is chi? Define it
    1
  33.  @fermansmith6042  - Define chi. Why are you avoiding that question? For saying Sabine made a video because of you. You seem very unable to define the thing you think she found so impressive. So DEFINE CHI. I can't make it any clearer. Or explain why you won't define chi
    1
  34.  @fermansmith6042  - Lol, you can't even define chi and you think Savine made a video because you mentioned it. Do you realize how crazy you sound? Is this the point where you stop responding because you realize how nutty you are? It's real simple, define chi. I'll be waiting, although I'm guessing I'll be waiting forever.
    1
  35.  @fermansmith6042  - hahaha haha, holy shit you are funny. You not only believe in crazy pseudo science. You not only think Sabine ever even read your comment. But you cannot even define the main thing about your pseudoscience. You can't even define it! Hahaha ha, this is too good. We are well past the point of proving you are a crackpot who has no knowledge about anything physics related, we are in the territory where you are pure comedy material. And here, I'll answer your question even though you have refused to answer a single one of mine. I specialize in researching type I topoisomerase enzymes that catalyze the non-homologous recombination of DNA. Enzymes like Cre recombinase. Look it up. I have been published and am currently working with CRISPR to edit the Cre recombinase enzyme to make its catalytic properties more efficient and applicable to more bacterium. I graduated with honors in undergrad with a 3.9 GPA and went straight into a PhD program where my thesis was the study of dendrotoxin (black mamba venom) and how it's effect on action potentials holds promise for future epilepsy treatments. Now, answer the fucking question, what is Chi you God damn brain dead idiot.
    1
  36.  @fermansmith6042  - Jesus I am glad you finally shut up. Thank you for that, the only smart thing you've done or said this entire exchange.
    1
  37.  @fermansmith6042  - Lol, still can't answer the question can you. You don't even know what chi is and you think Sabine was impressed by you, hahahabaha. You don't even know the one pseudoscience thing you are so proud of. Pathetic.
    1
  38.  @fermansmith6042  - Why won't you answer my one question? Why? Why won't you define chi? Why? Why is this one question too much for you? Can you even explain why you are avoiding It is very rude to ask me questions, have me answer them in full, and then have you refuse to answer one simple question. You will focus on anything but the question I have asked you 100x times. Why is that?
    1
  39.  @fermansmith6042  - Why are you scared to death to talk about the one thing you think you impressed Sabine with? Why won't you define it? What is wrong with you? Let me guess, you'll only focus on the part where I asked what is wrong with you and you will ignore the question j have been asking 100 times. You are like a broken record. Boring.
    1
  40.  @fermansmith6042  - I'm tired of this game . Either answer the question about chi or stop responding to me.
    1
  41.  @fermansmith6042  - I have answered multiple questions of yours even though you have been rude. But you won't answer unless I apologize? OK , I apologize for how I have treated you. I apologize for being rude. I apologize for everything I have said. Now, please answer the question.
    1
  42.  @fermansmith6042  - Now that I have apologized, will you please answer my question about what chi is?
    1
  43. ​@xintophotography9848 - People are tired of trans people dominating the conversation. You are not like gay people, you don't want to be left alone. You require everyone else to play along or you break down mentally. That requires other people's input, since you expect them to recognize your ideology in the first place. People are tired of trans activists being bullies. And the social sciences are severely lacking, which is why they are called soft sciences. They are barely science at all, and champions of trans activism refuse to acknowledge the limits of social sciences. We don't even know what causes dysphoria, just some ideas.
    1
  44. @xintophotography9848  - Ya, BS. I remember trans activists saying 10 years ago "It's not like we want to compete in sports, that is just the right trying to make us look crazy" Turns out, it was a lie. And every time there is push back, you guys do this, completely avoid any responsibility. People are tired of it. Have your fantasy, stop trying to push it on everyone. I am an atheist and certainly not a Republican, but this stuff has gotten out of control. Gender dysphoria is a medical disorder of the mind, but people like you treat it as something far more.
    1
  45. Anything traveling at c has no proper time, so it has no Lorentz transformation. There is no proper reference frame from a photon, you must have mass for that.
    1
  46. What do you mean the Michaelson Morley experiment was non null? I thought the fact that it showed there was no either as they hypothesized meant it was a null result.
    1
  47.  @revcrussell - Interesting. Is this a fringe idea or are established physicists working on it? Do you have any further reading I could do? I have always been taught that the experiment settled the question and it was no longer interesting for physicists.
    1
  48.  @revcrussell  - But time dilation is a proven fact, so wouldn't it be wise to accept it?
    1
  49.  @revcrussell  - No, that isn't true. Time dilation occurs when anything is traveling fast, and the closer to c you get, the more time dilation there is. Time dilation is not a hypothesis, it has been proven with empirical evidence. Not to mention, the mathematics behind it are rigorous. Do you understand the basis for time dilation? It must exist if you understand the basics. Energy is confined to a localized area in atoms and molecules. That doesn't mean energy propagation slows down, it just speeds along in a very small space. This is what makes matter evolve through time, or age if you will. You ever seen videos of molecules "buzzing" extremely fast? That buzzing is the energy moving rapidly which makes the molecule age through time. When that molecule gets close to the speed of light, that buzzing dies down dramatically, meaning the molecule advances through time much more slowly. This is because the energy propagation and waveforms are always moving at a constant speed. Now, that speed can either work to age the molecule, or it can work to move the molecule through space. The more you move it through space, the less energy is left to advance it through time, hence time dilation. I am starting to think your ideas are just flat out wrong, because saying time dilation isn't real is to deny the basics of reality. Forget about studies done on atoms and molecules which show this, GPS satellites have clearly demonstrated time dilation is real.
    1
  50.  @juanausensi499  - That doesn't work though. Bell's inequality shows it doesn't.
    1