Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Is Gravity Quantum? New Experiment Could Testing Oppenheim's Bold Alternative" video.

  1. There is no such thing as a gravitational force to begin with and forces in quantum mechanics are not "fuzzy". The evolution of the quantum mechanical ensemble is completely smooth, even though special relativity forces the individual system to exchange energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges in discrete quantities, which in a certain semi-classical limit would make reality feel "shaky", but that's a problem with the special choice of that limit.
    2
  2. No, that's not exactly where quantization originates, but you are not all that far off. Quantum mechanics is a direct consequence of special relativity and the source of "strangeness" is the fact the the local future is always determined by parts of spacetime which are not in the local past.
    1
  3. Feynman didn't show that. He derived a mathematical formula that is frequently misinterpreted, including by himself. You don't need to repeat all the bullshit that is out there. It doesn't make you look smart. :-)
    1
  4. @ Yes, that's my point. The popular explanations are all wrong. As soon as you have a probability, you need to have an ensemble, i.e. an infinite repetition of the same experiment. What would "a path" mean in an infinite repetition of these experiments??? A path is a classical quantity that describes the motion of ONE classical body. There is, of course, a way to get to paths in quantum mechanics, but it is NOT given by the standard formalism. You can read e.g. Mott's 1929 paper about the wave mechanics of alpha ray tracks. He derives in there how classical paths follow from repeated weak measurements on the system through an application of conditional probabilities. Those simply don't exist in the standard formalism.
    1
  5. @ ChatGPT, is that you? ;-)
    1
  6. @ You were simply parroting. You didn't have any thoughts of your own there. ;-)
    1
  7. @ Yes, that was complete bullshit. ;-)
    1
  8. Yes, that was 100% bullshit. ;-)
    1
  9. @ It has, a hundred years ago. How big is the rock that you are living under? ;-)
    1
  10. @ You sound more like somebody who is binge drinking. ;-)
    1
  11. @ And now you are feeling sorry for yourself. ;-)
    1
  12. @ It's called having fun. ;-)
    1
  13. @ Why do you keep begging for attention, anyway? No girlfriend, huh? ;-)
    1
  14. @karagiannisboris I am the guy who feeds the chess playing pigeons. I got a dozen ones like you every day. ;-)
    1
  15. @ Here, have some more attention. :-)
    1
  16. Because there are such patterns in there, at least in tubes that have changed their chemical composition and/or pressure due to age or defects.
    1
  17. Nature doesn't exhibit any randomness. Only people exhibit a lack of education. ;-)
    1
  18. The use of these terms does not cause any problems within science. Everybody of interest knows that string theory is not a theory (except maybe in a mathematical sense). It's not a hypothesis either, by the way. Theory and hypothesis are NOT a pair of opposites.
    1
  19. @ You are hearing a lot of bullshit lately. That's just a function of the internet being a noise amplifier. The solution to this problem is societal. We either have to start punishing bullshitting (seriously) or we have to change over from democracy to some kind of meritocracy where those who are listening to bullshit lose their votes. Eventually the transition from humans to transhumans will make this problem go away anyway.
    1
  20. No. :-)
    1
  21. That's string theory.
    1
  22. Yes, that was complete bullshit. ;-)
    1
  23.  @edweard  Whenever he feels lonely and starts begging for attention. ;-)
    1