Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Cool Worlds" channel.

  1. Makes no difference whatsoever.
    1
  2. Why is everybody afraid of AI? Are you afraid of people who are smarter than you? They are not the ones who are threating you. It's the stupid ones that you have to be afraid of. They are the ones starting bar brawls and wars.
    1
  3. Why are you telling us that you have trouble with women? ;-)
    1
  4. That is correct. One can not derive from either these diagrams or the math of special relativity what would happen in situations that simply can't happen. ;-)
    1
  5. Of course entanglement can be observed. ;-)
    1
  6. What causes the split is a lack of education of people who believe in this nonsense. ;-)
    1
  7. There was no such assumption. What we didn't expect were the gas giants in very close orbits.
    1
  8. Yes! All opposable thumbs up!
    1
  9. Why are you telling us that you don't understand physics? ;-)
    1
  10. A) There are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. B) There is no such thing as a collapse. A quantum measurement is the absorption of a quantum of energy by the measurement system. C) We teach all of that in high school. D) Absolutely nobody seems to listen to anything we teach in high school. ;-)
    1
  11. @ They have been teaching the photoelectric effect in Germany for over 40, if not over 50 years. That is exactly how quantum mechanics works. It simply a specialized example of the general scheme. It tells you that photons are quanta of energy. Where in that experiment do you see particles? Nowhere. It's a macroscopic experiment which is usually carried out with photon numbers on the order of 10^12-10^15 or so. Where else have you seen something infinitely small? And how did you do that? I am an experimental high energy physicist and I have never seen a single particle in my life. What I have seen by the trillions were irreversible energy exchanges between the physical vacuum and the matter of my detectors. The difference between an atom and a quantum is fairly trivial: an atom is a persistent object that can be observed many times. A quantum only "exists" exactly once: as the amount of energy that flows between two systems during an emission or an absorption event. Easy, right? I would almost call the difference between "many times" and "exactly once" kindergarten level physics. No, not so easy at all, actually. It is this seemingly trivial difference that makes it so hard to get used to quantum mechanics because it has enormous consequences. It does, for instance, not allow us to assign "paths" to quanta. Yes, you will have to start over with everything you believe you know because NONE of it is as you think. That is not my problem. It's yours. You have to forget everything about atomism because quantum mechanics is NOT atomism. It's pretty much the opposite of atomism. Oh, and you will have to learn special relativity, because quantum mechanics is a direct consequence of it. If you have never heard that before, then you are in for quite a shock. There is no version of quantum mechanics that can be understood without it. ;-)
    1
  12. You can tell a time difference between two random numbers vs. two other random numbers? You and who else?
    1
  13. The quantum state is a description of the ensemble. It's not a description of the individual system. The individual system doesn't have a state. Only the ensemble can be in superposition. The individual system never is.
    1
  14. Bob's measurement has zero consequences for Alice outcome. So, no, you can't do that.
    1
  15. The finite speed of light is a necessary consistency condition for causality. There is no way around it. If we break this consistency condition even once, then we break causality in an infinite number of ways. Nobody can put that Humpty Dumpty back together, again.
    1
  16. Entanglement is simply the consequence of conservation laws for multi-quantum states. It is, if you want, the quantum equivalent of Newton's third law. It doesn't matter how you do these measurements. They always result in random looking sequences. The only thing entanglement does is to give us a non-trivial correlation between these sequences... but to find that correlation both have to be compared with each other, which can't be done any faster than with ordinary speed of light communication.
    1
  17. But you can't. :-)
    1
  18. One can't observe when the other side is measuring. That's simply a misunderstanding on your part.
    1
  19.  @aarongoodwin4845  Yes, you are measuring the opposite of a random outcome. The opposite of a random outcome is always... a random outcome. It doesn't tell you anything.
    1
  20.  @aarongoodwin4845  It doesn't matter what you do. You always get a random outcome on both ends.
    1
  21.  @aarongoodwin4845  I can tell that you don't get it. Most people are completely lost when it comes to trivial relativistic phenomena. ;-)
    1
  22.  @aarongoodwin4845  What's up with he physics envy, anyway? It's not my fault that you weren't paying attention in school while I was. :-)
    1
  23. Not everybody is a gamer. Serious people are mountain climbers and astronauts.
    1
  24. No, you can't. You will just get random looking sequences at both ends. A random sequence is a random sequence, no matter how long.
    1
  25. Of course. None of this requires any consciousness. You can play the entire game with high energy scattering processes involving tachyons. If you do, then there will be a flood of tachyons coming at you before you even turn on the accelerator. If you just think about building a really high energy accelerator there will be a flood of tachyons coming at you. And boy, if you are thinking about building a really, really high energy accelerator, then the Neanderthals will see a bright light in the sky that will completely wipe out all life on Earth. So don't you dare thinking about accelerators for tachyon research! You don't want to hurt the Neanderthals. ;-)
    1
  26. Awh, you are so cute when you are coping with your failure in science class. ;-)
    1
  27. You have clearly never been to the Arctic. ;-)
    1
  28. Wouldn't make he slightest difference to Alice. She would still see a random sequence. ;-)
    1
  29. Why would it be short lived. The coal age was short lived and so will the oil/gas age be. The solar age can go on for as long as the stars shine (which is hundreds of billions of years) and the gravitational energy source age could go on for even longer than that.
    1
  30. There were no rational expectations to find earth-like planets with current equipment. We need better observatories for that.
    1
  31. Yes, and most planets will start with reducing atmospheres. Earth's oxygen atmosphere is an afterthought that was created by life, which almost killed itself when it did that. There is no hard step there. Neither is prebiotic chemistry a hard step if we go by evidence from Earth's development timeline. The hardest step may have been from single to multicellular life, after that evolution was extremely rapid. Brains took a while but the development of human intelligence happened in the blink of an evolutionary eye. The transition to artificial life and intelligence which is happening now will take less than a century.
    1
  32.  @scottbullock3045  I have heard a lot of bullshit in my life. ;-)
    1
  33. Quite the contrary. It was capitalism that created the necessary GDP to do any of this.
    1
  34. I am giving you a random series of short and long Morse code signals. What do they mean? ;-)
    1
  35.  @experttact  What about many random characters? They are many random characters. ;-)
    1
  36.  @experttact  That sounds great, except that nature won't let you. All you will ever get are random characters. ;-)
    1
  37. Two random numbers are still random numbers.
    1
  38.  @Mr-wv1tu  I am just having fun. I know that most will never get it. Most people can't even remember the high school definition of energy... and small amounts of energy is what we are talking about here, after all.
    1
  39. Particles don't exist. You can't observe something that doesn't exist. What exists are quanta of energy. A quantum of energy can only be observed exactly once.
    1
  40. All planets, moons and planetoids in the solar system are rocky with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. I have no idea what you mean by the extreme rarity of rocky planets. Three of these planets are or at least were in the habitable zone: Venus, Earth and Mars. Also not rare. There are up to ten moons with inner oceans that are at least theoretically habitable. Finally even Pluto may have an inner ocean. Absolutely nothing in our solar system points to rarity of potential habitats for life.
    1
  41. It for sure didn't hurt not to be alive. :-)
    1
  42. Of course Pele did. :-)
    1
  43. CERN is not a thought experiment. It's rather real. :-)
    1
  44. There is no difference for either receiver between an entangled and a non-entangled quantum. They all produce a random spin projection.
    1
  45. By sending its blueprints to other civilizations over radio.
    1
  46.  @bryansjodin  This has nothing to do with ONE observer. Relativity makes a statement about ALL observers. If relativity holds AND causality holds, then nothing causal can happen beyond the speed of light. You can let go of relativity, causality or both and then these algebraic restrictions fall away. So either your grandfather is not responsible for bringing one of your parents in this world (and you just randomly appeared with your grandfather being correlated to some observers) or physics is not relative. We do not have any evidence for either of these conditions being violated. That makes FTL fiction at this moment.
    1
  47. Well, if you would have said the same thing about perpetual motion in 1860, then you would have been equally wrong, but we would already be 124 years past your failed prediction. ;-)
    1
  48.  @sixtysixstyx  I never underestimate Dunning-Kruger. :-)
    1
  49. So how comes you asked but you didn't receive? ;-)
    1
  50. Your iPhone has a logo, trademark and country of manufacture notice, serial number etc.. Where do I find those on you? :-)
    1