Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "The Institute of Art and Ideas" channel.

  1. It's much easier to work with a patient who has been given a diagnosis. It doesn't matter whether it's spot on or not. What matters is that the patient has to agree, intellectually, that something in their life isn't going right. That's an absolute necessity for therapy and it becomes much easier if that "whatever is going wrong" has a name. You can't get anybody to submit to a process that is literally mind-altering without agreeing to the need to alter their minds. How are you going to get to that point if you aren't even willing to put a name on it? We can talk about whether we are over-diagnosing and over-treating, but that is a completely independent question.
    4
  2. True... but no offense... we haven't even solved Ising spins, yet, so it's not like other fields of physics haven't met their theorist's breaking points early and often. The mathematicians have the ultimate example for that phenomenon in the Collatz conjecture. It doesn't take much at all to come up with very hard to solve problems. Should these things suck all the air out of the room? No, not really. I think we can agree about that.
    3
  3. What Weinstein is really saying here is "WHY IS NOBODY LISTENING TO ME??????". ;-)
    3
  4. We are far beyond this man. Try listening to Edward Witten and Nima Arkani-Hamed for a few minutes. You will see that there is a step up, even from greats like Penrose.
    3
  5.  @charlesnelson5187  Yeah, that's not quite enough to understand physics at this level, I am afraid.
    3
  6. He is mostly selling Michio Kaku. Having said that, his string theory textbook is actually an OK read.
    3
  7. I don't see any fine tuning. Indeed, I don't see any tuning, at all. Unless, of course, you can show me the knobs that the white bearded, sandal wearing designer was turning. Where are they?
    3
  8. What is broken is not physics theory. It's the unwillingness of folks like you to pay attention in school. Nature doesn't play dice. Only people do. ;-)
    2
  9. You are clearly not happy with your fast food job. Maybe you should upgrade to parking attendant. ;-)
    2
  10. Not a bad comparison, except that a mass marathon would be even better. LHC took like 30 years and tens of thousands of "runners". I think we are getting close to the era of centennial projects that will require two, three or even four generations of scientists. It's a bit frightening, actually.
    2
  11.  @helicalactual  I am a physics PhD who happens to be the designer of one of the core components of one of the largest high energy physics detectors on Earth and you are feeling sorry for yourself. ;-)
    2
  12. It doesn't. Tidal forces can not be eliminated by freefall.
    2
  13. All teens are arguing with their dads and they always take the opposite opinion. Sound of one hand clapping. ;-)
    2
  14. What does he have that others don't? Peanut-butter-jelly-radish sandwich? :-)
    2
  15. Apart from the fact that this isn't science but just math, you check for self-consistence. Twistor theory does not seem to lead to physical theories, at least not in a naive version.
    2
  16. He is mostly saying that he doesn't understand quantum mechanics. :-)
    2
  17. Awh, you are so cute when you are begging for attention. ;-)
    2
  18. Neither quantum mechanics nor relativity seem to be approximations. If we break relativity, then all of physics collapses. Quantum mechanics, at the end of the day, is a local consequence of relativity, so one can't even say that one is wrong if the other is correct. What is not clear is what remains of "global" physics because relativity PLUS the equivalence principle are causing some major havoc on ideas like "energy" and "angular momentum" and not just in the quantum sector.
    2
  19.  @ZigSputnik  You haven't heard of it, yet? The guy has been going around on the internet with that nonsense using a dozen different accounts for years. ;-)
    2
  20. The equivalence principle is not math. It has been experimentally tested to very high precision.
    2
  21. Awh, you are so cute when you are admitting that you don't understand physics. ;-)
    2
  22.  @max5665  You are getting cuter by the minute. :-)
    2
  23. I have never found a flaw in quantum mechanics. I have only found many people who don't understand it. ;-)
    2
  24. Yes, it's called gravity. It's what keeps you nailed to the floor.
    2
  25.  @johnaweiss  You might be mistaking me for the Taliban. The Taliban are hostile and abusive. I am merely direct and to the point.
    2
  26.  @johnaweiss  I did. Have a nice day.
    2
  27. Oh, boy. Another person who knows absolutely nothing about physics.
    2
  28.  @hans-joachimbierwirth4727  Oh, boy. Another person who knows absolutely nothing about physics.
    2
  29. No, not outside, but probably inside of black holes. The problem is that we can't do experiments in there...
    2
  30. So what have you been smoking? Incense? ;-)
    2
  31. You were asked in school to do just that. What happened when they gave you that chance was that you failed science class. ;-)
    2
  32.  @MeRetroGamer  Trollology.
    2
  33. She didn't get funding because she never delivered anything of importance. I want to be a famous person who brings peace to earth. So what? So nothing. I can't do that any more than Sabine can come up with important physics. There is a difference between wanting and doing and in science you only get paid for doing, not for wanting. ;-)
    2
  34. What we "have learned" is brand new. We are generating tons of new data at LHC and other facilities, neutrino and dark matter experiment etc. that was not available in the past. It just happens that we had the basics already figured out in the late 1920s to the 1960s. That's what happens when your theoretical physicists know how to do their jobs... they are ahead of the experiments by decades. It's a sign of success, not failure. ;-)
    2
  35.  @Thomas-gk42  I read her physics papers. There are worthless for all I can tell. She hasn't produced anything of value in theory and she sure doesn't know how to work an experiment. Why would I waste money on her books? I already know what I am NOT dealing with: a first rate physicist. :-)
    2
  36. That's indistinguishable from a conventional dark field model.
    2
  37. It's trivially wrong. You can find the mistake of MWI in the second sentence of Everett's thesis. He simply didn't know how quantum mechanics works. :-)
    2
  38. Yes, and in that sense string theory is not science. It's a hell of a ride in mathland, though.
    2
  39. Yes, the key word there is "believe", which only idiots will use in conjunction with science and mathematics. String theory is quite well defined in its function, it just didn't lead to the kind of structural breakthrough in science that some people were hoping for. We had situations like this before, e.g. with Bohr's model of the atom. It was a step in the right direction, but it didn't quite get us there.
    2
  40. The problem with your argument is that string theory actually follows directly from Galileo's work. Even though this was known before him, Galileo was the first to give a modern description of relativity. It took almost 300 years to extract a mathematically precise physical theory from that description. That was Einstein's theory of special relativity. Einstein then upgraded that to a version that also includes classical relativity. In parallel we learned how to formulate all of matter and radiation with a relativistic theory that is called quantum field theory. If we try to include gravity into the quantum field theory framework, then we end up with string theory as one possible solution. So, yeah, string theory was implicitly already present in Galileo's work, he just didn't know how to tease it out.
    2
  41. Why are you telling us that you failed in science class? We didn't ask and we don't need to know. ;-)
    2
  42.  @ewallt  Quantum mechanics requires the existence of an ensemble, i.e. the ability to repeat the same experiment many times. The universe does not satisfy that requirement. It is popular to talk about e.g. the wave function of the universe (Wheeler in particular made a hobby of it), but it's complete intellectual nonsense. The universe is simply not an ensemble experiment.
    2
  43.  @Thomas-gk42  Yes, as an experimental physicist I know what that means. It means that it doesn't matter how right you are as a theorist, until somebody does an experiment that proves you right you will never get the physics Nobel. Theoretically you still have a shot at the Fields medal... if your name is Edward Witten. If your name is Sabine, then you can't even get tenure. ;-)
    2
  44. That's correct. That's why the cosmological constant was mostly a curiosity outside of the steady state crowd which needed it to create a steady state model. Steady state doesn't agree with basically any observation that has been made on the universe, so the cosmological constant is kind of useless until you get to the precision cosmology stage, which really didn't happen until the 1990s. :-)
    2
  45. We are, you simply don't know the literature. All the result are either Newtonian (on the small scale) or generally relativistic. We haven't learned a single new thing about gravity since 1915. Would you like to discuss another one of your delusions now? ;-)
    2
  46. Yes, but unfortunately also wrong.
    2
  47. Mass is not a problem in quantum mechanics and it has nothing to do with micro and macro. There are plenty of macroscopic quantum effects.
    1
  48.  @SoccerIsCareer  Why are you telling us that you weren't paying attention in high school science class? ;-)
    1
  49.  @SoccerIsCareer  Yes, that's how you became a fool. I know. I was there. I saw all of you kids on the back bench. You were struggling with the material and you were desperately hiding from the teacher. ;-)
    1
  50.  @SoccerIsCareer  Superposition means that we have CONSTRUCTED an ensemble theory. Child, you need to stop telling everybody that your education failed. It's a disgusting detail about yourself that needs to be kept hidden. ;-)
    1
  51. Say, what happened to you in school? It must have been very traumatic. ;-)
    1
  52. Why are you telling me that you don't know anything about non-collider experiments? Is that because you don't know anything about collider experiments, either? There are a lot of different machines on the planet. LHC is just one of many. ;-)
    1
  53. Ma! I just found the great wall of bullshit on the internet!
    1
  54. What is "emmense pressure"?
    1
  55. Why are you telling us that your feelings are all over the place? :-)
    1
  56. @ They are certainly not in the right place. :-)
    1
  57. @ We most likely had the correct theory since at least 1630, latest. That's when Galileo formulated a modern example of the relativity principle in form of Galileo's ship. The relativity principle spawns both quantum mechanics and general relativity in a mathematically pretty stringent way. It simply took over 300 years for us to develop the necessary mathematical tools to see that. What it does not do, is to prescribe exactly one solution for the universe. We can derive the "current solution" from anthropic principles (and have been doing that since the 19th century, even in classical mechanics), but we are still lacking at least one theoretical ingredient to select the current solution among the possible ones. So what we are lacking, right now, is not the unifying principle. That's the most trivial thing of all (and that's why it gets overlooked by virtually everybody, layman or specialist). We are lacking the mathematical tools to further explore the consequences of relativity and we are lacking empirical data. What you, personally, are "missing" is simply the education that would make all of this crystal clear to you.
    1
  58. @ BTW, what makes general relativity "incompatible" with quantum mechanics are two fundamentally flawed assumptions: 1) The equivalence principle is simply false. It is only a good approximation in the absence of forces. As soon as the tiniest bit of electromagnetism rears its ugly head matter does NOT behave independently of its chemical and nuclear composition. This is the reason why microscopic gravity measurements are so incredibly difficult. Electromagnetism completely swamps gravity. 2) That general relativity is a well verified theory. It isn't. General relativity is an effective classical field theory, which is completely unverified except in the approximation of large distances (compared to the electromagnetic, electroweak and color scale). It may or may not hold below roughly 0.1mm and even at the scale of 1m we only have tests for its Newtonian approximation. The smallest known weak field test case for general relativity is roughly the scale of Earth. If you had taken some time to study physics all of this would be obvious to you.
    1
  59. Why torture an old man with his follies? ;-)
    1
  60. Why would I ask you? You don't know anything. ;-)
    1
  61.  @김영철-p7v  The bullshit you just gave me told me all I needed to know about you. To an observer who is moving rapidly relative to us the universe will appear heavily blue shifted in the forward and heavily red shifted in the backward direction. It will not appear isotropic. You are completely clueless, even about special relativity. Take care.
    1
  62.  @김영철-p7v  Yes, what you said is not even true under special relativity. ;-)
    1
  63. Not about quantum mechanics. Maybe about CCC.
    1
  64. The actual problem you have with theoretical physics is that you are too lazy to learn about it. ;-)
    1
  65.  @angelmujahid2233  Why does a fact suddenly become an ad hominem attack? How much time did you spend on learning theoretical physics? Among physicists eight years 24/7 is considered the theoretical minimum. An experienced theorist will have 20-30 years of full time experience or more. ;-)
    1
  66. It doesn't look like it at the cosmological scale. Stuff just keeps flying away with no way to get it back.
    1
  67. Yes, physics isn't getting enough funding. Absolutely. :-)
    1
  68. Salam is a working theorist for all I can tell. He has recent publications (with others and first author) on arxiv. Sabine used to be one but she worked herself out of the field by publishing meaningless drivel papers. There is no there, there, for all I can tell. Ekeberg is just an author. No trail of papers on arxiv and I don't care to look elsewhere. It's not worth my time. There is a consensus in the community: we need data. What nobody can tell you is where that data is supposed to come from. We lack workable accelerator technology options that would reduce the price/TeV by at least one or two orders of magnitude and we can't solve the problem by throwing a trillion dollars at it using current technology. This isn't rocket science, but it's very similar to rocket science: the field is mature. Elon Musk can build a rocket that is a tad larger and more capable than the Saturn V was, but not much more than that. Nobody will be building a direct to orbit fusion drive torch ship that can travel to Jupiter in two weeks anytime soon, but that fantasy is exactly the equivalent of the kind of accelerator that high energy physics might need to take the next (serious) step. Should we shut the field down because of that? Of course not. That's just Karen's, forgive me, Sabine's wet dream.
    1
  69.  @Aiel-Necromancer  SpaceX just landed a Startship, kid. You need to stop drinking. ;-)
    1
  70.  @Aiel-Necromancer  Elon is the head engineer at SpaceX. You need to stop drinking. :-)
    1
  71. The chemical scale can be understood as being "set" by a couple of things: the speed of light, Planck's constant, epsilon_zero, the electron charge, the electron mass. None of that really matters as the values of these constants depend on our choices of physical units. They are only "uneven" numbers in SI units, which are really engineering choices. Set c=1, h=1, m_e=1 etc. and you will find that the only "constant" that remains is the fine structure constant which is the famous 1/137. That is the only "unexplained" mystery here. What sets that? We don't know. We don't know what sets the ratios between electron and proton masses, either, because for that we would have to know what sets the interaction strength of quantum-chromodynamics. There are, in total, something like 21 such ratios in the current standard model of high energy physics and if supersymmetry exists, then there could be dozens, if not hundreds more of such free parameters in the low energy effective field theory.
    1
  72. Well, that was certainly a stupid thing to say, as the large and growing number of proposed hypotheses shows that mathematics and "thinking" is certainly not the problem. The problem is that we have nothing concrete to hypothesize about. Nature won't give us any experimental or observational clues for what it is that we have to explain.
    1
  73.  @edwardmacnab354  That's because I know more than you, just like your prof. See how easy it is to explain these things? :-)
    1
  74. Dissent is not enough for a scientific argument. You have to have facts that are backing you up. Penrose is like everybody else: he shines on material that he knows, like cosmology, and he completely falls apart on material that he doesn't, like quantum mechanics.
    1
  75. So what happened to you in school? Was it traumatic?
    1
  76. Cope harder. ;-)
    1
  77. The universe is randomly accelerating stuff to really high energy, but that is not enough to do serious vacuum spectroscopy with that stuff. It has to hit other stuff in a well defined interaction volume and the resulting scattering process has to be surrounded by a nearly 4pi detector system. Without the last two conditions all we are getting are tons of by-products that don't contain the actual physical information we are after. We do have those detector systems... large cosmic ray shower experiments are doing just that. They have their uses, but they can't replace an accelerator.
    1
  78. 1) There are no particles, neither quantum nor classical. 2) The outcome of a quantum measurement is not predictable because it is not known to either us or nature. You are as wrong as anybody can be.
    1
  79. You are clearly a follower of that "theory". ;-)
    1
  80. Most physicists I know are hard atheists. We are certainly looking for funding but nobody is looking for god in the physics department. ;-)
    1
  81. Sabine hasn't done anything more in her life than Kaku and probably a lot less. Penrose is probably the one who has the most solid theoretical track record but he is too old. He is already talking nonsense about a lot of things.
    1
  82. You know what they say... if you can't do teach. Well, she can't even teach. That's why she trolls. :-)
    1
  83. Is that why you can't tell us the definition of energy? ;-)
    1
  84. And you wrote that on a device that was built by physicists, why? ;-)
    1
  85.  @mbestland  Bwaahahaha... that sentence came directly out of the advertising department. ;-)
    1
  86. String theory seems to lead to branes naturally. There is probably a correspondence.
    1
  87. Yes, that is absolute bullshit. ;-)
    1
  88.  @helicalactual  See, I told you that you would be feeling sorry for yourself. ;-)
    1
  89.  @helicalactual  The self-pity is oozing. ;-)
    1
  90. The only things that are being explained here is that neither you nor Penrose were paying any attention in high school science class where we tell you the trivial solution these days. ;-)
    1
  91. Well, you can clearly not see very far. :-)
    1
  92.  @Frost_Byte_Tech  Who? Penrose? I can not tell you what an old man who has lost his mind means. I can only explain proper physics to you. ;-)
    1
  93.  @KeithAllpress  None of this has anything to do with quantum mechanics. You can derive the structure of quantum mechanics in a more or less trivial fashion from special relativity. You can actually do more than that. The standard model is basically just a product of three unitary representations of the Poincare group (OK, it's a little more complicated than that, but not by much). The only "mystery" is why it is this product and not some other. Theoretically nature could have chosen many other low energy effective field theories, but it didn't. All we have, right now, is an anthropic argument why it's this and not something else. That's kind of lame (we had such arguments since the 19th century for classical physics, already, so it's not even new).
    1
  94.  @KeithAllpress  The universe doesn't owe you travel between the stars in a human lifetime. It would also be highly unhealthy. Simulations of the early solar system suggest that there might have been a lot more planets in the early solar system, but many got either kicked out or they collided...neither of which is a good thing for life. That is exactly what keeps happening to stars in globular clusters today: they are gravitationally unstable. Technically even the solar system is probably unstable and the stability timescale of the sun and the planets alone is rather short, on the order of millions of years. This means that something has to be stabilizing the system. General relativity seems to help a little and so do gas, dust and small bodies. Personally I suspect that we would still be unstable without dark matter and I am looking at the stability of planetary systems as indirect evidence for dark matter fields, but that's probably awfully hard to validate with current observational data.
    1
  95. Yes. It is still a pre-geometry model, even though it desperately tries to get away from that, but I don't think it ever did.
    1
  96. Well, you will have to wait for a very, very long time for that because we have known since 1927 that nothing here is "missing". ;-)
    1
  97. Sabine Hossenfelder is the Karen of physics. ;-)
    1
  98. The funders of science are the taxpayers, kid. Start paying your taxes and we talk. ;-)
    1
  99. Currently it's not even that. A hypothesis has to be testable. String theory is simply to general relativity what quantum field theory is to special relativity. It's a necessary piece of mathematical machinery that, unfortunately, didn't manage to tame the QFT landscape. It just replaced it with something of similar size. The great hope that gravity might restrict the universe to this one and no other has, so far, not materialized.
    1
  100. Engineers can't even remember the definition of energy, kid. ;-)
    1
  101. Eric tells you what you want to hear. Every kid who failed in school and never got over it wants to hear that what they taught him in school was wrong. ;-)
    1
  102. All money is debt, but there is no debt collector for this debt. You need to learn some macroeconomics theory. ;-)
    1
  103. It's cute that your intellectual laziness tries to cope so hard. ;-)
    1
  104. What's up with the bullshit? ;-)
    1
  105. Only if gravity is a conventional force, which it doesn't seem to be. People need to stop talking about the Planck length as some miraculous solution to all the problems they don't understand. It's not. It's not even a solution to the most trivial problems we have in quantum field theory, right now.
    1
  106.  @ZigSputnik  A trivial problem of QFT is that all of its predictions are asymptotic, interaction-free plane waves at infinity, i.e. elements of the free theory. If we turn interaction on, then scattering happens everywhere, i.e. there are no free states, at all. Over an infinite distance the universe is always completely opaque. You can't solve that with some high energy cutoff scale because it doesn't happen at high energy. It happens at all energies and at all scales.
    1
  107. String theory is not a theory. You need to pay more attention in high school, kid.
    1
  108. That sounds all cool, except that when you read Copernicus then it's pretty obvious that his view had been sufficiently proven some 60 years earlier, already. By the time Galileo made his discoveries, heliocentrism was a scientific fact. The Church was simply a century and ten bucks short of the science of its time.
    1
  109. Interesting question. I am not aware of one, but given how important gravity is there should have been one. A clear omission.
    1
  110. We don't know what happens inside a black hole. We don't even know if there is an inside. I tend to imagine there may not be.
    1
  111.  @garrett6064  Nobody has ever seen Hawking radiation. It's pretty much impossible to detect at the current time. Seriously. Please try to learn some physics.
    1
  112.  @garrett6064  I am the first actual physicist who talks to you, Dude. At this rate I will be the last one. ;-)
    1
  113. The problem with string theory is that it hasn't even reached the level of a hypothesis, yet. It is still a "not even wrong". I think that rubs a lot of people the wrong way round emotionally. There is nothing to be emotional about. String theory is simply yet another representation of the Poincare group. It may or it may not be realized by nature. There is no need to get upset about that.
    1
  114. True. Now you are 100% dependent on private owners jacking up prices 20% per quarter. ;-)
    1
  115. Yes, we know that you were always confused in high school.
    1
  116. Wow... first time I hear Maudlin say something that's utterly correct. Maybe he is not totally "outta there", after all. :-)
    1
  117. Mistaking Weinstein for a physicist is, indeed, anti-intellectual. ;-)
    1
  118.  @Thomas-gk42  Yes, and Trump "wrote" a book about the art of the deal. ;-)
    1
  119. @ His science writing is similar to Sabine's. ;-)
    1
  120.  @realcygnus  Somebody who doesn't pay attention to astronomy and solid state physics, obviously.
    1
  121.  @realcygnus  Yeah, I got that. It's not totally rhetorical, of course. The question is quite real for the folks who have to decide about science funding... where do we get the most bang for the buck? It is more or less a zero sum game, so allocation matters. Personally I happen to like astronomy, a lot, but solid state physics, as boring as it sometimes is, has made a lot of progress on new kinds of systems, too. I am sure people who are watching other areas will have other suggestions for where else we have been making lots of progress.
    1
  122. Yes, we did, but why were you not paying attention in school when we explained it to you? :-)
    1
  123.  @koenraad4618  Dude, self-anointed physics geniuses like you are a dime a dozen. Your kind has been hanging around every physics department of the world forever. :-) There is no such thing as "the Coulomb field". There are only people who don't understand physics and are in desperate need of attention. ;-)
    1
  124. Why are you telling us that you failed in high school? ;-)
    1
  125. 1) You failed to understand special relativity. It is impossible to know the initial conditions. 2) There are no particles and physical systems are not in superposition. That's merely a property of the theory.
    1
  126. Quantum physics explains ALL of the properties of matter and radiation. Duality is not one of those properties. It's just an old failed mental model that is popular among people who don't understand physics.
    1
  127. Probably not at the LHC. There are plans for Higgs factories, but finding a Higgs multiplet is not going to drive the theory. It's already accounted for. What you are asking is basically the same as the question if one can discover nuclear physics by developing more precise analytic methods in organic chemistry. One can not and that's that.
    1
  128. I don't have to believe that you failed science class. You just proved it to us. ;-)
    1
  129. @ It was an observation. ;-)
    1
  130. @ OK, let's do the test. Give me a description of the second law of thermodynamics in six words or less. :-)
    1
  131. @ No, you can't look this up. The correct answer is not on the internet, even though it is known to everybody who has finished second year undergrad physics. I think we are done here, structural engineer. I won't tell you how to do your job and if you are any smart at all, you will stop telling me how to do mine. The only question left is... are you any smart or are you simply begging me for attention because Mommy isn't home? ;-)
    1
  132. More than that, actually. ;-)
    1
  133. Even the statement that there is no progress in science is ridiculously false.
    1
  134. Sabine is a Karen and so is Weinstein. They are both suffering from roughly the same personality disorders. ;-)
    1
  135. If you were, then you would be reading scores of really, really boring CERN papers. You aren't, are you?
    1
  136. Shakespeare died in 1616, approx. 15 years before Galileo formulated the relativity principle in one of his books (around 1630), so he just about missed the advent of "modern physics", but he may have been aware of Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moons (1610). Science journalist Dan Falk has pointed out that his play "Cymbeline" was published only a few months after Galileo's discovery and that it mentions Jupiter and four ghosts dancing in a circle in a dream scene. So, yeah, he may have been inspired by science more than he was by philosophy.
    1
  137. Awh, you are so cute when you are signaling that you failed high school science class and never got over the humiliation. ;-)
    1
  138. Curiously, we probably have known "everything" since roughly 1630. ;-)
    1
  139.  @Fgggffvhhhgffffff  I know what we know, kid. I am one of those scientists and you are the guy who serves burgers. ;-)
    1
  140.  @tja4379  That's cool. Can you show me which part of one of the world's largest high energy physics detectors was designed by you? I could show you mine. ;-) That I used to be a scientist is simply a fact. If you can't accept facts, that's your problem, not mine. I will simply point out that people who can't accept reality are suffering from deep seated educational traumata that they never got over. :-) And why do I have to be "strong"? What are the chances that I can teach any of you anything? You weren't paying attention in school, already. So that limitation is also YOUR limitation. It wasn't your teachers and it's not me who just aren't "strong enough". YOU are too weak. ;-)
    1
  141. Why are you cheering on an old man for losing his mind? That's a rather sad affair.
    1
  142.  @kylebowles9820  Congrats to repeating bullshit that you have heard on the internet. It makes you look semi-intelligent in the eyes of those who also don't know squat like you and like a total fool in the eyes of those who know better. ;-)
    1
  143.  @carparkmartian2193  What contradiction would that be? A lot of what Penrose pushes is total nonsense. The phrase "wave function collapse", for instance, doesn't even appear in well written quantum mechanics textbooks like Sakurai. It has no scientific meaning and you won't find a scientific definition for it anywhere. The wave function isn't "made" of anything. It's a purely abstract mathematical idea by man. It's a concept that only applies to well defined quantum mechanical ensembles. A black hole is not one of those, either, so anything Penrose and some other relativists are telling you about the interplay of quantum mechanics and strong gravity is total nonsense. At most you are telling me here that you don't know what quantum mechanics is and how it works. :-)
    1
  144.  @carparkmartian2193  von Neumann explains EXACTLY what happens during a quantum measurement. You clearly didn't read the chapter you are referencing. It is NOT collapse of the wave function but irreversible energy transfer. He even says where the energy goes, eventually: it gets radiated away by the measurement system as heat. That's the one and only correct explanation. Dirac made it clear that he understood that quanta are amounts of energy. The measurement process is therefor an energy transfer process. Dirac's work culminated in quantum field theory in which there is not even a measurement process. We are simply looking at scattering of plane waves from infinity to infinity. Griffith's tells you in his foreword that he doesn't understand quantum mechanics and that he only cares about the "shut up and calculate" aspects and then he proceeds in his entire textbook to prove that he indeed does not understand quantum mechanics. It's one of the worst books in the market. It's telling that you didn't give me a meaningful definition, either. You didn't find one, did you? :-) The measurement postulate is NOT a description of collapse. It's a recipe for strong measurement which tells you exactly what is going on in quantum mechanics: it's an irreversible energy transfer between two systems: quanta of energy get transferred from the quantum system to the measurement system. Nothing happens to the original wave function after that. It simply seizes to be a meaningful description of the original quantum mechanical ensemble because the coupling between the two (ensembles of) systems has changed the experiment.
    1
  145.  @carparkmartian2193  What individual authors think is irrelevant. This is not a he-said-she-said. This is hard science. What happens is easily traceable in the laboratory. In every quantum measurement a quantum of energy flows from one system to another (or to infinity). That's it. No mysteries here whatsoever and this is exactly what the math describes. There are no inconsistencies here, either. Or, if they are, then they are in your head. That's for the psychology department to figure out, it's not a job for the physics department. Energy doesn't reside in "a quantum state". Energy is a property of systems. We teach this in high school, few students are paying attention. At this point I am beginning to doubt that you ever took your high school physics lessons seriously. I don't know what you mean by information, either. There is no such thing in physics. Physics only cares about energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges. Why these quantities and nothing else? Because there are the only locally conserved system quantities. Emmy Noether wants you to hold here beer, right now. People who are talking about information in a physics context simply don't understand physics. We are therefor at the point where I can safely say that you are clueless. ;-)
    1
  146. Most of the worked out models are either 1d or 2d. The problem is that dimensionality changes the coupling enormously and therefor 1d and 2d models have vastly different properties than 3 dimensional ones. We have experimental systems in 1d and 2d and they do behave as expected. We simply can't do the math beyond that. The person who can will win both a Fields medal and a physics Nobel.
    1
  147.  @prasannabhat8631  It's not a matter of geometry in this case. It's a matter of how strongly different parts of a system couple to each other as a function of distance. For 1d systems the coupling is independent of distance. For 2d systems it goes down with 1/r, for 3d systems it's 1/r^2 etc.. It's the change from 1/r to 1/r^2 that makes it very hard to make theoretical predictions. It's a hard math problem. We simply can't solve the equations. Not even numerically.
    1
  148.  @prasannabhat8631  Light shows you the surface of things that aren't transparent. :-)
    1
  149.  @prasannabhat8631 They aren't? ;-)
    1
  150.  @prasannabhat8631  Old men rarely look cool. They rarely care about looks, to begin with. Looking cool, foolish and uneducated is a prerogative of youth. I can't afford any of that at my age. I gave you a perfectly fine physical example for interaction that involves surfaces. Look up "boundary conditions for partial differential equations", particularly for Maxwell. ;-)
    1
  151.  @prasannabhat8631  Knowledge is my way of life, yes. If you can't keep up, that's not exactly my problem, is it? Your intellectual laziness does amuse me, though. Or, better, what amuses me is your childish insistence that it should be respected. ;-)
    1
  152.  @Dhruvbala  No, he doesn't. In science you have to put up or shut up. He can't put up. ;-)
    1
  153. You have a rampant imagination about university life. Is that because you have never been in one? ;-)
    1
  154. All you need is empty space and electricity. NEXT! :-)
    1
  155.  @clay-tw5gc  From a physicist's perspective it is. The remainder is basically electrical engineering. Accelerators differ very little from other electrical power facilities. The core elements are similar to what's in your microwave, just far more powerful, and then there are lots and lots of high voltage power supplies. None of that is rocket science. The physics is really just energy input and empty space. You would be surprised how few people are employed worldwide to develop these technologies. It's a handful here and there at high energy physics facilities around the world. That's all it takes. ;-)
    1
  156.  @clay-tw5gc  There are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. We have been teaching this in high school for over 40 years now. All the properties of these energy exchanges are inherent in the Poincare group, which is the symmetry of empty space. Some of this was already known like 90 years ago, with the entire picture emerging about 60 years ago. You are asking questions of the deep past, scientifically speaking. ;-)
    1
  157.  @clay-tw5gc  The only "thing" that "exists" at "the extremely small level" is a three dimensional metric manifold with a locally additive property called "energy". Everything else follows from that. There are two remaining problems that need to be solved here: 1) What causes this metric structure (the three effective dimensions are kind of a given because in all other dimensions this construction leads to inconsistencies or nothing) and 2) What selects the low energy world that we are seeing from the infinity of possible high energy solutions to Poincare symmetry? These two questions are equally open in all versions of theory that we know about, right now, even if we look at "not even wrongs" like string theory. Question 2) might be a little easier to attack than question 1).
    1
  158.  @clay-tw5gc  Energy is energy. It's not localized. Never was, never will be. It's the ability of a system to perform work on another system. A system is an arbitrary subset of spacetime. Whether a system has energy or not is unknown and unknowable... until it transfers that energy to us... which may or may not be a good thing. Too much energy is going to give us a bad day. ;-) The only reason why people have invented the "particle" thing is because they can't think straight. They always imagine "things" where there are none (the psychologists seem to think that's a remnant of our fears of predatory animals waiting for us in the bushes...). It's the same reason why we invented gods and religions. There is nothing in the sky, but people had to fill it with bullshit. There is nothing in the physical vacuum, either, but people have to fill it to the brim with "particles". Don't be like other people. Be smarter. Let go of the fear of being eaten by things that aren't there. ;-)
    1
  159.  @wout123100  No, humanity didn't need the discussion in the video any more than we needed your senseless comment in this thread. ;-)
    1
  160. We never asked you to trust anything in science. Quite the contrary, we asked you to LEARN, so you didn't have to trust. What did you do? Binge drinking, mostly. :-)
    1
  161. Why are you confused? You simply didn't study the subject. There is nothing to be confused about. Just don't think about it. ;-)
    1
  162. Don't think so. They will probably work it for another century. It's a big topic. Is it a dead end? Maybe... but I suspect that it's actually not a dead end but a mesoscopic theory of what's inside a certain layer of black holes. Kind of like the solid state theory of spaghettified matter. Not very useful since we can't actually probe that stuff.
    1
  163.  @hans-joachimbierwirth4727  I would give more substance if I believed that you could handle it. I don't. Take care.
    1
  164. Maybe, but most likely not. There is no reason to believe that the notion of "field" is not an emergent property itself, i.e. what underlies reality does not have to be a field, it could be merely something that creates an approximation of fields. We know that exact symmetry is, also most likely, not a property of nature. Symmetry is fragile. It seems to have a tendency to break. It might be possible to prove mathematically that any non-trivial physical situation (i.e. something that allows for a minimal amount of self-interaction) that starts with a perfect symmetry automatically degenerates into an effective one without.
    1
  165. Here, let me give you some attention. Mommy is clearly not home. ;-)
    1
  166. That is your problem, then. ;-)
    1
  167.  @dhanyashreenarayani3963  To the uneducated knowledge is indistinguishable from random noise. What's worse, though, is that random noise also sounds indistinguishable from knowledge. :-)
    1
  168. Yes, we told you all of that in high school. Sound of one hand clapping. ;-)
    1
  169. It's simply a mathematical fact that one can't extrapolate scattering data much more than an order of magnitude beyond the scale for which very good statistics exists. In case of the LHC that regime basically ends at the TeV range. Beyond that we are literally blind, so even a non-discovery at 10TeV would be a discovery. If you don't understand this, then you need to go back to primary school and re-learn the definition of science.
    1
  170. Well, actually, it's an empirical fact.
    1
  171.  @deanodebo  That evidence leads to truth is an empirical fact.
    1
  172. Reality is the totality of all irreversible energy exchanges. We teach this in second year undergrad physics. You should take a few classes. You are welcome. ;-)
    1
  173. @ Dude, you couldn't even keep up with kindergarten. ;-)
    1
  174. @ It's plenty good enough for you. That's all that counts. ;-)
    1
  175. @ I am. You seem distressed, though. What happened? :-)
    1
  176. He has one good idea (CCC), the rest is garbage.
    1
  177.  @mavelous1763  Penrose has nothing to do with string theory.
    1
  178.  @mavelous1763  I don't mind garbage. I am dealing with it on the internet daily. ;-)
    1
  179.  @mavelous1763  I agree. Digging in it is one of the few things that one can do with garbage. ;-)
    1
  180.  @charlesnelson5187  Do I what? Understand quantum mechanics? Yes, reasonably well.
    1
  181. Of course he gets that it's bullshit. He even says so. ;-)
    1
  182. Huh? We can see the CMB that came way before stars and galaxies just fine. You are clearly living in a universe in which the educational system is completely broken. :-)
    1
  183. Yes, you need to be saved from your lack of intellectual curiosity. ;-)
    1
  184. That's what every drunk says. ;-)
    1
  185. You have never been in a lab, have you? ;-)
    1
  186. Weinstein is not even a scientist. He is just full of himself. ;-)
    1
  187. Quantum field theory is fully relativistic, kid. At least learn the basics before you comment.
    1
  188.  @clmasse  Better than a YT non-expert. :-)
    1
  189. The cost of high energy physics is negligible. In the US it's approx. $1.2 billion a year. That's one part in 700 (!) of the US defense budget or one part in 5000 of the total US budget. ;-)
    1
  190. You mean to say that long period comets have not been observed? ;-)
    1
  191. It seems to me that you failed to pay attention in school. :-)
    1
  192. If you are expecting something like a personal jetpack, then I have to disappoint you. If you are happy with food for thought, then string theory is a smorgasbord that will keep you eating for centuries. I have a feeling that you are more the jetpacky than the thougthy kind of person. Am I wrong about that?
    1
  193. Your keyboard is broken.
    1
  194. It's not knowledge that she lacks but honesty. ;-)
    1
  195. Supersymmetry is a tiny aspect of string theory. It's a necessary but not a sufficient aspect, so even if supersymmetric interactions exist, it would not tell us much. That is not even the problem with string theory.
    1
  196. String theory is mostly in the public's eye. It's not much of a topic in actual physics like at CERN. There were hopes that it could guide us in the search for the next major discoveries in high energy physics, but that hope has evaporated, both from a theoretical as well as an experimental perspective.
    1
  197. Time is that which the clocks show. Dude. We do understand time perfectly. We can make extremely precise clocks. Time is simply not some abstract philosophical quantity that nature somehow provides to us. It's in no way shape or form different from a yardstick. We can make yardsticks out of metal, wood, plastic or even light. In the same way we can make clocks in many different ways. All good yardsticks agree with each other and so do all good clocks. That is all there is to it... and you would know all of this if you had been paying attention in school. :-)
    1
  198.  @jayddd4946  Now you know everything about what it takes to be a scientist: you don't mistake your failure to pay attention in school for a scientific mystery. ;-)
    1
  199.  @jayddd4946  I had more than that... I had a nice life thanks to paying attention in school. ;-)
    1
  200. And physics is not creative writing, but then, you aren't even good at that.
    1
  201.  @AmbivalentInfluence  Perhaps you need to pick a more lucrative theme... you could write a novel about young wizards and witches, maybe?
    1
  202. Yes, that was nonsense, just like Schroedinger's cat. :-)
    1
  203. There is no need for consciousness in physics and the only people who are arguing that there is simply didn't pay any attention in high school science. :-)
    1
  204. We did question our eyes. That's why we built microscopes and telescopes and spectrometers. Kid, you need to go back and start K-12 anew. You were basically not paying any attention from the very first day. ;-)
    1
  205. We didn't find any particles, so far. What people are calling particles are actually quanta of energy. ;-)
    1
  206. Why are you telling us that you failed in high school? ;-)
    1
  207.  @ferrari77773  I know. That's why so many high school dropouts are pretending to be physicists on YouTube. ;-)
    1
  208. We can say that because some of us have actually been paying attention in high school and undergrad physic. Not you, of course. ;-)
    1
  209. We are doing mostly something else right now: neutrino, dark matter and high energy astrophysics. Will these lead to new approaches? Probably not. These experiments are orthogonal to what can be done at accelerators. That's why we had to build accelerators to begin with.
    1
  210.  @deidreautumn  Yes, we all know how helpful it is when the patient diagnoses himself in medicine. It's considered standard practice.
    1
  211. Like Trump? Yes, that was funny. ;-)
    1
  212.  @PhilLeith  Governors can't ban the use of drugs. What are you smoking? :-)
    1
  213.  @PhilLeith  I didn't say that he banned anything. He suggested that we inject a disinfectant. That's usually what the mortician does after somebody dies. ;-)
    1
  214. Yeah, he's just another messed up CS who doesn't know the first thing about physics. No need to waste your time on him.
    1
  215.  @chrishowe8614  Sure he has, kid.
    1
  216.  @chrishowe8614  Now why would I do that, kid? To satisfy a troll? You got to be kidding. :-)
    1
  217.  @chrishowe8614  Yeah, the last thing I will give you is my money, that's for sure. You can have more of my big mouth, though, if you like. :-)
    1
  218. Kant made a fool of himself. So what, though? So nothing. ;-)
    1
  219. The problem with string theory is that there is nothing to criticize. It's not even wrong. I fully trust that the formalism they have come up with is solid. There is a mathematical there there, it just doesn't translate into physics.
    1
  220. There are no issues with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics derives directly from Kolmogorov's axioms describing ensembles of independent systems and relativity. Kolmogorov is about as trivial an assumption as one can make and it is completely independent of any notion of spacetime. Relativity is obviously at the heart of general relativity, which is the best theory of gravity that we have. So, no, it's not a problem in that sector. We may have a poor idea about the microscopic structure of spacetime, but if that's the case, then general relativity breaks down and Kolmogorov sticks around.
    1
  221. He isn't popular. He is telegenic. Not the same thing. ;-)
    1
  222. Goedel is about infinite sets. There are no sets in physics. Physics is about systems.
    1
  223.  @miguelalonsoperez5609 Hilbert space is not a physical object. It's an abstract, no different from coordinate systems. The energy flow that it describes is not an abstract. It's what allows us to capture large amounts of energy with solar panels. The problem here is that you don't differentiate between the physical phenomenon (energy transfer) and the abstract description. All of mathematics is an abstraction of physics, by the way. We can start with Euclid, if you like. Lines don't exist. They are an abstract extrapolation of sticks or pieces of string. Logic is isomorphic to set theory, which is basically an extrapolation of objects in baskets. Math is just physics taken one step too far. It's fun, but it's not real.
    1
  224. Witten doesn't have to participate in things like these. He has serious work to do.
    1
  225. I have never heard that term being used in university. OTOH, I didn't see much progress in Hamiltonian mechanics after 1860 or so, either. ;-)
    1
  226. But why are you telling us that you failed in high school science class? :-)
    1
  227. Einstein had experimental and observational data. Your new Einstein doesn't.
    1
  228.  @davidrandell2224  Yeah, that's just cheap paperback bullshit.
    1
  229.  @davidrandell2224  What is supposed to be surprising about that? (Apart from the fact that you are using the word "probability" all wrong, but we'll let that slide.)
    1
  230.  @davidrandell2224  I am sorry, but unlike you I am not smoking weed. :-)
    1
  231.  @davidrandell2224  I am not smoking cheerios, either.
    1
  232. Cope harder. ;-)
    1
  233. The big bang is an observation. The model that describes it best, for now, is called Lambda-CDM (for Cosmological Constant - Cold Dark Matter). There is no theory in play here at all. Dude, please try to learn at least the basics. ;-)
    1
  234. Depends what you mean by WIMP. We have not found certain kinds of WIMPs. That doesn't rule out other kinds. The problem with the standard model is that it predicts too much. We can come up with all kinds of fields that have all kinds of properties. We can certainly come up with fields that would be nearly undetectable at thermal energies but still gravitate (try to detect thermal neutrinos... good luck with that!). That's a bad way of doing science, of course. That's why we need high energy machines because at high enough energy even the weakest of interaction becomes a major effect. We wouldn't even have to find WIMPs. We could end up with observations beyond e.g. 10TeV that would actually rule out WIMPs of the kind that cosmologists would like to see. So that would actually be a boon for modified gravity. Science is empirical. Without actual observations there is no science. There can only be theology and philosophy and both are useless.
    1
  235. People are paying plenty of attention to dementia. We are spending billions every year on fighting it. ;-)
    1
  236. General relativity is non-unitary because it has world lines that end in singularities. That's undergrad physics intuition.
    1
  237. Why are you telling us that you don't understand physics? ;-)
    1
  238. It was complete in 1927. :-)
    1
  239.  @norbertocosta7108  Yes, unlike you I have ben studying it for fifty years and I do understand it just fine. :-)
    1
  240. I didn't think of Kaku much, either, until I read his introductory string theory book. It contains quite a few intuitive insights that show that he is better as a physicist than he is an entertainer.
    1
  241. Yes, then you end up with two stooges. ;-)
    1
  242. The quantum field theory landscape is, unfortunately, of similar size as the string landscape. That is widely unknown, but it is probably due to an actual correspondence. The real problem with QFT and string theory are not risky predictions. The real problem is that neither is taking any serious risks at all. They are both based on geometric representations of the Poincare group. We are still working through the mathematical consequences of Galileo's ship, which was the first modern description of relativity (at least as far as I know). This means we are still gnawing on a bone that we were thrown around 1630.
    1
  243. Yes, I got it that you are science illiterate.
    1
  244. Let's put it this way: supersymmetry can exist without string theory but not the other way round. It's a very sad dependency. ;-)
    1
  245. String theory is just another not even wrong. The problem right now is not theory. We have theory coming out of our ears. The problem are observations, of which we have none.
    1
  246. Science operates on facts about nature. It uses other facts of nature for the analysis. Why? Because what you call "reason" is essentially just an abstraction of another set of low level observations.
    1
  247. So does quantum computing. Every proton in the universe calculates the mass of the proton all the time. That is much, much harder than crypto mining, which is just bullshit. ;-)
    1
  248. One can quantize gravity the ordinary way starting with a second order tensor field on a flat background just fine. It's a myth that one can't. It just doesn't lead anywhere. String theory starts at the other end and asks if one can quantize the free action on a Riemann manifold that satisfies general relativity. Lo and behold, one can. And again, it doesn't seem to lead anywhere, either. This is a strong indication that we are missing an element that is neither contained in quantum field theory nor in general relativity. We do not have any experimental evidence what that could be.
    1
  249. Like what? ;-)
    1
  250. The only people who think there is beauty in physics are the people who have never done any. ;-)
    1
  251. Penrose is actually bringing some rather hard core ideas. Hossenfelder is just an attention grabber. Kaku is actually a better physicist than his public appearances make him appear as. He has genuinely good intuition into all things string theory, which is a real thing. The question is whether it has a physical counterpart. If not, then it's still rather deep math.
    1
  252.  @johnnyturvin  Dude, go and read Hossenfelder's papers. I have. There is no there, there. She is a troll who wears the mask of a "skeptic", pure and simple.
    1
  253. I have never met a physicist who works from beauty. They all seem to use actual evidence. ;-)
    1
  254. Why are you telling us that you failed in science class? :-)
    1
  255.  @edelcorrallira  It's my observation that those who are writing meaningless text on the internet are trying to deflect from their failures. ;-)
    1
  256. Why are you asking for attention on the internet? Don't you have real people who want to talk to you? ;-)
    1
  257. He's got a weird name. ;-)
    1
  258. Awh, Dude, your intellectual laziness is feeling really sorry for itself today. ;-)
    1
  259. Read his introductory textbook on string theory. You will learn that he actually has quite a bit of intuition. Yes, he talks a lot of bs about other things, but as a textbook author he is solid for all I can tell. That's more than you could say about e.g. Feynman and a bunch of others.
    1
  260. The reality of quantum mechanics is exactly the same as that of general relativity. In QM classical observables are only valid at infinity where the interactions between final states go asymptotically to zero. In GR they are only valid at infinity where spacetime is asymptotically flat. Both theories make exactly the same assumption about the large scale structure of the universe. So, no, that is not the problem, either.
    1
  261.  @peterstanbury3833  This isn't about geometry. This is about asymptotic behavior. What humans call "reality" is asymptotic behavior by definition. It's how the remote, "god-like" observer perceives physics.
    1
  262.  @peterstanbury3833  An observation is an observation... like when a stone drops, it always drops down. It never drops up. Unless you are using drugs, of course. :-)
    1
  263. What's up with the personality cult? ;-)
    1
  264.  @barouchkrakauer7815  Let me give you some attention, then. Your Adult Santa is clearly not enough for you. ;-)
    1
  265. @ And about talking donkeys and prophets flying on horses to heaven. ;-)
    1
  266. You should publish that. ;-)
    1
  267. On why what? Why the universe is here? Because it is empty. ;-)
    1
  268. Einstein never measured anything. He was a theorist. Try again.
    1
  269.  @timothyclark3919  Well, you certainly didn't end up accidentally at not-understanding. That must have taken deliberate effort.
    1
  270.  @timothyclark3919  So much confusion... over such simple things. :-)
    1
  271.  @timothyclark3919  Physics? Yes, I do understand physics. I also understand that you do not.
    1
  272.  @timothyclark3919  You didn't listen in high school when "reference frame" was explained to you. So what? So nothing.
    1
  273.  @timothyclark3919  If they didn't teach you what a reference frame is in high school, then you simply didn't go to a good high school. Go ask for your money back. A reference frame is one in which physics looks simple because of an absence of ficticious forces. Newton's laws only hold in reference (or inertial) frames.
    1
  274. Did you notice that they are discussing a strawman? There is no multiverse in physics. You will not find it in any serious textbook or paper. You may find statements like that string theory has around 10^500 possible alternatives. That, incidentally, is not all that many more or less than what you can get out of the standard model if you insert reasonable assumptions about the possible internal symmetry groups. Relativity (which is responsible for both) simply does not select this universe a priori. It selected this universe dynamically. Our theorists can not do the necessary calculations, yet, to determine what such a dynamical selection process does and does not lead to. A hundred years from now we will know the necessary math and that's that. :-)
    1
  275. No. ;-)
    1
  276. Quantum mechanics can be derived from Kolmogorov's axioms using high school level math on maybe half a dozen pages. You simply didn't do a literature search and neither did he. ;-)
    1
  277.  @overlord5186  We teach "the observation of the system" in high school. That's the photoelectric effect. It's the transfer of a quantum of energy from the quantum system to the measurement system.
    1
  278. Yes, you should be doubtful about bullshit like MWI, even as a layman. ;-)
    1
  279. Between these three Kaku is the only real physicist. :-)
    1
  280.  @Peter-q8v6v  Maybe, but Tim Maudlin is a complete nut who doesn't even understand classical mechanics at the high school level correctly and Elitzur is close to a fraud. ;-)
    1
  281. Are you ok there? I am concerned about you. ;-)
    1
  282. I hate his hair. Or, more precisely, I am envious. ;-)
    1
  283. Only people who were never hungry can come up with the nonsensical question if an external world exists. :-)
    1
  284. We never told you that they do. What we told you in school was that quanta are small amounts of energy. :-)
    1
  285.  @Lostinlove-j4i  Who are you talking to, kid? And why are you asking me for attention? ;-)
    1
  286. Weinstein is not a great thinker, though, and Penrose is aged out.
    1
  287. That assertion is nonsense. The universe does not satisfy the requirements for the calculation that you have in mind.
    1
  288.  @ewallt  No, it doesn't. ;-)
    1
  289. Quite the contrary. Based on all we know the final law was finished around 1630, latest, when Galileo published Galileo's ship, which is basically a modern take on relativity. I am not aware of any physical law that does not follow from that one word. Are you?
    1
  290. The scientific method starts with observation and experiment. Can you show me an observational or experimental paper by Sabine? I am not aware that she ever wrote one. ;-)
    1
  291.  @Thomas-gk42  Witten's results can not be experimentally verified except maybe on model systems. I do believe to have read that some of the methods he has come up with are applicable to magnetism, so we might get predictions about spin systems that can't be (or have not been been) achieved with other methods. So, no, I would not expect him to get the Nobel, at least not directly for his work on string theory. The Fields medal was awarded for the importance of his work to pure mathematics (the mathematicians have their own search for . There are examples of mathematicians like Villani who have gotten the Fields medal for mathematical work that is important to physics, so the mathematicians are quite open to such cross-pollination. I read Sabine's work on foundations of quantum mechanics. It's obtuse nonsense. She simply doesn't understand quantum mechanics. Even if she did, her work compares to Witten's like first grader's algebra compares to partial differential equations. Even I can understand all she did on QM, while I am usually lost after the third sentence in Witten's papers. :-)
    1
  292. You can understand quantum mechanics easily by listening carefully in high school. That, of course, turns out to be too hard for most people. ;-)
    1
  293.  @Funkywallot  And why do you think that a senile old man is correct about these things? When have senile old men been right about important affairs? Ever? ;-)
    1
  294. If you ask the current AIs about quantum mechanics, they will give you trivially wrong answers about it. That's because they were trained on material that is nearly 100% wrong about it. ;-)
    1
  295. Space is not locally Euclidean. Spacetime is locally Lorentzian but only for a class of free falling observers and even those are seeing the higher order terms of the curvature and they are experiencing tidal forces.
    1
  296. We do have females in physics. One of the smartest people I have ever met in my life was Persis S. Drell. Sabine doesn't measure up to her. She couldn't even reach the knees of that lady. ;-)
    1
  297. Because there is no such thing as wave function collapse to begin with. There are only people who don't understand physics. ;-)
    1
  298.  @Jeff-zc6rr  That's bullshit.
    1
  299. No. Nobody missed anything.
    1
  300. There is nothing stochastic about quantum mechanics. So, no. ;-)
    1
  301. If you want tools to test string theory, then start saving for a solar system size accelerator.
    1
  302. Let's put it this way. Artistic beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just like Rembrandt would have scoffed at modern abstract painting, so would Newton have at modern physics. It would have been beyond the sense of "beauty" of their time. That doesn't mean that one can't appreciate modern art and modern physics today. It just takes a lot more "getting used to". Although I am sure that there were plenty of people at Newton's time who were probably appalled that the man had condensed god's work on the heavens into a single 1/r^2 law.
    1
  303. Where is the mystery? I went to church and god wasn't there. I didn't miss him once since. If you don't show up to your first date with me I move on. ;-)
    1
  304. Annihilation obeys charge conservation, so if there is an excess of electrons over positrons, that excess doesn't go away. Same for quarks, i.e. their bound states in protons. Proton decay would create the required positrons, which would then annihilate with the electrons, but it's unclear whether that reaction is actually happening outside of black holes.
    1
  305. You can see this in a spacetime (Minkovski) diagram if you wish. The principle of relativity says (among other things) that all observers are equally competent and that their observations have to be treated as equally valid. For spacelike separated events (that are not in causal contact), we can find observers which will observe A before B and others which will observe B before A. And somewhere between those two is an observer for whom A and B seem to be happening at the same time. What all of these observers can agree on is that there can be no causal contact between A and B. Nature could have chosen a cacophony of causal dependences, but it didn't. It implements exactly three classes of causal relationships that are roughly (A may cause B), (B may cause A) and (neither can cause the other). On a slightly deeper level this destroys any notion of simultaneity in different locations. See the "Andromeda Paradox" and the "Rietdijk–Putnam argument". Personally I find the lack of simultaneity the hardest to "grok", but that's probably a personal shortcoming of my intuition.
    1
  306. String theory is simply one solution of relativity. That solution exists as a mathematical fact, whether nature cares about implementing it or not.
    1
  307. Yes, age will do that to you. ;-)
    1
  308. That's cool. Now all you have to do is to explain the bump in the data without it. ;-)
    1
  309. Einstein was already wrong about quantum mechanics in 1905. You don't need Bohr and Bell to know that. All you have to do is to actually read Einstein. ;-)
    1
  310. Not really. I tried physics with AI a couple days ago. It behaved like a stochastic parrot and kept repeating false statements that it had picked up from Wikipedia and Quanta Magazine. ;-)
    1
  311. Penrose is senile. Kaku sometimes talks complete nonsense, but not always. Everybody in physics knows what string theory is and is not. We don't change established terms just because the public is too lazy to learn what they mean. String theory is also not a hypothesis. You can call it a branch of mathematics, if you want, or a model in physics. Nature may or may not implement this model, but that doesn't make the mathematics of it false.
    1
  312. Quantum mechanics can't give you "anything more" because its complete. The structure of the theory is completely determined by relativity. So if relativity holds, then quantum mechanics is what it is. General relativity holds because of the equivalence principle. We would have to observe a true violation of that. If dark matter were to couple differently then the metric approach would be dead, for instance. Maybe one should take that seriously and explore that option theoretically.
    1
  313. It's not true. ;-)
    1
  314. Absolutely. But who would I be discussing with? You are absolutely clueless, so I would be talking to myself.
    1
  315. CERN takes almost no land. It's mostly underground. Neither was LHC expensive. It's not even 10% of the cost of the ISS or the Shuttle program. Elon Musk might be spending more money on Starship, right now, than was needed to construct and operate LHC. :-)
    1
  316. Nah, that's all just poor education.
    1
  317. You did? What if somebody told you that you were lied to just now? ;-)
    1
  318. Was der Dozent gemeint hat ist das intelligente Leute die viel Arbeit in the physics hineinstecken diese als schoen empfinden koennen. Dass heisst nicht dass Du das nachempfinden kannst (einfach weil Du nicht genug Arbeit reingesteckt hast).
    1
  319.  @ulrikof.2486  Ist das Chaos des Dreikoerperproblem's haesslich? Wen Dir so was nicht gefaellen tut, dann musst Du Dir gleich einen Strick kaufen, weil der Kosmos nicht integrierbar ist.
    1
  320.  @eonasjohn  Awh, you are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. ;-)
    1
  321. You are correct. One can not shield gravity and hence Schroedinger's box can not exist. That, however, is not what resolves Schroedinger's criticism.
    1
  322. How would you know that? You failed in fifth grade math. ;-)
    1
  323. Nah, she is just winding you up. That's how she makes money. ;-)
    1
  324. Awh, so cute! The kid who is threatening everybody with his invisible friends just showed up! :-)
    1
  325. That's because you don't know anything about physics, kid.
    1
  326.  @new-knowledge8040  Sure you did, kid. My cookie jar is empty, today, but I will get replacements soon and then the cookies will be on the way.
    1
  327. Maybe that's an outsider's scifi channel look at high energy physics, but that is not what happened. :-)
    1
  328. Nowhere. Your consciousness didn't exist until you were born and it won't exist after you are dead, either. I admit that's not a particularly nice thought, but nothing stops you from believing in something like reincarnation. Since the sequence of you went like Nothing-You-Nothing, there is really no logical reason no to extend this to ...-Nothing-You-Nothing-You 2.0-Nothing-You 3.0-Nothing-... and so on. Your memory gets erased every time, of course, so you can't remember your previous versions, but then... do you really want to remember a crappy life forever? Isn't a fresh start a million times better? That's all there is to it. Enjoy your endless reincarnations.
    1
  329.  @TimecastGaming  Except that my consciousness understands quantum mechanics and yours doesn't. Mine wins. ;-)
    1