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