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

  1. 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
  2. All money is debt, but there is no debt collector for this debt. You need to learn some macroeconomics theory. ;-)
    1
  3. It's cute that your intellectual laziness tries to cope so hard. ;-)
    1
  4. What's up with the bullshit? ;-)
    1
  5. 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
  6.  @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
  7. String theory is not a theory. You need to pay more attention in high school, kid.
    1
  8. 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
  9. Interesting question. I am not aware of one, but given how important gravity is there should have been one. A clear omission.
    1
  10. 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
  11.  @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
  12.  @garrett6064  I am the first actual physicist who talks to you, Dude. At this rate I will be the last one. ;-)
    1
  13. 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
  14. True. Now you are 100% dependent on private owners jacking up prices 20% per quarter. ;-)
    1
  15. Yes, we know that you were always confused in high school.
    1
  16. Wow... first time I hear Maudlin say something that's utterly correct. Maybe he is not totally "outta there", after all. :-)
    1
  17. Mistaking Weinstein for a physicist is, indeed, anti-intellectual. ;-)
    1
  18.  @Thomas-gk42  Yes, and Trump "wrote" a book about the art of the deal. ;-)
    1
  19. @ His science writing is similar to Sabine's. ;-)
    1
  20.  @realcygnus  Somebody who doesn't pay attention to astronomy and solid state physics, obviously.
    1
  21.  @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
  22. Yes, we did, but why were you not paying attention in school when we explained it to you? :-)
    1
  23.  @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
  24. Why are you telling us that you failed in high school? ;-)
    1
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. I don't have to believe that you failed science class. You just proved it to us. ;-)
    1
  29. @ It was an observation. ;-)
    1
  30. @ OK, let's do the test. Give me a description of the second law of thermodynamics in six words or less. :-)
    1
  31. @ 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
  32. More than that, actually. ;-)
    1
  33. Even the statement that there is no progress in science is ridiculously false.
    1
  34. Sabine is a Karen and so is Weinstein. They are both suffering from roughly the same personality disorders. ;-)
    1
  35. If you were, then you would be reading scores of really, really boring CERN papers. You aren't, are you?
    1
  36. 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
  37. Awh, you are so cute when you are signaling that you failed high school science class and never got over the humiliation. ;-)
    1
  38. Curiously, we probably have known "everything" since roughly 1630. ;-)
    1
  39.  @Fgggffvhhhgffffff  I know what we know, kid. I am one of those scientists and you are the guy who serves burgers. ;-)
    1
  40.  @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
  41. Why are you cheering on an old man for losing his mind? That's a rather sad affair.
    1
  42.  @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
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46. 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
  47.  @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
  48.  @prasannabhat8631  Light shows you the surface of things that aren't transparent. :-)
    1
  49.  @prasannabhat8631 They aren't? ;-)
    1
  50.  @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