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

  1.  @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
  2.  @Dhruvbala  No, he doesn't. In science you have to put up or shut up. He can't put up. ;-)
    1
  3. You have a rampant imagination about university life. Is that because you have never been in one? ;-)
    1
  4. All you need is empty space and electricity. NEXT! :-)
    1
  5.  @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
  6.  @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
  7.  @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
  8.  @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
  9.  @wout123100  No, humanity didn't need the discussion in the video any more than we needed your senseless comment in this thread. ;-)
    1
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13.  @hans-joachimbierwirth4727  I would give more substance if I believed that you could handle it. I don't. Take care.
    1
  14. 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
  15. Here, let me give you some attention. Mommy is clearly not home. ;-)
    1
  16. That is your problem, then. ;-)
    1
  17.  @dhanyashreenarayani3963  To the uneducated knowledge is indistinguishable from random noise. What's worse, though, is that random noise also sounds indistinguishable from knowledge. :-)
    1
  18. Yes, we told you all of that in high school. Sound of one hand clapping. ;-)
    1
  19. 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
  20. Well, actually, it's an empirical fact.
    1
  21.  @deanodebo  That evidence leads to truth is an empirical fact.
    1
  22. 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
  23. @ Dude, you couldn't even keep up with kindergarten. ;-)
    1
  24. @ It's plenty good enough for you. That's all that counts. ;-)
    1
  25. @ I am. You seem distressed, though. What happened? :-)
    1
  26. He has one good idea (CCC), the rest is garbage.
    1
  27.  @mavelous1763  Penrose has nothing to do with string theory.
    1
  28.  @mavelous1763  I don't mind garbage. I am dealing with it on the internet daily. ;-)
    1
  29.  @mavelous1763  I agree. Digging in it is one of the few things that one can do with garbage. ;-)
    1
  30.  @charlesnelson5187  Do I what? Understand quantum mechanics? Yes, reasonably well.
    1
  31. Of course he gets that it's bullshit. He even says so. ;-)
    1
  32. 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
  33. Yes, you need to be saved from your lack of intellectual curiosity. ;-)
    1
  34. That's what every drunk says. ;-)
    1
  35. You have never been in a lab, have you? ;-)
    1
  36. Weinstein is not even a scientist. He is just full of himself. ;-)
    1
  37. Quantum field theory is fully relativistic, kid. At least learn the basics before you comment.
    1
  38.  @clmasse  Better than a YT non-expert. :-)
    1
  39. 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
  40. You mean to say that long period comets have not been observed? ;-)
    1
  41. It seems to me that you failed to pay attention in school. :-)
    1
  42. 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
  43. Your keyboard is broken.
    1
  44. It's not knowledge that she lacks but honesty. ;-)
    1
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48.  @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
  49.  @jayddd4946  I had more than that... I had a nice life thanks to paying attention in school. ;-)
    1
  50. And physics is not creative writing, but then, you aren't even good at that.
    1