Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Should we abandon the multiverse theory? | Sabine Hossenfelder, Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku" video.

  1. I have never found a flaw in quantum mechanics. I have only found many people who don't understand it. ;-)
    2
  2.  @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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Is that why you can't tell us the definition of energy? ;-)
    1
  6. 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
  7. Curiously, we probably have known "everything" since roughly 1630. ;-)
    1
  8.  @Fgggffvhhhgffffff  I know what we know, kid. I am one of those scientists and you are the guy who serves burgers. ;-)
    1
  9.  @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
  10. 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
  11.  @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
  12.  @prasannabhat8631  Light shows you the surface of things that aren't transparent. :-)
    1
  13.  @prasannabhat8631 They aren't? ;-)
    1
  14.  @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
  15.  @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
  16. Yes, you need to be saved from your lack of intellectual curiosity. ;-)
    1
  17. You mean to say that long period comets have not been observed? ;-)
    1
  18. 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
  19. He isn't popular. He is telegenic. Not the same thing. ;-)
    1
  20. 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
  21.  @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
  22. He's got a weird name. ;-)
    1
  23. On why what? Why the universe is here? Because it is empty. ;-)
    1
  24. 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
  25. I hate his hair. Or, more precisely, I am envious. ;-)
    1
  26. That assertion is nonsense. The universe does not satisfy the requirements for the calculation that you have in mind.
    1
  27.  @ewallt  No, it doesn't. ;-)
    1
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. How would you know that? You failed in fifth grade math. ;-)
    1
  31. Awh, so cute! The kid who is threatening everybody with his invisible friends just showed up! :-)
    1