Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "The quantum world: Dreams and delusions | Roger Penrose, Sabine Hossenfelder, Michio Kaku, and more!" video.

  1. Why are you telling us that your feelings are all over the place? :-)
    1
  2. @ They are certainly not in the right place. :-)
    1
  3. @ 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
  4. @ 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
  5. Not about quantum mechanics. Maybe about CCC.
    1
  6. 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
  7. You are clearly a follower of that "theory". ;-)
    1
  8. And you wrote that on a device that was built by physicists, why? ;-)
    1
  9.  @mbestland  Bwaahahaha... that sentence came directly out of the advertising department. ;-)
    1
  10. 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
  11. What's up with the bullshit? ;-)
    1
  12. More than that, actually. ;-)
    1
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. That is your problem, then. ;-)
    1
  16.  @dhanyashreenarayani3963  To the uneducated knowledge is indistinguishable from random noise. What's worse, though, is that random noise also sounds indistinguishable from knowledge. :-)
    1
  17. He has one good idea (CCC), the rest is garbage.
    1
  18.  @mavelous1763  Penrose has nothing to do with string theory.
    1
  19.  @mavelous1763  I don't mind garbage. I am dealing with it on the internet daily. ;-)
    1
  20.  @mavelous1763  I agree. Digging in it is one of the few things that one can do with garbage. ;-)
    1
  21. It seems to me that you failed to pay attention in school. :-)
    1
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. We can say that because some of us have actually been paying attention in high school and undergrad physic. Not you, of course. ;-)
    1
  25. 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
  26. But why are you telling us that you failed in high school science class? :-)
    1
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Why are you asking for attention on the internet? Don't you have real people who want to talk to you? ;-)
    1
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34.  @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
  35.  @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
  36. Yes, you should be doubtful about bullshit like MWI, even as a layman. ;-)
    1
  37. Yes, age will do that to you. ;-)
    1