Comments by "N Marbletoe" (@nmarbletoe8210) on "Physicists need to learn from their mistakes | Sabine Hossenfelder" video.

Perhaps it's not so much a "free will" condition as a "no superdeterminism" condition. 9:30 ish
2
@k0lpA In Japan, the hand can cut wood. But it can't cut plasma. Or maybe it can. This is the theory of plasma according to us in high school.
2
@paul snor I thought it said "over unity eggplant" and I was intrigued, and hungry
2
@dougyates7218 It's known that a process can borrow energy from the vacuum, for a time defined by t = h / E Maybe this can't end up in a net gain of more than unity. But perhaps it can be tuned to catalyze the conversion of mass to energy. So I agree it'd be an intriguing topic
2
Some months ago she put out a video on pseudo science that I found very shallow. She confused pseudo science with science that got incorrect results. . This may be due to a language barrier, however. . What did you disagree with in this video?
2
@MarcusAsaro Yeah I was responding to the Original Post (OP). When a person responds to the OP then the @ doesn't appear next to the response.
2
Does she mean a betting auction for scientific discoveries? I mean, they get funding already. Maybe if there was a futures market...
1
What is the theory's main equation?
1
Yes, it is not free will itself that is related to Bell's theorem, but superdeterminism. . It's basically a devious god hypothesis. There might be extra correlations because something/ someone powerful planned it that way, not because our theories reflect physical reality.
1
@eddiegood1776 OK yeah good point. Let me try again. Quantum physics might have room for free will, because in quantum physics the future cannot be entirely predicted. Our choices can matter to what happens.
1
@MarcusAsaro It is often considered "not a force" in physics. . However I don't see how this means that the gravitational field and the other fields cannot be unified.
1
@MarcusAsaro Here's why it is not a force, or a strange type of force: When it acts on you, you feel nothing. Free fall is letting gravity act upon the body. In free fall, you feel no force of gravity. Also, in Relativity, gravity is equivalent to acceleration. Acceleration is force divided by mass, not force. So idk no expert here, but I think it is a unique type of thing, but it can be unified when we discover the best possible theories. Maybe it's all about the shape of things.
1
@u.v.s.5583 yup. but it might have a simple structure, even with very complex and strange results. like if it is really strings, that is a simple concept.
1
it only disproves local hidden variables. . in fact, quantum mechanics is fundamentally nonlocal.
1
@trucid2 Yes, although I would say it differently. 'QM need not be nonlocal if one accepts superdeterminism.' . Superdeterminism may be a large pill, however. . Isn't it a lot like invoking a trickster god? Not that trickster gods don't exist! Nosirree, not saying that. Do not tempt the coyote my friend, except thou bringest treats.
1
Yes, randomness is a beautiful thing. I think it is a fundamental part of the universe. Perhaps it even is necessary for existence.
1
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation is close to summing the universe to attain a solution we might call God's View of the Universe. The Equation has no time term. It is like the universe seen as a single moment, nothing changing, just all existing. The Equation it doesn't cover the details of how things change, as I understand it, no expert.
1
@yziib3578 Well said! However I think the condition of 'no free will' is better said as the idea that there is 'no superdeterminism.'
1
I think she's saying common sense isn't working in physics.
1
There are some big discrepancies, e.g., dark matter astronomy vs dark matter physics two different expansion rates of the universe
1
Can there be a coop without a fowl?
1
It cannot be fully tested, I think, but they did an experiment with two quasars in opposite directions, and using their fluctuations to choose what type of measurement to do. . This tests for causal (light speed limited) super determinism originating more recently than some billions of years. (I think, no expert here)
1
Yes indeed. Since the 1970s there have been immense advances in physics. . Have they been "fundamental?" I suspect yes, but perhaps we need examples of a fundamental theoretical advance in the last 50 years. . I would suggest chaos theory as one such advance. It is similar to the development of thermodynamics in its importance. This began in the 1980s if I recall correctly.
1
@samucabrabo Cool that'd be interesting to talk about. I think Dr. H. has a lot to offer, but it is the nature of academia to question things! So that's what we're doing :)
1