Comments by "Dr Gamma D" (@DrDeuteron) on "Big Think" channel.

  1. yeah, no. Many brilliant ppl accept false reality, if it is in fashion. IQ doesn't trump psychology.
    10
  2. That’s good but not quite right. Take walking out of it. You prepare entangled compasses, ns + sn, and give one to Alice and on to Bob. If alice measures N, then Bob must measure S. I’d she gets S, Bob is N. So far the same as the coin analogy. Here’s the spooky part: If alice looks at hers along the EW direction and gets E, Bob has two options, Check N/s and get either with 50%, Or he can check EW and get west 100%, How did Bob “know” alice checked EW? So his compass was W? If she checked NS, then he gets W 50% and E 50%. Then if she checks the off cardinal direcrions, you get percentages that cannot occur classically.
    4
  3. @ I’m only addressing what is the question, not what is its answer. I think (1) is always true: even at the quantum level…but then again, there maybe some disagreement, e.g, why did my uranium decay in the last nanosecond? Because it could….there a probability amplitude for it to happen, and phase space for the final state. But it’s a truly random process. Why is your atom still intact, when our atoms were indistinguishable? (And how that is much stricter than “identical” is an 2 hour yt video). Tl;dr (1) is always true, so (2) is in question.
    4
  4. Bro, this is total garb. Newton exchanged equal and opposite forces with the Iron, while Feynman exchanged virtual photons with the Fe, and in the limit of a large number of atoms, they are EQUIVALENT.
    2
  5. That sounds like some graduate school 💩
    2
  6.  @TK-sn3rx note that your opponent puts the wellness of society over human rights….I find that a deeply offensive position of an unhealthy society.
    2
  7. There is always “a” dark side, but “The” dark side doesn’t exist.
    2
  8. It’s pretty clear that (2) is what is meant by the phrase in question.
    2
  9.  @engine_erin because, in my opinion, your question is hate speech.
    2
  10. 👽 left us on read.
    1
  11. Smash, girl, smash.
    1
  12. Notch filter at one hundred over pi nano hertz.
    1
  13. The whole setup is weird, and the shadows from the sun ☀️ don’t move .
    1
  14.  @Dontdoit_ not in your 💩 hole country, but it is in the 🇺🇸
    1
  15.  @jonathantrenn5163 anything that makes his fee fees feel yuk yuk.
    1
  16.  @Dhani_Nerrh wtf is a minority, and who cares? White ppl are a minority. ….oh wait, are you using national boundaries? As a global citizen, I am offended by your white nationalism. Turn yourself in to authorities, asap. Hater.
    1
  17. Astronomy is easy enough that you can dabble in theory and experiment. Not so in particle physics. There’s a great interview with Murray Gell-Mann poo poing Feynman’s Parton model, which he faults for making experimentalist think they understand quarks, when they clearly do not. As a former deep inelastic scatterer, I’m afraid Murray is correct.
    1
  18. You grossly underestimate cancel culture, which is based on triggering. A triggered lib who is exposed to an unpleasant idea cannot counter the idea; rather, zee needs to be protected from the idea by going to have safe space and having the speaker of the idea removed from polite society forever. This is a truly pathological condition.
    1
  19.  @TMK1450 all Men are created equal is a religious idea. Extremely anti scientific.
    1
  20. but you are not doomed to repeat history if you erase it.
    1
  21.  @domroc5776 but why should bigotry against immutable characteristic be illegal, which you imply?
    1
  22.  @domroc5776  well, I’m not pro bigotry per se, but it shouldn’t be illegal. I guess your post implies wokesters think it is already is illegal, confound speech about individual positions with bigotry, and hence think speechimust be made illegal. All correct points.
    1