Comments by "Gilad Barlev" (@GSBarlev) on "" video.

  1. Patently untrue. Like, completely, ludicrously untrue. Since at least the mid-1800s, physics has been about stealing cutting-edge techniques from abstract mathematics and using them to account for and predict our observations. Where a conceptual framing arises, it usually comes decades later. And many (including myself) would argue that Quantum Mechanics is still just at the "useful math" stage (that is, the Copenhagen Interpretation is absurd, and Many Worlds, String Theory and the like are pure science fiction).
    4
  2. My math skills tapped out at Linear Algebra II / Quantum Mechanics III. And please for the love of God don't ask me to apply Green's Theorem. Luckily, I was spiky in computational techniques, so I still got managed to earn my Physics doctorate, but I've always respected the beautiful minds who could wrap their minds 'round abstract n-dimensional mappings and differentiable manifolds.
    2
  3. This is a false dichotomy. Quantum Mechanics is a technique. Classical Mechanics is a technique. QM produces accurate predictions of simple systems but becomes intractably unsolvable when the system gains complexity. Applying certain assumptions, QM aligns with macro predictions that align with CM, and those assumptions set the boundaries for which CM is useful—turns out those boundaries are quite broad, explaining how we've successfully used CM for centuries. As for which represents "reality"—that's philosophy, bub, not physics. Physics doesn't say "why" or "how." It says "as if," as in, "this electron's angular momentum behaves as if it had an innate, quantized 'spin.'" I hope that helps.
    1
  4. I hadn't read Baez' Crackpot Index before. So thank you for that. 😂
    1