quantum_mcts

First of all, your example doesn’t show any «instantaneous travel». You can shuffle two playing cards, send them by light years. Flip one of them and instantaneously determine what on the other one.

There are more complicated correlations in QM than cannot be explained by hidden variables - but those are still correlations and, analogously, don’t imply any «instantaneous travel»

Yeah, and the fact that this type of guys coalesce around Bohmian mechanics topics sealed the deal for me....

Skimmed the paper briefly. Looks like reformulation of single-particle QM with no new predictions. Most importantly (and as I mentioned above) doesn’t address particle creation and annihilation, which is where Bohmian-style approaches usually struggle.

Authors seem to be aware of that, but make a weird tap-dance around the problem throughout the paper, seemingly scared to even "Voldmort" it. In that context, citing 1930 Dirac paper is laughably ironic.

The whole idea of Bohmian mechanics is to preserve the notion of « classical trajectory » while trying to cover existing experimental evidence for QM. I was a fan of it ant the University - but slowly realised that the strategy seems to be just add the classical-limit consequences of the QM as extra postulates. And even that approach faced larger and larger obstacles - like fermions statistics, the QFT with creation / annihilation of particles, spinor fields requiring Grassmanian « classical trajectories » and the whole thing still requires preferred reference frame - in obvious contradiction with basic SR.

This whole story is very similar to attempts of physics fringe to preserve the notion of « aether » while satisfying the experimental evidence for SR.

Yeah, searching for videos and news of extreme events will give you a comprehensive picture of a life in a country. I once offered a guy to literally film how I would cycle across Paris filming - so he can count garbage piles/rioting gangs/radical muslims or (oh horror!) black people - whatever he is panicking about of at that moment. He dismissed me simply accusing me of “lying”...what?

It honestly feels like French economic/social model is under pretty coordinated propaganda attack recently. I live and run a business in France - and, while it is not without drawbacks, the overall balance is quite comfortable. When I tell that to people online or someone outside France - they paint for this picture of a hellscape of bureaucracy, crippling taxes, marauding gangs of immigrants and overblown public sector. Which I, weirdly, cannot dispel even by saying “dude, I live there”.

The popular retelling of how Einstein created Special Relativity to "Resolve the contradictions of Michelson-Morly experiments" is very reductive to the history of the question. The epitome is the quote from the paper:

> From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz trans- formation ...

If Einstein derived them, who is "Lorentz"?

The groundwork for Special Relativity was the study of electrodynamics and symmetries of Maxwell equations. The Einsteins paper was literally called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and never cites Michelson and Morley.

Around 2018 I got obsessed with slings - I've made a couple from paracord and was practicing almost every day. After about a year I only managed to consistently launch stones in the rough desired direction. Another (COVID) year and got to the level where my spread was about 5 degrees. Systematically hitting a reasonably sized target was still beyond my ability. Plus early symptoms of tennis elbow...

Slinging is hard, requires a lot of dedication and systematic practice. Stil, the feeling when the rock hits a target and "explodes" is worth it.

“Oh it’s about ME now?!..”

Total amount of reactor*years so far is roughly 20000. 3 core meltdowns amounts for 0.015% per reactor per year.

0. There's money laundering.

It is sort of like saying that crypto is less money-laundery than banks because more money gets laundered through banks than through crypto.

Here’s an exercise. Go to Wikipedia for “Money Laundering” -> “Notable cases” and sum the amounts laundered by all famous banks for the last 10 or 5 years.

Then try to say again that “crypto is for money laundering” with a straight face.

Yes

Yes it can. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.7438

Cold dark matter made of weakly interacting massive particles can.

Good. Now explain the Bullet Cluster.

> First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible.

Sounds like an LLM prompt...

Really weird post and discussion around it. The "family" is not some abstract entity / offender's property. The "family" is made of other humans. "Not punishing people that didn't do anything wrong" is pretty high at the list of my consequentialist morals.

Similar stuff by this guy already posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32367085 It is a crackpot pseudoscience.

Sampling temperature.

We trade with bees though.

I've long noticed that this idea - that scientists just "jumped to conclusion" that there must be some dark matter to resolve some observational inconsistencies - is very prevalent among non-specialists. It could not be further from the truth, of course - as soon as the rigorous statistical study of galaxy rotation curves was provided by Vera Rubin et. al. in the 80s, the MOND classes of alternatives to gravity started to appear.

I tried to understand why this narrative is so prevalent, and it looks like it is due to its very appealing nature - both to the listener and to the speaker: "all those egghead scientists can't see an obvious solution to a problem they are fighting with for decades". I also noticed that when you get deeper into it, then you find that the source - the "speaker" part in the whole narrative - is some kind of science popularizer. Who at the same time (surprise) is a proponent of his own flavor of modified gravity theory.

Truth is - everyone, including me, had this idea as soon as they first heard about the DM. If you actually study all the evidence and discussions around the subject, you'll see that introducing an extra "dark" particle is the most obvious solution to the whole collection of observational inconsistencies. Modifying gravity in such a way so that it is self-consistent and consistent with all the observations... I actually don't think anyone completely finished that project so far.

> You can stop reading right there as this immediately identifies this piece as disingenuous at best

Or you can keep reading it and see that it literally says "It is a misnomer to say renewables are carbon-free compared to nuclear power." And discusses the very things you stated was disingenuously discounted.

Couldn’t it be that people become more aware of mental health problems because of social media?

Euclid’s proof in form of a poem. In style of Shakespeare.

I've already quite a long time ago noticed that in particle physics we usually do stuff that quantum-computing people will call an "entaglement". We just don't phrase it like that, because we are used to it and we aren't much "in awe" about it. https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/40872/386

There’s also earlier strict mathematical study of renormalisation procedure by Bogolubov and Parasyuk. QFT Green functions are distributions and their product is ill-defined, thus their naive use results in apparent infinities.

"the world could well live without the Higgs boson" (c) Sabine Hossenfelder

https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/what_it_means_to_be...

> But who is to decide which are pseudo problems, and which are not?

Scientific community. Via a process of peer-reviewed publications. Not via blog posts and Youtube videos.