masteranza

Exactly. ELI5 is that quantum teleportation is (sadly) a marketing phrase. It is 2020 and such phrases as "teleported an object" are simply a mischief.

Routine Feat? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZExWeqHajLg

Anyone installing it on older Macs? Catalina had an improved performance compared with Mojave on my MBA 2013, but I'm hesitant about Big Sur.

1. Why is your account just 2 weeks old? 2. Apparently the testimony is based on the story told by who are trying hard to get their sentences reduced.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/25/assa-j25.html

Predicted by Luboš: https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/05/may-11th-12th-could-be-gr...

It sounds like the author might have been better off turning into science than technology.

The example the author provided is too trivial to convince me to use lean.

You’re correct. Good point.

To take a perfectly rational conclusion and call it sexist is quite a deriding trick, isn’t it?

You’d need to try really hard to disprove different interest of men and women, as literature suggests differences from a very young age, even before those children have chances to meet their peers.

You’re just giving alternative explanations, which given the left side of the chart are much, much less likely. The economic argument also doesn’t make sense. STEM jobs may be among the highest paying ones, but certainly are not THE highest (not to mention the amount of effort compared to different high pay jobs).

From quite long time ago women are accepted to universities. Yet to prove your point about "law being fixed long time ago" you refer to news from few months ago.

You're right about one thing "patriarchal BS". The theory that there should be more women at some particular job sector has now reached a tipping point where it no longer makes sense because it is non-disprovable. Really, is there any kind of evidence that can hope for that would disprove this bad idea? Or will you always try to come up with some excuses?

Preferential treatment (positive discrimination) in hard science not only makes the mistake of treating women as handicapped (they're surely not), but also makes the situation worse by skewing meritocracy.

At the moment the problem of superseding ordinary computers still looks like one of technical/engineering nature. If achieving this is not possible even in principle it could lead to some new developments.

There are some people considering/working on superdeterminism as a possible interpretation of quantum mechanics (the idea that everything, every outcome of an measurement is predetermined by the universe in such a way for us not to gain the complete information about the quantum system. I would not like to discourage anyone, but in fact this would be a conspiracy theory on a cosmic scale. In some discussion on physics stackexchange it was pointed out by Peter Shor that if it were true we wouldn't be able to achieve quantum supremacy.

Indeed, you're correct. I don't know if someone put it like this intentionally or not, but looking at the number of people who jumped into the incorrect conclusion, it has the same effect as misleading headline.

Also a physicist here, this is correct. Some details for anyone interested https://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.2483.pdf

Doesn't change the fact that it is misleading. "No single X cause" sounds as if it has no basis in X.

Indeed. Not only can one get a glance of a unique perspective of one of the founding fathers, but also a lot of important facts not covered in many other textbooks. One of such facts are the low heat capacities of atoms that do not fit any classical theory. This fact alone is able to kill most of the "alternative" interpretations of quantum mechanics that the popular media sell-off as "science" nowadays.

Except that you've got the point completely upside down! At first people didn't believe in heliocentrism because it used circular orbits, and instead used to believe that the universe is better described from the geocentric point of view which was one ginormous mess from the mathematical point of view. Then people realized that the beautiful addition of conical curves solves the problem completely. I say 'beautiful' because clearly you don't have a sense of mathematical beauty. Mathematical beauty is not only the simplicity of the solutions, but also it's robustness and fluid way in which it fits into the rest of our knowledge. The real simplification that came from it is far deeper than any 'circular orbits' picture you imagine. Naturalness and search for beauty can never be proved wrong. Those principles can perhaps only be applied prematurely, before enough data is collected.

There's no need for anyone to read her book, because it's just a pile of garbage written by someone who doesn't have a clue about modern physics. Hossenfelder is an armchair physicist who failed in her discipline and started writing books for profit. The very idea of naturalness is basically the thing people hope the machines will someday do - namely think and be able to explain what is actually going on through fleshing out noise from the essential mechanisms.

The stuff she writes on her blog are so stupid it's beyond belief. First she criticizes theorists (who write far more reasonable and far less philosophical articles than she) for using advanced mathematics and exploring various possibilities, a minute later she criticizes experimenters for trying to build a better particle collider. She's a person who would gladly see the resources flowing to the less skilled wannabe-physicists with no real knowledge, because she's one of them.

You're point is valid, yet I still find it very unlikely. At some point after numerous tries you might even start fooling yourself (and others). I'll give the guy a chance though.

I've already tested this 6 years ago with a friend. We had this idea that it could be possible by putting our skulls close together. We've tried a variety of techniques from thinking about a specific number from 1-10, one of us visualizing the answer as hard as he could, the other one waiting passively for the answer to 'occur to him'. After making sth like 100 tries and writing down our answers - the results were negative, same as for pure chance. Then we've realized that maybe abstract information cannot be sent this way so we agreed on just two messages - very happy vs really sad, where we would imagine extreme emotions. Obtained the same negative results.

Yep, if you're still using Mendeley, you should move to Zotero immediately. I have used Papers app for some time, but they've worked on the desktop app way too long after their merge with ReadCube and now I'm happy with my free Zotero. I've just tested ReadCube Papers with a simple pdf and it's nice and fast, but cannot resolve the metadata (even the suggestions are wrong) while Zotero can do it unambiguously on the first try.

It seems like you've really missed the crucial part. The whole point is to have a theory which will mirror the relations of objects in the world not the objects themselves. The former leads to truth, the latter is silly. All the interpretations stuff you read about is, unluckily (for the public image of physicists), a fools game. QM is as it was 100 years ago and no progress has ever been made in the "foundations of quantum mechanics", most people who work in this area are either philosophers or very confused physicists. Who's to blame for this state of affairs? Well, there has been plenty of wrong stuff said about QM in media and even in academia. Part of the problem is that people still insist on using the old classical language in the description of quantum experiments. Examples: * "nonlocality" - quantum theory is a local theory, it's only when you assume that it's "classical in disguise" you get nonsense * "delayed choice" - should have rather be called "post-factum reasoning"

As I said before if you really dig down deep, you'll realize that this is because our classical macroscopic quantities like "value of momentum", "magnetic moment" etc. are not the same things that exist "down there". The language of nature turns out to be much more subtle. Quantum Mechanics is really the best you can get when you try to hold on to the old classical ideas. Thus an alternative to QM would most likely have nothing to do with classical mechanics at all, it would need to be something entirely new.

Well, I'm always enthusiastic when I see such new developments and I'm certainly going to read through it later in the evening. That being said, I'm also more skeptical whether this has a chance to work, especially if it's a classical construction. Why? Well, you'd probably need to study physics for a few years to really appreciate the answer, however I can sum it up quite simply: At the beginning of the 20th century we realized that our models are allowed to contain whatever objects you can imagine (and put in a consistent mathematical form, of course). In particular, theories are allowed to operate on objects which don't even take number values as long as they are objects which obey the defined rules. This realization is so refreshing, so liberating that it allowed for the construction of a number of magnificent things like quantum mechanics, field theory, standard model and strings. However it's hard to convey this truth to someone who's mathematical education finished (even) at an engineer level. Thus, you see the media and half-physicists always focusing on the same stupid "paradoxes" when there was never one to begin with. The insistence of many mediocre people against quantum mechanics (and modern physics in general) is analogous to an ancient Egyptian protesting that: "we should have a theory where everything is explained with natural numbers" which is the only object that his limited imagination can directly connect with reality. Another argument which people tend to use is that "QM is complicated", but nothing stands further from the truth. It might be hard to derive the solutions, but the postulates are really simple and there are no simple alternatives with the scope of validity of QM. The only real way of proceeding is to learn the lessons of quantum theory and build upon it, someday we may be lucky enough to find simple mathematical rules (but likely highly abstract) that govern the universe.

So as you see, I partially agree with you. The "spooky action" kind of experiments are stupid, but for the opposite reason!

Except, that most scientists (physicists that I know) who independently checked the issue seem to agree with Lubos.

So which facts did he get wrong exactly? Sure, it may looks so, but so far everything I've read on this blog is correct.

Also much more on methane in particular: https://motls.blogspot.com/search?q=methane

Not saying we shouldn't pay attention when some estimates are wrong, but perhaps it's not the best idea to take an alarmist's attitude: https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/06/hansens-testimony-30th-an...

With all fairness don't you think this is not really time-crystal formation in the strict sense (those have been shown to be impossible), but rather an analogue to a "forced" crystal formation? I.e. the direct analogue would be setting up some spatially periodic potential and trapping some atoms in it then finding out it took every second spot. I admit that the doubling appears a bit mysterious from a condensed-matter point of view, but on the other hand period doubling is a well known phenomena in classical physics. I'm a physicist, though not working on time-crystals - some of my friends do.

That's a good piece of advice, although it always bothered me to create flashcards. I create cloze flashcards from notebooks of my knowledge: https://github.com/masteranza/MathematicaAnki