/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11606232
but how can nature be local if there are fluctuations of the metric?

The universe is dialetheistic.

>>11606232
>> Cosmic Inflation is very likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.
Other way around

>>11606232
SINNER! HERETIC! SODOMITE! GOD WILL JUDGE YOU AND FLING YOUR SOUL DOWN UNTO THE DEPTHS OF HELL!

The Universe is FINITE and DISCRETE!
0.999... does NOT equal 1

Wanna know why? BECAUSE GOD WILLS IT!

DEUS VULT! Say it with me, Brothers and Sisters of the ONE TRUE FINITE UNIVERSE!
DEUS VULT!

>>11606274
The universe is electric.

>>11606291
The universe is infinite, and "0.999... (an infinite amount of 9s)" is less than 1 because it will never reach 1. Only get closer to it. Forever.

>>11606299

That's where we diverge. The CHOSEN of the TRUE FAITH, do not actually accept any recurring decimal as conceptually sound. Infinity does not exist and therefore any recurring decimal does not exist either. But I didn't want to get into that as I was in DEUS VULT mode at the time. Too much CK2 during lockdown does that to a person.

Let's just say that we regard you like a local heresy but not a seriously bad one. Bit like the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox church during the crusades. Surrounded by INFIDELS its better for us to stand together. Once the unbelievers have been wiped out then we can get on with the more civilized and reasonable business of betraying and destroying each other. Amen.

>>11606232
>settled facts
not science. You haven't the slightest clue about what science even is.

>>11606287

that doesnt make sense.

>>11606292
back to your garden Joseph

>>11606232
I don't even know what's bait anymore but if anyone wants to explain what "observer" mean in OP's context I'll be thankful.

>>11606232
Physicist here. I agree with pretty much everything. Just a few remarks:

>> Energy may not be globally conserved in General Relativity
Energy is definitely not conserved in GR. It is just a single component of the energy-momentum tensor, hence, it must change for different observer. But yes, this is completely expected and fine.

>> We already have the correct theory of low energy quantum gravity
Which one are you talking about?

>> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity
Highly disagree here. It still fails to produce falsifiable results that we can test. SUSY is highly unlikely. Doesn't look too good honestly.

>>theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts
I think there could be a way to make these quantum. "Just" need to find it.

>>11606548
>falsifiable
a 19th century meme

>>11606232
>They are not controversial among actually competent researchers at all.
Yes.
It's all figured out.
Why are we even here?
The idea that the same brains that were burning witches 400 years ago have it all figured out is laughable.
And you have guaranteed you won't figure anything new out because you are obviously closed off to anything groundbreaking.

>>11606232
something like this ought to be stickied to ward off them pseuds desu

>>11606232
>>No faster than light transfer of information or any other superluminal effects is possible.

Definitely, but that is not the same as:

>>11606232
>> Nature is inherently local.
I believe this is one of the big things with bell's inequality, that wavefunctions are not local. We prove that when you collapse the wavefunction of the 2 entangled particles, they really do randomly choose, and a measurement at both locations simultaneously is anti-correlated.

We can create 2 entangled particles that are over 1 km apart, and measure them quickly enough that it is impossible the two particles exchanged information. And yet, they are anti-correlated, and they were truly entangled before the measurement. So doesn't that mean the wave function is non-local?

>>11606548
>SUSY is highly unlikely.

No offense but you need to study more. Long story short, it is much more likely that even SUSY at Planck energies exists rather than no SUSY. And there is still plenty of space for SUSY to hide between LHC scale and Planck scale.

>>11608223
Spins are anti-correlated more or less because thosr entangled particles were in close contact in the past. Consistent histories inerpretation of QM elucidates this quite nicely. No FTL needed.

There are indeed some limited non-local effects in certain situations arising in high energy quantum gravity, but morally speaking original post is very much correct.

https://youtu.be/2LtT3sfbSXs
https://youtu.be/1-_IRbu1gAo
https://youtu.be/8MsMuQa80fI
https://youtu.be/Hopd-gKB1Xc
https://youtu.be/-2yYgfaU6Ik
https://youtu.be/r0plv_nIzsQ
https://youtu.be/rbRVnC92sMs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGWSX6pStd0
https://youtu.be/Xm2mlNL054A

>>11608346
No offense, but
>no sparticles observed
>means symmetry is very likely broken, but mechanism of breaking is unknown
>CERN says that if SUSY is correct, sparticles should appear in the LHC
>needa strong constraints to reduce neutralino density for it to be consistent with WMAP data
>MSSM BTFO by LHC results
I mean sure, there might be something to find beyond the Planck scale, but this isn't something one should bet for when considering probability.

>>11606232
> Nature is inherently continuous
Stopped reading right there.

>>11608481

brainlet pls...

>>11606232
Sounds relatively reasonable. I'll give it a solid 8/10.

>>11608359
>>>11608223
>There are indeed some limited non-local effects in certain situations arising in high energy quantum gravity, but morally speaking original post is very much correct.

What are those effects? Could they be used to send information FTL, if we had enough energy to access the high-energy quantum gravity regime?

>>11606232
good thread

Inherent probabilism is not something thay can be proved by science

there can be no evidence for probabilistic characteristics of reality as in either deterministic or probabilistic universes the classical interpretation of the uncertainty principle is the limit of measurement. I.e it is always a lie to attribute an experimental result to probabilism before measurement error unless you wield a measuring device of infinite accuracy

>string theory

stopped reading here. maybe should've done it at 'nature is inherently continuous'

>>11606232
>> Nature is inherently continuous.
True
>> Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random.
False
>> Nature is inherently local.
False.
>> Nature is inherently non-realist.
False.
>> "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly pseudoscience.
True.
>> Energy may not be globally conserved in General Relativity and this is OK.
False.
>> We already have the correct theory of low energy quantum gravity, it is theory of high energy quantum gravity that is largely unknown.
False.
>> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything.
False.
>> Cosmic Inflation is very likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.
False.

Why is such a brainlet post such as OP even allowed on /sci/? Retarded thread and a waste of time.

>>11608794
Everything in the OP is true,
you are coping with a low IQ

>>11608481

Wolfram pls go...

>>11608813

Motl pls go...

>>11606232
>But as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories.
Why do you reject Many-Worlds?

Good thread. I would add:

>Fermi paradox is valid. If you deny its a true paradox or posit that there is a simple obviously true explanation that others just refuse to acknowledge, you are a brainlet.

>>11608830

How does Many worlds deal with continuous observables? I get the logic when its just discrete alternatives like spin, with universe splitting into two - spin up and spin down versions, but how about something like position? Does universe split into infinite new universes, each with slightly different position of the measured particle?

>>11608830
I'm not OP but I'll explain my problem with MWI.
Many worlds, as well as pilot wave and many other interpretations, exist to salvage classical logic. Many world's basically goes "the schrodinger equation is real and all outputs should be considered equally valid in the same way we treat any other mathematical function". Also in terms of spin, they basically say "a particle IS only spin up or spin down, it's just when a particle is put into superposition it splits the multiverse so in UNIVERSE-UP the particle is spin up, and in universe-down it is spin down, in this way we do not have a contradiction".
However, none of this is required. Dialetheism and paraconsistent logic already solve this problem and a quantum paraconsistent logic is how the universe actually operates. Classical as well as constructive logic are not actually valid or "real" - it is in fact the case that the particle is both spin up and not spin up at the same time/simultaneously while in superposition.
Us humans have to give up our classical intuitions of logic and causality because they are not true.
>>11608904
It says it splits into an uncountable amount of multiverses.

>>11606232
These aren't facts, they are the opinions of a basement-dwelling zoomer

>>11606274
this. and also don't expect brainlets to get this. Especially not /sci/-lets

>>11606733

Not only the same brains that burn witches, the same hierarchy. Universities are products of the Church, in fact the word derives from Catholic which means Universal.

>>11608794
Compelling argument, I suddenly believe everything you say.

>>11608359
>Spins are anti-correlated more or less because thosr entangled particles were in close contact in the past.

Not always, look at the Hensen nature 2016 paper. Those spins were over a kilometer apart at all times. They became entangled through local photon interaction (time-bin encoding), and then a beam splitter projecting into entangled state.

However, they are entangled, and over a kilometer apart.

I believe, just as the random nature of the universe gets averaged out at the macro scale, the locality seems to get averaged out at the macro scale too, likely due to dissipation with reservoir and decoherence.

Just to be clear, its not faster than light exchange of information. No information is exchanged. But both particles are random, and happen to be anti-correlated. However, it is the wavefunction behaving non-locally.

>>11608481
This. At least anon revealed their retardation from the get-go and saved us the reading time.

Probability can exist even in deterministic universe.
So "Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic/random" doesn't mean "Deterministic theories are demonstrably false".

>>11608481
>>11609299
Brainlets.
>inb4 starting 5 threads about this again.

>>11606232
>Cosmic Inflation is very likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang

someone explain this one pls

>>11606232
>String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything.
HAHAHHA AH AH AH HA HAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHHA AH HAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHHA AHAHAHHAHA AHAHAHHAHAHA AHAHHAHAHAHHAHA AHAHAHHAHAHHAAHAHAA AHHAHAHAHHAHA AHAHAH AHAHAHHA AHAHHAHA AHAHAHHAH

>>11610100

No better alternative currently.

>>11608870
this

>>11606232
Yes, and you forgot most important stuff.

>>11606232
>String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything.

>https://boards.4channel.org/x

>>11609322
not in our universe tough, as it is fundamentally probabilistic, you cannot have both determinism and locality

>>11610106
it is not just about there being no better alternative, string theory while incomplete is so good that we know any ToE will be at least partially stringy

>>11611897

nah any probabilistic process can be explained as a deterministic process under the hood with observer simply having insufficient information to predict it. it may be disfavored by Occam, but can be done.

>>11611816
such as?

>>11606548
Physics degree holder here.

Agree with you on most points, but I think you are being pedantic on energy conservation, obviously he meant the 4-momentum tensor, not just the energy scalar.

Strongly disagree on automata shit.

>>11608346
I believe it's wishful thinking from HEphysicists. They could be satisfied by studying M-Theory as a field of math, and they would still be doing meaningful work.

>>11608398
particularly agree with this


What is the thing that annoys you the most? I hate people obsessed with quantizing space. I'm not a theoretical physicist, just have my degree, but my intuition completely screams "THAT FUCKING WRONG, YOU RETARD!"

>>11608359
>consistent histories interpretation
that's the one I like to use in my head to make sense of things, honestly

>>11608746
You're being dumb. You can definitely conjecture a prob distribution for a phenomenon and then sample the outcomes to see if they converge to your a priori distribution. Bayes, baby!

>>11608904
>>11608931
> a continuum of different universerse
yeah, that's gonna be a no from me, dawg

>>11611897
>what is statistical mechanics

>>11612267
>what is Bell's theorem

>>11612280
Ah, I now understand what you meant. I thought you were saying you cannot derive deterministic behaviour from stochastic fundamentals. I agree with you, hidden variables is the most brainlet shit ever.

>>11608830
>that picture

Fixed it for you.

bumpity bump

>>11608794

>>11612261
Just because the set of outcomes of some event repeated several times corresponds to those modeled by some probability distribution, it doesn't mean that the event itself is probabilistic in nature. It has physical causes, the conditions surrounding the event must somehow be slightly different every time to cause the variation in outcome on each trial. The Copenhagen interpretation of the double slit experiment is the biggest piece of conjecture bullshit I've ever read, Electrons are NOT an abstract probability distribution, they are physical. They give rise to physical things, they MUST be physical. And no, they don't just become physical once they are observed, that's nonsense too. They are physical the entire time.

>>11611950
This is the very problem with determinism as a whole. It can be form-fitted to match any and all observations, regardless of how ridiculous the required underlying mechanism may be. Should we so stubbornly hold on to something that couldn't possibly be disproven?

>>11608794
>True
True
>False
False
>False
False
>False
False
>True
True
>False
False
>False
False
>False
False
>False
False

pseud pls

>>11612936
>they are physical

Sure, and physics features inherent randomness. Your desire for a deterministic, newtonian, classical universe is just a cope of a simple brain evolved to hunt antelopes in a savanna, not how Nature actually works.

>>11612936
No, you can definitely prove that something is stochastic. Within a certain limit dictated by the computational power available to us, we are able to determine if something is random or pseudorandom.
Just because it doesn't seem intuitive to you, it doesn't mean it's not the most likely case. Big think.

>>11612989
This.

>>11613320
You are missing his point, even though he made it pretty clear.

>>11613449
No, because he thinks that the measurement noise would also magically follow the same distribution every time someone made that experiment, or else it would fit into the apriori theoretical distribution people had conjectured.

>>11613499
*or else it would not

>>11612936
I disagree, there is nothing about physical things that must have ontological priority.
What the results of QM are ACTUALLY saying is that "physical" things are not actually real, EVERYTHING is actually ontologically mathematical and immaterial and we humans have attached this "metaphor" called "physical" to describe things when in in reality everything is math.

>>11606456
It does. But it doesn't matter because they're essentially the same thing. The big bang is a moment in time and inflation is the observed behavior whether at the big bang or 14b years later.

Superdeterminism master race here. I always knew i will write this post here. Laws of physics demanded it.

Motl approves of this thread

>>11606232
I would agree with everything here except for “nature is local” and “string theory is most likely the correct theory of high energy quantum gravity”. For the first one, there are certain quantum effects like entanglement (see bell inequalities) which could be argued to be nonlocal. For the second one, i think string theory is on the right path, but any theory that requires 10 extra unobservable dimensions of space seems highly suspect.

>>11606232
pretty based

>>11608794
so clueless
are you a chemist or something?
a climatologist?

>>11616601
literally who?

>>11616875

>not knowing based Lubos Motl

/sci/ 2020 is a mess..

>>11616875
>not knowing about our Lord and Savior

sorry for r*tionalwiki link

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl

>>11616871
Please don't lump chemists in with spastics like him

>>11606232

Come back when your quantum mechanics can be motivated, justified, and constructed rigorously in a well defined way.

https://youtu.be/e4hiSgiGloo
https://youtu.be/72DA4fgamPE
https://youtu.be/5K_4b-I1snM
https://youtu.be/Xm_6Gi4Jqbg

>>11618973

>physics difficult

brainlet cope.

>>11612936
unbelievably based and redpilled

I have a theory that universe exists.

>>11618973
That's been done almost a century ago, Patrick. In multiple ways even.

>>11606232
>> Energy may not be globally conserved in General Relativity and this is OK.
sounds pretty jewey to me

>>11619305
Pictures of water droplets and CGI is not in any way evidence or sound legitimate argument for pilot wave theory. Please stop posting brainlet shit

>>11620109
Agreed. It’s a nice interpretation, but it seems strange to me to shoehorn classical ideas into the quantum framework. The scale of quantum physics should be where our classic intuition breaks down.

>>11620122
For me, I just say "there is no classical idea, everything is in superposition, reality is paraconsistent, there is no determinism, etc" and I'm finished.
A lot of people don't like that but whatever.

>>11620148
I wouldn’t phrase it like that but philosophically i agree, i would never translate that into a theory though because it probably wouldn’t be able to predict anything.

>>11620109
It's even worse than that. Someone did that experiment rigorously and found out that if it represents Bohm interpretation, then Bohm interpretation must be incorrect.

>muh locality

There is no reason to expect it to apply to entanglement. As long as non-local entanglement cannot be used to send physical information FTL, its not in conflict with experiments. We know GR is false at some point anyway, since it breaks down when describing black hole interiors, so whats the fuss about a very limited form of non-locality in ToE?

Based Lubos Motl laying down the law:

Here is a list – a highly incomplete list – of 12 widespread assertions that are wrong and they are importantly wrong.


It is unscientific to disagree with the consensus

It is unscientific to agree with a majority of scientists

It is unscientific to say that something is likely or unlikely

A theory is unscientific if it says that a quantity is meaningless if or when it is not observed by a well-defined procedure

It is unscientific to use aesthetic criteria while picking a theory

A theory is unscientific if it agrees with an older theory and they cannot be distinguished in currently doable experiments

It is unscientific to reduce a scientific question to an elaborate calculation or a complex mathematical argument

It is unscientific to dismiss an experiment (and evidence building on it) as a fraud or bad science

It is unscientific to consider people's subjective preferences and/or money in the scientific selection of the best policy

It is unscientific to dismiss an observed pattern as a coincidence or a fluke

It is unscientific to conclude that an observed pattern is probably not a coincidence and there must be a more detailed explanation

It is unscientific to claim that there is positive evidence in favor of a theory


Again, let me emphasize that the sentences above are myths.

https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/04/important-ingredients-of-science-that.html

>>11623679
brainlets BTFO

>>11623679
Does Motl browse /sci/?

>>11624188
https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-NPC-meme-originate

He is at least aware of 4chan and it's "culture".

>>11606232
Your confidence in these statements is unfounded. This is textbook Dunning-Kruger.

see:
>>11624192

>>11606232
"Quantum philosophy, a peculiar twentieth century malady, is responsible for most of the conceptual muddle plaguing the foundations of quantum physics.
When this philosophy is eschewed, one naturally arrives at Bohmian mechanics, which is what emerges from Schrödinger’s equation for a non-relativistic system of particles when we merely insist that “particles” means particles."

-Dr. Nino Zanghì

>>11606232
"But in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the “observer”, could be eliminated. …

But why then had Born not told me of this “pilot wave”? If only to point out what was wrong with it? Why did von Neumann not consider it? More extraordinarily, why did people go on producing “impossibility” proofs, after 1952, and as recently as 1978? … Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?"

-John Stewart Bell (of Bell's Theorem)