Physics thread

Why do physicists ignore things like remote viewing? Theres evidence to suggest these things have some validity to them but they just get ignored.

slowness is relative

And theres mountains of evidence suggesting they don't. Time and effort are limited unfortunately. We all can't think about everything we want to.

fuck off Carlos

I am in the process of putting together a basic mathematical explanation of general relativity that I believe an ordinary user can understand. Should be interesting. if it goes down successfully I will do one on QM or some other shit later.

Thats a ridiculous attitude considering the em drive thats been tested wouldnt even have been attempted if others thought that way.

The evidence against it isnt really worth much as anything supporting it deserves some attention because of its significance.

I get time is limited but the idea that physicists arent interested in things that would require a paradigm shift seems quite anti intellectual.

im pretty sure the EM drive is bullshit. I was really excited about it too but I think there have been too many failed repeats of the Eagleworks tests.

It sucks but thats science.

is physics dominated by liberal scientists? if your frequenting Holla Forums became public knowledge, would it aversely affect your career prospects? What about gender and ethnic diversity in science more widely: has it affected you? do you think enforced gender equality/diversity will facilitate scientific endeavor?

no, but the universities that are home to the physics department are. Fellow scientists don't give a shit about politics for the most part but the campuses do…

Will wait to see how the test in space goes before writing it off. Im not so put off by failed experiments as this is seriously pushing the envolope and we understand it so badly (relative to other tests). Maybe one in ten experiments will show some promise as through luck they are within some parameter we dont consider to be one yet.

Physics is a meritocracy for the most part. People wont care if you look like you are in a biker gang or are so weak you look like a breeze would knock you over.

It is an extremely massive long shot. if it works it overturns all of our current theories which unfortunately as you get better in physics start to appreciate how unlikely that is considering we have thousands and thousands of experiments confirming them. Its cynical but true.

How hard will it be for me to get into grad school in the US?

No. The hard sciences are pretty solid since they require actual measurable results.

Not that they haven't tried. They just keep failing hilariously.

No idea since I am actually applying at this very moment

I come from across the pond and have done my Masters degree

I understand that but im what you would consider a dreamer. The idea of something overturning our views would be welcomed by me as whatever it is it is closer to the truth than we have now.

The main thing i have trouble wrapping my head around is that physicists have no problem with something like string theory, quantum physics or that we exist in a simulation but it seems to be snobbish about certain things that are at least equally unlikely on the face of it.

Haha all u have been listening to is black science man and Kucku. String theory is very similar to extremely successful quantum field theory and many physicists have outright abandoned it just on lack of predictive power alone. The reason it is still alive is that it has some interesting mathematics.

Quantum physics is really not that difficult man. i will do a crash course in it after GR

lel

Lets try again. My problem isnt that those things are accepted. My problem is that people are open to these ideas but not to other things.

those things have very good reasons for people to be accepting of them. String theory is built off highly successful QFT while QM was initially and still is considered unbelievable in many aspects. QM is probably the most strongly opposed theory of all time and would have been discarded in the early days if it hadn't predicted EVERYTHING EXACTLY CORRECT (with a couple minor exceptions that lead to QFT.

And yet physicists still argue them.

Fair point

explain

newton 3 bitch

bump

Davide Girolami , Tommaso Tufarelli , and Gerardo Adesso said this:

…we introduce the local
quantum uncertainty (LQU) as the minimum skew information achievable on a single local measurement. We remark
that by ‘measurement’ in the following we always refer to a
complete von Neumann measurement. Let ρ ≡ ρ AB be the
state of a bipartite system, and let K Λ = K ΛA ⊗I B denote a local
observable, with K ΛA a Hermitian operator on A with spectrum
Λ. We require Λ to be nondegenerate, which corresponds to
maximally informative observables on A. The LQU with respect to subsystem A, optimized over all local observables on A with nondegenerate spectrum Λ, is then U ΛA (ρ) ≡ min K Λ I(ρ,K Λ )

with me so far?

you just copied and pasted that. There are many symbols missing making it impossible to read.

I know what you are talking about but the maths is broken.

right, sorry
dammit, I can't find the paper now.

Anyway my question is, why can't this be generalized? i.e. why can't this be used to describe particle behavior in a nonisolated system?

Well the whole purpose of a von Neumann measurement is interaction with a particle which is by definition a non isolated system.

Sorry, can't do much else without the context to that. I'm not familiar with a lot of the lingo in the field of quantum information theory,

This one I ponder late into the night, and prevents me from sleeping, as it puzzles me so… but…
Why is toast square?

it isn't its just a trick of your eyes when u get sleepy.

do you know the general idea the paper was putting forward?

well I was just asking about that one part of the paper. It measures entropy for particle interactions, but implies it's only useful for an isolated system, so I wanted to know why.

well yeah, any contact with the outside world and heat quanta will be exchanged which will screw up any entanglement.

Entanglement is a state of high entropy compared to not entangled. measurement implies energy transfer from system to instrument which means entanglement decreases in the system you are studying. this is the thermodynamic "collapse of the wavefunction"

fuck i meant information transfer…

What makes the entropy different between entangled particles and interactions with an open system?

This is an area I haven't explained to people much and is not easy for me so I apologise if i am being vague.

Think about a quantum system such as a chunk of metal comprised of many many atoms. Now we stick it next to a heat bath. Thermal equilibrium is achieved and each atom will contain similar numbers of heat quanta as this is the most probable macrostate of the system. Some atoms will have a bit more or less than others.

Now try and measure one atom's heat energy. By probing it you cause energy transfer with your instrument ruining the measurement because every quanta of heat counts. This is analogous with entangled systems in that if you try to measure the entropy of the entire system (a multiparticle measurement) that's a-ok but if you try to measure 1 you weaken the entanglement.

I honestly am not sure i can explain it much better. I forgot a lot these past 2 months. Apologies

The formula for the flow of mayonnaise selected path.

Wut. Literally nobody does that unless they're planning on going into education.

Wat the fuck?

Let me run this by you OP.

Assume all detectable attributes of the universe are reflections of a still larger one. This larger universe encompasses each part of reality we can, will, or have measured. Then "spooky action", quantum entanglement, and other quandaries are easily explained as not violating the second law of thermodynamics because in the larger universe they're already reality. Time as we experience it isn't interaction between particles, but us measuring different parts of the reality we can experience.

Is there any evidence that entanglement is a physical reality? All of the experiments I've ever heard involve generating two particles (usually photons) in a way that they are claimed to be "entangled", and then measuring them. But the results sound exactly the same as what you would get if the particles were merely created with identical (or opposite) properties, and each independently retained those properties. A far more likely explanation in my opinion.

Is there some experiment that disproves this? Perhaps quantum physicists just consider it too obvious to mention, because I've never heard it.

entanglement does not violate 2nd law. Sounds like a many world hypothesis but i don't understand the "time is us measuring diff parts of reality". care to elaborate?

most certainly there is. This is the core of the EPR paradox and hidden variables. Basically you are asking why its so amazing that one the other particle has spin down when you measured the other as spin up. Surely each particle has a spin independently of being entangled. A "hidden variable" if you will.

The answer is no. bell's inequality put limits on correlation of entangled particle's spins when they are measured at NON multiples of 90 degree angles i.e 60 degrees when you have a hidden varaible controlling spin.

And guess what? QM said fuck that and violated the inequalities showing that QM is either a non-local i.e interaction at a distance or a non-hidden variable (i.e the wavefunction contains all info about system).

Pilot wave theory is a non-local hidden variabel theory btw.

Can't explain much more, its very involved. look up bells inequality.

yes, I'm speaking of the many world hypotheses and the problems it was made to solve. Those problems can be bypassed completely and elegantly by simply shifting our view of the universe. Time is defined as the interactions between particles. If entropy has increased time has passed. Instead we should define time as progression along an algorithmic universe. Said universe already contains everything that ever has or will happen as we can measure it.

Same dead-end I've gotten before. It's a weird mix of advanced math and metaphysics. And a lot of "tests are now nearly good enough to…" qualifiers. If people ever figure out what's really happening, it won't be this mess.

its not metaphysics, its just being explained wrong.

if this thread isn't gone by tomorrow i'll give you a nice indepth answer on bells inequality. it's really not that hard and very profound.

Dude weed…. Im too tired to think. Ill come back tomorrow.

hey
so
theory of relativity and not being able to go faster than light
its bullshit
light isnt relative to what we see, but how fast it moves - it has photons, they have significant mass unlike some types of radiation - they can go faster than "light" in the right circumstances

No you dunce, "faster than light" just implies the fastest possible speed anything in the universe can possibly go, its just referred to as the speed of light so nornalfags understand it better. In equations its always represented as c

Obviously visible light can go slower than c but it can never go faster than c

This is important to relativity theory because it implies the maximum possible speed of entropy and thus time itself, because we know time has a finite speed, we can imply it affects objects less going closer to that speed

Because triangular toast would make far too much sense, easier to bite into but they make toast square to make it difficult for us.

Thank you.

those are all assumptions though
so if you build theories on assumptions and without proof then build theories on those theories you end up with quantum multiverses and other retarded shit