https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJDWPLlI5I4

While the US is pretty old as a state, most societies have a direct continuation from one state to the next. It’s not like when France overthrew its monarchy they stopped being France or seeing themselves as French. So they may see their continuous history as much older than the current state, with the Kingdom of France going back to 987.

The US doesn’t have a continuous history prior to 1776 because they mostly come from Britain but they denounce their British heritage and they settled in NA but also denounce the heritage of the local peoples there. So the average American sees their entire history as starting at 1776, maybe a little bit further back to include the initial colonies and that’s about it.

yes and those are physical things in the real world, not illusions

For some reason I can’t get the “reallyreallyrandom” link to work it just endlessly loads for me. I want to know how they actually know it’s quantum randomness and not just thermal noise. If they can genuinely prove it’s quantum random then they should throw it on a PCIe card and sell it. There is a small market for it, I own one from Quantis and that cost me like two grand, it’s optics based QRNG and has a bunch of papers proving it is quantumly random. I’d want to see something like that for that transistor diode method if it’s really that cheap to build a QRNG.

Let me be clear, I believe everything we experience is illusory

Nope.

There is no way to “establish whether or not there is an objective reality.” It’s a philosophical position. You either take the reality which we observe and study as part of the material sciences to be objective reality, or you don’t believe it’s objective reality and think it is all sort of invented in the “mind” somehow. Either position you take, you cannot prove or disprove either one, because even if you take the latter position, no evidence I present to you could change your mind because to be presented evidence would only mean for that evidence to appear in the mind, and thus wouldn’t prove anything. The best argument we can make is just taking the reality we observe as indeed reality is just philosophically simpler, but that also requires you to philosophically value simplicity, which you cannot prove what philosophical principles we should value with science either.

If there is no hard evidence yet I have no reason to believe. Go find the evidence, then I will believe it.

On the contrary, this breaks semi-classical gravity’s usage of quantum mechanics. The predictions the approximation makes are not compatible with our observations of how quantum mechanics works, and scientists are working on an experiment that can disprove the hypothesis. ( https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.180201 )

The paper is interesting and in the right direction but is just a proposal. It needs to actually be performed, because the results can finally point in the right direction rather than just guessing at what the right direction is.

I’m afraid you’ve got that precisely backwards. Falsifiability is the core of science

No, it’s a justification for pseudoscience by allowing anyone to invent anything out of whole cloth based on absolutely nothing at all and call it “science.”

as it is the method by which factually-deficient hypotheses are discarded

Except it’s precisely used to justify them.

If there is no contradiction between the theory and experimental practice then either all false theories have been discarded or we have overlooked an experiment that could prove otherwise.

Those two, or the third case that we just haven’t conducted the experiment yet that would contradict with current theories (still talking about GR/QFT here specifically).

That’s distinctly false. The Higgs Boson was only proposed in 1964 and wasn’t measured 'til just 13 years ago.

I am obviously not defending that position and you know for a fact that is a position that has gained a lot of steam recently, you’re just trying to annoyingly turn it around on me to make it seem like I am defending a position I am not by stating something rather obvious.

Because we still have falsifiable hypotheses to test.

And this is exactly why you’re a promoter of pseudoscience: if a theory is “falsifiable” it’s “science” and “needs to be tested,” even if it’s literally based on nothing and there is no good reason anyone should take it seriously. If I claim there is a magical teapot orbiting Saturn that is the cause of some of its currently not well-understood weather patterns and if you just built a specialized 20 billion dollar telescope with a special lens on it and pointed it at specific coordinates you’d discover the proof, technically you can falsify this claim so by your logic it’s “science” and therefore we should go out of our way to investigate it. I don’t get why it is so difficult to just accept that there is more to a reasonable scientific proposal than it just technically can be falsified. That is obviously not a sufficient criteria at all and treating it as just allows for a ton of factually-deficient hypotheses based on nothing to be taken seriously.

Whatever bullshit nonsense or mysticism someone makes up, as long as there is technically some way to conduct an experiment to falsify it, you will say that’s “science.” Popper has been complete poison to the academic discourse. In the past I would have to argue against laymen mystics, the equivalent of the modern day “quantum healing” types. But these days I don’t even care about those mystics because we have much more problematic mystics: those in academia who promote nonsense like “quantum immortality” and “quantum consciousness” or whatever new “multiverse” theory someone came up with based on pure sophistry, and they pass this off as genuine science, and we are expected to take it seriously by because “erm it technically can be falsified.”

Although, my magic teapot analogy isn’t even good because the analogy says the teapot is proposed to explain not well-understood weather patterns, so it is proposed to explain an actual problem we haven’t solved. A more accurate analogy would be for a person to claim that they believe the hexagon cloud on Saturn should actually be a triangle. Why? No reason, they just feel it should be a triangle, because triangles seem more natural to them. According to you, again, this is technically still science because technically their theory can indeed be falsified by building the special telescope and pointing it at those coordinates.

It’s impossible to combat pseudoscience mentality in the public and to combat things like quantum mysticism when some of the #1 promoters of quantum mysticism these days are academics themselves. Half the time when I see a completely absurd headline saying that quantum mechanics proves material reality doesn’t exist and “everything is consciousness,” or that quantum mechanics proves we’re immortal, or that quantum mechanics proves we live inside of a multiverse or a simulation, I click the article to see the source and no, it doesn’t go back to a Deepak Chopra sophist, it goes back to “legitimate” publications by an actual academic with credentials in the field who is taken seriously because “falsifiability.”

How am I supposed to then tell the laymen the article they’re reading is bologna? I can’t, because they don’t understand quantum physics, so they wouldn’t even have the tools to understand it if I explained to them why it’s wrong, so they just trust it because it’s written by someone with “credentials.” Mysticism in academia is way more serious than mysticism among laymen because even otherwise reasonable laymen who do view science positively will end up believing in mysticism if it is backed an academic.

We have, actually. The list of unsolved problems in physics on Wikipedia is like 15 pages long and we’re developing new experiments to address those questions constantly.

Why are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest? We have been talking about a very specific theory and a very specific field of research this whole time, and you are trying to deflect this to science generally. I am sorry I even engaged with you at all, you are not in any way intellectually honest in the slightest and intentionally trying to misrepresent everything I say to “own” me and constantly are trying to pretend my position is something that it is not.

By criticizing a small handful of pseudoproblems in science you are now trying to dishonestly pretend I am claiming there are no genuinely unsolved problems, because you don’t want to actually address my point and are just a hack and I am blocking you after this post for such a ridiculously dishonest way to try and smear me rather than just address my point.

Likewise, there’s no reason to assume that the universe is not acting the way we’d like it to except where contradicted by observable evidence.

We should just assume the universe is behaving exactly the way we observe it to behave based on the evidence.

What we “like” is irrelevant. We should just observe the evidence and accept that is how the universe works until additional evidence shows otherwise.

If the laws of physics can “break down” then they aren’t “laws”, merely approximations that are only accurate under a limited range of conditions.

Plenty of laws of physics are only applicable to certain conditions, like the ideal gas law. Although, that’s not the impression I got from this conversation on how you were using “break down” in the first place, as we were talking about semi-classical gravity where you have singularities at black holes, and you were using “break down” in that sense. There is no change in the law of physics at black holes in semi-classical gravity, the singularity arises from the very structure of the theory and is not in contradiction with it, i.e. its fundamental principles don’t suddenly change at a black hole. The singularity at the black hole is a result of its underlying principles.

The fact that the universe continues to exist despite the flaws in our theories proves that there must be a set of rules which are applicable in all cases.

You want them to apply to cases that currently have not been demonstrated by physically even possible to probe, so you have not even demonstrated it is an actual “case” at all. I am not denying it isn’t physically possible to probe either before you dishonestly try to turn my statement around to intentionally misrepresent me as you love to do. I am saying quite the opposite: that we should try to probe the areas that seem to not make much in our current theories. We should be trying to probe quantum effects and gravitational effects at the same time to see how they behave, because that’s how we could actually make progress if semi-classical gravity is indeed wrong.

We shouldn’t be constantly inventing fake “theories” based on literally nothing that are technically falsifiable then acting surprised when they are falsified, and then slightly tweaking them so they are not longer falsified with the previous experiment but still technically falsifiable with a future experiment. This would be like if you pointed the expensive telescope at Saturn and did not see the magical teapot, so I just changed my mind and said the teapot is actually orbiting Neptune so we need a bigger telescope and then the theory would be falsified!

I could play this game forever and keep tweaking my nonsensical claim every time it is falsified, and according to you this is science! What I am saying is this is not science because science is not just falsifiability. There are tons of genuinely unsolved problems in science, but there are also a small number of “problems” which are poorly motivated, like the “fine-tuning problem” which is also not a genuine scientific problem.

It’s really like 99.9% of the stuff in physics that’s perfectly fine. Most people in the real world are actually working on practical problems and not nonsense like “quantum consciousness” or whatever. The handful of people I am criticizing is largely a small minority, but they have a huge impact on public discourse and public understanding of science as they tend to be very vocal

And if the rules can change, then our theories will have to be updated to describe those changes and the conditions where they occur.

Obviously.

I understand that in semi-classical gravity the curvature of spacetime is based on the expectation value of the stress energy tensor, and so a massive object in a superposition of two possible location would curve spacetime as if the object was in the middle-point of the two locations, but when the state vector is reduced it would suddenly shift to one of those two points. While this does seem weird, no one has ever physically demonstrated that measuring this is actually possible, so until there is a demonstration that it is actually physically possible to measure this, there isn’t actually a contradiction between theory and experimental practice. All we can say is “that seems weird” but that’s not a scientific argument against it.

You say it diverges from reality but… how do you know that? No experiment has ever demonstrated this. It could be that this is just how reality works, or it could also be that it’s just not physically possible to probe this in the first place, and so it’s just a nonphysical quirk of the theory of computing something nonphysical in the first place. We can’t say for certain it is wrong until someone actually conducts an experiment to probe it, and if we find it is wrong, then not only would we rule out semi-classical gravity, but we would have the data needed to actually replace it with something.

This is my issue with “fundamental physics” these days in general: they do not actually demonstrate any contradiction between theory and experimental practice. The desire to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity is just based on some preconceptions that information shouldn’t be destroyed and gravity should be quantizable like every other force, but how do you know that with certainty? You did not derive this from experimental observation, because semi-classical gravity is currently compatible with all experimental observations. It is more that one begins with a preconception of how they think reality should work and says the theory is wrong because it does not fit those preconceptions. Yes, certain aspects of semi-classical gravity are “weird,” but that’s not a scientific argument against it.

Because of the influence of Karl Popper, people think science = falsifiability, so new theories are then constructed not based on experimental evidence but by trying to better fit into our preconceptions, but are also made to falsifiable because that is “science.” When they are falsified by an experiment that just reconfirms the predictions of semi-classical gravity, they just tweak it a bit so the theory is not falsified by that experiment any longer but still technically falsifiable, and they do this ad infinitum. You end up with decades doing this and what do you have, String Theory that is only applicable to an anti-de Sitter space, a universe we don’t actually live in? Or Loop Quantum Gravity which can’t even reproduce Einstein’s field equations?

Popper has been a detrimental influence onto the sciences. Science is not falsifiability. Science is about continually updating our models to resolve contradictions between the theory and experimental practice. If there is no contradiction between the theory and experimental practice then there is no justification to update the model. I have seen a mentality growing more popular these days which is that “fundamental physics hasn’t made progress in nearly a century.” But my response to this is why should it make progress? Why have not encountered a contradiction between experimental practice and theory, so all this “research” into things like String Theory is just guesswork, there is no reason to expect it to actually go anywhere.

The same is also true of the so-called “measurement problem” which as physicists like Carlo Rovelli and Francois-Igor Pris have pointed out only arise because we have certain metaphysical preconceptions about how reality should work which when applied to quantum theory lead to absurdities and so people often conclude the theory must be wrong somehow, that it’s “incomplete,” that it needs to be replaced by something like an objective collapse theory or a multiverse theory or something similar. Yet, this is not a scientific criticism, the theory is in no contradiction with the experimental evidence. We should just get rid of our preconceptions about how reality should work and accept how reality does. As Bohr said: stop telling God what to do.

There is no reason to assume the universe acts the way we’d like it to. Maybe the laws of physics really are just convoluted and break down at black holes. While yes, maybe one day we will discover a theory where it does not break down, it is anti-scientific to begin with an a priori assumption that this must necessarily be the case. It could be that the next breakthrough in fundamental physics even makes the mathematics more convoluted! You cannot just begin with a starting point prior to investigation that this is how nature works, you have to derive that a posteriori through investigation, and currently this is what our best theory derived from investigation states. It may be wrong, but there is no justification in claiming it is wrong without showing a contradiction between theory and experimental practice.

This is my issue here. The desire to replace semi-classical gravity with something else, the measurement problem, the desire to unify all forces of nature into a “theory of everything,” trying to solve the “fine-tuning problem,” these are all ultimately pseudoproblems because they do no derive from any contradiction between experimental practice and theory. They are not genuine scientific problems. I am not even against people looking into these, because who knows, maybe they will stumble across something interesting, but the issue with treating these all as genuine “problems” is that when they go “unsolved” for a century, it makes it look like there is a “crisis in fundamental physics.” There just isn’t. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: every experimental test reconfirms our current best theories, this is the exact opposite of a “crisis.” People pretend like we have a “crisis” because our current theories are too good!

If I am not mistaken, information loss inside of a black hole comes out of semi-classical gravity. If these symmetries are tied to the assumption that the laws of physics don’t change and the symmetries break down in semi-classical gravity, then does that mean in semi-classical gravity the laws of physics change? Is there a particular example of that in the theory you could provide so I can understand?

I don’t disagree that information is conserved in general relativity and quantum mechanics taken separately, but when you put them together it is not conserved, and my concern is that I don’t understand why we must therefore conclude that this necessarily wrong and it can’t just be that information conservation only holds true for limiting cases when you aren’t considering how gravitational effects and interference effects operate together simultaneously. I mean, energy conservation breaks down when we consider galactic scales as well in the case of cosmic redshift.

Yes, we can experimentally verify these laws of conservation, because in practice we can only ever observe gravitational effects and interference effects separately, as a limiting case, and thus far there hasn’t been an experiment demonstrating the plausibility of viewing them simultaneously and how they act upon each other. In semi-classical gravity these “weird” aspects like information loss in a black hole only arise when we actually consider them together, which is not something we have observed yet in a lab, so I don’t see the basis of thinking it is wrong.

You seem to suggest that thinking it is wrong implies the laws of physics change, but I’m not really sure what is meant by this. Is semi-classical gravity not a self-consistent mathematical framework?

It goes back to the French revolution where the people who sat on the left of the parliament opposed the ruling class, in that case the feudal aristocracy, while the people who supported the ruling class sat on the right of the parliament. Even after the aristocracy was gone, people started to use the term left to refer to people who oppose the ruling class of capitalist society (wealthy capital oligarchs) where as the right is those who support them.

“this isn’t right vs left, this is right vs left”

uh… okay?

I still don’t really understand why the information just can’t be destroyed. It seems like we’re starting from an assumption that it shouldn’t be destroyed despite it being so in semi-classical gravity, and then trying to think of alternative theories which could preserve it such as on the boundary or in its charge/mass/spin. Maybe that’s correct but it seems like speculation, and it’s not speculation based on any actual contradiction between theory and practice, i.e. not because semi-classical gravity has actually made an incorrect prediction in an experiment we can go out and verify, but only because we have certain preconceptions as to how nature should work which aren’t compatible with it. So it doesn’t really come across to me as a scientific “problem” but more of a metaphysical one.

Choosing between parties is arguably less democratic because in many countries with such a system, like the USA, you basically just have corporations/corporate media choosing the candidates, so your “choice” is between corporate candidates, so corporations always win. There is no option to reject the nominee entirely, while in China’s system you can reject the nominee. you can just straight up veto candidates.

Westerners often also look at the very end of the process and ignore everything leading up to it. They will say “there’s only one candidate on the ballot!” as proof it’s undemocratic (even though this happens all the time in the US too…). But this ignores the entire democratic process leading up to how the candidate gets on the ballot in the first place. In Cuba for example, candidates getting on the ballot is a two-year long process resulting from local elections and meetings with mass organizations, but they ignore this entire process and just focus on the final election at the very end.

There’s still a pattern in the results, so by one means or another we want to explain the results. Just calling it nondeterministic, if I understand right, would be just saying you can’t predict it from prior observations. So, whatever language you use to describe this puzzling situation, the puzzling situation thus far remains.

I mean nondeterministic in a more fundamental sense, that it is just genuinely random and there is no possibility of predicting the outcome because nothing in nature actually pre-determines the outcome.

A priori?

Through rigorous experimental observation, it’s probably the most well-tested finding in all of science of all time.

Or because it best fits with Relativity? It sounds about as strong as saying, “we know time is universal.” It’s obvious, has to be true, but apparently not how the universe functions.

So we can never believe anything? We might as well deny the earth is round because people once thought time is absolute now we know it’s relative, so we might as well not believe in anything at all! Completely and utterly absurd. You sound just like the creationists who try to undermine belief in scientific findings because “science is always changing,” as if that’s a bad thing or a reason to doubt it.

We should believe what the evidence shows us. We changed our mind about the nature of time because we discovered new evidence showing the previous intuition was wrong, not because some random dude on lemmy dot com decided their personal guesses are better than what the scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates.

If you think it’s wrong show evidence that it is wrong. Don’t hit me with this sophistry BS and insult my intelligence. I do not appreciate it.

Maybe you are right that special relativity is wrong, but show me an experiment where Lorentz invariance is violated. Then I will take you seriously. Otherwise, I will not.

It could do that but what’s the evidence that it does? Or has someone proved this is already a feature of semi-classical gravity that just wasn’t noticed before? Or is it only a feature of a brand new hypothetical theory?

why’s it a problem? why can’t information just be lost at a black hole?

trvth nvke

Even though China gave up on most communist ambitions post-Dheng

No they haven’t.

Quantum nonlocality really is a misnomer. Nothing is nonlocal about it. We know from the No-communication Theorem that there is no physical interaction you could carry out with one particle in an entangled pair that would affect the state of the other particle, and we know it is compatible with special relativity, which is a fundamentally local theory, as such a unification of the two is how we get quantum field theory.

“Local realism” is also a nonsensical term. There is no agreed upon rigorous definition of “realism” and its introduction to the scientific literature has only served to confuse the discussion and promote quantum mysticism because people think because Bell’s theorem supposedly shows that “local realism” is false that you there have to choose between locality or realism, but not both, and since we know the universe is local, we have to conclude there is no objective reality, devolving into mysticism and idealism.

This isn’t just a problem in popsci articles but even in published scientific literature. This “local realism” hogwash has caused even otherwise respectable physics to publish nonsense about how reality doesn’t exist. The term “realism” is never used in Bell’s theorem and has tn relevance to it. Bell’s theorem is about local hidden variable theories, and it is complete nonsense to conflate hidden variables with “realism” as if your only choices are to believe the reality is deterministic or to deny reality even exists! What kind of options are those? What about a third option that reality exists and it is just nondeterministic?

What Bell’s theorem shows is that quantum mechanics cannot be replaced with a local hidden variable theory, and since we know the universe is local, that means it cannot be replaced with a hidden variable theory. It forces us to accept nondeterminism, it doesn’t force us to deny reality, nor does it prove there is nonlocality.