joigus

Ah, so OP maybe is trying to say, 'could the electron be there just because charges need to balance out?' If that's the case, I know of a class of theorems called 'soft boson theorems' in QFT that say that something very weird would happen if charges didn't balance out at distances long enough, and that would make QFT inconsistent. That alone wouldn't explain why the universe is not just a soup of photons from all the particle-antiparticle pairs having annihilated each other long in the past... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

Conservation of charge bears out an elementary symmetry. The electron is a carrier of that symmetry. How could bilateral symmetry (a quality of a thing) be the thing itself? Flies have bilateral symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry of a fly the fly itself? Please, come to your senses.

Where is the physics?

Ok. But slavery is allowed (halal), adoption forbidden (haram), sex with minors allowed (halal), etc, if political conditions allow. A lot of what you can or cannot apply from sharia depends on political climate, as stated clearly in the Qu'ran concerning taqiyya. From: https://reliefweb.int/ with my emphasis I for one prefer Zoroastrianism, as long as you're careful with fire. All religions are OK, I suppose, as long as you don't take them seriously --actually apply certain/a few/most of their principles. All religions are OK if you reduce them to wearing of certain gear and handling of certain ritual objects and ceremonies. In that sense, they're not very different from a funny sport.

Some of these coincidences happen to be very useful as mnemonics.

OP still looks like homework.

Well the liquid nitrogen example that @MigL provided goes in that direction. This reminds me of some quick notes on geometric optics concerning one such Lensmaker's equation, which led me to think something along the lines of 'Isn't it cute, that this equation was derived by someone called Lensmaker?' I soon realised of course, it was a typo or the author made a mistake, and it should have said 'lens maker'.

The objection is expressed at 33:50 of the lecture I linked (without mentioning Dyson). If gravity were classical and gauge fields were quantum, you could beat the position-momentum HUP. Dyson's position basically is that Einstein's tensor is a classical field. But on the RHS of the equations you have the expected value of the energy-momentum tensor of quantum fields. You could, of course argue that there are <T²>-<T>² quantum fluctuations of these quantities, and thereby similar quantum fluctuations in the Einstein tensor. Yes, ER = EPR is due to Leonard Susskind and Juan Maldacena. I don't know about the state of the art of it, but it's a way to deal with quantum gravity that's being explored recently.

I stand corrected. Thank you, gentlepeople. Sexes there are < 10 Behaviours there are > 1000 Something like that.

This looks like homework...

Anyway. Sex is a biological fact that can be settled at cell-level. Behaviour is another matter. Sexes there are two. Behaviours there are millionfold.

In the Ricky Gervais sense? (Short):

Oh, yes. What Stanley Deser defined as 'denial' in this lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh36XEX7yTk IOW, the gravitational field is one of a kind. Everything else is quantum. It's only gravity that's classical. Doesn't sound like a sound alternative. People have pointed to paradoxes and the like. And it's no surprise really.

This walks in the direction of what I was saying. GR as a theoretical standalone is not reliable to tell us what a BH (or any other trans-horizon-hidden singularity of the EFE) is telling us about. QM has to play a big role in it. Rupture of space-time, as if ST were some kind of elastic medium is clearly not the ticket. Every direction I know in which people are thinking has to do with generalising QFT to the appropriate degrees of freedom accounting for gravitation or proposing a unifying principle (EPR = ER) that achieves the concept-bridging between GR and QFT that everybody dreams of. There must be a reason why entropy has to be included in the mix, and it's almost a certainty that the reason has to do with QM. PD: From what I know, @Genady is right, and the singularity is a time rather than a spatial point. Assuming BHs are not better represented by other solutions that haven't been found yet and nobody knows anything about. Such is the plight of the non-linear physicist. But you're right. You shift to the E, t HUP and your point is still valid --at this point I don't know whether the pun is intended or not!! Sorry for the acronym shower.

Interestingly though, it has spawned a few questions: 5, and counting...

This is an outdated package of ideas otherwise known as Copenhagen's school. Decoherence is the key, not the observation, whatever that means. I don't think that makes much sense. Decay is already understood as an interaction, but not between matter and time, but mediated by W and Z bosons. What would interaction between matter and time even mean? Interactions, as we understand the concept, require a position representation.

Besides the more specific criticism you're getting, what part does QFT play in all this? It's extremely unlikely that any insight about big-bang, singularities, etc, would be obtained from classical GR alone without QFT playing any part in it.

Klaus Schwab? Is that you?

From what I've read, neuronal migration, glial growth, etc are perhaps the identifiable biological factors at work when the frontal cortex is developing (up until about 25 yo in most individuals) that are very much affected by the environment. Nurture and nature are both part of Nature because, as George Carlin once pointed out, Nature includes everything, including the oft-misused and abused figure of speech involved in the dichotomy nature/nurture. Developmental processes don't occur in a Petri dish. So I agree with most people's observation here, if I understood correctly: Remove the nurture factor and the genius disappears.

I hadn't read the last paragraph by OP. Well spotted, @exchemist. Fractals, GR, QM, knots, quantum computing. Space itself is moving. My BS detector went through the roof.

Maybe something to do with topological insulators? Any context I know where the word "topological" has anything to do with conductivity. It's some kind of interphase between conductors and insulator. It was worth a Nobel Prize relatively recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_insulator

Cyberspace is not a concept related to quantum mechanics.

What if "dead" was actually alive, and "alive" was actually dead? You know, as long as this is in "Sculptures made of Almonds"...

As to technical matters... Amplifying the coherent signal to enough qbits would be essential for quantum supremacy. Also, it would be nice to make them work at room temperatures. Last time I looked we were nowhere near that becoming a reality --let alone a household reality-- although I've been able to catch pieces of hopeful news about the first goal here and there.

And the "calculus" of it would be...?