swansont

A FAQ that showed the number was dated 2005, but the knowledge dates back to the 1990s. Prior to that the error bars on the expansion rate and age weren’t conclusive, but the possibility that the size was larger goes back to the 1950s-60s when decent estimates of Hubble’s constant were made and the CMB temperature was measured https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/educators/programs/cosmictimes/educators/guide/age_size.html

It’s applied to classical physics, but I’m not aware of it being applied to quantum. Perhaps you could work through a simple hidden variable example of spin-1/2 particle pairs with a total spin of zero, measured along three different axes 120 degrees apart (standard example) and get the QM result.

And your friend thought this was not being considered? The observable universe has a radius of about 46 billion light-years. 46 > 13.8 We’ve known this for quite some time.

I disagree with this sentiment. People are allowed to have their own priorities. You can be negative about things they aren’t doing, but because there’s way more stuff than any one person can do, anybody can be a target. People used to attack Al Gore this way on climate change. People who fight for rights of animals being criticized for not helping humans. It happens everywhere. They don’t answer to you, and they’re allowed to pick the battles they fight. Or you can be positive about the fact that they’re doing something about a bad situation.

Since that particular cat is out of the bag, can you tell us what the idea was?

Admirable but I don’t think anyone who has already ignored the Geneva conventions and the UN will suddenly start complying.

Wait...you were the one who said you could measure it. You claimed you just couldn’t do it in a single meadurement. “The wave function is non-observable, as QM prohibits to measure it directly. You cannot determine it in a single measurement.” That’s not the wave function I referred to, though. I didn’t claim it was an observable, but since Bell wasn’t referring to the wave function, that makes this whole thing a distraction and moot. The wave function is not an “additional variable” “THE paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [1] was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables.” https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf

Wenbin Zhao has been banned for reopening a closed thread and then abusing the PM system (which is not going to sway mods over to your side)

Position and momentum are observable The hidden variable in the proofs isn’t specified because it’s a general proof; it doesn’t just forbid just one specific variable So it’s not measurable but you can measure it? (And I disagree that it can’t be known with one measurement. e.g. if I have a hydrogen atom and it emits a 1420 MHz photon, we know it’s in the lower hyperfine level of the ground state. And you can prepare systems in specific quantum states.) I don’t see how it counts as a hidden variable, though, since having a definite wave function doesn’t necessarily get rid of probability. A system in a superposition, be it known or unknown, will give you multiple possible results.

You’re getting an error code; any search is currently returning this error I was noticing other glitches earlier, but have no idea why

Moderator NoteYou’re free to defend MOND, in discussion here, but rule 2.7 says, in part “We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it.” so your link has been removed.

Moderator NoteMoved to the trash because WTAF

Seen a lot on shirts in Corvallis <Something that rhymes with duck> the Ducks

As my profile says, I got my PhD from Oregon State U. But that was 30 years ago.

And the heads of the various institutions were chosen for their loyalty to the president, i.e. they are not fulfilling their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution

Example of what you think is such a hidden variable? If the variable isn’t observable, how do you determine its state?

Baryonic matter makes up much of what we call “normal” matter - neutrons and protons. Dark matter is thought to (mostly) be not baryonic.

It’s known as the missing baryon problem, which is distinct from dark matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_baryon_problem

Bell’s theorem is a restriction on local hidden variables, so if you drop the local requirement you’re talking about something else. In the words of Bell, "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem But we’re talking about entangled quantum states, where you can have superposition. “real life” is classical, and you don’t get such behavior. That’s kinda the point - QM is not secretly classical

It’s pointless to do so, arguably off-topic, and possibly invoking argument from authority, which as a fallacy, is also against the rules.

QM predates Kolmogorov’s axioms by a few years, so one might say that Kolmogorov introduced new concepts, if that were the case. But I don’t see what the issues are. You are free to discuss whatever you like with AI, but you can’t post it here, except as it complies with our rules. We don’t want to waste our time arguing with a possible hallucination. The Kochen-Specker and Bell theorems are math, used by QM. i.e. they have proofs. Do you have concrete examples of the alleged failures?

That’s an article from 2021, and the implication is that it was a possibility if Trump lost, which did not happen. The aspects of it that remain include the disinformation mill parts - politicians and media flat-out lying in order to advance a narrative to the credulous among the population.

That’s not the standard that science uses.

We have such people here - not credentialed but well-read. The best thing to do is get feedback. It also helps to not be emotionally invested in the idea, in order to be objective.

The proponents ao AI act like it’s a religion, as does the conversation that Sensei posted (“mention of a “belief” in AI) The empirical evidence says otherwise. The topic was closed owing to rules violations. The help suggestion is from treating AI like it was an actual person. Biological evolution is genetic change. The evolution of technology is not that; there are distinct differences that render the analogy incorrect. It’s not a matter of “someone decides” It’s what can be objectively demonstrated “man” refers to humans, which are animals. Objective scientific fact. You can hang onto blissful ignorance, but this is an odd place to do so.