4 ms·

There is new new physics here, and I suspect this gentleman's criticisms are unfounded. I'll have to take the abstract's[0] word for it since I'm not instituti

There is new new physics here, and I suspect this gentleman's criticisms are unfounded. I'll have to take the abstract's[0] word for it since I'm not institutionalized, though. The author of the rebuke claims that they simply used entanglement as with the quantum teleportation task, which isn't the case, apparently a more robust task has been used to demonstrate their premise. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05424-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05424-3 Edit: and since when has physics ever been about "proof"? that's not anything, regression is an extremely powerful tool in physics because physics is about predictive reach, not some unjudgeable standard of "correctness". this is coherent in perturbation, and correspondence principles, but apparently easy to miss if you haven't read that far. see also the interoperability principle, to understand at least one framework interpretation of holographic phenomena.

plaguepilled 4y ago
>since when has physics ever been about "proof" Literally since inception. Re your later comments: perturbation series that converge aren't considered physics by default. I'm not sure what you're suggesting there.
- meltyness 4y ago
  Physics deals in explanation, observation, prediction. With observation comes evidence supporting explanations... that's it. I'm referring to perturbation as taking first-order approximation of a phenomena's best known explanation, similar to my assertion that regression yields explanation.
  - plaguepilled 4y ago
    Sorry for being harsh but that is completely, objectively, wrong. Physics is not "dealing with" explanation, observation, prediction in some fluid way. It is the minimal model that correctly and succinctly predicts phenomena with sufficient statistical evidence. There's no role to question whether phenomena is involved. This is why SUSY is not part of the standard model - because it has not yet been confirmed with sufficient experimental data.
    - meltyness 4y ago
      >... the minimal model... That's impossible if "the grand explanation" is to be mathematical, due to the same issue that felled pure math, Godel. There's assumptive folds throughout, like the correspondence principles, or complementary where arguing that we're even close to a complete explanation is madness. THOSE are all clearly labeled. All this to argue that yes, this is a novel demonstration, and (if I understand correctly) , shows that matter at some known scales are subject to dynamics elucidated by GR, up to exotic event spaces.
      - plaguepilled 4y ago
        The model being incomplete is not the same thing as saying empiricism is the primary requirement. The use of assumptions, similarly, does not sit before evidence fit. When we find results that contradict a theory with evidence, we often throw away the assumptions because we realise them as tools no longer fit for the job.
        meltyness 4y ago
        The assumptions I'm discussing are the permissive types which serve as a trapdoor for good explanations, those don't get thrown out. Unsupported assumptions, like substructure where none had been observed, aren't thrown out until evidence contradicts them. For example in the case of the ether. Or in the case of strings, as yet untested.
        plaguepilled 4y ago
        They still only get credence as long as they don't disagree with experiment.

plaguepilled 4y ago

>since when has physics ever been about "proof" Literally since inception. Re your later comments: perturbation series that converge aren't considered physics by default. I'm not sure what you're suggesting there.

meltyness 4y ago
Physics deals in explanation, observation, prediction. With observation comes evidence supporting explanations... that's it. I'm referring to perturbation as taking first-order approximation of a phenomena's best known explanation, similar to my assertion that regression yields explanation.
- plaguepilled 4y ago
  Sorry for being harsh but that is completely, objectively, wrong. Physics is not "dealing with" explanation, observation, prediction in some fluid way. It is the minimal model that correctly and succinctly predicts phenomena with sufficient statistical evidence. There's no role to question whether phenomena is involved. This is why SUSY is not part of the standard model - because it has not yet been confirmed with sufficient experimental data.
  - meltyness 4y ago
    >... the minimal model... That's impossible if "the grand explanation" is to be mathematical, due to the same issue that felled pure math, Godel. There's assumptive folds throughout, like the correspondence principles, or complementary where arguing that we're even close to a complete explanation is madness. THOSE are all clearly labeled. All this to argue that yes, this is a novel demonstration, and (if I understand correctly) , shows that matter at some known scales are subject to dynamics elucidated by GR, up to exotic event spaces.
    - plaguepilled 4y ago
      The model being incomplete is not the same thing as saying empiricism is the primary requirement. The use of assumptions, similarly, does not sit before evidence fit. When we find results that contradict a theory with evidence, we often throw away the assumptions because we realise them as tools no longer fit for the job.
      - meltyness 4y ago
        The assumptions I'm discussing are the permissive types which serve as a trapdoor for good explanations, those don't get thrown out. Unsupported assumptions, like substructure where none had been observed, aren't thrown out until evidence contradicts them. For example in the case of the ether. Or in the case of strings, as yet untested.
        plaguepilled 4y ago
        They still only get credence as long as they don't disagree with experiment.