tbabb

27 ms·

181.
by tbabb 8y ago
That's it. I'm disabling JS by default.
182.
by tbabb 8y ago
I think fun is an extremely important part of keeping up the pace of learning. I would rank that much higher over "methodically combing through everything", which could cause you to quit from boredom long before you reach your goa
183.
by tbabb 8y ago
> vehemently against social media monitoring by government agencies and warrantless wiretaps Does reading publicly published information constitute wiretapping? > we’ve seen plenty of anecdotes where concerning public postings were po
184.
by tbabb 8y ago
Consider this angle the next time there is a mass shooting, and the attack is foreshadowed by troubling social media posts by the perpetrator. In those circumstances, there are often cries of "why was nothing done to prevent this?&quot
185.
by tbabb 8y ago
Sounds ripe for a speculation bubble.
186.
by tbabb 8y ago
> How about when it's not a simple underlying problem? Then applying brute force instead of empathy is still not going to work? I am not sure exactly what nit you are picking.
187.
by tbabb 8y ago
Yes, that's a good analogy.
188.
by tbabb 8y ago
Maybe a better analogy would be: If you know the complete state of the universe at one moment in time, you know the state at all moments in time, because you can run the laws of physics (forward or backward) and compute the state at some
189.
by tbabb 8y ago
In quantum physics and cosmology, "holographic" (and "projection", in this context) are related to the holographic principle, which is kind of like a Stokes' theorem for information-- it says that specifying the sta
190.
by tbabb 8y ago
Why are we still trying to do biometric security? - Biometrics are public, unlike passwords. Biometric data can usually be gathered from a person, often discreetly, by cameras or whatever other sensors are used for authentication, and repla
191.
by tbabb 8y ago
I would posit that StarLink is impossible for anyone except SpaceX, who can get launches at-cost or for free as piggyback on other customers. Without that, I am sure that it looks economically impossible. The technological challenges are pr
192.
by tbabb 8y ago
- Comparison to the space shuttle: Not remotely apt. The space shuttle, among other reasons, was a failure when it came to its design requirements because those requirements were expanded in incompatible directions by a congress that doesn&
193.
by tbabb 8y ago
This seems like an endocrine effect, rather than a chromosomal one. I'd expect XXY to cause endocrine effects because sex-linked cells are operating with bad genetic info. This paper suggests that Ibprofen might cause sex-linked cells
194.
by tbabb 8y ago
And it's a mirror that subtends a tiny fraction of the sky, and a tiny fraction of the sun's blurred virtual image.
195.
by tbabb 8y ago
Again you are "explaining" when you should be asking. > None of the fibers would "look at the moon". Fiber isnt the same as lenses. I think you meant to ask "how is a fiber different from a lens?" instead of
196.
by tbabb 8y ago
Sorry, this is wrong. Please don't "explain" your misunderstanding as if you know the answer; ask questions instead. If we imagine a full sphere of inward-pointing fibers, each one "looking" at the moon, then we see
197.
by tbabb 8y ago
The angular concentration of the light. The moon is diffuse, so an incoming ray of sunshine is spread by the optically rough surface of the moon from an incident solid angle of 6 * 10^-5 steradians out into 2 pi steradians of the night sky,
198.
by tbabb 8y ago
Nope. The randomness of quantum mechanics cannot be erased with more detailed knowledge-- ascribing any number of "hidden" properties to particles to explain their quantum behavior produces mathematical inconsistencies. See: http
199.
by tbabb 8y ago
Why do you object to rotational symmetry?
200.
by tbabb 8y ago
Because if we say that some of those alpha_i physically go to zero at any point (e.g., "after"), our predictions are wrong, in agreement with the paper. We have to account for the fact that those alpha_i|i> are still nonzero an
201.
by tbabb 8y ago
> Why do have to "ask" if the answer doesn't really matter? You tell me; Copenhagen is the one that says collapse exists. It sounds like maybe we are on the same page that collapse isn't necessary to explain quantum m
202.
by tbabb 8y ago
I don't think that criticism really understands what Everett says-- the evolution of the universal wavefunction is unitary. There is no "splitting". There is only uncertainty about what part of phase space you are in (and any
203.
by tbabb 8y ago
Yep, I'm with you that we don't need to bring causality into it. And yes, you don't need to ask "when does the wavefunction collapse" to manipulate joint probabilities of measurements that happen at disparate locati
204.
by tbabb 8y ago
> I am not sure what premise of Copenhagen is being contradicted. Before measurement, the state of the particle system is Σ α_i|i>. Copenhagen says, "after you measure the system, all but one of the α_i go to zero". The auth
205.
by tbabb 8y ago
That language is why I think the authors aren't aware that they are advocating many worlds. Also, this is a fantastic example of the "don't ask questions" attitude I think is so shameful. If they had bothered to take t
206.
by tbabb 8y ago
He published in a tiny journal that was only in print for a handful of years, which was read by very few people. Bell himself said that no one contacted him or even mentioned it to him until four years after its publish date, and that resea
207.
by tbabb 8y ago
I am not sure that paper knows it, but it is essentially showing that many worlds is correct-- that the wavefunction never collapses: > the implications on conditional probabilities hold for other measurements throughout the entire space
208.
by tbabb 8y ago
> There is nothing "obviously wrong" about the standard Copenhagen interpretation Can you tell me how to calculate whether a system of particles will cause another system of particles to collapse or not? Can you tell me under w
209.
by tbabb 8y ago
Here's a snippet: > Another comment-not-a-question I constantly have to endure is that I supposedly only complain but don’t have any better advice for what physicists should do. > First, it’s a stupid criticism that tells you mor
210.
by tbabb 8y ago
Copenhagen is wrong to the degree that any theory can be called wrong. It posits specific physical events (collapse) which are not only unsupported by evidence, and not only contradicted by evidence (delayed choice quantum eraser experiment

More ›