People are going to be VERY disappointed that REAL physics turns out to be NOTHING like the ‘science’ fiction that the current generation of physicists has grown up thinking it was, and which they have led the public to believe it was.
This is part of why I CANNOT STAND people like Neil de Grasse Tyson. They treat it all like magic and they hype it up.
NO! Physics should be about making what would be complicated plain. And REAL physics does JUST THAT. It is the world of engines and radios!
@chemoelectric To paraphrase (very badly) Terry Pratchett - Why do we need to invent gnomes and fairies that live in the bottom of our garden, when perfectly amazing and fantastic things such as snails and flowers already live there?
I grew up in a scientific household, at least early in my life. My father was a chemist.
Do you know what my father made a living working with? He’s in his 80s and still around, but hasn’t worked since he was about 55. Before that he was a chemist and then a chemical engineer.
He worked with phosphates. He worked with sodium carbonates. My father could tell you all sorts of fascinating things about ... soda ash. :)
Myself, did I study magic? Nope. Digital signal processing.
@windhorse Well, now, that included things like active noise canceling. One might think it magical how those open-air headphones somehow ‘magically’ can block out noise, but really it’s because signal processing engineers can do exactly the kind of random process analysis stuff that the Nobel Prize in Physics winners of 2022 did not know they even had to be able to do.
@windhorse I love the way if you switch between pi/8 and 3pi/8 as the command line argument it switches whether you have + and - following each other or + + and - - following each other.
It corresponds to reversal of sign of the correlation coefficient.
@chemoelectric I have absolutely no idea what that means, but I still love the fact that you do. My failure to understand something does not invalidate it. Maybe I need to go to bed as well.
The ‘entanglement’ (e.g.) is people, who do not know probability theory, mistaking a probability distribution or density function (written in the liturgical ‘bra-ket’ language of QM rather than as probability theory) for a physical state.
My solution at https://www.crudfactory.com/eprb_signal_correlations.pdf (still in draft, occasionally I introduce and then remove errors, sorry) expands out a table of conditional probabilities. I’m pretty sure that in quantum mechanics they do the same thing, but it is obfuscated as a ‘tensor product’ of some ‘ket vectors’ or something of the sort. I’m not sure what.
They just do not see they are doing probability theory and that it has nothing to do with physical activity of ‘entangled’ objects.
I sure hope to live to see the collapse of ‘modern physics’, and to have been a part of what tipped it over. Though, of course, the lever we all used was E. T. Jaynes.
(Actually a handful rediscovered it on their own circa 2000, but I sent around word they were much later than Jaynes. And there is good evidence of people publishing ‘subversive’ papers that obfuscated they knew it was all nonsense, going way back. And, of course, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen knew it was nonsense, and really their argument was completely sufficient and should have ended the discussion!)
Add comment