quantum_mcts

Around 2018 I got obsessed with slings - I've made a couple from paracord and was practicing almost every day. After about a year I only managed to consistently launch stones in the rough desired direction. Another (COVID) year and got to the level where my spread was about 5 degrees. Systematically hitting a reasonably sized target was still beyond my ability. Plus early symptoms of tennis elbow...

Slinging is hard, requires a lot of dedication and systematic practice. Stil, the feeling when the rock hits a target and "explodes" is worth it.

“Oh it’s about ME now?!..”

Total amount of reactor*years so far is roughly 20000. 3 core meltdowns amounts for 0.015% per reactor per year.

0. There's money laundering.

It is sort of like saying that crypto is less money-laundery than banks because more money gets laundered through banks than through crypto.

Here’s an exercise. Go to Wikipedia for “Money Laundering” -> “Notable cases” and sum the amounts laundered by all famous banks for the last 10 or 5 years.

Then try to say again that “crypto is for money laundering” with a straight face.

Yes

Yes it can. https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.7438

Cold dark matter made of weakly interacting massive particles can.

Good. Now explain the Bullet Cluster.

First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible.

Sounds like an LLM prompt...

Really weird post and discussion around it. The "family" is not some abstract entity / offender's property. The "family" is made of other humans. "Not punishing people that didn't do anything wrong" is pretty high at the list of my consequentialist morals.

Similar stuff by this guy already posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32367085 It is a crackpot pseudoscience.

Sampling temperature.

We trade with bees though.

I've long noticed that this idea - that scientists just "jumped to conclusion" that there must be some dark matter to resolve some observational inconsistencies - is very prevalent among non-specialists. It could not be further from the truth, of course - as soon as the rigorous statistical study of galaxy rotation curves was provided by Vera Rubin et. al. in the 80s, the MOND classes of alternatives to gravity started to appear.

I tried to understand why this narrative is so prevalent, and it looks like it is due to its very appealing nature - both to the listener and to the speaker: "all those egghead scientists can't see an obvious solution to a problem they are fighting with for decades". I also noticed that when you get deeper into it, then you find that the source - the "speaker" part in the whole narrative - is some kind of science popularizer. Who at the same time (surprise) is a proponent of his own flavor of modified gravity theory.

Truth is - everyone, including me, had this idea as soon as they first heard about the DM. If you actually study all the evidence and discussions around the subject, you'll see that introducing an extra "dark" particle is the most obvious solution to the whole collection of observational inconsistencies. Modifying gravity in such a way so that it is self-consistent and consistent with all the observations... I actually don't think anyone completely finished that project so far.

You can stop reading right there as this immediately identifies this piece as disingenuous at best

Or you can keep reading it and see that it literally says "It is a misnomer to say renewables are carbon-free compared to nuclear power." And discusses the very things you stated was disingenuously discounted.

Couldn’t it be that people become more aware of mental health problems because of social media?

Euclid’s proof in form of a poem. In style of Shakespeare.

I've already quite a long time ago noticed that in particle physics we usually do stuff that quantum-computing people will call an "entaglement". We just don't phrase it like that, because we are used to it and we aren't much "in awe" about it. https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/40872/386

There’s also earlier strict mathematical study of renormalisation procedure by Bogolubov and Parasyuk. QFT Green functions are distributions and their product is ill-defined, thus their naive use results in apparent infinities.

"the world could well live without the Higgs boson" (c) Sabine Hossenfelder

https://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/what_it_means_to_be...

But who is to decide which are pseudo problems, and which are not?

Scientific community. Via a process of peer-reviewed publications. Not via blog posts and Youtube videos.

"The Principles of Deep Learning" paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.10165 has a rather rigorous (based on Quantum Field Theory (QFT) mathematical apparatus) analysis of modern deep learning with the similar insight. They suggest that the learning happens in the critical regimes. And use running couplings, renormalization group and other fancy OFT math to derive some insights in the DL field. Here's a HN thread, by the way, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31051540.

I thought that would be a language for sampling from the LM. Why no one created one btw?

Quantum algorithms are nonlinear. If someone is saying "quantum mechanics is a linear theory" as a counterargument to anything QC related. Then that person has no idea what they are talking about. Because they likely never cared to learn event the basics of QC.

weather is a non-linear system whereas quantum mechanics is a linear theory

This lady have no idea what she is talking about.

S-Matrix was the beginning of fifty years of string and SUSY

S-Matrix is a scattering matrix - a basic notion in QFT. S-Matrix theory is an attempt of axiomatization of particle physics with S-Matrix analyticity axioms as a basis. It still makes sense to this day - and still at the brink on unresolved questions in QFT, like QCD vacuum and/or confinement. A popular notion that S-Matrix theory was "replaced" with QCD is bogus (not to mention that bulk of publications by Gell-Mann was on S-Matrix theory). String theory is just a thing that was inspired by S-Matrix theory. And SUSY has almost nothing to do with it.

I would disagree with the idea that the theoretical community decides where efforts should be focused - who ever is paying the bills ultimately makes that decision.

It is a very naive view of how research works. It is like saying that who ever pays the bills gets to decide what startup is going to succeed.

I'd suggest you read on scientific outputs of collider experiments. They do perform precision experiments and detailed measurements of particle properties and fundamental parameters of the settled fundamental models. The picture you are painting of "some theorists come up with crazy ideas and then we spend billions on colliders and then nothing" - is completely bogus. And that is very illustrative of the harm that Dr. Hosssenfelder does as a popularizer.

I think you are confusing Big Bang Cosmology with theory of cosmic inflation.