🧵 Let's dispel a couple of science myths
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:27:19 UTC No. 16063339
>Black holes and the universe contain/contained a singularity
No. Singularities are purely hypothetical predictions and current theories break down when dealing with them, implying that singularities are a nonsensical thing. They are an extreme extrapolation of relativity and relativity is dogshit for micro scales with many errors there.
>Virtual particles pop in and out and annihilate each other in a flash of light
No. Virtual particles are a model for certain small forces active in a vacuum. There are no actual particles from nothing and no flash of light from their annihilation.
>Hawking radiation
Virtual particles are a math model and not something real, so anti-particles do not get sucked up by black holes to lessen their mass. The real explanation is something else and this was just a popsci myth.
>Quantum mechanics are some sort of true randomness
No. Due to the small scale of QM, measurements are probabilistic due to tool interference on this minimal scale and the extreme chaos making it impossible to have all data for such a small system. Every single interaction in QM is deterministic. It's a measuring problem, not some sort of universal randomness. And the wave function is again a statistical approximiation for an extremely complex system that is too complex for us to model currently.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:36:06 UTC No. 16063352
>>16063339
>Every single interaction in QM is deterministic.
what if I clone you? 9 times, total 10 (You)s. all placed in a room with number from 1-10, first you is placed in room number 1. when you open your eyes after the procedure how certain are you that you'll still be in room number 1? 100%?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:39:23 UTC No. 16063354
>>16063352
That has nothing to do with QM
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:40:04 UTC No. 16063356
>>16063354
>true randomness
is real
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:44:37 UTC No. 16063361
>>16063356
You didn't give an example of true randomness, and the example was not even about QM
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:35:08 UTC No. 16063463
I don't get the last one. I think you are right but aren't dispelling anything. How does bell's theorem fit into this?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:12:29 UTC No. 16063553
>>16063361
>You didn't give an example of true randomness
that is exactly truly random
>and the example was not even about QM
picrel
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:18:57 UTC No. 16063571
>>16063553
Impossible to predict with current tools =/= random.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:23:32 UTC No. 16063584
>>16063571
what tools? are you implying atoms of same element are not identical? what tools would you need to accurately predict when an atom will decay? you're not doing anything to it, you're just waiting for a beep in the detector. what fucking tools you'd need and for what exactly?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:32:22 UTC No. 16063606
>>16063339
>>Quantum mechanics are some sort of true randomness
>No.
I think this one is more semantics than being untrue. People call it random but it's just unpredictable. And due to it's unpredictability it's as good as random
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:36:42 UTC No. 16063611
>>16063606
>People call it random but it's just unpredictable.
what would you say is the difference between the two?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:40:07 UTC No. 16063621
>>16063339
Only complete retard morons believe there is a singularity inside black holes, and is not just a defect of an extremely simplified model.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 21:41:16 UTC No. 16063623
>>16063621
what is inside blackholes?
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:56:07 UTC No. 16063851
>>16063611
Random means it's random and unpredictable means it appears to be random. We don't know if it's random or not and may never know, but because it's unpredictable we can use it as a source of randomness
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:00:02 UTC No. 16063857
>>16063623
Dense chunk of matter
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:00:24 UTC No. 16063858
>>16063352
>oh yeah, what if I had a star trek duplicator? checkmate chud
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:16:49 UTC No. 16063884
>>16063851
>Random means it's random and unpredictable means it appears to be random.
in what sense do the two differ? you have this ghostly "script" for unpredictable that is missing from random, and I think you are insane. you cannot get a sense of it having a reason but not knowing it. if you don't know it, especially if you cannot know it, that is random. the whole idea with random is that no one can ever find a script for it. it doesn't matter if it "exists" if you cannot ever in any way get access to it.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:18:46 UTC No. 16063891
>>16063857
why are you sure it's larger than 1 plank unit?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:33:27 UTC No. 16063905
>>16063891
A planck unit is not a singularity. You get planck units by setting speed of light (and some other things) to 1. It's not a smallest possible unit. This should included in the OP imo.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:51:05 UTC No. 16063933
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 01:56:45 UTC No. 16064062
>>16063339
>Every single interaction in QM is deterministic
This isn't known
>>16063857
There's no evidence for this assumption
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 02:16:23 UTC No. 16064109
>>16064062
>There's no evidence for this assumption
It's my guess. The singularity alternative is likely wrong tho.