@enumaris too bad. what is the direction? btw theres also a closely related area called "sparse rewards" also getting a lot of attn lately but yeah it all tends to be more in the unsupervised area which is maybe less connected to data science/ datamining focusing more on supervised algorithms. (actually cant easily think of unsupervised applications in those areas except for maybe classification...)

@danielunderwood the thing that requires least modification is to actually execute on my existing plan

I think it's good enough to execute on

apparently my manager thinks otherwise

w/e

The wonderful world of corporate decision-making

@JMac Brie Larson Takes on ‘Beat Saber’ With Jimmy Fallon variety.com/2019/gaming/news/brie-larson-beat-saber-1203197814

:(

@enumaris geez sure is quiet around here... wondering wheres your avengers luv this time around? ;) Game over! Avengers: Endgame breaks box-office records as it grosses $140 million in just ONE day smashing the previous record set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens... as fans line-up to watch the film until 4.30am dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6963997/…

> “proper numbers,” “subjunctive scaling” and “declarative fractions”

← lol! trivial + mastered all that in kindergarten :P

@vzn I go way further than that: I have a history of converting nonsense into sense

for example, this engineering joke:

Having said that, in order to formally create the domain of "proper numbers", we need to know what notion of "proper" means. It is clear that "proper" cannot be size related, since there isn't much room we can extend when talking about size of natural numbers

"Subjunctive scaling" is even harder, for "subjunctive" means whatever this domain will become, has to carry a notion of "degrees of belief" We already have bayesian probability to do that kind of job for us, and it is not clear what it means to scale a probability

As for declarative fractions...

These researches about bullshit does make me wonder, whether there exists a maximally bullshit term such that it resists any attempt to make sense of it

That is, given a language L where each word has a semantic meaning, is it possible to find some string s such that s cannot be ascribed semantic meaning for any extensions L' of L

Though the top n entries are all Scottish engineers and nothing to do with me.

@Blue Math Overflow not the Math SE!

I've posted once on MO then deleted that post under a hail of withering scorn :-)

There are a surprising number of John Rennie's. Both the surname Rennie and forename John are quite common in Scotland. Originally it was a Gaelic name.

@Blue ah yes, I get the same. How odd.

Where's the mystery? when you're not incognito, Google knows you've been to SE a lot and are likely more interested in hits from SE sites than the average user? (Also, I'm moving this discussion to the h bar since it doesn't really have anything to do with the election)

← 17 messages moved from 2019 Physics Moderator Election Chat

Probably an effect of MO not sharing the stackexchange.com domain

Although that would also mean SF and SU should appear there

I'm curious whether terminology "Green kernel" is used commonly in the same context as this answer.

Gravitational waves hint at detection of black hole eating star

wow wow

We can thus bump this up to metaphysics and define something as "exists" as follows:

Given concepts, if a concept exists, then it can be separated from another

Note the reverse implication is not necessary true

In order to make that an iff, we need to be more precise

sci.sdsu.edu/~salamon/Perp_Motion3posted.pdf

hmm, are there perpetual machines of the 0th kind?

or rather, what does a perpetual machine violating only the 3rd law but not the 1st or 2nd law look like

and then in 2002 there's this weird paper which claimed one can radiative cool something to absolute zero

aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1523810

@Chair It's just not a well-defined question, don't stress over it :P

@Chair His comment says he's asking this in the context of an outreach talk, which makes sense - he's just looking for intuitively "very chaotic" systems, not some well-defined metric.

nature.com/articles/ncomms14538

ok, so basically violation of the third law will mean one can cool faster than expected, thus it controls the rate of cooling

What generates the electric field in these universes\spaces: Bianchi, de Sitter?

What?

de Sitter space doesn't have any electric field associated with it

It's a lambda vacuum solution

Bianchi's a pretty large class so I can't speak for that one

I am reading articles about the creation of particles in these spaces with the presence of electric field

Semiclassical, vzn, Boteppa etc.: Ok after nearly a week of work, I think I started to have some idea on this "quantum theory cannot consistently applied to itself" paper

Don't try to read this pics. I upload it because the working itself looks cool in an artistic sense

Basically, my suspicion is that Assumption C must fail for any interpretations that does not allow a view of the whole universe:

Specially, all the observations in Table 3 applies except for Statement 00:28

The way they calculate that probability $\text{Pr}(ok = \bar{ok}) = \text{Pr}(r=tails)\text{Pr}(z=\lvert ok\rangle) = \frac{1}{3} \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{12}$.

Means each Agent observed and had knowledge of the things covered in Table 3 in the paper

However, statement 28 has to be wrong because after $\bar{W}$ does the measurement to the lab $\bar{L}$, there is one in three times it is then projected into the superposition $\lvert \bar{ok}\rangle$. This means while due to born rule in Assumption Q, $\bar{W}$ will be very certain that $F$ will get $z = +\frac{1}{2}$. However, in both $W$ and $\bar{W}$'s perspective, both the labs $L,\bar{L}$ are still in superposition where $r$ is headtails, since the measurement by $F$ is local to $L$.

What paper

nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8

Haven't paid attention to this stuff, and seen that this and this claim it has big mistakes

Hmm...

scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975

This one is somewhat similar to my conclusion, that the measurement destroys the information, thus we cannot said "if" for anything that is going to happen in the future

mateusaraujo.info/2018/10/24/…

This basically did the extra hardwork that spelled out the state of the Lab $L$, I got the same conclusion semi qualitatively above

arxiv.org/abs/1804.03267

Very similar, especially near the end of the paper when it talks about ultimate observers. But mine is something like, at least for the deductions of F and bar F, they do conclude W will get fail, but because only the labs but not the wigners are entangled, W has 1/2 of the chance to get ok after bar W made the measurement and announced bar ok to W

So my prediction is that, after the experiment when they share the results together, they will indeed find W's outcomes contradict what bar W bar F and F deduced, but that is valid because F and bar F made the reasoning inside the labs (thus they are part of the entanglement) while W and bar W are outside, hence seeing the labs in an entangled superposition

Thus in agreement to the above three links I have read so far, the only thing that W cannot say is he will get fail (statement W00:28 in the original paper), because the labs are still in an entangled superposition before he made the measurement

arxiv.org/pdf/1807.00421.pdf

I think this paper goes further than mine (and pointed out I am wrong when I say that bar F and F can said anything about W). Basically, given times a<b<c, a measurement at t=b will change what the agents doing experiment at that time can say about other agents in the past and future. He also shared the similar observation on how bar W does not collapse the entangled superposition of the labs, but he goes on a lot further saying how the whole state assignment will be changed if bar W did

not do a projective measurement to the lab bar L

I have not read the more extreme generalisation, but intuitively it would make sense that the time ordering will be scrambled when boosted to different frames of references

physicsforums.com/threads/…

Pretty much the above, one observer can assign a superposition, whereas the other can see a definite outcome. Also that one should not perform inference on propositions when a measurement had not occured

physicsforums.com/threads/summary-of-frauchiger-renner.963737

That's a good summary of the above papers

This stuff is like an alternative universe at times, completely irrelevant yet so much energy into it

But it is cool. One reason I am so interested in it is because I want diatheia (physical entities that are true contradictions) to exist, as well I love the weirdness of quantum and how it revise our thinking

While all of the above (plus my own independent deduction) have now showed that the contradiction does not exists, I gained a deeper understanding on how to reason in a a quantum way

arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

Finally this experimental realisation pretty much showed how the labs are not independent and hence an entanglement exists

Thus, I am actually pretty fine with any of the explanations:

1. Objectivity only exists at the global level for some privillaged observer (which is virtually impossible to prove experimentally)

2. Nothing can be deduced about future outcomes based on present and past outcomes. In fact, for spacelike separated events, nothing can be deduced about past and future outcomes based on measurement outcomes at the present

3. It is perfectly valid to have observers getting a definite outcome, while at the same time other observers assigned the observer's system as a superposition, and deduce different probabilities of the outcomes

4. That measurements changes the state means transitivity of implication can fail

2,3,4 are the ones I often used when analysing quantum experiments (by writing out all the states and measurements as rays annotated with observables, and hence tracking how they became entangled or decohered through the process wrt different observers). Acuriousmind said mine is not an interpretation, but quantum mechanics by itself

1 is used when I talked about the collapse interpretations and Bohmian mechanics

In theory, I think if 1 is true (at least for a large enough region), it will be interesting because it means one can think about "controlling predestination" by calculating how an experiment should be set up to get a desired wavefunction

exploiting the fact that the system might have became entangled with the environment and if that contribution is stable enough, then suitable placement of the devices in the experiment can shape the wavefunction into some desirable form

@ACuriousMind

🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

Does this type of comment tip the question over into non-mainstream?

@EmilioPisanty I don't see why it would. The intent of the asker is irrelevant, what matters is the actual text of the question.

I would have closed it as peer-review/too broad from the beginning, but no one else felt that way, so I didn't.

@EmilioPisanty Now I'm wondering whether "The Born rule is incorrect" would make an equally good movie premise as the flat earth does

@ACuriousMind see also OP's deleted previous version of that comment, threatening to flag based on them having taken offence from legitimate scientific criticism. It's not far from requiring moderator intervention.

Though maybe @Qmechanic is better placed to evaluate the technical side.