Sabine says that speed of light limit is true in General Relativity which we know isn't a complete picture, but also that the speed of light limit in quantum mechanics is actually based on circular argument about locality. We don't know if it's true. If wave function collapse isn't an actual physical process that would imply superdeterminism with hidden variables is correct which will make quantum mechanics a regular statistical theory where speed of light is only statistical artifact and an average of possible speeds. She says that if it's true we will see evidence for that in the upcoming decade.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Pc0LQHu38
>>16933973A monkeys couple of uncles measured it on phones in the darkThe speed of light is like the big deal a rainbow is, you can basically push it out the sky swearing up it. The speed of light was defined and out there it probably still adheres to their determination
I don't get this hidden variables argument.Quantum theory is purely statistical. Variables are undetermined until measured. Period.FTL is and has always been outside the defined boundaries of outcomes (except for unproven fringe theories).This is the same reasoning as admitting that 20 meter tall humans exist because they're "statistical artifact" of the average height of our species.
>>16934209>Variables are undetermined until measured. Period.I mean the thing is we don't know. Local hidden variables are ruled out but non local aren't. What you mentioned is the measurement problem and we only have the copenhagen interpretacjom to explain it that says wave function collapse is a physical process but we don't know for sure. Sabine says that interpretations and assumptions caused a circular argument that yields another dogmas that aren't necessarily true. She doesn't try to prove anything, she only says the doors to something new are open. I can also recommend this video from PBS as an addendum, it is entirely possible that we still lack a lot about quantum mechanice.https://youtu.be/cY6Y4lE3LTo
>>16934212Sorry for autocorrect typos.
>>16934212The only argument physicists have for hidden variable crap is that they like the aesthetics of trajectories. Non-local hidden vars are copium, might as well say that every particle in the universe is actually on rails (and every particle is perfectly classical), but the shape of the rails JUST SO HAPPENS to always be consistent with quantum mechanics.Physicists are just emotionally attached to the idea of geometrically pleasing scribbles being "The Answer". No other field has this much role model cock sucking and I would argue physics as a field would be better for it if people never heard of Newton, Galileo and Einstein. It's really telling chemists, who need QM the most, have absolutely zero interest in bohmian mechanics and its ilk.
>>16934245I mean, if you really want to get into it, the whole idea of a mathematically-pleasing model being superior than a more complex and convoluted model that makes equally good predictions goes all the way back to Tycho's model of the solar system vs Kepler's. Aesthetics do enter into the equation - simpler models are better than complex models, models that cover more are better than models that cover less, etc., and a good model should lead to new logical conclusions that can be tested.That's basically what theoretical physics has done for the last 300 years; take the models we know work, follow their conclusions to see if they're consistent with other results, and if not, look for a better model that explains both. Poincare, Lorentz, and Einstein all logic'd their way to relativity because the classical laws of optics, mechanics, and electrodynamics weren't meshing and that implied there needed to be a model that could explain all three. Poincare and Lorentz said "okay, if Maxwell's equations are invariant, what would have to change about Newton's Laws", while Einstein said "okay, if this experiment saying the speed of light is constant is correct, what would have to change about Newton's Laws" and they all worked out parts of a new model.Theoretical physics only runs into problems when the models people are deriving don't make any new, meaningful predictions. Which has been true of certain attempts at making big, grand unified models over the last 10-20 years, but this is not a ubiquitous issue across all of theoretical physics.
>>16934437>- simpler models are better than complex modelsDon't get me wrong I don't disagree, but NO hidden variable theory/"trajectoryficiation" of quantum mechanics has ever been- mathematically simpler- more accurate- more generalizablethan quantum mechanics. However, that is the thing; they are "simpler" to visualize and draw. They are infinitely worse to actually work with. However, the trajectories you draw carry zero physical meaning since they are fully determined by the "pilot waves". The difference between what you describe and what I am complaining about is the difference of generalizing from existing theories versus cargo cult thinking. QM looks different from anything that came before, and instead of trying to evolve from there, these people desperately bolt on unmeasurable-by-design crap to make it look more like past theories.
Would a warp-drive solution also protect against micrometeoroids and general dust in space?
>>16934663Yes.
>>16933973sabine is a pseud who believes in superdeterminism
>>16934712I know, she seems to believe free will doesn't exist and her takes on consciousness (especially qualia) suggest she's unable to grasp the philosophical problems related to the human mind. Then she draws conclusions about superdeterminism. But maybe of all the mainstream scientists believing one thing there is a need for at least one who can argue the opposite is true.
>>16933973I like her optimism. But empirical evidence points against FTL.
>>16933973You could break the speed of light by making a closer symmetry, with the ship slipping in and out of virtual space.
>>16934745>philosophical problems related to the human mindwhich are? ive never heard an interesting philosophical statement
Relativity Theory and most of this range of Academia is just smarmy Jews semantically postulating new words for electromagnetism.
>>16935245Well, you're in luck. People with a lack of reading comprehension and little interest in general reading whatsoever fit right in on this board, as well as most others!
>>16934437>A good model should lead to new logical conclusions that can be tested.Predictive models are a lucky luxury. Descriptive models should be the standard.
>>16934209>Variables are undetermined until measured. Period.that doesnt mean its not deterministic
So we can either have free will OR ftl?
>>16935297after reading your post, the number of interesting philosophical statements ive seen remains at zero
>>16933973Sabine is not a serious physicist. She makes clickbait videos and produces sensationalist content.
>>16935245Sabine thinks qualia doesn't exist and put out a video about qualia that she embarassed herself in. We have deduced here on 4chan that she might be a case of philosophical zombie. In principle it shouldn't be possible to distinguish a p-zombie from a normal person but it seems the unability to perceive qualia is a dead giveaway. If you want to read about mind and philosophy the read about the hard problem of consciousness.The problem of so called contingency, that means the relation between regular physics and perceived sensations.
>>16935417I rephrased the comment and messed the last sentence but you'll get it.
>>16935417i dont believe in the hard problem of consciousness. i dont see the value of talking about qualiawhether free will exists or not is irrelevant. even if there is no fundamental determinism, i have not seen any reason why something like quantum randomness would matter or give us free will in a practical sense, just like adding noise to a deterministic ai model or using random sampling does not give the ai free will
