Leaderboard

True master of one-liners. The one about dating cracked me up!

I explored further and found experimental work on the possibility of detection of dark energy within superconductors, such as: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2009/931920 And this one in PRL https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.151802 It seems that the idea is also rooted in these recent experiments. Very interesting!

The idea presented in this paper brings us back to solid ground after more than 50 years of speculative theories filled with unclear assumptions that lack physical meaning or measurable evidence, such as the multiverse/extra dimensions. It’s like returning to the simplicity of nature’s truths. By proposing dark energy as a superconductor state of matter, the author solidifies an argument that has been hinted at in several prior works. For example, papers like the one in Phys. Rev. D ([10.1103/PhysRevD.91.085042](https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.085042)) and the JCAP study ([DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012)) have already explored the idea of dark energy behaving like a superconductor. Similarly, the works found on arXiv ([arXiv:1712.10311](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.10311)) and in Int. J. Mod. Phys. D ([DOI: 10.1142/S0218271807011292](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271807011292)) discuss this direction, suggesting that superconductivity might be a key to understanding dark energy. What makes this paper interesting is its reliance on symmetry, which is the most powerful tools in physics. By applying symmetry breaking, particularly U(1) breaking while leaving SU(3) in an unbreakable state, the paper provides a clear, measurable framework that cuts through speculative ideas like the multiverse and focuses on well-established, testable physics. This makes the argument more robust and grounded, offering a meaningful explanation of dark energy that fits within the broader context of known physical laws.

This joke isn't science related but it made me laugh and others when I told them. It also isn't my joke, I wish I could take credit for it but I can't. A saleswoman calls a household and a little boy answers it. He whispers "Hello? Who's that?" The saleswoman replies " I'm calling on behalf of my company, can I speak to your mum please?" The little boy again whispers "No, she's busy" So the saleswoman asks if she can speak to his dad. The little boy again whispers "No, he's busy too" A little confused, the saleswoman asks if there are any other adults in the house she can speak to. Once again the little boy whispers "Yes the firemen but they're busy too" The saleswoman is becoming concerned now and asks if there are any other adults in the house. The little boy yet again whispers "Yes the police but they're busy too" The saleswoman doesn't know what to think or who to ask for to speak to, so asks the little boy what they are all busy doing. The little boy again whispers "They're trying to find me"

I do not like loaded questions. Do I believe there is bias in Science towards easier calculations. Yes Do I believe Science would benefit without that bias No I would expect more mistakes. The whole idea is as arcane as suggesting that Science still ought to be taught in Latin. Do I believe there is bias in Science against women ? Yes Do I think Science would be better off without that bias Yes. So learn how to ask proper questions without attacking other people.

This (the bold text above) is incorrect. What is affected is the state of the pair.

Came across a rather clear cut yet humorous prerequisite for an article thought I would share it lol. "No prerequisites are required beside the standard courses of a Master in theoretical physics." Good article though lmao. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.14504

Rollerball.

Give the boy a cell phone instead of a landline if that helps lol

I think you are on the wrong forum, then.

At the current kill rate, those NK soldiers will last less than two weeks. They'll be stuck on the front as sacrificial targets aka cannon fodder.

Exactly! You got the division twisted. The author ain’t dividing SU(3) atoms by the universe volume. he’s calculating it by dividing the universe volume by the SU(3) effective volume. Big difference. What the author’s really pushing is that dark energy is like a superconductor state of matter. All it needs is two composite electrons acting like a scalar field to break U(1) symmetry and leave SU(3) intact. That’s the real deal he’s talkin’ about.

Gotcha, and I respect that. My way of talking just helps me express more clearly, but I get that it might not work for everyone here. Apologies if it came off the wrong way.

Alright, I see where you’re comin' from, but I think you’re missin' the core point of what’s bein' discussed. Nobody’s sayin' 10^123 is the QFT vacuum energy density. We all know QFT gives that absurdly high estimate when you cut off at the Planck scale. The point isn’t to defend that number, but to explain why the observed vacuum energy is so much lower than what QFT predicts. The paper talkin' about isn’t tryin' to justify the QFT number—it’s actually addressing the exact issue you're pointing out: why the vacuum energy is so low compared to that 10^123 overcount from QFT. So the whole goal is to fix the very problem you’re talkin' about, not reinforce it.

Exactly, man! You’re sayin’ the math is solid, and when the dude applied it, he nailed the exact value that solved the cosmological constant problem—right down to the ridiculous 10^123 precision. How’s that a coincidence? It’s not. That’s the math doin’ its thing. You can’t say you know the formulas and then act like the solution doesn’t count when the numbers line up that perfectly. Bro, you’re wildin’. You’re straight-up contradicting yourself. Come on, this ain’t just luck. When the numbers check out like that, it’s solid. You’re gettin’ me twisted over here, man, I’m laughin’ ‘cause you’re fightin’ against the facts you already know are right!

Actually not a bad thought at all. I don't know enough cosmology to know where one might go looking for dark matter it may just be too far away. There was a Ray Bradbury Book entiltled The Golden Apples of the Sun Which had a similar idea but to gather solar material to start a fusion reactor. This was known to be really not practicable even then.

I searched in the article and in the referred articles and I didn't find why they claimed that: Maybe a more thorough read is needed. Also, the galaxy they investigated was: It appears that this galaxy is younger than ours, so it may have more circumgalactic mass. I tried Bard one year ago and now Gemini, Bard successor, and found that they are not reliable. Gemini is better than Bard, but still not reliable. I suggest to ask the AI for links to their source, or just search yourself. Maybe the answer you received from ChatGPT is not wrong, but it is always better to double check. Maybe because it has no effect on galactic stars rotation, being beyond them? When I opened this thread I also believed that this CGM would reduce the need for dark matter, but now I'm not sure that CGM affects stars rotation. Only if there is also more mass than expected between stars, the need for DM would decrease, but it seems that it's not the case.

Why is opposing a fascist astonishing to you? Why do we have to tolerate such views?

Yeah I'm still relying on lichtmans keys too. Thomas Millers predictions based on betting numbers is an interesting idea; but it has some issues with it. Namely that in a poll of potential voters, they usually are potential voters. I can't vote, but I can bet, but me betting on Harris wouldn't be in reflection to some vote Harris is definitely going to win. That's one issue. Another is that bets are decided on an individual level of risk to said individuals wallet, meaning there is a cold feet effect and a doubt effect you don't get when voting. The final issue, is the reporting response. See, when a poll is released, you can't just decide to be a part of the next poll as people are reached out to by pollsters, randomly. When you report on betting odds, anyone who is old enough to gamble, can bet, in the context of this election, with one side being high in toxic masculinity, if you tell them they are losing in a certain arena, their pride will have them show up at that arena. Now, I haven't tracked it rigorously but it kind of felt like Kamalas odds for winning the election started to take hits, after Millers work entered into the news cycle. I suspect this may mean that republicans responded to this news by placing more bets on Trump. Which really is the easiest way to mess with Millers predictions model, as it can be made incorrect the same way a company can artificially inflate the price of it's stock. You see, I can't respond to a poll by getting 100s-1000s of people to take part in the next poll, but I can get that many people to make a bet, especially when you're asking cultists to bet on their leader, that's a no brainer for them.

Things obviously have changed a bit since 1977, but it's always nice to listen to Feynman afresh. This talk was unknown to me, and I still haven't got around to it, but Feynman never disappoints. Enjoy.

No I would be right. People aren't animals. Or apes. Or anything of the sort. The definition of "animal" was made up by people, and it's a bad one inasfar as it ignores the differences between mankind and other living things.

Less complex. I'm arguing that humans are distinct enough to be classified as separate based on definitions outside the scope of mere biological similarities. Not necessarily so. And a "few" large differences can be more significant than "many" small ones. That depends on if you define a human brain as "just another brain" as opposed to a unique gland.

Science is irrelevant since zoological classifications don't take into account things that humans create, such as arts, sciences, and so forth. I'm not buying the explanation that the differences seen in humans are reducible to the brain to begin with. And regardless of what role the brains of humans play in the things they create, we don't see animals with "larger" brains building supercomputers. That's a good place to start from. I'd argue it's self-evident enough.

We've seen people with the intellectual ability to since as far back as recorded human history. I've already explained it. It's not that complicated. The zoological definitions are based solely on biological similarities that humans have with animals. Since they ignore the types of activities and needs which humans pursue that make them distinct from animals, they are irrelevant to the argument, since whether these claims about human biology are "true" or not does not in any way change the argument, and no one is saying that humans "don't" share a common ancestor. There is nothing compelling people to ignore human achievements in sciences, arts, philosophy, and so on and reduce humanity to the level of purely biological characteristics. And there are multitudes of other arguments to be made that humans are unique and should be treated as unique. For example, do you believe that laws against murder should apply to killing fruit flies? Or do believe that it should be legal to kill and eat a human because it's legal to kill and eat a cow? I doubt it. Common sense alone is enough to dictate that humans are unique regardless of what biological traits they share with animals.

Regardless, people frequently use the categorizations of humans as "animals" and "apes" in a reductive way, to imply that humans are purely materialistic or hedonistic (based on the assumption that animals are purely materialistic, which may not even be the case).

Basically, I believe that if all religions disappeared, people would arrive at the conclusion that there is one God. The debate would be over "which one", or rather what the specific characteristics of God are. Even "belief in science" is essentially appealing to a higher cosmic principle than oneself, and fills the void.

Human's aren't animals unless people decide to apply that arbitrary category to them. Having biological similarities to other living things doesn't automatically make the categorization valid. I'd argue that humans are defined far more by what they create than merely by their biology.