joigus

From what I've read, neuronal migration, glial growth, etc are perhaps the identifiable biological factors at work when the frontal cortex is developing (up until about 25 yo in most individuals) that are very much affected by the environment. Nurture and nature are both part of Nature because, as George Carlin once pointed out, Nature includes everything, including the oft-misused and abused figure of speech involved in the dichotomy nature/nurture. Developmental processes don't occur in a Petri dish. So I agree with most people's observation here, if I understood correctly: Remove the nurture factor and the genius disappears.

I hadn't read the last paragraph by OP. Well spotted, @exchemist. Fractals, GR, QM, knots, quantum computing. Space itself is moving. My BS detector went through the roof.

Maybe something to do with topological insulators? Any context I know where the word "topological" has anything to do with conductivity. It's some kind of interphase between conductors and insulator. It was worth a Nobel Prize relatively recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_insulator

Cyberspace is not a concept related to quantum mechanics.

What if "dead" was actually alive, and "alive" was actually dead? You know, as long as this is in "Sculptures made of Almonds"...

As to technical matters... Amplifying the coherent signal to enough qbits would be essential for quantum supremacy. Also, it would be nice to make them work at room temperatures. Last time I looked we were nowhere near that becoming a reality --let alone a household reality-- although I've been able to catch pieces of hopeful news about the first goal here and there.

And the "calculus" of it would be...?

Yes, your argument sounds right. I'll have to think about it over the weekend. Big workload now. Depending on how much Pinoccio has been lying, tidal forces would come into effect though. Thanks for the careful explanation. +1

Ok. If everything boils down to "there cannot be a backward photon" I think we all agree. But I have no time to think about it now. I still think Pinoccio cannot see the tip of his nose if he's facing towards the horizon, but he can if he's facing the other way, which is what didn't seem to me compatible with what Genady said in an extremely cursory way. It seems I misunderstood. I'll get back to it probably tomorrow.

Yes. IMO, this would be a "no", and I think @MigL's objection, still stands. Never mind your diagram. Frequency of backward-sent photon being zero. How do you detect a zero-frequency photon? Mind you, I might be obfuscated by ungodly-late hour at place of present statement. 😆

Absolutely agree with the first point. About the second point, I was thinking... How can you tell it's not noise? But then, if it's environmental noise that made them correlate the wrong way, there you go. They're definitely not entangled.

I think you're trying too big a bite there. Carbon gives rise to a very rich biochemistry, wich gives rise to homeostatic complex systems and approximate, but not exact replication thereof, which gives rise to a workable process of "improvement" (evolution), which gives rise to the possibility of projecting the external world in internal impressions of varying degree of permanence in cognitive tissue (as a great evolutionary advantage), which give rise to...[?] Call me reductionist, but that's how it works, I think. The chemistry of carbon is particularly suitable probably because 3D spatial arrangements with C-C covalent bonds afford much that other molecules wouldn't. Stability of the C-C bond being an obvious bonus. Carbon gives rise to a tetrahedral pattern of chemical bonds. Silicon has been proposed from time to time as an alternative, but I'm sure being further up in atomic number makes it less plausible. The chemistry and biology experts will no doubt take over and correct/expand on what I've said.

Strictly speaking, in order to make sure that photons are entangled, you would need: 1) Infinitely many pairs of photons prepared in the same way 2) Perform infinitely many measurements here and in the Voyager or wherever the other place is 3) Talking infinitely many times with the other experimenter and confirming that the correlations are the ones that correspond to such entangled state. The last step is called "sending the classical data" in so-called quantum teleportation experiments. Mind you: Nothing is teleported. It might as well have been called "quantum woodoo" and the phenomenon would be what it is: No woodoo at all, and no teleportation at all. In practice, the "infinitely many" can be substituted by "enough measurements" Measuring just one photon doesn't tell you anything about entanglement. Measuring just once on a pair of photons that are presumably entangled doesn't do anything either.

This makes no sense. And in fact it's usually the other way: The theory determines what to measure. Einstein famously pointed it out. It is because we have a theory that we can tell deviations of rotational velocity of galaxies from expected behaviour betrays excess density (DM), and certain measurements on supernovas confirms accelerated expansion. Those are parameters in the theory. That's why we expect those patterns, and we find them. Only rarely an experimental discovery comes completely from out of the blue. Although it does happen from time to time. An example from physics is the neutrino. I really think at this point you should take some time out for reflection.

Happens to many people who get involved in popular science. They're slowly but surely attracted to the whirlpool of fringe scientific ideas. 'Do we live in a simulation?' is one of them, IMO. How about, for example, one is a constant (it has to be) and the other clusters (it must). So they are very very different. In the quantum theory, one must correspond to the ground state of all the oscillators. The other must correspond to real states (non-virtual). Excited states of quantum field theory of something we don't know.

I'll probably hang in somewhere else. I already had my aha moment, but in a different direction than what you suggest. One more tip: Lose the smugness.

Not that it's essential in any way, but Dr Tyson is an astrophysicist, not a theoretical physicist.

Then you should post in philosophy. Metaphysics is, only too obviously, not the concern of physics. The root "meta" gives us an unmistakable clue. The thing, either contingent or "in itself", what "is"... But is it? What's the essence? Is it one thing, two perhaps? Metaphysics, you know. That pesky thing that Kant disposed of. Physics is mathematically precise models, connection to measurements (operationalism). IOW: Concepts, maths, and the pursuit of measureness.

Exactly.

The mechanisms of denial. Procrastination being but one aspect perhaps. In the end it's all one big shrugging gesture.

As said by exchemist and myself, we do know where it is. Deviations of the velocities of galaxies and application of the virial theorem allows us to do so. A different question is what it's made of: black holes, neutrinos, other particles allowed by natural extensions of the standard model? Several members --and I'm one of them-- seem to be of the same opinion. Namely; that you don't know very well what it is that you want to talk about (is is BH's, DM, DE?); and that everything is the same "enigma" for you, your umbrella term for every unknown. You are either deluded or confused, or perhaps unwilling to understand the current status of the theory of cosmology. Pretty much everyone knows by now that you are, and it only remains to be seen whether or not you are willing to take some information in. If you are, some people here could be of much help.

It's the "what" that's a problem, not the "where". And the equations don't suffer any essential modification. It's just another source term on the right-hand side of the Einstein field equations. Another matter (never mind pun intended) is what DM is. And we're drifting off topic.

Apparently you can't be bothered to read other people's answers. Also, what on earth does DM have to do with BH?

Maybe what the OP means is something like quantum mechanics overrules the law of cause and effect? But I concur with you and @StringJunky that the initial proposition wasn't a proper either/or setting.

Adding and subtracting the same thing doesn't change the solutions. And they are divergence-free, namely: chargeless. You don't derive a Lagrangian. You either already know the problem well, and then the Lagrangian is pretty much prescribed, or you must postulate a Lagrangian based on symmetry principles (example: the standard-model Lagrangian when it was postulated) because you don't know the dynamics precisely. Your Lagrangian seems to suggest a singled out direction of space, so it could hardly be fundamental, as it violates rotation symmetry. Your Lagrangian, I'm afraid, cannot explain known properties of electrons, like interference, or the Bohm-Aharonov effect, or spin, or electron-electron scattering, electron-photon scattering etc. All of those can be accounted for by field theory. So why change? Just because it's intellectually pleasing to you? Your "theory" is one of many pet theories that lead nowhere useful, as far as it seems.