green_on_black

Personally, "even if I have something to say, why bother writing? It's the internet, and people will either ignore, lambast, misconstrue, say ackshually, etc."

I find it much simpler to lurk.

minor nitpick, it's not that we don't believe it makes mini black holes, it's that we're fairly extremely sure those black holes wouldn't interact with anything in the minor "time" (if you can even call it that) which they exist.

Something something dimensional analysis is just a typechecker

Okay, and now half the devs simply decide to not deal with the issue of licensing and just business source everything. Congrats, that's definitely the better world to code in, right?

The guy literally went to prison when he didn't have to. Holy shit.

It's unfortunate that lower level "math" is so banally taught (i.e. calc and below), at least in the US.

That's fucking hilarious.

So, having more conditions is apparently less conditional?

Physicists don't fundamentally believe in anything, except perhaps in that everything is merely a possible explanation of our data.

Minor nitpick: we typically just need 2 derivatives in the physical world.

On the other hand, I do care. Because I just want to have fun.

Bypass the limit? No. Partially because you need to propagate that measurement somehow to your brain. But assuming that we have the "pin down perfectly" part (idk how that would even be possible): Mostly because the position/momentum of the measured particle would immediately become uncertain right after the measurement (it becomes a cloud of probabilities again).

The total uncertainty in the system would likely decrease, since you can think of it like wavefunction collapse. Of course, everything depends on how exactly the situation works mathematically, which we haven't actually defined yet.

To be clear, it is very well known that it isn't a measurement limitation. It's similar to asking "what the length of an oval" is, since there are many ways to measure an oval. It's not a "well-defined" question, and in fact, quantum mechanics requires it to be not-well-defined.

For more info, check out the fourier transform and how that necessitates the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

I (and many other physics people) find that people have a very hard time even trying to accept the nature of reality when it comes with uncertainty, and I think that's very normal. But according to our best known models, uncertainty is the nature of reality, and not because we can't measure enough.

"true nature" -- I'd say that this idea of a "true" nature (even existing) is quite arrogant.

Holy shit. T I L.