Penn kicks this lady on the way out the door, now loves her. Oh by the way, who fraudulently awarded a degree from Wharton? NFW Trump earned that.
I think the bird people are right, actually.
2 Likes
As long as they don’t mess with the lesser titmouse and blue-footed booby.
1 Like
Instead of time ticking away predictably, under the “postquantum theory of classical gravity”, the rate at which time flows would wobble randomly, like the ebb and flow of a stream.
Idk. If time is what a clock measures, then either that isn’t an accurate description of what the theory says (likely), or Rovelli has made a very safe bet.
Not everyone is convinced by the proposition, including the theoretical physicist and author Prof Carlo Rovelli, who has signed a 5,000:1 odds bet with Oppenheim against the theory being proven correct.
1 Like
Time “wobbles” relative to what, exactly?
This article is probably more useful to understand the theory:
1 Like
…Oppenheim obtains a hybrid theory that features stochastic backreaction of the fields on the curved space-time; in other words, the quantum fields can change the curvature of the space-time as one would require from a unification of general relativity and QFT.
From this, I take it that the Guardian article is the rare case where the title is more accurate than the body. So maybe Rovelli’s odds aren’t unfair.
I should click on fewer science articles in the general media, but I won’t. I’m working on my own uncertainty principle: the more I understand an article, the less likely it is to make sense.
They probably meant to repeat what the headline says about spacetime being ‘wobbly’. But idk why it’s in quotes. The original paper doesn’t use that word.
Edit: The Guardian article directly quotes Oppenheim.
“The rate at which time flows is changing randomly and fluctuating in time,” said Oppenheim
I still have no idea what this means. These fluctuations seem like something that could not be measured, even in principle, by clocks. Maybe indirectly? 
Sabine takes a crack at an explanation but doesn’t address the rate of time flow thing, which still sounds like nonsense to me.
1 Like
Two subsequent experiments in October also delivered net gains.
There’s been some progress but that’s some crappy reporting. We went over it after the first report. These experiments are nowhere near producing net energy.
LK-99: Some excitement about a new paper. Still waiting on the original researchers to speak up but in the meantime others are pursuing this. Seems like there is something worth looking at.
https://x.com/andrewmccalip/status/1742573336985845771?s=20
ETA There is strong pushback on this.
1 Like
I’ve been daydreaming about an airship startup for a while now. Feels like a sign…
big day for donald duck voice talkers
3 Likes
Don’t get your hopes up but we might be back.
https://twitter.com/mattparlmer/status/1764387559701188613?t=Srhq1kDePgQ73_zew9tS0w&s=19
1 Like
This one had to give somebody an Ivy League fraudster bingo:
The research misconduct allegations keep coming at Harvard, as a leading neuroscientist is now under the microscope for possibly falsifying data and plagiarizing images in his groundbreaking research about aggressive brain tumors and stem cells.
Just to follow up, the response to the superconductor talk at APS ranged from “this is more nothing” to moderate enthusiasm. The topic isn’t going away soon, but this might ruin it for me.
https://x.com/gimjiun79102152/status/1764979175730155529?s=20
Elon smells the gift potential. Fully room-temperature superconductor by Q3 2024!