Why Parallel Universes Are Probably Real

Veritasium has a great video that explains the concept of parallel worlds vs wave collapse in a single world ▶ this video

in “Physicists found a new quantum paradox that casts doubt on a pillar of reality” · View on HN

People want and need to learn about science from sources they trust because actually parsing through a scientific paper critically (as a peer reviewer would do) is very hard and is likely only to leave you with more questions while providing an incredibly narrow kind of knowledge. What interests me is the politics of it. A paper in a vacuum is nothing. How do people really convince each other of the importance of one argument or observation over another? How do those arguments grow to the scale of a whole society? Science at the scale of society doesn't happen in the language of scientific papers, but rather in rhetoric: in appeals to what the Greeks categorized as Ethos (Emotion), Pathos (Authority), and Logos (Logic). At its most brilliant this is "Schroedinger's cat," which in two words encodes in our collective consciousness an appeal to logic which entreats us through contradiction to consider a philosophically meaningful set of ideas about the nature of reality. (shoutout: ▶ this video )

in “Proposed NOAA Budget Kills Program Designed to Prevent Satellite Collisions” · View on HN

As the parent comment says, everything in physics depends on how you observe ("... best described"). Like Sean Carroll said in the Veritassium video about the "many worlds" [1], there's no such such thing as "pressure", it is just the interaction of fluid molecules. For practical purposes though, it is best described as a scalar called "pressure". [1] ▶ this video

in “Gravity is not a force – free-fall parabolas are straight lines in spacetime” · View on HN