| 3 Oct 2023 |
 houkime | It might be about the ratio of predictions which models make vs. those which were already observed.
The brightest example would be the recent photo of a blackhole, a long standing prediction of a very unnatural, unintuitive object which now got direct evidence. Such predictions have a special value in bayesian sense and can downrate competing models if observed, and yet since the space is large and observing is limited, large results only come in gradually. | 11:58:49 |
| houkime | * It might be about the ratio of predictions which models make vs. those which were already observed.
The brightest example would be the recent photo of a blackhole, a long standing prediction of a very unnatural, unintuitive object which now got direct evidence. Such predictions have a special value in bayesian sense and can downrate competing models if observed, and yet since the space is large and observing is limited, large results only come in rarely. | 11:59:18 |
 David | In reply to @houkime:m.wfr.moe
It might be about the ratio of predictions which models make vs. those which were already observed.
The brightest example would be the recent photo of a blackhole, a long standing prediction of a very unnatural, unintuitive object which now got direct evidence. Such predictions have a special value in bayesian sense and can downrate competing models if observed, and yet since the space is large and observing is limited, large results only come in rarely. I don't know what the community consensus is, but it wouldn't surprise if they considered observations of stellar orbits to be more direct evidence than the photo. It was after all reconstructed with inputs from simulations. | 17:02:38 |
| David | Either way, black holes have been "observed" in one way or another for quite some time. I don't believe there was really any debate about their existence. | 17:40:40 |
| 4 Oct 2023 |
 loke | David: there is a famous animation showing stars orbiting the SMBH in the centre of the milky way. It's very clear it's orbiting something that can't be seen. And by calculating the mass it's obvious it must be a BH. | 06:11:55 |
| loke | https://phys.org/news/2021-12-stars-milky-supermassive-black-hole.html | 06:15:04 |
| David | Yes, that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of. | 19:58:18 |
| 10 Oct 2023 |
|  @andromeda:halogen.city left the room. | 02:11:54 |
| 18 Oct 2023 |
|  @idioms:envs.net joined the room. | 03:53:39 |
| @idioms:envs.net left the room. | 20:00:13 |
| 20 Oct 2023 |
 knb | have you guys heard about the entanglement between two different elementary particles? | 17:37:42 |
| knb | wonder if it gives credence to the hidden variable theory | 17:37:57 |
| loke | knb: I haven't, but I'm still sceptical | 18:31:15 |
| 21 Oct 2023 |
| David | In reply to @knb:matrix.org
have you guys heard about the entanglement between two different elementary particles? So I haven't thought about this kind of thing for a long time. Why would this relate to hidden variables? | 19:28:45 |
| knb | Just imagine it does considering the double slit experiment and how strings work together | 19:37:39 |
| knb | Like a sort of hidden way things can be entangled | 19:38:25 |
 bdelwood | In reply to @knb:matrix.org
have you guys heard about the entanglement between two different elementary particles? It’s in fact the exact opposite. Entanglement excludes local hidden variable theories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem | 19:39:50 |
| knb | Ok | 19:40:27 |
| 23 Oct 2023 |
|  bigmonkeman1 joined the room. | 01:21:25 |
| bigmonkeman1 | Redacted or Malformed Event | 01:22:48 |
| 7 Nov 2023 |
|  Timo ⚡️ changed their profile picture. | 19:32:45 |
| 9 Nov 2023 |
|  rubykasmer joined the room. | 05:14:53 |
| 13 Nov 2023 |
|  a Mitten changed their display name from amitten to a Mitten. | 04:21:55 |
|  @astro-ray:matrix.org joined the room. | 17:35:37 |
| @astro-ray:matrix.org left the room. | 17:52:17 |
| 14 Nov 2023 |
|  @kwit:matrix.org joined the room. | 13:37:26 |
| @kwit:matrix.org | what theory do you guys favor? quantum gravity, string theory,... ? | 13:38:24 |
| @kwit:matrix.org | i wish to learn more about the following: Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT), Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT),Quantum Field Theory on Curved Spacetime | 13:39:32 |
| @kwit:matrix.org | which can seem more reasonable than the other? | 13:39:44 |
| @kwit:matrix.org | also Loop Quantum Gravity | 13:41:23 |
