21–24 of 24 posts
The prominent statement in the subtitle "physicists have proved that black holes can shed information" really irks me. Proof is just... not how science works. It is a pervasive and damaging understanding of the process of science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds quite unreasonably defeatist. That argument (can not be solved without an experiment) can be made for pretty much anything, but it has a few counterexamples in physics, and many more in math and theoretical computer science.
How can that argument be made for pretty much anything? I thought Sabines point is that the measurements required to confirm the theory aren't possible, so it's largely lots of money and time going into pointless speculation right now - even if you find the right solution you have no means to test it. Mathematics you can make your own proofs on paper, physics is not the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> observed am experiment > Let the wave in superposition interact with the machine This is the key point right, that an observation cannot be made without a very real, physical, interaction, that necessarily influences the thing being observed?
No, it's even more bind bending: the observation influences the observer!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's even more bind bending: the observation influences the observer!
An eye that isn't influenced by what it sees is usually called “blind”.
After the interaction your become part of the same quantum system and that affects what you can observe next.
When you become a system where the state is a superposition of "electron spin up + you see an electron spin up" and "electron spin down + you see an electron spin down" then you when you observe the electron in spin down you'll always see the electron as spin down because, you guessed it, the "you" in this story is the "you see an electron spin down" you of the superposition of yous