Live data from Hacker News

CERN scientists find evidence of quantum entanglement in sheep

home.cern

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: CERN scientists find evidence of quantum entanglement in sheep

#93

I'm not sure what's supposed to be publication-worthy here. This is common knowledge for anyone who's ever interacted with sheep on a farm, in their natural, fermionic superfluid state. If you turn over a sheep and tickle its ticklish underbelly, you get a sheep-laugh (a hilarious sound) only about 50% of the time; the other 50%, you'll hear a sheep laughing from the opposite end of the meadow. Because, you cannot de…

Tickle entanglement in sheep cannot be used for signaling however because of Bell's theorem.

Bell's theorem basically states that the state of a sheep's neck bell cannot be influenced by tickling.

Re: CERN scientists find evidence of quantum entanglement in sheep

#96

I just wanted to complain that this will dilute the I in AI, and their maintainers ought to sue.

won't someone please think of the children^Wbillionaires^Wlanguage models

(actually, I asked gpt4o to ELI5 the article and it told me it was an april fool's joke, so I have the feeling the llm's are doing better than half the commenters here)

Re: CERN scientists find evidence of quantum entanglement in sheep

#97
post #5

Why can't they find out why no one has done anything interesting in theoretical physics in 50 years? This stuff is lame in 2025.

If you want mind-expandingly interesting theoretical physics, give the Wolfram Physics Project[1] a look. It is a refreshingly different look at fundamental physics, and one that is perhaps more familiar to a computer scientist's perspective than, say, quantum mechanics. [1]: https://www.wolframphysics.org/index.php.en

I have done enough mathematics and have spoken to wolfram personally, it's interesting but not connected enough to existing theory despite his personal genius at QCD

Re: CERN scientists find evidence of quantum entanglement in sheep

#99
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm kinda ok with the science ones, They are whimsical and I don't think they actively interfere with real research. In the current events sphere I think much of the world has grown weary of trying to use logic to estimate the plausibility of a story. I saw a story about a senator that actually cares giving an impassioned speech for hours on end. Remember the times when that actually happened.

> I saw a story about a senator that actually cares giving an impassioned speech for hours on end. Remember the times when that actually happened. You are talking about the Cory Booker speech? I don't see any indication that this is an April fool's joke if that's what you're implying. Otherwise I don't understand what you mean.

I am implying when are living in times where you can't tell if something is a joke or not based upon how much sense it makes.

I guess I just generated another example. Although it was kind of intended as irony.

Post reply on HN