What Physicists Have Been Missing /BY SABINE HOSSENFELDER/

[Scott Mayers]

..."Mathematics Creates Reality."

Mathematics is just the logic that uses numbers as inputs and output, which to many seems disconnected to reality if no object exists before being 'counted' (or 'accounted') for.

Mathematics is just logic that uses numbers as inputs and outputs that cannot be separated from reality

I think the best way to interpret 'reality' is to begin by presuming absolutely everything and/or absolutely nothing as a foundation

"absolutely nothing as a foundation" is the cosmic vacuum

With time being something we reference as being necessary to existence, ask what it might mean

Time is necessary for existence, so ask; "how did time come into being?"

The 'absolute nothing' as a foundation refers to Totality as a whole, not merely our particular physical universe. A 'cosmic vacuum' is a physical expression that just literally sucks !

I don't interpret time as a thing. Rather I interpret it as the means of a consistent universe to 'express' contradictory coinciding perspectives by separating them into a sequence of whole universal classes. For example, ....

For "I exist" and "I do not exist" to be both true requires an extended dimension of 'times' where each is defined to be true independently. Thus, to make these both true we might say that "I exist today but did not exist a century ago".

[socrattus]

The 'absolute nothing' as a foundation refers to Totality as a whole, not merely our particular physical universe. A 'cosmic vacuum' is a physical expression that just literally sucks !

"One may wonder, what came before? If space-time did not exist then,
how could everything appear from nothing?
Explaining this initial singularity where and when it all began still remains
the most intractable problem of modern cosmology"
/Andrei Linde/
“When you look at a vacuum in a quantum theory of fields, it isn't exactly nothing.”
/ Peter Higgs /
Book: ''Stephen Hawking''
''Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing nothing at all,
and therefore having zero energy, the quantum rules say that there is some uncertainty about this.
Perhaps each tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this into particles, in line with E=Mc^2. ''
/Pages 147-148. By Michael White and John Gribbin/

[Atla]

I saw Sabine's new video on the Quantum Zeno. She does her usual thing: she says a lot of things that are correct, and then starts deliberately lying about some important details (in this case that the quantum zeno doesn't happen with radioactive decay). And as a layman, good luck catching her on her lies.

[socrattus]

I saw Sabine's new video on the Quantum Zeno. She does her usual thing: she says a lot of things that are correct, and then starts deliberately lying about some important details (in this case that the quantum zeno doesn't happen with radioactive decay). And as a layman, good luck catching her on her lies.

Quantum Zeno effect
The quantum Zeno effect (also known as the Turing paradox) is a feature of quantum-mechanical systems
allowing a particle's time evolution.
One can "freeze" the evolution of the system by measuring it frequently enough in its known initial state.

: the quantum Zeno effect is the suppression of unitary time evolution in quantum systems provided by a variety of sources:
As an outgrowth of study of the quantum Zeno effect, it has become clear that applying a series of sufficiently strong
and fast pulses with appropriate symmetry can also decouple a system from its decohering environment.

In the quantum Zeno effect an unstable state seems frozen – to not 'move' – due to a constant series of observations.

Unstable quantum systems are predicted to exhibit a short-time deviation from the exponential decay law.

The proposition that the evolution of a quantum system is halted' if the state of the system is continuously
measured by a macroscopic device to check whether the system is still in its initial state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

Sooner or later, the initial state of system will evolve and destroy the equilibrium state
of the system due to entropy and “virtual particles”.

[Scott Mayers]

I saw Sabine's new video on the Quantum Zeno. She does her usual thing: she says a lot of things that are correct, and then starts deliberately lying about some important details (in this case that the quantum zeno doesn't happen with radioactive decay). And as a layman, good luck catching her on her lies.

Quantum Zeno effect
The quantum Zeno effect (also known as the Turing paradox) is a feature of quantum-mechanical systems
allowing a particle's time evolution.
One can "freeze" the evolution of the system by measuring it frequently enough in its known initial state.

: the quantum Zeno effect is the suppression of unitary time evolution in quantum systems provided by a variety of sources:
As an outgrowth of study of the quantum Zeno effect, it has become clear that applying a series of sufficiently strong
and fast pulses with appropriate symmetry can also decouple a system from its decohering environment.

In the quantum Zeno effect an unstable state seems frozen – to not 'move' – due to a constant series of observations.

Unstable quantum systems are predicted to exhibit a short-time deviation from the exponential decay law.

The proposition that the evolution of a quantum system is halted' if the state of the system is continuously
measured by a macroscopic device to check whether the system is still in its initial state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

Sooner or later, the initial state of system will evolve and destroy the equilibrium state
of the system due to entropy and “virtual particles”.

The problem that Sabine has relates to how you responded here. I cannot determine how this comment was responding to Atla's comment for one. But more significant, whatever you quoted here has no meaning without an INTENSE understanding of the terms involved and any proof that requires an investment far too expectant of the reader to be ABLE to waste time on. That is, in order to make sense of this requires far too much depth for something one cannot initially get proof of for the SIMPLEST of foundational proof up front. And sample proofs unrelated to the literal proposition

This leaves only an expectation of FAITH in something deemed 'authoritative' of what you say. But then its not debatable here. The best we can hope for to follow is to actually BECOME the very physicists in order to understand what other physicists mean. And after your 6 or more years of formal University education to become qualified to understand, your INVESTMENT in the time and money to pay for it suffices to make you forget why you asked the question in the first place.

So in regards to Sabine Hossenfelder, she is asserting that the institution is losing its grounding with respect to things in science that begin to sound indifferent to a religion. Her own confusions of the facts claimed may then also then be justifiable.