Tremendous serendipity that this article should appear yesterday, methinks. 
Here’s something to think about - physicists have proposed that the Universe could have a ‘self destruct’ mechanism, whereby everything in existence could disappear forever at any time, without warning.
Article here.
Or, to put it another way (as they do at 4:33)
This is the sort of thing that gets physics a bad name. It’s only one step up from “What if black was white ?” and “What if I wake up tomorrow and I’ve turned into a giant insect ?*”. We love the theoretical physicists, but it’s not really safe to let them out on their own.
VB
*Copyright F Kafka.
Huh.
Months of careful, meticulously crafted thought and prose, alongside the finest jokes known to man, dematerialise in an instant!
Who’d not look to the heavens for an answer? 
Hope Jon isn’t collapsed in a field.
what a text field?
Aye, following the printer’s devil to the hellbox. Total meltdown.
Probably not the best name considering what happened to its predecessor…
MAKE IT SO!
Should make weekends away to Adelaide a tad more comfortable 
Though not interesting
Didn’t understand too much about it, but a few interesting radio four programmes on microbe, particularly those in us. A lot of them, more microbe DNA than human and without them we wouldn’t be here. Must find a link and post it up.
Apart from family/friends Adelaide is far from interesting.
Agreed. I only spent three days there for the GP. It was more than enough.
I found the mullet/missing teeth combo sported by many of the locals fascinating…
This becomes quite dull once you’ve lived there. The ever shrinking gene pool results make for a “sameness” which is unique.
Tru dat. Boys and girls with mullets 'n gaps.
It’s the sameness to the shape of brows, noses and jawlines which causes the most confusion. “Hey Davo, it’s great to see you aga…oops, sorry Debra”. It’s kinda shit !
What wave/particle duality may look like. Prolly not true, because it seems kinda comprehensible.
That was neat - clearly presented, not dumbed down and (as far as I can tell) not wrong anywhere. However I disagree about one of his later general points - specifically where he says
I think it’s great that we have two competing theories for the same experiments and they both asked you to accept odd things, just different odd things. It comes down to what you’re comfortable with really - whether you prefer the Copenhagen interpretation … or a pilot wave theory.
No. It doesn’t come down to what any of us is ‘comfortable with’. The fundamental process of science - the so-called ‘scientific method’ - is about devising an experiment which can distinguish between these two theories, then carrying out the experiment and seeing which theory is supported by the results and which isn’t. Devising that experiment can be very tough (check out the complexity needed to resolve whether Einstein’s challenge to quantum mechanics was correct Bell test - Wikipedia - the experiments eventually showed it wasn’t). But it’s what scientists are paid for.
VB
This.
Fine name is Bell btw.
First of a short, growing series about A.I. in a broad context.
Why is counting fingers a harder problem than computing moon rocket trajectories?
As said in a previous life, I much prefer this pace of delivery (WelchLabs) cf. BBC ponderousness.
.
