Daniel Carney

Claude Fable 5 introduces itself using only a chain of bigrams found in the King James Bible, verified programmatically against the ~152k distinct bigrams in the KJV:

Very inspiring. The universe remains full of mystery

Wittgenstein passes over of this in silence.

@bcubeddd @arxiv youtube.com/watch?v=BXqPNl…

what the FUCK @arxiv

@PeterMorganQF I agree that "explain classically" is way too broad in general. That's why I use a very specific set of Hamiltonian models, one of which can be viewed as classical, and talk about excluding it

@four_form Very useful. TY. "explained classically" is 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 possible, however, insofar as we can 1)steel-man classical physics to include contextuality/generalized probability; and 2)introduce a Poincaré invariant (aka 'quantum') noise for a classical random field theory. +

Can you "test the quantization of gravity" with gravitational wave experiments? Last week I was asked for an overview on this question. This was a nice chance to spell out some details I usually have to trim, so I'm sharing the slides: drive.google.com/file/d/12kUEO-…

Butokuden, Kyoto.

@bcubeddd @NanoscaleViews I think doug is correctly interpreting the paper. They are using “ER=EPR” to literally mean that there is a physical spacetime wormhole connecting the proton and electron. Pretty different from the original meaning where the wormhole would be a dual description

@NanoscaleViews You’re a physicist, just read the papers. This is the one skdh was prompted by arxiv.org/abs/2512.02156 and they cite the original Maldacena Susskind paper therein

somebody tell physicists in condensed matter, atomic and molecular, astrophysics, cosmology, particle physics, …that the only people working on “observable/testable things” are … testing ER=EPR???

Paper link: arxiv.org/abs/2606.14806

So... yet another reason to not use G_mn = <T_mn> as a defining equation of matter coupled to gravity. But there are plenty of other "semiclassical" gravity models that, presumably, do not give polynomial time solutions of NP problems. Still have to kill those with experiment :)

Cute observation, which can be summarized in two lines: 1. Nonlinear QM models can solve NP problems in polynomial time (Abrams & Lloyd, 1998) 2. Taking G_mn = <T_mn> at face value, the result is a nonlinear QM model. However, modern "classical" gravity models do not obey 2.

Gravity is unique among the known fundamental forces: There is currently no experimental result that requires a quantum theory of gravity. Markus Aspelmeyer and @four_form explore what’s needed to identify elusive signatures and finally connect gravity to quantum mechanics. physicstoday.aip.org/features/the-e…

Not sure if RIKEN is a national lab exactly, but it feels a lot like Berkeley Lab…

Hercules and Nessus, by Giambologna, 1599

@karch_andreas Rogan should invite you to the show now, it would be nice to see the contrast in public

Not sure how I feel being called a condom on the Joe Rogan podcast. Condoms are a good thing, right?

As an American who has been in this specific competition for my entire life, the main result has been that my work is better precisely because I had to compete against the rest of the world for my jobs Artificially restricting open competition is un-American to the core

@Noahpinion I think your commentary on this stuff would be improved by learning something about what professional mathematicians do.

"Why doesn't a charge sitting still on the surface of Earth radiate" has many good answers but this paper is my new favorite. If the earth was big enough that the radiation zone of the charge was within the "approximately flat" local region, the earth would be a black hole 😎