They mean 125um = sqrt(a*b), where a is the Planck length* and b the size of the observable universe (I didn't verify). Implying, 125um is some sort of middle ground.
*Often said to be the smallest length with physical meaning.
Ok, so it's a bullshit comment. Thank you. You could say this about everything that is not 'Planck length', it's about as useful as Douglas Adams' 'the universe is empty' (only he had a sense of humor).
Oh, even worse they are repeating it in different threads.
Because some of these are clear choices, others are not.
You can be critical of Israel and I'm fine with that - and I'm plenty critical of Israel myself. But to say 'Most Jews are lunatics' is absolutely beyond the pale.
You could say this in more general terms about all people that are religious but you didn't do that and FYI Jews don't generally have a choice about their Jewishness, just like you don't have any choice about which family you were born into.
You could even make the case that most religious people had no choice in their adoption of that religion, but most people have the theoretical option of letting go of their religion if they so desire, but you can not stop being a Jew. This little detail was baked into the religion and it is a serious problem for those that are Jewish and that wish to get away from it - and these people really do exist -, but they can not change their identity to a degree that they themselves would recognize as sufficient, besides, their environment usually also does not recognize it.
In the interest of furthering your knowledge about this:
I get all this is complicated, and maybe you really can't follow this in which case my apologies but there is a significant choice between who you work for (say, Palantir, Facebook, OpenAI or Twitter) vs what family you are born into.
As for political beliefs: yes, I'm critical of those that carry water for Trump, Putin, Netanyahu and their cronies, they're out to destroy the world as we know it and if you help enable that you are imnsho part of the problem.
The abstract mentions the patients cholesterol level is 1000mg/dL which is at least 4 times more than the "highly dangerous" bracket. Evidence seems to show that xanthelasma (the nodules seen on this person) can have a link to a higher risk of atherosclerosis, which is linked to high cholesterol in the first place. This will not be "asymptomatic" for ever.
Piketty's book (Capital in the Twenty-First Century) is most definitely not a fad. It is a result of serious research into historical economic data and anyone intellectually honest ought take it seriously. As anything in the social science of economics, it is subject to debate, but to call it a 'fad' is odd, to put it mildly.
I think it's popularity among layfolk, like myself, was a fad. I'd be incredibly surprised if it's flying off the shelves now like it was right after release.
But popularity doesn't validate or invalidate its content.
In our current understanding of the world (quantum mechanics), the world is inherently probabilistic ("random", not deterministic) in the microscopic realm. There are differing opinions among physicists whether or not there could be a more fundamental layer of reality beyond this, and if so, whether it would be deterministic. Notably it could be said the mainstream view is that reality is not deterministic.
If you were shown a screen, told it consists of individual pixels, but no matter what microscope you grab you can't discern those pixels, does that screen consist of pixels or is it a continuous canvas?
That's kind of where physics is at, no? Until you succeed in building an apparatus that lets you see individual pixels, it's a continuous canvas for all intents & purposes.
Some discrete & deterministic layer underneath it all is a more elegant possibility imho. Might suit people who prefer "nature at its deepest level is math" worldview. But why would reality 'bother' to fit into that shoe? It just is. Whatever that is. Discrete or continuous, deterministic or probabilistic.
I think there are good epistemological reasons to at least consider the fact that this is not what quantum mechanics is about. There seem to be ways you could kind of try to make what you are talking about work, but they are incomplete and pretty incondite and have, at any rate and to the extent that I understand them, some pretty unappealing philosophical characteristics.
The real meaning of the commutation relation is not that there is a fundamental _relation_ between sets of observables but, I would argue, that at a deep level pairs of non-commuting observables like x and p, share a single ontological substance which we can view partially as either position or velocity depending on how we arrange our measuring apparatus.
The second most popular view is that the universe branches deterministically, which means there will be some observers in a very small percentage of branches who observe seemingly miraculous events (very low probability). Their notion of probability would be different from ours.
reply