Very few drugs are largely government funded. The government funds basic research, but it won't fund clinical trials. Pharma companies are almost entirely responsible for clinical trials, and they are way, way more expensive than basic research.
FlowVoid
joined 2 years ago
Most of what you perceive as "taste" is just using your sense of smell on food within the mouth, where it is very close to smell receptors.
To isolate taste informally, pinch your nose, stick your tongue out, and put food directly on the tongue when it's outside your mouth. You'll find that by itself your tongue can't distinguish many flavors, that's why everything tastes terrible when you have Covid or a bad cold.
No, the paper says it shares a receptor with sour, not that it tastes like sour.
Just as "orange" and "purple" have receptors in common but are not perceived as the same.
Umami is the fifth flavor. This paper is about the sixth, which doesn't seem to have a name other than "ammonium chloride".
When the first photon hits the screen and collapses, that doesn't mean its twin photon collapses too.
Yes, it does. By definition, entangled particles are described by a single wave function. If the wave function collapses, it has to collapse for both of them.
So for example, an entangled pair of electrons can have a superposition of up and down spin before either one is measured. But if you detect the spin of one electron as up, then you immediately know that the spin of the second electron must be down. And if the second electron must be down then it is no longer in superposition, i.e. its wave function has also collapsed.
Right, but in order to get the observed effect at D1 or D2 there must be interaction/interference between a wave from mirror A and a wave from mirror B (because otherwise why would D1 and D2 behave differently from D3 and D4?).
And that's a problem for some interpretations of QM. Because when one of the entangled photons strikes the screen, its waveform is considered to have "collapsed". Which means the waveform of the other entangled photon, still in flight, must also instantly "collapse". Which means the photon still in flight can be reflected from mirror A or mirror B, but not both. Which means no interaction is possible at D1 or D2.
There are even plenty of questions, like the delayed-choice quantum eraser, that have already been solved
No, it has not been solved. At least not solved to the satisfaction of many physicists.
In one respect, there is nothing to solve. Everyone agrees on what you would observe in this experiment. The observations agree with what quantum equations predict. So you could stop there, and there would be no problem.
The problem arises when physicists want to assign meaning to quantum equations, to develop a human intuition. But so far every attempt to do so is flawed.
For example, the quantum eraser experiment produces results that are counterintuitive to one interpretation of quantum mechanics. Sabine's "solution" is to use a different interpretation instead. But her interpretation introduces so many counterintuitive results for other experiments that most physicists still prefer the interpretation that can't explain the quantum eraser. Which is why they still think about it.
In the end, choosing a particular interpretation amounts to choosing not if, but how QM will violate ordinary intuition. Sabine doesn't actually solve this fundamental problem in her video. And since QM predictions are the same regardless of the interpretation, there is no correct choice.
Even once you understand that the uncertainty principle is not the same as the observer effect, I think it's still mysterious for the same reason that "the wavefunction is the only thing that exists" is mysterious.
If anything, it's more mysterious once you understand the difference. People are more willing to accept "Your height cannot be measured with infinite precision" than "Your height fundamentally has no definite value", but the latter is closer to the truth than the former.
I wouldn't say that Sabine is among the "least biased". She strongly advocates for superdeterminism, and her videos on the subject presume it is true even though it is still unproven and currently accepted only by a minority of physicists.
Your definitions of sex and gender are not in universal use, and they are not the definitions used by Sunak. So his statement was not "correct", because what it meant was not correct.
it's something you mostly see among the poor.
It is, until it isn't.
And when it isn't, we should all cheer.
If a therapy costs too much, insurance will no longer pay for it.
And when insurance decides not to pay for a therapy that is only used by a handful of people, there are often only a handful of complaints.