Entanglement and the EPR paradox

Thanks for explaining that once again.

I once read a really long explanation on Quora about that.
It was really cool and went into the details with formulas but
also kept it simple to understand for the average joe.
But I can’t seem to find this page again.
It was titled something along the lines “why Quantum Entanglement isn’t a mystery to physicists”…
If someone knows where I can find that again, please send me a link ๐Ÿ™‚

Turning CO2 to Stone

Science Bulletin reports :

Scientists have developed ways to relatively quickly turn carbon dioxide captured from power plants to a solid for long-term storage.
TL;DR:
They tested it at at Icelandโ€™s Hellisheidi Power Plant and within two years, 95 percent of the injected CO2 had turned to mineral โ€“ far faster than the 8โ€“12 years originally expected.
They mix it with water and hydrogen sulfide, creating soda-like carbonation, then inject the mixture into porous basalt rocks 400 to 800 meters underground.
โ€œIceland was a key demonstration. The holy grail is off-shoreโ€
They also want to pull CO2 from the environment.
some guy on HN did the math

The EM Drive

If you read science articles you probably read a lot about the EM Drive in the recent past.

As we all know science journalism is not about science but more about clicks and Sensationalism. So if you want to hear a realistic view on the EM Drive, I recommend watching the latest PBS Space time about it.

They explain it really well.

but now it sounds not so exciting anymore ๐Ÿ˜‰

Visualizing the Riemann zeta function and analytic continuation

Riemann Hypothesis explained the awesome way:

 

I instantly subscribed to this channel, he has a lot more videos like this and explains math in a cool way.

also a good watch is this one: Who cares about topology?

for a shorter and more straight forward explanation for the Riemann Hypothesis there is also the Numberphile video