Live data from Hacker News

Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

quantamagazine.org

151–160 of 408 posts

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#151

Here is one fact that seems, to me, pretty convincing that there is another layer underneath what we know. The charge of electrons is -1 and protons +1. It has been experimentally measured out to 12 digits or so to be the same magnitude, just opposite charge. However, there are no theories why this is -- they are simply measured and that is it. It beggars belief that these just happen to be exactly (as far as we can…

The hint from quantum field theory (and things like lattice gauge theory) is that charge emerges from interesting topological states/defects of the underlying field (by "interesting topological shapes" I mean - imagine a vortex in the shape of a ring/doughnut). It's kind of a topological property of a state of the photonic field, if you will - something like a winding number (which has to be an integer). Electric cha…

> interesting topological states/defects of the underlying field

eddies in the space-time continuum?

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A step in which function are you talking about, exactly?

If you want it stated precisely, the function is human cognitive labor per unit time and cost. For decades, progress mostly shifted physical constraints or communication bandwidth. Faster chips, better networks, cheaper storage. Those move slopes, not discontinuities. Humans still had to think, reason, design, write, debug. The bottleneck stayed human cognition. LLMs changed that. Not marginally. Qualitatively. The i…

[deleted]

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#153

It is almost always the case that when progress stops for some meaningful period of time that a parochial taboo would need violating to move forwards. The best known example is the pre- and post-Copernican conceptions of our relationship to the sun. But long before and ever since: if you show me physics with its wheels slipping in mud I'll show you a culture not yet ready for a new frame. We are so very attached to t…

It's easy to give up existing concepts. It's called being a crackpot and you can find thousands of papers doing that online.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what is wrong with pessimism. That's not a valid critique. If someone is pessimistic but his description of the world matches REALITY, then there's nothing wrong with his view point. Either way this is also opinion based. There hasn't been a revolutionary change in technology in the last 20 years. I don't consider smart phones to be revolutionary. I consider going to the moon revolutionary and catc…

You imply your view "matches REALITY", then fall back to "Either way this is also opinion based." Nicely played. But the actual reality is that scientific discovery is proceeding at least as fast as it ever has. These things take time. 20 years is a laughably short time in which to declare defeat, even ignoring the fact that genetic and other biological tech has advanced leaps and bounds in that time. There's importa…

[flagged]

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about underexplained cosmological epicycles like dark matter (in explaining long-standing divergences of gravitational theory from observation), or the Hubble tension?

The dark matter theory broadly is that there is amount of invisible matter that obeys the laws of Einsteinian gravity but isn't otherwise visible. By itself, it has considerable experimental evidence. It doesn't resemble Ptolemaic theories of planetary motion notably in that doesn't and hasn't required regular updating as new data arrives. It really fits well with the OP comments. Nothing really contradicts the theor…

When you say dark matter theory doesn't require updates when new data arrives, it sounds like you don't count the parameters that describe the dark matter distribution to be part of the theory.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#156
Curious what everyone thinks about this physicists idea

- the universe as a Neural Network (yes yes moving the universe model paradigm from the old Clockwork to machine to computer to neural network)

I found it interesting and speculative but also fascinating

See video here:

https://youtu.be/73IdQGgfxas?si=PKyTP8ElWNr87prG

AI summary of the video:

This video discusses Professor Vitaly Vanchurin's theory that the universe is literally a neural network, where learning dynamics are the fundamental physics (0:24). This concept goes beyond simply using neural networks to model physical phenomena; instead, it posits that the universe's own learning process gives rise to physical laws (0:46).

Key takeaways from the discussion include: • The Universe as a Neural Network (0:00-0:57): Vanchurin emphasizes that he is proposing this as a promising model for describing the universe, rather than a definitive statement of its ontological nature (2:48). The core idea is that the learning dynamics, which are typically used to optimize functions in machine learning, are the fundamental physics of the cosmos (6:20). • Deriving Fundamental Field Equations (21:17-22:01): The theory suggests that well-known physics equations, such as Einstein's field equations, Dirac, and Klein-Gordon equations, emerge from the learning process of this neural network universe. • Fermions and Particle Emergence (28:47-32:15): The conversation delves into how particles like fermions could emerge within this framework, with the idea that useful network configurations for learning survive, similar to natural selection. • Emergent Quantum Mechanics (44:53-49:31): The video explores how quantum behaviors, including the Schrödinger equation, could emerge from the two distinct dynamics within the system: activation and learning. This requires the system to have access to a "bath" or "reservoir" of neurons. • Natural Selection at the Subatomic Scale (1:05:10-1:07:34): Vanchurin suggests that natural selection operates on subatomic particles, where configurations that are more useful for minimizing the loss function (i.e., for efficient learning) survive and those that are not are removed. • Consciousness and Observers (1:15:40-1:24:09): The theory integrates the concept of observers into physics, proposing a three-way unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, and observers. Consciousness is viewed as a measure of learning efficiency within a subsystem (1:30:38).

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flash memory (quantum tunneling), lasers (stimulated emission), transistors (band theory), MRI machines (nuclear spin), GPS (atomic transition), LED's (band gap), digital cameras (photoelectric effect), ...the list does, in fact, go on, and on, and on.

Did you intentionally list things that are clearly not essential to day-to-day life?

I'd argue flash memory and transistors certainly are.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#158

Experimental particle physicist here. It's just hard. I measured the electron's vector coupling to the Z boson at SLAC in the late 1990s, and the answer from that measurement is: we don't know yet - and that's the point. Thirty years later, the discrepancy between my experiment and LEP's hasn't been resolved. It might be nothing. It might be the first whisper of dark matter or a new force. And the only way to find ou…

What would the cost of the “next machine” be? Is it going to be tens of billions or can we make progress with lesser money. If it is going to be tens of billions, then maybe we need to invest in engineering to reduce this cost, because it’s not sustainable to suspend thirty years, tens of billions for every incremental improvement.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#159
As CERN Alumni, this isn't easy, the data is endless, processing it takes take, usually everything is new technology, and also needs to be validated before being put into use.

Thousands of people have worked on bringing LHC up during a few decades before, Higgs came to be, across all engineering branches.

This stuff is hard, and there is no roadmap on how to get there.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#160
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better, there are the "nightmare" scenarios where dark matter can only interact gravitationally with Standard Model particles.

Personally—and this is where I expect to lose the materialists that I imagine predominate HN—I think we are already in a nightmare scenario with regard to another area: the science of consciousness. The following seem likely to me: (1) Consciousness exists, and is not an illusion that doesn't need explaining (a la Daniel Dennett), nor does it drop out of some magical part of physical theory we've somehow overlooked u…

That would certainly be a difficult scenario. But it doesn't seem very likely. For example, consciousness and material systems seem to interact. Putting drugs in your blood changes your conscious experience etc.
Post reply on HN