Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 591 posts

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#241

Post by westurner »

andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #18

I just had a really stupid thought, after finishing reading the article. So, the electron is an elementary particle, right? Compared to the proton, the electron is "simple", yes? Despite this difference in complexity, an electron has a charge of -e and a proton has a charge of +e. They are exactly complementary regarding charge (if I am understanding right, I am not a smart person). my question is... why? why must pr…

Are there intermediate [electron,] charge states between + and - in superfluids and/or superconductors?

Is there superposition with electron charge states?

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#242

Post by tonyarkles »

mcmoor wrote: post #69
Rayhem wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no doubt quantum physicists know what they are talking about but...I always think it is the kind of excuse a schoolkid would give their teachers for their calculations being wrong. Just to emphasize how extreme this dichotomy is, not only is quantum mechanics correct (in that it's a predictive model), it's the most correct physical theory humans have ever devised in that the measurements there have more sign…

It's interesting that semiconductor engineers have to directly wrestle with the magic that's quantum tunneling. This theory is really not just a theory.

In some devices it's something they have to fight against. In others, like SSDs, it's the feature that makes them work! It's not just a theory and it's not just another flaw that we've got to work around, we've taken it from a theory and turned it into useful technology.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#243

Post by antipaul »

Smoosh wrote: post #17
indigoabstract wrote: post #11

> “In fact, you can’t even imagine how complicated it is.” Well, maybe someone could imagine it, otherwise, all that complexity would have led to a gargantuan number of bugs and the universe would have crashed..

Maybe all the other instances crashed, but we got lucky and get to apply the anthropic principle. The real question is, are we running on bare metal, in a VM, or in a container?

We run on GPUs. The real question is, what does the AI that runs us, run on?

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#244

Post by infamouscow »

andrewflnr wrote: post #187
neuromanser wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean it's not just a hypothesis. I would really, really expect users of this site to know the difference.

Users of this site who pay attention to how science is actually practiced, and not the oversimplified cartoon version they teach us in school, know that the boundary between a "theory" and a "hypothesis" is rather blurry. For instance, have you ever noticed how it's called "string theory" despite having no real evidence for it? Have you ever heard anyone, let alone a real scientist, complain about this nomenclature?…

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the formal and natural sciences. HN is overrepresented by folks with backgrounds in mathematics and computer science where using "theory" is correct, e.g., set theory.

Bret Weinstein explained the distinction between a hypothesis and theory a few weeks ago on YOUR WELCOME.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac4MnNrs6g4

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#245

Post by Dylan16807 »

nojvek wrote: post #238
Balgair wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes, I also understand this. But why are they in units of 1/3(e). Why are down quarks not -0.398390847895...(e) and up quarks not +0.6234098129034809234...(e). Why do they add up so damn neatly?

It’s essentially asking why is the speed of light 299,798,452 m/s or the gravitational constant 6.67x10-11 Nm2/kg2 I’m sure a universe could work with those constants varied but that’s the one we have in our universe. There could be hypothetical universes with protons being half of electron and atoms would have twice the protons. However the fundamental constants are just that. A number that allows us to reason about…

> It’s essentially asking why is the speed of light 299,798,452 m/s or the gravitational constant 6.67x10-11 Nm2/kg2

No, because those constants are entirely arbitrary.

The curiosity here is that you have multiple numbers lining up, only separated by small integers.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#246

Post by Dylan16807 »

blueprint wrote: post #204
CoastalCoder wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is a great training ground for learning how to present arguments in a compelling, engaging manner.

that may be true, but I'm already highly trained at that. But hey, what if you just ratchet up the difficulty to infinity. Then it will train people even better. Either that or it'll destroy the community because you dont have any criterion of right and wrong in your claim. It doesnt matter how correct people are. The more correct people are the worse they're treated. The better we get at presenting true arguments th…

What's the lie that needs to be admitted?

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#247

Post by Dylan16807 »

yifanl wrote: post #76
pdabbadabba wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't there be a different physics where protons had a charge of 0.5 and, therefore, every atomic nucleus would have twice as many protons as electrons? Or pick any other ratio you like. Or course, I don't mean to hand-wave away the potential implications of this. Maybe there would be no atomic nuclei in such a universe, for all I know. But if not, why not?

How would we ever distinguish what half-a-proton is in a universe where all protons ever are _always_ paired off?

We see naked protons and mismatches between nuclei and electrons all the time, so I don't see why half-charge protons would be "_always_" paired off.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#248

Post by tomoyoirl »

WXLCKNO wrote: post #80
ForIveSyntax wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you ask? Are you hoping to ROWHAMMER a parallel universe? Genuinely curious if there’s any scientifically useful direction to this question

I'd watch a movie with that premise.

I believe they tried an experiment that was similar to that at the start of Schild’s Ladder — and for their troubles they were rewarded with a vacuum decay expanding through space at about 0.5c.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#249

Post by skirmish »

ForIveSyntax wrote: post #21
Smoosh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe all the other instances crashed, but we got lucky and get to apply the anthropic principle. The real question is, are we running on bare metal, in a VM, or in a container?

Why do you ask? Are you hoping to ROWHAMMER a parallel universe? Genuinely curious if there’s any scientifically useful direction to this question

"According to the more conservative cosmologists, an alien superpower – maybe a collective of Kardashev Type Three galaxy-spanning civilizations – is running a timing channel attack on the computational ultrastructure of space-time itself, trying to break through to whatever's underneath." in Accelerando

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#250

Post by AndrewKemendo »

blueprint wrote: post #204
CoastalCoder wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is a great training ground for learning how to present arguments in a compelling, engaging manner.

that may be true, but I'm already highly trained at that. But hey, what if you just ratchet up the difficulty to infinity. Then it will train people even better. Either that or it'll destroy the community because you dont have any criterion of right and wrong in your claim. It doesnt matter how correct people are. The more correct people are the worse they're treated. The better we get at presenting true arguments th…

I feel what you’re saying, but it’s incumbent on people who understand stuff to explain it to people who don’t in a way that they can comprehend

The reality is that we’re all ignorant about most things, so having an attitude with someone around something you know - irrespective of how you know it - is a losing strategy and as you said leads to poor interactions

Try to give people more grace and you’ll find people are more capable than you might know

Post reply on HN