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

271–280 of 591 posts

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

#271

Post by DiscourseFan »

DonHopkins wrote: post #212
jacquesm wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the minute difference that we do not have experimental validation for Angels dancing on a pinhead whereas there is a massive amount of experimental validation for the standard model.

I thought he meant "angles on a pinhead". Now you're talkin' tri-angular! https://cidu.info/2022/05/06/thats-a-cute-angle/ Right angles are wrong angles! Death to th' T-square! https://comicskingdom.com/zippy-the-pinhead/2023-07-02

Thank you for your contribution, my fellow Pynchon Enjoyer

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

#272

Post by Mauneam »

knightoffaith wrote: post #258
jodrellblank wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AKA “God did it” with a sciencey sounding name. An answer which explains nothing, predicts nothing, satisfies no curiosity, and closes the book on any further questions.

The anthropic principle is actually the opposite - it's an objection to the fine-tuning argument that says something roughly like "well, of course the universe is configured in a way that allows us to be around. if it wasn't, we wouldn't be around to discuss it. thus, there is no need to appeal to an intelligent designer of the universe to explain its fine-tuned nature." That aside, with respect to saying an intellig…

>Well, it explains why the universe is fine-tuned, if you buy the argument.

No it doesn't. Goddidit is not an explanation.

>Yep, just like any other answer to the question, since it's a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one.

Nope, not like any other answer. Like Satandidit.

>It offers an explanation.

No it doesn't. Goddidit is not an explanation.

>No more than any other answer does.

No, not like other answers. Science never closes the book on further questions.

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

#273

Post by kadoban »

timeagain wrote: post #210
clankyclanker wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, PBS Space Time did a video on this “fine tuned universe” theory and it, like all of their videos, is great. The concept seems to be that in an unbalanced universe, life couldn’t form, and we’d be incapable of having this conversation. So, either there are infinite universes and we exist as a result of being in the right one, or there’s one universe and we exist as a result of the one we’re in being right. Either…

I can’t get behind all these fine tuning arguments. Who’s to say what life might form if the proton had a charge of 1.01e or if the fine structure constant was 1/138? Something about the line of reasoning that there is a multiverse and we just happen to live in favorable conditions reminds me of Pascal’s wager. It doesn’t do anything other than unfalsifiably assure the wagerer that they are important

A couple of the constants it's easy (for a real physicist, not for me) to prove there's no interesting structure to the universe anymore if they vary even a little. Like, no molecules are possible.

So there's a question there for why the values are so exactly set, or if something forces them to be the value they are.

The anthropic principle (that if the universe weren't suitable, we wouldn't be here to know) always struck me more of reasoning that we're _not_ special.

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

#274

Post by kadoban »

timeagain wrote: post #268
megmogandog wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which fine tuning arguments are you referring to? As I understand it, 'fine tuning' is simply a fact of the universe: that the fundamental constants have values that allow for the emergence of complexity, and that even slight changes to those values would lead to homogeneous and featureless universe. I don't have the physics background to demonstrate this for myself, but I believe it. To then reason from that fact to…

Ok here’s the problem. What hubris does it take to assume the fundamental constants could be changed? Just because they appear in math equations doesn’t mean they can be twiddled and tweaked like programming variables. We have no prior knowledge or justification to believe any constants have been “tuned”, because we have no justification in suggesting other possible values. We could just as easily say that life on ea…

> Ok here’s the problem. What hubris does it take to assume the fundamental constants could be changed? Just because they appear in math equations doesn’t mean they can be twiddled and tweaked like programming variables. We have no prior knowledge or justification to believe any constants have been “tuned”, because we have no justification in suggesting other possible values.

Nothing says that they couldn't be changed, but then there's the question of _why_ they can't be changed. What forced them to be the values they are? Some of them appear to be free, so are they?

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

#275

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

bugbuddy wrote: post #231
NegativeLatency wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might need to define your terms more specifically/clearly to be able to get an answer to this. There's always the layman vs scientists definition of true. Like I think most people would say we know gravity exists, but in actuality we don't really know what gravity is, but we can measure how objects behave and make useful predictions about our world and universe because of that, with it lining up with othe…

I am going to get downvoted into oblivion again for asking this follow up question but that’s what I live for. What is the line between Physics, a scientific endeavor, and Metaphysics, a philosophical one? Please set my transparency as high as you can. I totally deserve it. Let me fade into oblivion.

Physics is testable within the known laws of physics. Metaphysics is not.

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

#276

Post by cantrevealname »

tim333 wrote: post #196
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..

This has always seemed to me one of the best arguments against the simulation hypothesis.

>> all that complexity would have led to a gargantuan number of bugs and the universe would have crashed

> This has always seemed to me one of the best arguments against the simulation hypothesis.

Can you expand on that? Are you saying that if we were in a simulation, the observed complexity of the universe (or the complexity of particle physics) would have caused the simulation to crash? Ergo, we are not in a simulation?

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

#277

Post by philipswood »

snowwrestler wrote: post #262
andrewflnr wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

String theory is supported by a ton of evidence in that it can produce many predictions and hypotheses that match observed data. That’s why it’s called a “theory” and why people continue to study it. What’s missing is a test that would produce evidence that would allow us to distinguish between string theory and competing theories. But that’s not nearly the same thing as saying it has “no real evidence.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but string theory is still in the "it's so pretty and elegant is must be true kind of territory".

Not only do they have no proof, most of the potential experimental confirmations are at energies so high they're effectively out of reach for the foreseeable near future.

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

#278

Post by steve76 »

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…

[dead]

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

#279

Post by wombatpm »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #145
edgyquant wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are mathematical models built to describe a thing and thus their entire purpose as a concept is to add up “neatly”

I'm getting very strong "angels on a pinhead" vibes from this

Measure the area of a pinhead, divide by cross-sectional area of an angel. Easy peasy.

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

#280

Post by anon84873628 »

blueprint wrote: post #153
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?

when you understand quantum theory correctly, you will realize that particles don't exist by themselves. They are a temporary localization. this means that the number of quarks inside a proton is not actually fixed. when a particle becomes disentangled with the system, that localized it, there's no longer a particle I mentioned this recently, in the context of the laziness in language, leading to the miseducation of…

I was ready to up vote until the third paragraph.

Reading your other comments down thread doesn't paint you in a good light. Maybe your argument about laziness in language wasn't as cogent as you thought. Maybe you aren't as good at presenting arguments as you thought.

In other words, maybe you need some humility.

Post reply on HN