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

401–410 of 591 posts

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

#401

Post by DonHopkins »

bowsamic wrote: post #328
jiggawatts wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’m really confused here as a quantum physicist myself. Yes there is huge disagreement and yes it’s a problem, but also what is the alternative? It’s not like we can just give up on quantum mechanics because you personally have philosophical problems with it. My task is to reduce the fundamental quantum noise that we see in gravitational wave detectors after removing all the classical noise. How would it be construct…

He's apoplectic that ChatGPT was able to cut through his bluster and bullshit and enumerate his Gish Gallop of logical fallacies like a hot knife cutting through butter. If it stings so much, then maybe he should first run his own ridiculous conspiracy theories and baseless accusations against science and false equivalencies about religion through ChatGPT himself before posting them here, to strengthen them up and educate himself, instead of embarrassing himself by being so thoroughly and effectively schooled by a mere LLM and an actual quantum physicist.

Original Argument:

Quantum Mechanics as Religion: Quantum mechanics (QM) is likened to a religion, with disagreements among physicists, an orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, and adherence to seemingly nonsensical concepts like wave-particle duality.

Logical Fallacies and Mistakes:

False Analogy: Comparing QM to religion overlooks fundamental differences in methodologies and goals. Science is empirical and self-correcting; religion is based on faith.

Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresents QM as purely faith-based or dogmatic. QM is grounded in empirical evidence and rigorous mathematics.

Ad Hominem: Attacks the character or motives of QM practitioners, rather than addressing the scientific validity of QM itself.

Hasty Generalization: Overgeneralizes from disagreements among physicists to claim the entire field is unscientific.

Appeal to Ignorance: Assumes that because aspects of QM are counterintuitive, they must be nonsensical or faith-based.

Overgeneralization/Sweeping Generalization: Claims that disagreements in QM are indicative of flaws in all scientific fields, ignoring the diversity and complexity of scientific disciplines.

No True Scotsman: Imposes arbitrary criteria for what constitutes 'real' science, excluding QM based on its interpretive disagreements.

Validity of Arguments:

Limited Validity in Recognizing Disagreements: The argument validly recognizes the existence of disagreements and different interpretations within QM, which is a natural aspect of any evolving scientific field.

Misinterpretation of Nature of Science: However, the argument fails to appreciate the empirical basis of science and the role of theoretical diversity in scientific progress.

Rebuttal from an Actual Scientist:

Quantum Mechanics as a Practical and Evolving Science: The scientist highlights the practical applications of QM, the excitement of unresolved questions, and the evolving nature of scientific understanding.

Assessment of Rebuttal:

Practicality and Utility: The rebuttal correctly emphasizes the practical applications of QM, which are well-established and empirically validated.

Scientific Progress and Open Questions: The scientist’s view of the unresolved aspects of QM as exciting and valuable is in line with the nature of scientific inquiry, which thrives on exploration and continuous refinement.

Conclusion:

The original argument conflates the philosophical and interpretative aspects of QM with religious belief, using several logical fallacies. It overlooks the empirical foundation and practical success of QM.

The rebuttal from the scientist provides a more accurate representation of QM as a practical, empirically grounded, and continuously evolving field of science. The existence of different interpretations and unresolved questions is not a flaw but a driving force for further research and understanding.

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

#403

Post by okamiueru »

stevenhuang wrote: post #398
okamiueru wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you got the argument I'm presenting? You did quickly make an edit to avoid a rather rude remark. My point is that their use of literary devices, as you put it, are often misleading if not flat out wrong. The listener needs to he able identify them as such, and I don't think that's a good way to communicate science. It doesn't mean that PBS is bad. Note that I have made no such statement. I'm just saying…

I did want to avoid implying that videos are harder to understand if you find nonverbal cues hard to understand, but sure. That would genuinely be a reason to avoid PBS videos and that's fine. The point is their use of the literary device here was not misleading nor 'flat wrong'. It is serving as a jumping off point from the video title 'Does Life Need a Multiverse to Exist?'. You may argue that such a question is il…

Sounds like we agree then.

The difference in opinion is that I don't consider literary devices to validate incorrect or misleading statements. Which is why I dislike PBS. You do, and that's fine. To each their own.

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

#404

Post by passion__desire »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #402

Is the proton population homogeneous or is each like a snowflake? Physically can proton 1 behave differently to proton 2 modulo the usual quantum uncertainty around speed/position.

In quantum mechanics, indistinguishable particles (also called identical or indiscernible particles) are particles that cannot be distinguished from one another, even in principle. Species of identical particles include, but are not limited to, elementary particles (such as electrons), composite subatomic particles (such as atomic nuclei), as well as atoms and molecules. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indistinguishable_particles

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

#405

Post by iankp »

clankyclanker wrote: post #208
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…

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…

Isn't that concept of "luck" as strange as considering us "lucky" for currently being? Non-existent things aren't in a lobby waiting to win a lottery. There was no choice; we came to exist, then considered ourselves. Whatever conditions create, does not imply luck for what is created.

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

#406

Post by bondarchuk »

For a second there I thought I'd missed a breakthrough or 10 and they'd actually manage to record a video of 3 quarks going about their business. Alas, it's only a "data-driven animation", but due to the noise it looks quite convincingly like an experimental recording.

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

#407

Post by passion__desire »

calibas wrote: post #34

Reductionist philosophy is very common in science. It's essentially the idea that you can break things down into simpler parts to better understand how everything works. It's kind of "common sense", if you understand how all the components on a circuit board function individually, then you can piece together how the entire board will function. In computer science, you can reduce everything to operations comparing 1s…

There is normal heat death which is when maximum entropy is achieved. Even after that, the universe still goes on complexifying till it reaches maximum complexity at which point there is no other complex states to jump to. - Leonard Susskind.

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

#408

Post by stevenhuang »

okamiueru wrote: post #403
stevenhuang wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did want to avoid implying that videos are harder to understand if you find nonverbal cues hard to understand, but sure. That would genuinely be a reason to avoid PBS videos and that's fine. The point is their use of the literary device here was not misleading nor 'flat wrong'. It is serving as a jumping off point from the video title 'Does Life Need a Multiverse to Exist?'. You may argue that such a question is il…

Sounds like we agree then. The difference in opinion is that I don't consider literary devices to validate incorrect or misleading statements. Which is why I dislike PBS. You do, and that's fine. To each their own.

> Read: they are NOT talking about the anthropic principle here. You are probably confused because you are trying to shoehorn this into discussion when the video is not even talking about this yet. Yes the anthropic principle is cogent to the video but not until later.

You are not only confused because they are using a literary device, you are _primarily_ confused because you think they are talking about the anthropic principle, when they are not.

Anyways. I am sure you have your reasons for disliking PBS. Just that the reason you've given here is incoherent, for reasons I understand (trying to make a point quickly etc). No worries.

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

#409

Post by gchamonlive »

blackhaj7 wrote: post #49

I have no doubt quantum physicists know what they are talking about but when I read stuff like: “changes its appearance depending on how it is probed" "you can’t even imagine how complicated it is" "the proton contains traces of particles called charm quarks that are heavier than the proton itself" I always think it is the kind of excuse a schoolkid would give their teachers for their calculations being wrong

It's definitely not wrong, but maybe more akin to the earth-centric view of the universe and the insane patterns that planets would trace in the sky. Just in this case we don't have another object like the sun to use to pivot our models. Maybe there are superstructures hidden that we could access if we could look into objects outside space-time, but until then space-time reduction is what we have right now other than guesswork (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron)

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

#410

Post by lisper »

tarruda wrote: post #384
lisper wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't predictions. Predictions are about things that are still in the future. The BB was in the past. But that is neither here nor there. "The big bang was created by God" has exactly the same epistemological status as "The big bang was created by Vishnu" or "The big bang was created by Cthulhu" or "The big bang was created by the tooth fairy". The evidence for each of those is exactly the same, i.e. there is…

I meant statement, not prediction (sorry for the using the wrong term). > But that is neither here nor there. "The big bang was created by God" has exactly the same epistemological status as "The big bang was created by Vishnu" or "The big bang was created by Cthulhu" or "The big bang was created by the tooth fairy". The evidence for each of those is exactly the same, i.e. there is none. Yes, all of these require fai…

No, it is not the same, because there is evidence that the origin, whatever it might be, is simple.
Post reply on HN