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

431–440 of 591 posts

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

#431

Post by throw0101c »

hansbo wrote: post #356
importantstuff wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one who has replied to your question has got the right answer. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21753/why-do-ele... has the right answer. There are multiple aspects to this argument, but essentially, the symmetries of your system force the charges in the Standard Model (quarks and leptons) to be the way they are due to gauge anomaly cancellation. If you believe in quark confinement, which is extremely w…

I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right?

> I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right?

Perhaps 'because' if the consistency did not exist then the universe would fail to exist.

There was the Big Bang, but we do not know what caused the Big Bang. But the particular Big Bang that started our particular universe may not have been the only one to occur. There could have been multiple previous Big Bangs where the 'properties' of each of those created universes may not have had the same consistency as we experience, and the inconsistency(s) could have resulted in a 'collapse' or 'destruction' of those universes.

Whereas it was just a coincidence that our Big Bang got things 'right' for the universe to continue to develop.

We could simply be experiencing survivorship bias in/with our universe.

As someone who dabbles in philosophy, and to use its language, our existence is contingent (we, and our universe, do not have to exist):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_(philosophy)

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

#432

Post by est »

rolph wrote: post #105
gizmo686 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This explains why atoms have 0 charge, but not why protons, which are stable even without electrons, have a charge of 1. Put in terms of elementary particles, why is it that the ratio of electric charge between a quark and an electron is either 1:3 or 2:3?

a proton, in the simplist version, is made of 3 quarks. two up quarks one down quark. down qwark is -1/3 e ; up quark is +2/3 e. they sum up to +1 e. neutrons are the opposite made of 3 quarks. two down quarks one up quark. and sum to 0e the unitary quantity is a conveinience. 1 e = 1.602176634×10−19 coulombs,

> a proton, in the simplist version, is made of 3 quarks. two up quarks one down quark.

OP's article has a full paragraph dedicated saying that "The proton is much more than three quarks"

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

#433

Post by lo_zamoyski »

megmogandog wrote: post #255
timeagain wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

> To then reason from that fact to the existence of a multiverse or the existence of God is an extra step that one need not take, but not taking either of those steps doesn't invalidate the appearance that the fundamental constants of the universe were fine tuned for the production of complexity/life.

I will add that, from a classical theological point of view, watchmaker type arguments are considered quite weak [0].

[0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/thomism-versus-desi...

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

#434

Post by foobarbecue »

jodrellblank wrote: post #220
foobarbecue wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AKA the "anthropic principle."

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.

My favorite version of the anthropic principle is one where you say that ALL of the universes exist -- with all possible values of arbitrary constants. We just observe this one because we're alive here (and most of the others are not habitable).

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

#435

Post by User23 »

throw0101c wrote: post #431
hansbo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right?

> I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right? Perhaps 'because' if the consistency did not exist then the universe would fail to exist. There was the Big Bang, but we do not know what caused the Big Bang. But the particular Big Bang that started our particular universe may not have b…

Which leads to the wonderful question: why are there any contingent things? And: why are the contingent things that there are as complex as they are?

I don't know of any plausible naturalist explanation besides Many-Worlds. And that supposes for the sake of discussion that Many-Worlds is in fact naturalist.

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

#437

Post by kamaal »

throw0101c wrote: post #431
hansbo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right?

> I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right? Perhaps 'because' if the consistency did not exist then the universe would fail to exist. There was the Big Bang, but we do not know what caused the Big Bang. But the particular Big Bang that started our particular universe may not have b…

Thats interesting, what are the chances of another big bang, after our(the current one) big bang?

Could it happen while this universe is here?

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

#439

Post by lo_zamoyski »

Mauneam wrote: post #272
knightoffaith wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

What caused your comment above to appear on HN?

Because youdidit.

That's not an explanation?

There are different kinds of explanations according to different measures, but all explanation is about identifying the causes of things. "You did it" identifies the agent, the efficient cause. I can, of course, explain how the agent (you) effected the cause, but youdidit is still an explanation, even if it isn't the kind you are interested in hearing.

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

#440

Post by mistermann »

Mauneam wrote: post #287
knightoffaith wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you're reading into my comment more than what I intended to say. In the context of fine-tuning arguments for God, we really are just arguing that an intelligent designer designed the universe. In isolation, this doesn't necessarily commit us to some mainstream religion, and in this context, God is just the intelligent designer of the universe, nothing more (though proponents of the arguments will go on, thr…

Saying "because God did it" as an answer to any question has the same value as saying "because pixel cooked the music". If you want to consider those two groups of words "explanations" go for it. They are grammatically correct, and if they satisfy the curious mind they are good enough.

> Saying "because God did it" as an answer to any question has the same value as saying "because pixel cooked the music".

The same ascertainable to humans value perhaps, but if one assumes they are necessarily completely equal (there is no God, in fact) you would typically want evidence. But this is only typically, some things in science don't need proof.

Post reply on HN