Live data from Hacker News

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

quantamagazine.org

511–520 of 591 posts

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

#511
post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the defining constants of our universe are pulled from some uniform distribution though, which is the underlying assumption here. When you put it that way, that's a pretty strange and specific claim to make.

I don't think the claim requires a uniform distribution, just that the values come from some possible distribution (of any shape). With enough (or infinite) shots on goal, you're gonna get all combinations of them. The question "why these values of constants instead of others?" sort of presupposes that other values are possible. If you instead believe that the values are fixed, then your answer is just "because that'…

Yes, you're right, the distribution need not be uniform. The assumption is that the distribution is such that the probability that all the constants are within the Goldilocks range is very low (not even necessarily that the constants are fixed). But yes, either way, my answer is that there's no reason to believe this assumption.

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

#512

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…

> " the opposite ... thus, there is no need to appeal to an intelligent designer of the universe " I'm not saying it's an argument for God, I'm saying more that it's as logically poor and useless as 'God' as an answer to the question. "Why are my parents white?" "if they weren't, you wouldn't be asking why they are white". "Why am I typing with my fingers?" "if you typed with your toes you wouldn't be asking why you…

Well, there is a sense in which it is a good answer to "Why are my parents white?" if the question means "Why did I just so happen to be born to white parents as opposed to non-white parents?" and not "What scientifically caused my parents to be white?". The question about constants is more like the former than the latter since it's a question not about what scientifically caused the constants to be a certain way (we already know that it's not some physical phenomena that caused the constants to be this way - the constants are not a physical event to be explained physically).

Pivoting to the fine-tuning argument (not the anthropic principle):

The argument doesn't purport to answer precisely the questions you ask here, but it's still an explanation. To use the card example I used elsewhere, if I kept pulling the ace of spades out of a deck of cards and showing it to you, the answer to the question of why I'm always pulling the ace of spades that I've arranged these events intentionally still leaves the door open for other questions. How do I know where the ace of spades is? Is this a standard card deck, or are there multiple aces of spades in my set of cards? The answer that I'm arranging the events intentionally explains why an otherwise low-probability event is occurring, but it doesn't answer these questions - but that's ok, an explanation doesn't have to answer all questions.

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

#513
post #62

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…

Then I’ll ask why can’t you use protons as electricity?

[deleted]

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

#514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As sort of a vacuum in spacetime? Definitely not. For one thing, gravity isn't just mass. The gravity of a moving baseball is higher than a nonmoving baseball. The gravity of a charged battery is higher than a discharged battery. Same protons, neutrons, and electrons, but if you change their velocity or how they are arranged then they have more gravity. It's the stress-energy tensor, not just the mass (by which you…

We see gravity whenever we see large "clumps" of matter. We keep looking for a physical property of matter than explains gravity, but perhaps it's the lack of something. So when matter appears to attract other matter, maybe they are both "falling towards something".

> We keep looking for a physical property of matter than explains gravity

No, the Einstein field equations actually wrap things up pretty neatly as far as why it happens (although not how). Energy, momentum, stress, and mass are all the same. Energy turns into matter and vice versa. E=mc^2.

Going faster doesn't change your velocity relative to light, just your reference frame. In the same way, getting heavier changes your reference frame. If you're changing your relative time, you're also changing how far you're traveling from an external reference. And if the distance is changing, it means space is warping... which is exactly what gravity is. Energy/mass/momentum warps space and that gives us gravity.

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

#515
post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small note: the anthropic principle doesn't make us "lucky" to exist in a universe that supports life, quite the opposite. The probability of life coming to existence in a place (universe, celestial body, whatever) that doesn't support it is zero. The fact that we exist in a place that supports life is simply due to the probability of it happening here is >0, therefore we're here only because statistics determines…

Yes, right. Maybe you misread me, I meant to say that I'm skeptical that we're lucky because I'm sympathetic to the anthropic principle response. I then go on to play devil's advocate.

Ah, I misinterpreted that.

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

#516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Some of you are talking past each other. The speed of light being exactly the number c is arbitrary, because the choice to use the ephemeris second as the base unit of time (regardless of the precision we get by now using cesium atom “beats”) is arbitrary even though it’s based on something real. That’s just standardizing our arbitrary choice. The charge of an electron is also effectively arbitrary for the same r…

OP: "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…

The relation between the meter as defined and the speed of light isn’t arbitrary. But the value of c in terms of meters isn’t really privileged compared to the value of c in parsecs: both numerical values are only the number they are because you’ve picked an arbitrary unit to measure them by.

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

#517
post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AKA “God did it” + "Just for us" ^^ e.g. Earth is the only place where life could have formed. We have yet to set foot on even 1 another planet but we are pretty sure we are alone in the entire damn Universe.

> we are pretty sure we are alone in the entire damn Universe. We absolutely are not sure of that in any way, shape or form. Quite the opposite, given our knowledge of the universe and conditions necessary for life forming, it's highly unlikely we're alone. There's a reason that we call a paradox the fact that we haven't found any extraterrestrial life yet: the Fermi Paradox. Anyway, the anthropic principle says noth…

That was sarcasm about the people who do say/believe things like that.

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

#518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP: "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…

The relation between the meter as defined and the speed of light isn’t arbitrary. But the value of c in terms of meters isn’t really privileged compared to the value of c in parsecs: both numerical values are only the number they are because you’ve picked an arbitrary unit to measure them by.

Right. It's not so much that the speed of light itself is arbitrary, it's that the number 299,798,452 is arbitrary. Humans picked it because they liked those units for distance and time.

If we had two different types of universal-constant speed, we could measure the ratios between them. But there's only c.

Charges of elementary particles, on the other hand, we do have multiple examples. And whether we call an electron "-1" or "4895", there is an exact ratio between different particles that is an intriguingly simple number.

The ratio being such a simple number tells us something about the universe, in the way that most constants don't.

Or to put that another way, "299,798,452" is derived from both facts about the universe and arbitrary human choices. "1/3" is only derived from facts about the universe. It being such a simple number then begs for explanation, because humans didn't intervene to make it such a simple number.

And on top of that, if the speed of light or gravitational constant changed by .00001, nothing would happen. If the electron and proton didn't match perfectly, a ton of stuff would break.

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

#519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. you can'tput an elelctron inside a proton to get a neutron. If you make them colide and you are lucky, one of the up quarks of the proton changes to a down quark, and now you get a neutron. Both up and down quarks are elelmentary particles as far as we know.

Isn't it weird how one elementary particle can become completely different elementary particle by "absorbing" (?) yet another elementary particle? How exactly does that happen? Doesn't each particle species have it's own separate quantum field? How does one convert into another? Electromagnetic field can convert into quantum electron field by spawning electron-positron pair from a single photon. But all those exchang…

> Isn't it weird how one elementary particle can become completely different elementary particle by "absorbing" (?) yet another elementary particle?

Yes, it's weird. Quarks and electrons are just points, they have no interior, so they can't absorb other thing. I'm not sure about the official explanation, but IIRC they old quark and the electron just disapears, and a new quark appear instead???

Actually, it's more complicated, because there appears also a new neutrino, it's something like: quark up + electron --> quark down + neutrino. But neutrinos are very difficult to see, so let's ignore it.

Actually, it's more complicated, because there is an intermediate W+ or W- particle. The W particles live for a very short time, so you can ignore it unless you work in a particle ascelerator, but to get the correct results you must use the W+ or W- particle in the middel of the transformation. The correct equation are

quark up + electron --> quark up + neutrino + W- --> quark down + neutrino

quark up + electron --> quark down + electron + W+ --> quark down + neutrino

Actually, it's more complicated, because sometimes you get a strange quark instead of a down quark. Ignoring the W+ or W- particles

quark up + electron --> quark strange + neutrino

(And perhaps there are a few more "actualies", but these are the most important weird cases.)

> How exactly does that happen?

Magic? Nobody knows, we only can make experiments and guess the equations. There is people that enjoy discusing the interpretation, but I think it's better to ignore it and enjoy the agreement of equations and experiments.

> Doesn't each particle species have it's own separate quantum field?

Yes

> How does one convert into another?

Magic? Sorry, not good answer.

> Electromagnetic field can convert into quantum electron field by spawning electron-positron pair from a single photon. But all those exchanges are just weird. It's really shocking that people managed to figure out the math that rules over this.

A lot of the rules can be understood using magic balls. You can learn the rules to combine particles and draw Feynman diagrams as if they were magic balls. It took a long time to discover them, including two or three Nobel prices. It was very difficult, but somehow it was possible to discover one rule at a time, and add another rule a few years later, that made the whole procces slightly easier.

The equations are more difficult. I only learned a small part of them (and I had forgoten them). Also, they were discovered in small steps, sometimes as simplification or generalizations of previous equations, and had a few Nobels in the list of discoverers. Also, most particles have the same equations, for example all the quarks have the same equations so you just copy it 6 times, but photons have a different equations. And you have one big equation that combines all of them in a very long formula, but each part is simple.

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

#520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 anthropi…

You seem very hung up on my incorrect assumption as to what extent the video was about the anthropic principle or not. I have not watched it, nor do I intend to, and I am happy with being wrong about it. That said, it also isn't relevant to my dislike of PBS, or arguments presented. I just happened to click and take a peek at this particular video, to see if I could pinpoint the kind of stuff that I have come to asso…

This is the title of the video: Does Life Need a Multiverse to Exist?

Stew on that.

> There is no "uncontroversial" series of arguments that will reach the logical conclusion "there are countless universes"

Oh but there is. That's the point of the video. The arguments are laid bare if you care.

> Third inference is invalid for more than one reason

If only you'll watch the video to understand why it might in fact be a valid inference! :)

Post reply on HN