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

521–530 of 591 posts

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

#521

Post by AppleBananaPie »

philipswood wrote: post #277
snowwrestler wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I used to think this same thing but I went down a rabbit hole a few months ago listening to people very critical of string theory like angela collier, sabbine, eric weinstein, peter woit and some others on youtube. Yeah they all have their own quirks but after listening to their take on the history of string theory the common things are it hasn't produced anything but the major proponents of it always talk like it has and in some cases outright lie about things that it has contributed.

I really like listening to brian greene and sean carroll but now when I listen to them, particularly in recent videos, it feels like there is much less substance to what they're actually saying string theory has done.

But who knows! Maybe I'll learn something new and completely flip my world view again, I'm not a physicist by any stretch so have to rely on listening to experts :)

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

#522

Post by Mauneam »

unethical_ban wrote: post #290
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…

I consider the person to whom you are responding a troll, because they are taking a hard line stance, using abrupt terms, shutting down discussion, and putting much less effort into things than you are. That said, I agree with you roughly. I think suggesting an intelligent design as a possibility is not "shutting down curiosity". A scientific mind can entertain higher forms of power and look into it. Accepting the po…

That's quite rich, coming from somebody who took a hard line stance, used an abrupt term, put very little effort in and shut down the discussion by calling me a "troll."

That said, intelligent design is shutting down curiosity. It's not an explanation for anything, it's not a falsifiable theory, and posits a supreme being that we can't possibly have any hope of ever understanding, as it is incalculably more intelligent and complex, thereby eliminating the need and desire for further research. The only way to accept it is to have "faith," not through reasoning. Intelligent design is basically goddidit dressed up in scientific jargon, incompetently so.

The fact that every single proponent of it, ever, was a religious person first, and then became an intellectual promoting intelligent design, and that no scientist who wasn't a believer first was ever convinced by the intelligent design argumentation, should tell you enough. But if that's not sufficient, there have actually been court cases in the U.S. where people tried to get it into schools on the basis that it's a scientific argument. Every time they failed, with the courts ruling that it's quack science that doesn't merit consideration. For the latest example, look up Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

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

#523

Post by Mauneam »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #439
Mauneam wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Youdidit is an explanation, because it doesn't terminate the inquisition. You can then ask what caused you, then what caused the thing that caused you, and so on until you get to the point of saying "and that's as far as we know, we are working on figuring out the rest".

With goddidit, you abruptly got to the end through an escape hatch, and you are done having done no work. There is nothing that explains god, by definition, and there is no "figuring out the rest".

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

#524

Post by dcow »

willy_k wrote: post #504
dcow wrote: post #331

“The proton is a quantum mechanical object that exists as a haze of probabilities until an experiment forces it to take a concrete form.” I’m getting really tired of hazy probability distributions and waves that only collapse and materialize when observed. I 100% accept that QM is a useful tool to model our current understanding based on increasingly sophisticated observations, but I fundamentally don’t believe that…

Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but wouldn’t a “massive game of life” also be a simulation? I guess there’s a difference between a mechanistic simulation with emergent intelligence vs a Matrix-like one designed to accommodate (an) intelligence. It’s an important distinction but they’re both simulations.

Yes, the universe is a quantum computer that is continuously calculating itself.

“Simulation theory” suggests we’re part of some other being’s simulation.

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

#525

Post by andrewflnr »

AppleBananaPie wrote: post #521
philipswood wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I used to think this same thing but I went down a rabbit hole a few months ago listening to people very critical of string theory like angela collier, sabbine, eric weinstein, peter woit and some others on youtube. Yeah they all have their own quirks but after listening to their take on the history of string theory the common things are it hasn't produced anything but the major proponents of it always talk like it ha…

I think you're in agreement with the grandparent post. I took them to be using "must be true" sarcastically, given the rest of their post.

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

#526

Post by dcow »

l33tman wrote: post #464
dcow wrote: post #331

“The proton is a quantum mechanical object that exists as a haze of probabilities until an experiment forces it to take a concrete form.” I’m getting really tired of hazy probability distributions and waves that only collapse and materialize when observed. I 100% accept that QM is a useful tool to model our current understanding based on increasingly sophisticated observations, but I fundamentally don’t believe that…

QFT is the most well-tested physics theory mankind has developed and certainly is not a "haze" as the pop-sci articles write. What they mean by the "haze of probabilities" is that you need to iterate over all possible configurations of the gluons and quarks in the proton to produce experimental predictions. It is for sure computationally ludicrous, but conceptually it's really not better or worse than to say that par…

QFT is not complete. It’s one lens through which we model our observations of micro systems. Being well tested just means it’s precise, not accurate.

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

#527

Post by knightoffaith »

Mauneam wrote: post #522
unethical_ban wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider the person to whom you are responding a troll, because they are taking a hard line stance, using abrupt terms, shutting down discussion, and putting much less effort into things than you are. That said, I agree with you roughly. I think suggesting an intelligent design as a possibility is not "shutting down curiosity". A scientific mind can entertain higher forms of power and look into it. Accepting the po…

That's quite rich, coming from somebody who took a hard line stance, used an abrupt term, put very little effort in and shut down the discussion by calling me a "troll." That said, intelligent design is shutting down curiosity. It's not an explanation for anything, it's not a falsifiable theory, and posits a supreme being that we can't possibly have any hope of ever understanding, as it is incalculably more intellige…

Again, I think you've brought a lot of baggage with you in reading this discussion. The conclusion of the fine-tuning argument [0] is different from intelligent design theory [1]. The fine-tuning argument only posits that the reason that the laws and constants of nature are what they are because of an intelligent designer. It does not posit that evolutionary theory is incorrect. That would be intelligent design theory, which is an entirely separate and distinct idea.

[0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

[1]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#IntDes

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

#528

Post by dcow »

vladms wrote: post #355
dcow wrote: post #331

“The proton is a quantum mechanical object that exists as a haze of probabilities until an experiment forces it to take a concrete form.” I’m getting really tired of hazy probability distributions and waves that only collapse and materialize when observed. I 100% accept that QM is a useful tool to model our current understanding based on increasingly sophisticated observations, but I fundamentally don’t believe that…

In the opposite direction, I feel mildly annoyed when people expect a precise/clear answer to questions which can be answered mostly/better with probability distributions. Considering how you can test statistics in real life (ex: Buffon's Needle) there must be something very "statistical" embedded in reality itself (it is true that quantum mechanics pushes everything very far so can seem to complex).

Statistics and probability don’t bother me and we should use them more. Describing the very nature of the world as a soup of probability out of which observations arise and events take place, however, is getting tired. Superposition is a worn out teaching tool not an actual description of reality.

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

#529

Post by Mauneam »

knightoffaith wrote: post #527
Mauneam wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite rich, coming from somebody who took a hard line stance, used an abrupt term, put very little effort in and shut down the discussion by calling me a "troll." That said, intelligent design is shutting down curiosity. It's not an explanation for anything, it's not a falsifiable theory, and posits a supreme being that we can't possibly have any hope of ever understanding, as it is incalculably more intellige…

Again, I think you've brought a lot of baggage with you in reading this discussion. The conclusion of the fine-tuning argument [0] is different from intelligent design theory [1]. The fine-tuning argument only posits that the reason that the laws and constants of nature are what they are because of an intelligent designer. It does not posit that evolutionary theory is incorrect. That would be intelligent design theor…

They are both goddidit, just dressed up differently (slightly so).

There is no baggage. You were trying to sell goddidit here as an "explanation" that should merit the same consideration as actual scientific theories, and deserved to be called out on it.

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

#530

Post by knightoffaith »

Mauneam wrote: post #529
knightoffaith wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I think you've brought a lot of baggage with you in reading this discussion. The conclusion of the fine-tuning argument [0] is different from intelligent design theory [1]. The fine-tuning argument only posits that the reason that the laws and constants of nature are what they are because of an intelligent designer. It does not posit that evolutionary theory is incorrect. That would be intelligent design theor…

They are both goddidit, just dressed up differently (slightly so). There is no baggage. You were trying to sell goddidit here as an "explanation" that should merit the same consideration as actual scientific theories, and deserved to be called out on it.

"Goddidit" is supposed to, I take it, refer to saying something like: "We don't know how to explain this. Thus, God did it." The fine-tuning argument isn't the same. The fine-tuning argument says, "We know that the universal constants, had they been slightly different, would not have allowed for a universe in which life was possible. The probability that these constants are what they are by random chance is very low---so much so that the probability that these constants are what they are by random chance seems to be much lower than the probability that these constants were chosen intelligently. Thus, we should believe these constants were in fact chosen intelligently, which implies a designer of the universe." It explains why the low-probability event of these constants being what they are occurred. You can have objections to the argument, that's fine, but it's an explanation nonetheless. And it has the same predictive power---that is, none---and leaves the door open for further inquiry just as much as the other explanations (e.g. "It's a coincidence" or "There's a multiverse" or "Of course it's this way, otherwise we wouldn't have been around to observe it").
Post reply on HN