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

541–550 of 591 posts

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

#541

Post by nyssos »

trenchgun wrote: post #320
rolph wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,

>the unitary quantity is a conveinience. Ah right, so basically its just a convenience notation? We could as well say that proton has 3 and electron is -3 charge?

Yes, individual dimensioned quantities are arbitrary: only the relationships between them have physical meaning.

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

#542

Post by nyssos »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #88
wrycoder wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s even more complicated. The charge on the electron is partially screened by virtual positive charges emerging briefly from the vacuum, so what we measure is less than the actual charge.

But isn't the same thing going on for the proton? (Of course, absent some good reason, one wouldn't expect the two screenings to exactly balance...)

> (Of course, absent some good reason, one wouldn't expect the two screenings to exactly balance...)

Charge conservation still applies: vacuum polarization can only modify the apparent charge distribution, not the net value.

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

#543

Post by stevenhuang »

okamiueru wrote: post #534
stevenhuang wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> This is the title of the video: Does Life Need a Multiverse to Exist? > Stew on that. I'm starting to get the impression that you don't really follow my arguments. > > 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. Yeah, I skimmed the video now. It's al…

> It's either a valid inference, or it isn't.

But it may be a valid inference. No one knows, that's the point. That's why the multiverse theory is a theory, however strenuous seeming.

Thanks for citing the scientific method at me, it's appreciated. Have a great day.

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

#544

Post by okamiueru »

stevenhuang wrote: post #543
okamiueru wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the title of the video: Does Life Need a Multiverse to Exist? > Stew on that. I'm starting to get the impression that you don't really follow my arguments. > > 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. Yeah, I skimmed the video now. It's al…

> It's either a valid inference, or it isn't. But it may be a valid inference. No one knows, that's the point. That's why the multiverse theory is a theory, however strenuous seeming. Thanks for citing the scientific method at me, it's appreciated. Have a great day.

> But it may be a valid inference. No one knows, that's the point.

... well, if you were offended by me linking the scientific method... it's because it might bridge the gap in why you think "that's the point".

It seem to me that, after all this, you still fail to understand the argument I've presented. I've made a lot of effort, in good faith, in trying to figure out why, and address it. The argument is also remarkably simple, as is the examples given. The argument wasn't so much physics, as didactics. But we got stuck on the physics part, because we don't share the same understanding of what logical inference requires. Hence... the aforementioned suggestion.

But, it has reached the point of just being silly. One can only lead the horse to the water. Doesn't seem productive to carry on with the spoon feeding.

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

#545

Post by nojvek »

chii wrote: post #269
nojvek wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 about…

Or, there's some more fundamental rule that's being followed that we haven't discovered yet that explains these numbers. Physicists have been searching for the Grand Unified Theory since forever, and so far, no real luck. The closest is something i'm not too familiar with called M-theory (which is a derivative(?) of string theory).

'Grand Unified Theory' or the 'Theory of Everything' is to unite Quantum Mechanics with General/Special Relativity.

At scale of things in space (asteroids, planets, satellites, stars, galaxies) - We only need two constants (speed of light, and gravitational constant). The spacetime fabric bending explains everything we see at the scale. Things are very deterministic and have been verified with tons of experiments for decades around the globe.

At the quantum scale, gravity is an extremely weak force but it is still there. We have planks constant (h), elementary charge (e), speed of light.

You are right, that someday we may derive gravitational constant from another elementary particle constant.

I am not so sure about speed of light though.

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

#546

Post by mistermann »

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.

You are mistaking your interpretation of the text for the actual content, or range of possible interpretations.

Or more harshly (your preferred style it seems), you are treating your own consciousness as an omniscient God.

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

#547

Post by snowwrestler »

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.

You're not wrong, but what you're not appreciating is that the criteria for "pretty and elegant" are the same for string theory, the standard model, general relativity, and any other physical theory: a relatively simple and internally consistent mathematical framework that, when carried through in calculations, produces predictions that match a wide variety of observations, and is not contradicted by any known observations.

Proponents of string theory have not been able to propose an experiment that would allow them to exclude other theories, thereby demonstrating that string theory is better. But by the exact same token, critics of string theory have not been able to conduct an experiment that contradicts string theory, thereby allowing them to exclude it. And science moves forward by excluding theories with evidence (not just complaining about them).

Discussions of string theory among physicists are deeply intertwined with concerns about who gets famous, who gets grants, who gets tenure, who gets endowed chairs, who gets on TV and sells books, etc. But these types of concerns are a constant background noise to the practice of science, going back hundreds of years. Every scientist on Earth tends a private list of the wrong people who are getting too many resources to study the wrong thing.

If the critics of string theory could prove it was wrong, they would have, but they haven't yet. That makes it provisionally correct. Not correct, necessarily--it could be wrong! But it's not wrong yet, which is better than quite a lot of scientific theories proposed across the span of history (for now...).

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

#548

Post by throw0101c »

DemocracyFTW2 wrote: post #533
throw0101c wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Heisenberg's principle seems contingent on the void of nothing being a field that can wobble. Sadly (?) the word "nothing" seems to have become overloaded, so now—depending on who you talk to—you can have the word pointing to different concepts. See "seven types/levels of nothing": * https://rlkuhn.com/wp-content/uploads/Closer-to-Truth-Essays... * https://closertotruth.com/news/levels-of-nothing-by-robert-l...

> Sadly (?) the word "nothing" seems to have become overloaded "Infinity" is another one of those things that used to be murky, but simple; after Cantor we now have different infinities ℵ0, ℵ1... an un-Ockhamian proliferation of terms, and we have to worry about the spaces between them. Science ruins everything!

The use of "literally" to mean figuratively has grown in popularity in recent years (as a form of emphasis); though it is not a new use:

* https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally

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

#549

Post by Mauneam »

knightoffaith wrote: post #530
Mauneam wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

It does not explain why the low-probability event of these constants being what they are occurred. It does not explain anything. All it does is move the goalpost for explaining beyond unreachable and trap the inquisitive mind in a box.

As to the predictive power, the multiverse theory does have it. The fact that we can't experimentally confirm it today doesn't mean that it's not falsifiable. I agree, however, that the anthropic principle does not have a predictive power, just like fine tuning, but at least the anthropic principle doesn't imprison the mind and stunt further research by positing an unexplainable super being.

Again, just like with intelligent design, there is not a single physicist who was an atheist first, and then learned about fine tuning and became a believer. Every single proponent of fine tuning was a person of faith first (predominantly Christian but some other faiths too) before they became a physicist. Can you name a single counter example? (that might make me reconsider)

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

#550

Post by jodrellblank »

knightoffaith wrote: post #512
jodrellblank wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " 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…

> "The answer that I'm arranging the events intentionally explains why an otherwise low-probability event is occurring"

Okay, I'll grant you that if someone only believes in a God creating conditions for life then the Anthropic principle sort of suggests a non-God possibility, along the lines that Evolution with natural selection presented a way for increasing complexity and intelligence to arise from random mutations without an intelligent designer.

Still, we humans exist in a visibly large and competitive 'dog eat dog' ecosystem, so observing that the ecosystem affects the life within it is a certain kind of idea which fits in with a lot of other observations. Your comment line which I quoted above assumes a low-probability event based on no other observations, when there's no reason to assume that, no sign of an 'evolution of Universes competing in a wider ecosystem of Universes'; you've declared this universe to be 'low probability' based on nothing and then seek to explain something about how we find ourselves in a low-probability universe. For all we know, this could be the only possible Universe configuration, the only solution to some Universe-equation, or an overwhelmingly likely one if all possible Universes are capable of supporting life [and the ideas of Universes which couldn't support life are, in some way, not possible].

Post reply on HN