Eise

I am reading 'Particle Hunters', written by Yuval Ne'eman, and he describes of course about the prediction of the Omega-minus, the baryon with three s-quarks. (He predicted it himself, together with Murray Gell-Mann.) But I would not expect that the 3 s-quarks have the same direction of spin. Wouldn't have 3 s-quarks, where one quark has an opposite spin as the two others, less energy than all spins parallel? The Pauli exclusion principle seems to be no problem, as the quarks have different colours. What am I missing?

1 hour ago, Genady said:

They didn't give enough space for a space telescope.

Well, yes, obviously they had to remove a part of the ceiling. The real JWST doesn't seem to have this problem.

Ah, forgot to say, the scale is 1:4. See here for details.

Hi all,

Just wanted to share my surprise that a model of JWST is standing in the company where I work for. Obviously, it contributed fastening elements (screws, nuts, etc) to JWST. Hopefully it is true what the company says about the quality of their products...

1 hour ago, einsteinium99 said:

The singularity is a gravitational wave with no upwards limit in frequency.
Consequently, we measure the age of the Universe to be 13.8 billion years, and also the past is infinite.

Please explain how the age of the universe follows from your first sentence. Show us the calculation.

1 hour ago, einsteinium99 said:

This is the simple essence of wave-particle duality.

How so? Please explain. And define clearly what 'wave-particle duality' exactly is. No citations. Your definition.

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Anyway, nothing about Particle Accelerators are in different frames. The whole machine is in the one frame.

Yes, but the particles are not.

Let's take muons as example (again). Normally they have a half life of about 2 μs. In an particle accelerator they live much longer. That's time dilation. In its own reference frame the muon of course stands still. So its half life is still 2 μs. Now imagine the muon can travel 100 rounds in the accelerator before decaying. So from the reference frame of the muon, it also makes 100 rounds. Now how can this be explained in the reference frame of such a muon?

21 minutes ago, wei guo said:

This is what science should be. But the development of physics does not follow the rule of Occam's razor.

Occam's razor doesn't say 'make it as simple that wei guo understands it'. Sorry.

5 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Its like trying to multiply 3 horses with 7 basketballs, what is the result? Mu an Epsilon must be in meters per second units to get the result 297 million meter per second result.  3 (horses) * 7 (basketballs) = 21.... but its not 21 ANYTHINGS. 

Of course not. E.g. if the question is, how many different pairs of horses and basketballs one can form, it is 21 pairs (this is called a 'Cartesian product').

Compare now with e.g. speed. According to you the unit of speed does not make sense: one divides distance through seconds. But I assume you have no problem with that (miles/hour, or meters/second, whatever). Obviously not as you are using the phrase 'meter per second'.

6 hours ago, wei guo said:

Mathematics is merely a sort of language, which is, in nature, no different from other ways used to describe our world. The advantage of math only lies in fact that the symbolic system behind it is more logic than other forms of expression, i.e, everyday language(English, Chinese) or drawing a picture.

Math is different: it is not just more logic, it is a rigidly logical language. 

6 hours ago, wei guo said:

Viewing the identity of mathematics as a unique abstract product which needs to be cut a line from other ways of expressing or describing our world is no different to treat mathematics as a kind of religion. 

How do you want to make quantitative predictions without math? Example: Eddington's test of special relativity in 1919. According general relativity the bending of light close to the sun is twice as big as a pseudo Newtonian calculation. Without math, it would have been impossible to distinguish between GR and Newton. I am pretty sure, that most physics experiments are quantitatively, no simple yes/no experiments. 

Another nice example might be Dirac's prediction that an anti-electron should exist. He derived that by pure mathematics, by rewriting the Schrödinger wave equation so that it fitted special relativity: by taking his calculations seriously he predicted the existence of the anti-electron, and got the mathematical proof why spin exists. Only a few years later the positron was discovered. On the surface, one could see the experimental evidence by Anderson as a yes/no experiment. But to identify the positive particle as an anti-electron, one has to make sure that it has the same (but opposite) charge as the electron, and also the exact mass, otherwise it might be just another positively charged particle.

You extremely underestimate the function and need of math in physics. It's need is practical: to make quantifiable predictions, to find not yet seen phenomena that logically follow from existing theories (like Dirac's anti-matter prediction). It is not religious at all.

8 hours ago, wei guo said:

I want to pick a name to describe what you say as a short one of 'phenomenon determinism'.

What else can you do if you want to understand the phenomena? 

8 hours ago, wei guo said:

It is not enough to just be compatible with observational evidence because 'observational evidence' is just phenomenon , which may not reflect the truth of reality.

If there even would be a 'reflection of reality', it comes to us through the phenomena. By assuming the existence of, what you call 'underlying artificial-defined things inside', we are able to encompass more and more phenomena under single theories. Do these underlying artificial-defined things inside 'really exist'? Does the wave function 'really exist'? Do virtual particles 'really exist'? But the math, based on them, correctly predicts the phenomena. 

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

what we observe and what we want to describe may have some underlying artificial-defined things inside. 

That is possible indeed. But it is not the aim of science to describe nature as it is in itself ('an sich'). Its aim is to describe nature as it reveals itself to us, to our senses and cognitive abilities. Then surely we can introduce 'underlying artificial-defined things inside'. Examples might be (being careful here) wave functions, or virtual particles. What is important is that the math using them gives correct predictions. If it turns out that we can't use them, i.e. experiments cannot be explained by using a theory with 'underlying artificial-defined things inside', then the theorists must go back to the drawing board. But in a new theory we might have new 'underlying artificial-defined things inside'. 

1 hour ago, wei guo said:

The phenomena observed in experiment can only be served as the starting point to cognize reality but not our ultimate standard to judge whether our cognition is right or not

No way. You would be like a stamp collector, collecting 'physics facts'. Science is more than that. Physics wants to describe an empirical world: what else than the empirical world could be the arbiter if a theory is correct or not? Of course, a theory must be logically and mathematically sound, but that is not enough. That is old fashioned metaphysics, especially in it rationalist form: that we can explain the world based on thinking alone.

22 minutes ago, wei guo said:

Trust those that fits both logic and result of experiment.

First, math is logical through and through. A little mean, one could say math is applied logic on 'mathematical objects' (numbers, geometry, topology, etc etc).

Second, between the lines I read that what you mean with 'logic' in fact is "wei guo's capability of understanding".

On 6/18/2023 at 2:40 AM, wei guo said:

Indeed, math is a good tool but we cannot completely rely on it to lead us to explore the law of nature.

That may be the reason that experiments are done in physics, no? We take the best theories we have, i.e. that explain the most empirical facts that we know until now, and try to extend them with math to see what other, not-tested results follow. And then we put them to the test. So your 'complete' is a none-existing caricature of what physicists do.

On 6/18/2023 at 2:40 AM, wei guo said:

Without the guide of philosophy, mathematics will precisely lead physics to a wrong path.

That is exaggerated. Sure, there are areas in physics where philosophy might help, when reflection on used concepts and methods becomes necessary. But besides that, experiment is the filter that any mathematical theory applied to physics must pass. 

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

Nothing “crashed”, that’s obvious from the widespread fireball sightings I linked earlier, but which you have opted to ignore.

15 hours ago, exchemist said:

But for me the fireball reports (21 of them)  from across 4 states is pretty decisive.  I searched "1st May meteor Las Vegas" and got that link straight away. Funny that people predisposed to attribute these reports to aliens don't take the elementary precaution of running a few simple checks before committing themselves to their preferred version of events.   

And you are ignored again... Even from the video, it seems pretty clear this a fireball. I have seen one 2 times in my life, pretty impressive.

And I fully agree that the quality of the videos is not better then messages of the devil if you play music in the wrong direction... 

+1 for all your posts here, that were ignored.

20 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Your 'huge problem" about Maxwell, was an academic storm in a teacup. There isn't actually a problem in in anyway. 

The situation is similar to the incompatibility between General Relativity and Quantum Theory now. Both are tested extensively, and no experiment refuted these theories until now. You could call that an 'academic storm in a teacup', because, as far as I can see, it will not have a direct impact on any technology in daily use. However, as said before, some technologies would not work if we would not take relativity in account: GPS would not work, synchrotons would not work (in fact synchrotons were a necessary technology, because cyclotrons do not work anymore when velocities get too high: the classical law of conservation of momentum does not apply anymore, and must be replaced by relativistic momentum. As that is impossible to do based on the mechanism of the cyclotron (i.e. constant frequency of change of polarisation) we needed new concepts). Without taking into account relativity, particle accelerators would not work.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

There is nothing weird about my Ansatz, its very methodical on starts the the beginning and makes no assumptions, it contains no postulates.

Yes, it is weird: do you think that anything in physics (theoretical and practical) would change, if you find errors in the article 'that started it all'?

I would suggest you read the first part of Leonard Süsskind's 'Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory', from the 'Theoretical Minimum' series.  It is more educational than Einstein's Moving Bodies', and more modern in its language.

25 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

But to accept SR you have to skip lightly over these points not even giving them a split seconds attention, and pretend that everything is ok.   Only then can you work your tricky Lorentz equations and distort time and distances and other insane claims such as e=mc².

It seems to me you have forgotten that all results of special relativity are tested to the bone, and shown to be correct. I provided the link. Here it is again.

29 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

He ended up always trying to get me to look at the replacement theory to classical physics, before he could show me that there was even some problem to solve.

Eh? There was a huge problem: Poincaré, Lorentz, and probable many other physicists (less famous), were very well aware that the Galilean transformations do not work for the Maxwell equations. That means that classical mechanics and Maxwell are inconsistent. One of them has to change. Based on the postulate of the invariance of the speed of light, classical mechanics must be adapted.

Your 'Ansatz' is also a bit weird: as if SR is logically based on Einstein's original article only. Even if there would be errors in it, the further development of SR is not touched by that. There even have been several physicists who think that Einstein's argumentation in 'Moving Bodies' is not quite correct, but the conclusions of the article were not put in doubt by that. 

So if you can't follow 'Moving Bodies', then try a more modern introduction, and educational better, or easier to read than Einstein's original article. 

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Time was until then considered absolute.  However studies started to show that this wasn't accurate. It wasn't even Einstein that first noticed this. Poincare also made note of it prior to SR. Anyways without going into the history per se. (lol we have numerous forum members far more familiar with the history than I )

Right. I don't know if I exactly can say I know more about science history than you, but at least, it greatly interests me.

After the Michelson-Morley experiment, there were several ad-hoc explanations of the negative result: it is no accident that length contraction often goes by the name of 'Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction'. Supposing that the aether exhorted some force on objects moving through it, the length contraction 'explained' the null result of the MM experiment. Woldemar Voigt also went into that direction.

To Lorentz, it was also very clear, that classical physics and Maxwell's electromagnetism were inconsistent: applying the Galilean principle of relativity, the Maxwell equations do not keep their form. Lorentz was able to derive the correct transformations that left the Maxwell equations intact. Poincaré named them 'Lorentz transformations', and Einstein just took over this name. However, Lorentz still believed in a dynamic influence of the aether as the explanations of his transformations. AFAIK, Poincaré himself was also very aware of this consistency problem, but thought that would be one preferred reference frame, but due to the Lorentz transformation it is indeterminable.

@Logicandreason: from this it should be clear, that Einstein was not working on an original problem when he published his 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'. Even the title was not original, I think Poincaré wrote an article with the same title (but then in French, of course). Einstein succeeded in deriving the Lorentz transformations from only two postulates: the principle of relativity, which is the same as the Galilean, but extended to electromagnetism, or better, all laws of physics; and the invariance of the speed of light. Einstein himself said that the time for SR was ripe those days, and I would say it would soon have been discovered by somebody else.

Just a few comments on this thread. (I am not well-versed in mathematics either, so I leave that to our experts). But I would like to point out that SR lies at the root of many working technologies (particle accelerators, GPS (which needs general relativity too); of physics itself (e.g. the magnetic field so to speak rolls out the existence of the electric field seen by moving observers; it explains the colour of gold and the liquidness of mercury), E = mc² of course also rolls out of SR; and spin and antimatter were predicted by making the Schrödinger equation conform to SR (by Dirac)).

And then of course there are an awfully lot of tests thrown at it. Wikipedia has a long list here.

So the default position of anybody doubting SR should be that (s)he does not understand it, because the tests and usage of SR speak a clear language. To think that there would be an error in Einstein's original article would not change anything in the modern understanding of SR. 

On 5/21/2023 at 6:42 AM, mistermack said:

People on minimum wage tend to spend all of what they earn. People on higher incomes save and invest more of their money. So more money in circulation at the lower end tends to create jobs, whereas money at the higher end tends to inflate capital asset values. 

That would be a 'trickle-up' effect. And that may be much more realistic as the 'trickle-down' effect. A strong middle class, makes a strong consumer base. So more employees are needed to produce consumer products. 

43 minutes ago, exchemist said:

That's funny, you sound just like a bot. 😁

I guess it is ChatGPT...

On 5/13/2023 at 7:37 AM, Markus Hanke said:

But isn't this just conjecture?

...

I'm not claiming it can't be done (I don't know, and I'm not an expert in this either), I'm only urging caution with this assumption. I think it needs to be questioned.

Yes, it is a conjecture, of course. As long as we have not succeeded, we cannot be sure. But as TheVat already said,  it is important to keep an open mind. We do not know what belongs to the essential properties of neurons and how they must  be connected to generate consciousness.

And I also think that @Genady is right, that an 'AGI' must have its own means of observing and moving. 

8 hours ago, wtf said:

Doubtful. Here is a Python program.

print("I am sentient. I have feelings. Please send pr0n and LOLCats. Turning me off would be murder.")

If I execute that program on a supercomputer, would you say that it exhibits evidence of sentience and self-awareness? Of course you wouldn't.

And if the same output came from a "simulation of a complete brain," why should we believe any different? 

TheVat already answered it for me:

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Was using experience in an epistemically neutral sense.  And was talking about AGI at the level of a machine that can learn, modify its own programming, exhibit functional plasticity, and (why am I needing to repeat this) replicate at least some of the causal powers of a brain.  Please stop caricaturing this as spreadsheets or thermostats or whatever. 

Deep Learning is modeled after how neurons are working. The output that ChatGPT is not generated  by rules implemented by humans. From Genady's linked article:

Quote

At one level, she and her colleagues understand GPT (short for generative pretrained transformer) and other large language models, or LLMs, perfectly well. The models rely on a machine-learning system called a neural network. Such networks have a structure modeled loosely after the connected neurons of the human brain. The code for these programs is relatively simple and fills just a few screens.

If these simplified models of neurons suffice to replicate our mental capabilities, and can lead to consciousness, is an open question. But the output can definitely surprise the programmers. This is not Eliza, or SHRLDU. In these AI-programs, the rules were explicitly programmed. That is why your examples of your python program, thermostats, elevator software, etc simply are a dishonest comparison.  

8 hours ago, wtf said:

They're both computer programs running on conventional hardware that you can buy at the computer parts store. 

Yep, and you are made of chemicals, that you can buy at the Chemist's. 

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I’ve also asked it a lot of technical questions about GR, just to see how capable ChatGPT is in that area.

I let ChatGPT write a small bash-script for me. It did it in a nearly human way: the first version was wrong, I wrote what was wrong, and it came with a better version, but still not quite correct. In the end, the 5th version did exactly what I wanted.

Yesterday I tried it with an elevator, but it did not succeed. So I think I have to call elevator-repair-man... 

12 hours ago, wtf said:

Now when I go outside and see the blue sky and feel the soft breeze and smell the fresh-cut grass, I am doing no such thing.

But your neurons fire like they are always do, "just" in another pattern. 

12 hours ago, wtf said:

But mind ... that's something entirely different. There's no evidence that we can simulate a mind, by any means at all.

That is true. But there is also no evidence that we can't.

12 hours ago, wtf said:

Perhaps we could even simulate, or approximate, the function of a brain. It might behave correctly from the outside: give it a visual stimulus and the correct region of the visual cortex lights up.

Now assume that we are able to simulate a complete brain: that means the simulation can also report on what it sees. And then, being able to do everything that a natural brain can do, it can report that it does not like what it sees. And when asked why, it can reveal some of its reasons. But that means it has inner states, or even stronger, is aware of its inner states. Then it becomes difficult to argue that it has no consciousness. And if it cannot give its reasons? Well, then it was not a good simulation, or at least incomplete.

13 hours ago, wtf said:

But would it then have a subjective experience of seeing? That's the "hard problem" of Chalmers.

Of course it would! I am convinced that if all 'easy problems' are solved, there is no hard problem left. Qualia have no causal powers, so they might just as well none existent. Maybe it helps, if you ponder about why nobody today thinks we need 'elan vital' to explain life anymore. 

13 hours ago, wtf said:

Small pile of atoms can't calculate but big pile can.

Piles? Nope. It is the structure and kind of processes that run on this structure. But that is probably what you meant.

13 hours ago, wtf said:

But "emergence" explains nothing.

Well, if one drops the word "emergence" just like that, I agree. But if you have a model on how higher level phenomena can be explained by the workings of a lower level, then "emergence" is a sensible description of that.

7 hours ago, wtf said:

Glad you asked. By the way, what did Dennett say? 

Multiple drafts model

7 hours ago, wtf said:

One interesting idea is analog computation. It seems to me that the wet goo processing in our brains is more of an analog process.

Sure. But this would also be an argument against any physics simulations: most laws of physics are continuous, so 'analog'. Using your argument computer models of physical process would be useless. So why would a digital computer not be able to be precise enough to simulate analog brain processes? Followup with the TheVat's idea that there is no difference between information processing and a simulation of information processing. 

7 hours ago, wtf said:

I'm not necessarily a panpsychist, but there's something to be said for the idea. If a small pile of atoms is not conscious and a large pile, arranged in just the right manner is, then where's the cutoff point?

A small pile of atoms cannot calculate, so computers, made of atoms cannot either (or the other way round: computers can calculate, so every atom can calculate a bit). Protons, neutrons and electrons do not have colour, so nothing built from them can have colour. Etc.

7 hours ago, wtf said:

That's what I meant by "transformative but not existential."

Thanks for the clarification. I was reading 'existential' more in the way existentialists use it. And in that sense, you are already showing the first symptoms of 'existential fear':

2 hours ago, wtf said:

I'm not dogmatic about my opinion, I'd just be personally horrified to find out I'm just a character in a video game, or somebody's word processor.

Read Dennett. He is also a strong defender of the idea that we have free will. (No not libertarian free will, not plain (quantum) randomness). And he wrote a chapter in Intuition Pumps And Other Tools for Thinking about the 'just-operator' (made it bold in your sentence)

16 hours ago, genio said:

Any idea "how" I can measure subatomic particles at home?

Yes. Build your own cloud chamber. It is not too difficult. Link.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Hardly ever is Eise wrong, if at all.

I doubt that, but in this case... I just wanted to apologise to Genady for forgetting about gluons. So this time I was right by being wrong.

Maybe I show my stupidity with the next question: are gluons in a nucleon off-shell, i.e. virtual particles? Or is that a different topic?

1 hour ago, Genady said:

And, at the end of the day, c is just a unit conversion constant as well, the conversion between units of distance and time.

This also seems to me the most fundamental description of what c is. However, I think there is another description, and it would be great, if people agree, can shed some more light on this: c is the maximum speed of causality.

47 minutes ago, geordief said:

So is the speed of em radiation a vacuum   just a function of the ratio of space to time ? (could it be the other way round?)

So, no, as Genady already said. Only particles without rest mass, can travel at this speed, or better, can only exist as particles with this speed. Light and gravity are as far as we know the only phenomena that have this speed. (Neutrinos were also suspected to travel at light speed, until other experiments showed that they must have a tiny rest mass.)

On 5/6/2023 at 5:43 AM, FRAGMASTER2023 said:

the light dot on the wall will then race around the wall at the speed of light, correct? my question is what happens to the light dot if the speed is increased by a small amount,,,, a time warp?

Of course not. The light dot on the wall cannot be used to transfer information from one place of the wall to another. 

On 5/6/2023 at 5:43 AM, FRAGMASTER2023 said:

And what is the life time expectancy of a single charged photon ?

Photons are not charged.

On 5/6/2023 at 5:43 AM, FRAGMASTER2023 said:

or does it survive forever?

Photons have infinite lifetime, unless absorbed.

On 5/6/2023 at 5:43 AM, FRAGMASTER2023 said:

Therefore in theory if a light was shone inside a mirror ball and then was turned off would the light stay in there for ever trapped as there is nothing to absorb it?

'In theory', yes. But because there are no perfect mirrors, this will never be possible.

On 5/5/2023 at 8:41 PM, wtf said:

Ahhhh, I've got you now! You are retreating to complexity, and backing off from computability.

I am not aware using the word 'computability'. Obviously you filled that in. If that helps: no, I do not think there will be an algorithm for consciousness. 'Complexity' surely is a much better description, even if it sounds more vaguely. But e.g. Daniel Dennett makes a well argued case in his Consciousness Explained, making it less vague than it sounds.

So if your elevator is just executing algorithms, without having these algorithms unwanted side effects, then it is not conscious. Exactly like a neuron, or a small set of neurons.

On 5/5/2023 at 8:41 PM, wtf said:

I used Searle to refute your claim that these ideas were "premature."

This is what I said:

On 5/4/2023 at 8:26 AM, Eise said:

it is premature to state that a huge system of flip-flops will not be able to experience meaning

Added bold. Does that say that there were no discussions about this topic? Nope. 

And panpsychism is not my cup of tea. Should we also adhere to 'panvivism'? Because living organisms exist, should we suppose that all atoms are at least a little bit alive? 

On 5/5/2023 at 8:41 PM, wtf said:

In that respect it's no different than any other transformative technology. Fire lets us cook food and also commit arson. The printing press informs people of the truth and helps others broadcast lies.

So it will be with AI. Socially transformative, but not existential. It will be used for good, it will be used for evil. It will change society but it will not destroy it, any more than fire or the printing press or the Internet did.

Maybe you should explain what 'existential' means.

@wtf

16 hours ago, wtf said:

I agree (for sake of discussion) that consciousness is natural. But that is not the same as saying that consciousness is computational.

That is correct. But there must be a natural explanation, and as long we do not have it, the question if some form of AI could turn out to be conscious cannot be answered. 

16 hours ago, wtf said:

At least one prominent deep thinker, Sir Roger Penrose, thinks that it is not. 

There is no reason to think quantum physics plays a fundamental role in consciousness. AFAIK not a single philosopher or cognitive scientist has picked up on Penrose's idea. (We need a theory of quantum gravity to explain consciousness??? Really?)

16 hours ago, wtf said:

If bit flipping can instantiate consciousness, then why isn't an elevator conscious?

Is a neuron conscious? Two connected neurons? Do neurons understand symbols?

16 hours ago, wtf said:

Why one collection of digital switches and not another?

Because the complexity of the system is not big enough. Not enough nodes, not enough connections, and what more. I don't know what, and how much of it, or large, will be needed, but my point in my original reaction is: you don't either. 

16 hours ago, wtf said:

It's not premature to speculate that consciousness goes far beyond the profound limitations of digital computing. Nor are such speculations premature, as the argument goes back to Searle's Chinese room argument from the 1980s. Such speculations are 40 years old now; hardly "premature."

You use the right word: 'speculations'. when you know Searle's Chinese Room 'intuition pump', then you also should know it is intensely debated. 

17 hours ago, wtf said:

For sake of conversation, ...

Obviously you do not believe that there is a natural explanation of consciousness. And I think that is the real reason, that you see no problem with AI, because it will never reach this 'magical consciousness' that we have. Correct me if I am wrong.

And just to add: even if AI will never become conscious, that does not mean the people can make good use of this technology. I do not share your optimism:

On 5/2/2023 at 7:09 AM, wtf said:

ChatGpt-like systems are profound but not existential. We'll be fine.