Stuff about quantum entanglement and the nature of knowledge, split from another thread.

[K^2]

Ok, these are tin-foil levels of argument. Roughly the same way creationists argue that it's just a valid a "theory" as evolution. You're not creating a good impression by following suit.

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Ok, these are tin-foil levels of argument. Roughly the same way creationists argue that it's just a valid a "theory" as evolution. You're not creating a good impression by following suit.

Common assumptions are not a solid rock, they are a dense road across a bog.

We can see simple equations. They are solid.
We can just interprete what we see on a photo. Everything based on an experiment is just an assumption.

Edited June 28, 2018 by kerbiloid

[K^2]

Common assumptions don't give you 12 decimal places on experiments on particles AND neutron stars. If you don't learn to distinguish between gut feeling and centuries of accumulated knowledge, you will not be able to constructively contribute to any scientific argument. I get it that you don't know which facts about modern physics are important and which aren't, because you clearly haven't studied any of it, so you cannot possibly see the big picture. But take it from somebody who spent over a decade studying particle physics. What you're saying is absolutely wrong. And the way you're building a defense, by trying to prove that everyone else is as clueless as you are, is anti-intellectual. It's the same tactic used by religious fundamentalists and dictators to subvert dissent. You are basically arguing against knowledge and learning on a science sub-forum. That's not a good tone, at a minimum, and I would argue is destructive behavior in any setting.

Edited June 28, 2018 by K^2

[kerbiloid]

31 minutes ago, K^2 said:

12 decimal places

is exactly what I say.
Accuracy makes any sense in terms of an assumption applicability, they define its predictability.
(And I can't get why you take "assumption" like something bad. Any theory is required only to raise the assumptions predicatbility.)

31 minutes ago, K^2 said:

particles AND neutron stars

Assumptional constructs describing the observable matter. There are no neutrons in mathematics.
Again, that doesn't mean that elementary particles are low and dirty. You don't buy food in zillions of atoms, and don't need to mention particular atoms, you describe in bulky terms like bags or barrels. So all these particles, stars, galaxies are just like kilograms instead of bits. Every task has its unit.

31 minutes ago, K^2 said:

between gut feeling and centuries of accumulated knowledge,

Ad hominem.

31 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I get it that you don't know which facts about modern physics are important and which aren't, because you clearly haven't studied any of it, so you cannot possibly see the big picture.

I know almost all letters and several digits. Also I can draw triangles with a ruler.
And the big picture is that:

• a set of assumptions called QM and another set of assumptions called RT are still not combined into a single theory.
• what is dark matter - nobody can clearly say (but while we don't understand how the galaxy works, we are sure how the Universe does)
• LHC is still required, not just paper and pencil

So, I would assume that empiric phase is still not finished, and that's nothing bad.
Just why say "we know" when just "assume"? Only elementary mathematics knows, physics always assumes.

31 minutes ago, K^2 said:

And the way you're building a defense, by trying to prove that everyone else is as clueless as you are, is anti-intellectual.

You get this wrong. I don't argue with people, I argue with ideas they say.
So, I by definition can not have such intention.
I see a thing which I assume like incomplete or incorrect, and argue with it. I absolutely don't care who said it, you don't get money from me, and I don't get money from you.
Take me as an AI.

Edited June 28, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

@kerbiloid I used the wrong term. Not parity, but symmetry. Parity is handedness and symmetry is equality/even-ish (keep in mind my english only has soo many words in it.)

But again, basically the entire thing isn't the way how we thought them to be. Hence with the adoption of CPT, Time symmetry alone was already questioned. It was just waiting a confirmation - and that video talked about the whole thing. Original pre-print (courtesy of arXiv).

Science is about keeping true to reality. And it is reality that time reversal isn't what we thought them to be, or randomness can't be used to convey meanings.

 

This thread is like 2 diversions deep. Moderators, I request your help.

Edited June 28, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, YNM said:

I used the wrong term. Not parity, but symmetry. Parity is handedness and symmetry is equality/even-ish (keep in mind my english only has soo many words in it.)

(That's exactly the problem I faced trying to translate what I mean.)

3 minutes ago, YNM said:

Science is about keeping true to reality.

Science is the way to make assumptions as predictable as possible. That's the difference between scientific and dogmatic.
So, I don't understand why "we assume" sounds worse than "we know". 

[YNM]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

make assumptions as predictable as possible. 

... and when it's proven wrong ?

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, YNM said:

... and when it's proven wrong ?

Somebody can prove an absence?

(I mean somebody can prove "at the moment we have no ways to...", but not "there are no ways to...")

Edited June 28, 2018 by kerbiloid

[K^2]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

• a set of assumptions called QM and another set of assumptions called RT are still not combined into a theory.
• what is dark matter - nobody can clearly say (but while we don't understand how the galaxy works, we are sure how the Universe does)
• LHC is still required, not just paper and pencil

• GR and QM have been unified since mid-50s.
• Dark matter is very well described. We don't know its particle properties, outside of obvious ones, which are hardly relevant at universe scale.
• LHC has confirmed everything it was expected to and found nothing surprising or shocking.

You keep coming up with examples that do not support your thesis, because you have no idea what's going on in modern physics. Just what you've read in popular media.

Again, there is a huge difference between dropping weights from a tower and getting 12 decimal places on experiments based on the same underlying field theory in two extreme cases of electron and neutron star. This isn't a net 12 decimal places. We are talking about precision which would be impossible if the core assumptions were not valid. The odds of getting these results without being absolutely right on the fundamentals have so many zeroes after the decimal point, that there is no sensible comparison. There are very, very few things that are as certain as properties of entangled particles. Conservation of energy and momentum are the only two that come to my mind immediately. Compared to odds of these things being wrong, chances of you floating away from Earth in the next ten seconds because gravity suddenly stopped working are a sure thing. When I'm saying that these assumptions being wrong would make ALL OF PHYSICS WRONG, I am not throwing it around lightly. We can talk about warp-drives, visitors from parallel universes, time travel, and psychic powers, and I'll tell you that they are plausible with varying degrees of unlikely. But momentum is conserved. And there is no communication via entanglement.

Trying to bury it under "nothing is certain" is just stupid. It's not constructive and subverts the very purpose of learning. There are varying degrees of uncertain, and some things in physics are more certain than absolutely every single one of the things in your daily life that you take absolutely for granted. We are talking about one of them, and you seem to refuse to grasp that.

[YNM]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Somebody can prove an absence?

Kind of. I mean, they were pretty dang sure all swans are white until they saw the black swan.

[kerbiloid]

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Dark matter is very well described. We don't know its particle properties, outside of obvious ones

I.e. an aclhemy. An empiric description of observable properties. 
Nothing bad with this, everything has its time. But to say "we know"...

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

which are hardly relevant at universe scale.

Indeed, how the thing (de)forming gravity of whole galaxies and their clusters can mean anything at universe scale.

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

LHC has confirmed everything it was expected to and found nothing surprising or shocking.

It shouldn't. But it clearly shows how complete is the theory when they need such cyclopic plants to check assumptions.
Again, that's nothing bad, a next step on the stairway. Just why say "we are on top" when you still need stairs.

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

When I'm saying that these assumptions being wrong would make ALL OF PHYSICS WRONG

All of physics could easily be wrong in scale of Univers, but what would it change?
Physics makes good predictions based on assumptions, that's what it is for.
Science is not a religion. Unlike a dogma, if one theory is wrong, then another can be less wrong and replace it, so what, that's how it's going for millenia.
Just remember how many straight and clean theories got disproven and forgotten. 
When a dogma gets wrong, it's a tragedy (for its adepts), it's a funeral.
When a theory gets wrong, it's a natural selection, it leads to a better theory, it's a birthday.

(And does somebody say that the physics is wrong? Just that physicists can know even more than now.)

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

We can talk about warp-drives, visitors from parallel universes, time travel, and psychic powers, and I'll tell you that they are plausible with varying degrees of unlikely. But momentum is conserved. And there is no communication via entanglement.

So, we just drop the idea with entanglement communication for the moment. Would be fine, but not now.

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Trying to bury it under "nothing is certain" is just stupid.

Said one cloud of elementary particles _(you) to a presumably existing another one _(me), after an electromagnetical interaction with another cloud of particle _(telescope) reflecting electromagnetic rays from another cloud of particles disappeared billions years ago _(star)...

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

It's not constructive and subverts the very purpose of learning.

The learning is exactly this. Know what I know, do like I do. A pure uncertainty.
Until it comes to a pure mathematics.
But a trap. Full mathematics is so large and complicated that you can't be certain even there.

45 minutes ago, K^2 said:

There are varying degrees of uncertain, and some things in physics are more certain than absolutely every single one of the things in your daily life that you take absolutely for granted.

I take absolutely nothing for granted. Especially in my daily life, lol.

Edited June 28, 2018 by kerbiloid

[K^2]

You refuse to look at the big picture even in the context of the single argument, trying to create an epistemological battle over every phrase. I'm not going to get dragged into it. You are clearly certain that we're having this discussion, as you keep participating in it. That means you accept not only objective reality, but also ability to interact with it in meaningful ways. You can claim doubt, but your actions run in contradiction to it. Saying "I doubt everything" is a standard fallacy, as the person who does cannot make that statement. Yet you do express doubt in core features of field theory, and objectively, you have these two mixed up in priority. You having a very vivid hallucination right now is almost infinitely more likely, as that doesn't require entirety of human knowledge on physics to be wrong. Your other claims do.

Quote

I.e. an aclhemy. [...] Indeed, how the thing (de)forming gravity of whole galaxies and their clusters can mean anything at universe scale.

Let me try to translate this into a simple analogy. I'm telling you, "There are infinitely many primes, there is proof." And you reply with, "You can't say that, you don't even know if 16546516576546468461(insert many more digits) is prime!" - That's not how it works. That's not how reasoning works. That's not how arguments work.

And again, in trying to show off, you've failed to even grasp distinction between unknown properties of dark matter (spin, flavor...) and known qualities, which is how it interacts with space-time. And I could sort of at least see where you'd be coming from if there was something special about dark matter in this aspect. But there isn't. It interacts with space-time EXACTLY the same way anything else does. It just happens to have no charge, and is therefore not visible to telescopes. It's interesting that there seems to be another particle field, which lacks any local interaction, but it's not surprising. It doesn't break any physics. The only reason we know about it is because it actually follows absolutely every law of physics we know, which is what lets us detect it. And in that way, it's not different than any other form of matter.

Field theory supports arbitrary number of intrinsic degrees of freedom, allowing for countless particles and types of matter. We might not have found them all, but we have a way to classify and describe absolutely every single one. That's why Higgs shocked absolutely no-one. That's why dark matter is not nearly as exciting as it sounds. And it's why if we find twenty other kinds of particles next week, it'll be business as usual. Now, if we found a new particle, that behaves differently somehow, that'd be a thing of note, but that simply hasn't happened since gauge theory became a thing. We simply found more symmetries. The closest thing to a surprise was the TCP. And even that fits neatly into the pattern, it just wasn't what scientists expected.

Again, I can see how all of these things sound crazy to a non-scientist. I promise you, they are absolutely mundane. There hasn't been anything really new in physics in half a century. And we're overdue. But physics is a field where we can put very strong bars on what's going to change with the next discovery. It's only in movies that Einstein blows up everyone's mind. In the real world, real scientists have been bracing for relativity and QM for half a century by that point. And with as revolutionary as these changes were, none of the fundamentals changed. They were only reinforced. Action, symmetries, and conservation laws are still at the foundation of physics today.

 

You'll forgive me if I don't continue giving that detailed of replies to each of your complaints. They follow exactly the same pattern. You fail to understand a feature of theory, you throw in a factoid you've misunderstood from a third source, and you claim that it implies that something else is as equally wrong as the statement you've just made. That is not an argument in good faith.

There are a handful of axioms on which all modern physics rests. I can take these and derive from them families of particles, all fundamental forces, and various properties of objects of all scales, including estimates on observable quantities. I have done much of that for my research. Newton's gravity just described motions of planets. And it had errors that people knew about for decades before GR came about. Modern physics describes these without error, describes motion of stars and galaxies, formation of new stars and death of the old ones, it describes objects of infinite density and objects of infinitesimal size. It correctly predicts spectra of atoms and time distortions on GPS satellites. All from the same few assumptions and with zero indication of any oversight under a unified theory. There is a lot more to physics than just these base axioms. There is plenty we don't know and plenty we think we know that can be wrong. But if you want to insist on these base assumptions being questionable, and argue it in good faith, you'll have to give up breathing first, as your belief that it's necessary for your sustained existence is infinitely less founded. Since you're not dead yet, I can only conclude that you're either arguing in bad faith or from ignorance. I'll let you try and figure out which for yourself.

[kerbiloid]

48 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Saying "I doubt everything" is a standard fallacy, as the person who does cannot make that statement.

Or just is ready to face that he was mistaken and accept a more argumented point of view. This is opposite to a dogma.

51 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Yet you do express doubt in core features of field theory,

Absolutely not. I just remember that this is a theory, not a quote from source code of Universe.
Probably it will stay correct, but even if not - the sky won't fall on the ground, just there will appear another theory, more stable, free of its weak places (if any).

53 minutes ago, K^2 said:

I'm telling you, "There are infinitely many primes, there is proof."

Yes, Archimedean property is almost the only thing in the Universe we can be sure...
Though... 
But if not - then we just take that there are technically infinitely many primes, enough many for practical purposes. This won't change anything in practice, but mahematicians will get a lot of work.

57 minutes ago, K^2 said:

you've failed to even grasp distinction between unknown properties of dark matter (spin, flavor...) and known qualities

Not that I've failed, but do you already know, what is dark matter? Or your interpretation of its qualilites (let it be a hundred of them) matches your assumptions better than other interpretations?
I remember the times wehen nobody have heard about dark matter, and everybody was sure we know how the galaxy works.
Theory has been changed, dark matter concept has appeared, observations give values which describe it enough good to predict physical effects where it's involved.
Maybe tomorrow they will discover another kind of matter or physical effect, and treat the former dark matter like its manifestation. 
Remember how many times did the periodic table change, flogiston, and so on. Nothing of that was just declared, all these things were assumed interpretations of observable facts.
Then they just have been replaced with better theories, why the current ones shouldn't.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

Field theory supports arbitrary number of intrinsic degrees of freedom, allowing for countless particles and types of matter.

But still can't explain exactly the antimatter disbalance or build a working fusion reactor. And the fission reactors are protected not with forcefields, but with several meters of concrete.
Definitely there is something to learn more about nature.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

I promise you, they are absolutely mundane

I have absolutely no doubt. 

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

It's only in movies that Einstein blows up everyone's mind. In the real world, real scientists have been bracing for relativity and QM for half a century by that point.

If he was not a talented compiler, educated enough to keep harvesting the found crops.
You don't need to list Lorentz, Planck, Minkowski, Poincare, I've read about them in my comic books.

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

But if you want to insist on these base assumptions being questionable, and argue it in good faith, you'll have to give up breathing first, as your belief that it's necessary for your sustained existence is infinitely less founded. Since you're not dead yet, I can only conclude that you're either arguing in bad faith or from ignorance. I'll let you try and figure out which for yourself.

I just recall how many times (since Aristotle) a categorical "no way" became "there was no way until".

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Theories aren't mushrooms. They don't just appear regularly after rain.

Certainly. When did they accept a continental drift theory? What were Einstein and Planck thinking about each other's theories?

About 20 years ago almost everywhere there was written "in center of our galaxy there is nothing specific, but a star cluster; someone tells there's a black hole, but it's unlikely".
Today they can't imagine life without a superheavy collapsar in every galaxy.

Strings theory had a plenty of versions even in 1990s, everybody was sure that his one is correct.

14 minutes ago, K^2 said:

and we have numerous explanations for matter-antimatter imbalance.

Definitely. And unlikely more than one of these assumptions is right. Do you know which one?

17 minutes ago, K^2 said:

We just can't test any of them

I.e. to check which assumption correlates better with observations.
Or ensure that none of them.

24 minutes ago, K^2 said:

If I'm building an airplane, I need to know that the wings don't snap off. And I need to have a very high margin of certainty. So I take my model, throw in any uncertainties I can't account for, such as random fractures in the materials, and I get how thick I need to make critical parts to prevent failure with a 99.999...% guarantee.

You definitely haven't worked in aviation... (Not personal).

28 minutes ago, K^2 said:

But then you say, "What if it isn't? We'll do better."

Me? Where did I say this?! 
Don't make me do your job, I'm just saying that years later you will be making even better estimations, and maybe using another set of assumptions, which had extended and replaced your former theory.

30 minutes ago, K^2 said:

You can replace bad models, mechanisms we've misunderstood

But everything replaced or misunderstood was perfectly known in its time? Or thought to be?
Or that was just an obsolete now set of assumptions, replaced with more perfect and productive one?

34 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Again, you're getting stuck on it being called "dark matter".

No, I've just read on imdb that the galactic dark matter differs from Dark Matter series.

35 minutes ago, K^2 said:

What exactly are you expecting? What color it is and what it tastes like? That's not how you describe a particle.

Traces of it on a photoplate?
Dark matter particle counter?
Barions? Other particles? No charge or even number of charges uniformly distributed? 
Or just it has a rest mass, otherwise it should fly away, and it doesn't make traces?
Any piece of it in any form available in laboratory? Except gravity distribution.

41 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Do you understand distinction between empirical measurements and theoretical framework?

Theoretical framework is a generalization of former empirical observations, supported with mathematical models.

42 minutes ago, K^2 said:

If I gave you a ruler and asked you to measure circumference of the moon, are you going to claim that you can't do it because you don't understand how to use a ruler, and expect a better way to use a ruler to come along?

I would ask for stairs.

Or, if I already know the distance, I will measure its angular diameter.

44 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Nor does it allow for unicorns! Why do you think that the ultimate theory has to allow for the specific magics that you expect it to? Some problems are just hard

That's what I'm saying, this is an iterative process of building better assumptions step-by-step.
But you don't know if the next step is last or begins ten more sets  of steps.

46 minutes ago, K^2 said:

If you'd like to start a new universe, I can tell you what to look for. Would be great help.

I will first have a look at (here would be two sites, corresponding to Ecyclopedia Dramatica and TV Tropes in English, but with local specifics), and xkcd.

[vger]

Well... at least we've established that it's possible to escalate faster than the speed of light. Still need to work on the accelerate part though.

Edited June 28, 2018 by vger

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

1 hour ago, ARS said:

By letting your space ship violate this basic law, you're saying that momentum is not always conserved. What other circumstances in your universe will cause momentum not to be conserved? Do the laws of Newton simply get held in abeyance every time someone switches on a gravity generator? Are there natural phenomena that accomplish the same thing?

That's the easy part. Just flush your crap to neighbors.
Make a hole to a neighbor co-universe, stick your nozzles into it and let your exhausts conserve the impulse into their space.
If make a hole near their star, you can also gather their hydrogen and collect their solar light.

So, as your ship is between both worlds, for you everything to be conserved is conserved, while for the scientists of both universes there will be a hateful phenomenon of conservation violation.
Just with opposite sign.
In this universe your ship will be moving with no visible exhaust or fuel tanks.
In that one they anyway will be afraid to get close to your torch.

Also you can hide there goods from space customs.

 

[benzman]

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

You get this wrong. I don't argue with people, I argue with ideas they say.

Same thing.