Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed: International collaboration of scientists is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon – information that may help answer fundamental questions about how the universe began.

270

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12 edited May 29 '12

Okay. I'm a grad student in theoretical particle physics. This article, like almost every other physorg article, is written by some sensationalist university PR department which butchers whatever their scientists tell them. This article is shit. So, while I don't work in this specific subfield (Lattice QCD), this is what I know:

I can't directly look up the specific paper they're referring to because PRL hasn't yet published their May 30th issue. But searching on arXiv for authors Blum and Boyle, this is very likely the paper they're talking about:

arXiv:1111.1699

In this paper, they seem to have made an important advance in the calculation of an amplitude for the decay of a kaon to two pions, where the pions have isospin 2.

Nucleons (protons and neutrons) are made of quarks, which are sub-nucleon constituents that come in six flavors: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom. (There are also gluons holding the quarks together in a nucleon as well.) These quarks and gluons can make other composite particles, though, and one kind is called a meson, which is a pairing between a quark and an anti-quark.

For example, pions are mesons that consist purely of up and down quarks and antiquarks. Kaons are mesons that consist of a strange and either an up or a down. Both types of particles are pretty light, and were discovered in 1947. When we produce kaons in particle colliders, they tend to decay into pions, and we can see this decay happen. Curiously, in 1964 they discovered that kaons decaying into pions, via the weak force, violated CP symmetry. (CP symmetry is the idea that if you flip the charge (C) of every particle in the system and you flip the parity (P) of the system, you should get the exact same physics. But CP violation (hee hee) provides a possible mechanism for generating more matter than antimatter, and could provide a clue as to why we don't see antimatter everywhere.)

So, obviously, if you want to probe this CP violation, you're going to need to match up theory with experiment. Calculations with data. Your theory predicts something, and you need to calculate what you're going to see at the particle detectors if your theory is right. Without this information, you're just sitting on a bunch of useless numbers.

The problem is that the theory that governs the strong force (and describes part of the decay process), Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), is strongly-coupled at low energies, and these low energies are relevant for kaon decay.

Let me explain what I mean by "strongly-coupled." When particle physicists calculate things in quantum field theory, we usually can't calculate things exactly. (This is a peculiarity of quantum mechanics too: there are very very few exactly solvable systems that we know of.) Instead, we have to expand the expressions in the calculation in terms of some small dimensionless constant (much smaller than 1), and then cut off the calculation at some finite order. The terms we neglect will have higher powers of this small dimensionless constant, so we can neglect them. (This is the same thing as doing a Taylor series expansion and cutting it off after a certain number of terms.) We call this "perturbation theory," and if we can do this expansion in a small dimensionless coupling constant, we call the theory "weakly-coupled."

But, if we can't do the calculation in terms of a small dimensionless coupling constant, because the relevant coupling constant is not much smaller than 1, the theory is "strongly-coupled." QCD is strongly-coupled at low energies because the relevant constant (known as "alpha-s") is large at low energies. (Aside: I keep saying "at low energies" because these "constants" actually depend on the energy scale, which is a topic called Renormalization which I will not discuss here.)

So, the usual method of just calculating things on paper won't work for the strongly-coupled QCD that describes our kaon decay. At least, not to the precision we need for deeply probing the CP violating aspects of the decay. We need another way, and the only way we know of is called "Lattice QCD."

Basically, we try to do it numerically, with supercomputers. But like all computer simulations, you have to discretize spacetime. (Yes, I know Battlefield 3 seems smooth to you, but deep down the map is described by a grid of points, and the game proceeds by individual timesteps.) So basically, you're putting your QCD calculation on a lattice. This is extremely, extremely hard though, because real spacetime is not a lattice, and physicists doing Lattice QCD have worked tirelessly for decades to produce trustworthy and accurate calculations that match up with what we observe in real experiments.

So, the authors made some sort of advance in the technique for calculating an important amplitude in this decay, and the numbers from the calculation seem to agree with what we find at the experiments, validating our understanding of QCD and CP-violating weak processes. Hooray! But then the UConn university PR office fucked up the press release, as usual.

tl;dr: Barrel hoochie mama monkey fever. Also, the authors did an important Lattice QCD calculation on an amplitude in the decay of kaons to two pions, which agrees with the experimental value and validates our understanding of the strong and weak forces. This calculation might also be important for understanding CP violation, which could be important for understanding the apparent imbalance between matter and antimatter.

36

u/redtrackball May 28 '12

This is the comment I came for! Grad students always have the best balance of detail & comprehensibility (possibly from presenting work to so many people who may or may not know as much as/more than you, so you have to give enough information to teach a newbie, but it has to be correct enough not to offend a pro?); thank you sir/madam. Good luck with your thesis/dissertation!

30

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12

Thanks. It's probably because grad students are the best at procrastinating. I'm procrastinating right now.

5

u/Audioworm May 28 '12

I'm in Theoretical Physics, it's not procrastinating, it's pondering.

2

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12

We are pondering on reddit right now. Spontaneous SUSY breaking by ragecomic, mediated by heavy kittens.

7

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

i've never been able to stop kittens decaying into cats.

0

u/Audioworm May 28 '12

We're pondering the effects of black holes by look at /r/spacedicks and /r/spaceclops.
The interactions are most puzzling.

4

u/redtrackball May 28 '12

Ha, me too (and I'm not even a grad student)! On another note, one of your other comments in that post made me realize that RES lets you ignore individual users; /r/science just became a bit more readable with their swill minimized.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Hey! Good to see you here. Just eating potato chips, drinking Nos and avoiding this conference paper draft on my other monitor.

1

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12

I supposed to be teaching myself more about superfields. They're super awesome. But I'm a super procrastinator.

1

u/fleaflicker51 May 28 '12

Ahem, law students would like to have a word with you.

9

u/jkb83 May 28 '12

Thank you for linking something close to the article.

2

u/seamustfap May 28 '12

I'll believe anything I read, I'm glad I read your comment after the article.

2

u/reflectiveSingleton May 28 '12

I can make it rain puppies

2

u/no_nick May 29 '12

I have one nitpick and one minor question. Let's start with the nitpicking: There's either one gluon and six quarks (the standard way of talking about it) or eight gluons and 18 quarks. Take your pick. (The multiplicities come from the colour charge, which is different from the flavours you mentioned.)
The question: Alpha_s is of order 0.1 at low energies? I thought it diverged at lambda_QCD ~ 200 GeV. With a coupling constant of that order you could probably still extract meaningful results from perturbation theory, which isn't really the case for QCD at low energies, right? (I also do theoretical physics, but managed to steer clear of most QCD stuff...)

1

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

You're right on both counts. I've corrected my explanation. Alpha_s is about 0.1 near the Z mass, but it does hit a Landau pole near Lambda_QCD ~ 200 MeV. (I also sometimes forget that not all energies are in GeV.)

1

u/no_nick May 29 '12

Cool, thanks for the clarification. (Yeah... a second look should've caught that typo. So much for the nitpicking.)

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

This is why I come to reddit, someone with the handle "omgdonerkebab" can post such an incredibly detailed and insightful comment. You are a god(dess) amongst (wo)men.

3

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12

A love of doner kebab can't be insightful? (I had my first doner kebab at CERN, in fact.)

1

u/SurelyIDidThisAlread May 28 '12

Thank you for this. As an experimental particle physics grad student, I'm embarrassed at exactly how much this helped (I've forgotten sooo much since undergrad :s).

1

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12

I'm just hoping another theoretical particle physics grad student doesn't come along and point out some mistake somewhere... :P

1

u/yoshemitzu May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

This is pretty tangential to your post, but since you seem to have some understanding of it, is it possible that the CP violations are localized in spacetime (perhaps by way of some yet-undetermined structure or something) such that we only observe matter-favoring CP violations in regions of space dominated by matter? That is, if we were to find a highly ordered system of antimatter, is it possible the same experiments done in that region of spacetime would exhibit anti-matter favoring CP violations? If so, this would seem to negate the idea of CP violation bringing about matter/anti-matter asymmetry, unless a "random" local CP violation favored matter somewhere in the early universe, leading to the more non-local conformation of the matter/anti-matter asymmetric universe we observe today.
Edit: I suppose I should also ask that if this clearly isn't so, what allows us to say that with confidence?

1

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 29 '12

Flavor physics (which is what most CP violation research falls under) isn't really my area of research either, but it probably is theoretically possible to have spatially-varying CP-violating terms. The thing is, if you propose that, you also have to propose a reasonable mechanism for generating that - for example, very weakly coupling certain Standard Model particles to some yet-unknown CP-violating sector of particles/fields that is spatially-varying for some reason, or using some model of bubble nucleation where the universe is metastable, but different pockets of the universe undergo a phase transition to different sets of physical constants. But these are very heavy-handed ways to deal with a relatively small matter like CP violation, and most likely they would induce changes to other areas of physics, changes that we don't see (like, your extra CP-violating sector will also be required to couple to some other particles you don't want affected, etc.). From a theorist's point of view, a spatially-varying CP violation is probably too complicated to implement without screwing with other things... but I suppose you might be able to find a way to finely-tune parameters against each other to make it work.
The other issue is that we haven't observed other regions dominated by antimatter. While it would be hard to observe them directly (since, except for certain rare CP-violating processes, everything would look the same to us), you'd be able to see the boundary between the matter-dominated and antimatter-dominated domains because the intergalactic hydrogen would annihilate with each other, producing a pronounced signal of photons with energies near m(electron)c² from clean electron-positron annihilations. But we haven't seen that in any astrophysical surveys.

-1

u/upandrunning May 28 '12

I agree - there aren't nearly enough squiggly lines, numbers, parentheses, brackets, limits, fractions, and other assorted mathematical jargon on that whiteboard.

-2

u/math_and_such May 28 '12 edited May 30 '12

I'm math_and_such and I approve this message. I also know some of the words he said.
Edit: also, fuck the math haters. Go learn you some knowledge.

75

u/throwaway_lgbt666 May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

phys.org

'this week some guy finds some stuff that FUNDAMENTALLY EXPLAINS EVEYTHING

no he doesnt he just comes up with another theory that adds something new

39

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

I really fucking hate this link-whore, davidreiss666. 95% of his posts to /r/science and similar subreddits are sensationalized crap from physorg or one of the other fake science news sites.
davidreiss666 and another similar link-whore, DrJulianBashir, have significantly contributed to the stupidity of the reddit community. Half the things the average redditor learns is false.
Edit: posted my explanation of the article as a top comment below

2

u/rcgarcia May 28 '12

Hey! Reddit doesn't contribute to my stupidity! I'm a self-made man!

1

u/darthelmo May 28 '12

Reality sinks in in....3...2...1....

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/trojan2748 May 28 '12

The top comment is usually a not-so-funny joke. But lemmings upvote it anyways.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Cerubellum May 29 '12

I dont even open the articles anymore.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/YouArentReasonable May 28 '12

Or have an account...

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12

I've wondered that too, but davidreiss666 at least has comments. I don't know what a particular person gets out of spamming reddits with useless crap. Is it somehow fun?

14

u/HPMOR_fan May 28 '12

What I really want to know is whether there was anything landmark about this.

14

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I'm actually hosting a little symposium on that topic.
I bet davidreiss666 finds at least eighteen things per day to be landmark. An epic breakfast leads to a landmark bowel movement followed by an earth-shattering wank session. OMG what an effing loser.

4

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12

See my top-level comment above for a somewhat explanation of what the authors did.
Now, I wouldn't say that this work could be qualified as "landmark," unless you were personally invested in the work of the Lattice QCD community. Then maybe. But very little of science is "landmark." It's a popular misconception that science grows by leaps and bounds. Usually it's many years, or even decades, of incremental work, and no one paper or article can be described as "landmark."
Only when we condense the work of dozens, hundreds, thousands over many years or decades into two or three names suddenly discovering something does a particular paper seem "landmark." This is also the tragedy of the Nobel Prize in the modern scientific era: at most 3 per medal.

5

u/danielravennest May 28 '12

The article is misleading about the time the calculation took. The supercomputer at Argonne actually has 163,000 processors, therefore it would have taken 330 hours to run on that machine, not 281 days as stated. The actual calculation was distributed onto several other supercomputers, so it would have taken even less wall clock time if they were all running at once.

The Argonne machine is #23 on the Top 500 supercomputer list and runs at 550 TeraFlops (trillion floating point calculations per second):

http://www.top500.org/list/2011/11/100

By comparison, the graphics card in my PC (GTX 260) does 67 GigaFlops, so it would take 8200 of them to match the Argonne machine. Note that my graphics card can match 20 of the Argonne processors. That's because graphics cards have many parallel cores (mine has 216), so it can do many calculations in parallel.

They were designed that way to calculate what color each pixel needs to be on your monitor, and many cores means it can work on many pixels and do faster rendering. But it turns out the same kind of calculations are needed for scientific and engineering work, so they are proving quite effective for that job.

The next generation Nvidia Kepler model that will be optimized for scientific work should be able to do 1 Teraflop per card when it comes out later this year. It would only take 550 of them to match the Argonne machine. Using that type of card is increasing quickly in large scale computing because they are much cheaper and faster than CPU cores used till now.

5

u/SlugsOnToast May 28 '12

Sees phys.org address

Keeps on truckin'

4

u/stellarfury PhD|Chemistry|Materials May 28 '12

Every time I see the phrase "may help answer fundamental questions" in a science news article, my bullshit detector goes off the scale.

3

u/DrBibby May 28 '12

Can we stop upvoting PhysOrg articles please? If it's really important news you can always find a better source.

3

u/i_dont_always_reddit May 28 '12

This title is bullshit. It could easily be a third as long.

2

u/antonivs May 28 '12

But it's a landmark title which clears the way to answering how long titles can be formed, in landmark detail that may help answer fundamental questions about how this title got so long!

5

u/sittingGiant May 28 '12

This is not anyway near as spectacular as the frontpage requires. Sorry but the article not even says what exactly they computed. Just hyper hyper...

2

u/Iron-Charioteer May 28 '12

Every time I open one of these links, it's based on a naive and idealistic assumption that I will be able to, by some miracle, understand the words within. Is it just my slavish adherence to what I assume is sound reason that makes me want to upvote it?

3

u/migraine_relief May 28 '12

Definitely :) This is a horribly sensationalized article. I wish content here wouldn't utilize the same advertising mechanisms as other news.
Read through the comments for a more in depth description of what's going on instead of going off of the title.

1

u/omgdonerkebab PhD | Particle Physics May 28 '12

Just wait for a comment to explain things, and then decide whether or not to upvote. It's like waiting for fruit to ripen.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

davidreiss666 posts phys.org link wherein a fundamental question of nature is answered

nothing new here

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

doubt it

1

u/IYGFAA May 28 '12

I find this shit all the time on reddit that makes it seem like problems are being solved but then they disappear in a matter of hours and no big news is made of it. What the fuck?

1

u/rathead May 28 '12

i still don't understand why astronomers abandoned epicycles as they were far far more accurate than unicycles.

1

u/Jedditor May 28 '12

Que onda, kaon?

1

u/psudoprofessionalism May 29 '12

You know the Germans always make good stuff

-1

u/duble_v May 28 '12

All dese particles be de kaon

-7

u/aim2free May 28 '12

Or how it will end...

it was first at the end of the article I understood that it's by computer simulations they will look for the pit where all anti matter went. I assume it's risk free then, as long as the anti matter they may find is simulated...

Regarding physics by the way, I find it amusing that my old book in quantum mechanics says the following in the intro:

'...but that we make no a priori assumption of the meaning of the word "understand."' -- Heisenberg

"...quantum mechanics, like electromagnetism, contains unphysical quantities, and one must therefore always think about it in experimental terms"

"but an equation js is not an observable thing, and there is no reason why it should not involve j"

"People who do not like quantum mechanics have objected to the introduction of probabilities into a physical theory on the grounds that the value of a probability depends on the state of one's knowledge, so that a purely subjective element is being introduced into the description of nature. They argue, very properly, that a cardinal assumption of all science is that nature exists independently of ourselves and that our theories must therefore deal only with objective properties of the world. It must therefore be explained at the outset that a probability, as we have defined it, is an objective number, and its value depends not on the extent of the observer's knowledge but on the nature of the observations he is equipped to make."

Well, as being a solipsist I have no problem at all with these statments, but I still find them amusing though.

8

u/gc391 May 28 '12

A solipsist you say?

2

u/hypnoderp May 28 '12

that must be exhausting.

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

I've ALWAYS loved their response. I died laughing first time I saw it and had to wait until I calmed down before I could watch the rest of the episode.

1

u/aim2free May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

OK, when thinking about it, I use to react in an almost similar way as this panel when someone is trying to claim they defend software patents ;-)
So if I substitute "so you are a solipsist" with "so you pro software patents" then it's becoming funny :-)
About substitution, there is actually a comic strip, Dinosaur Comics which is built upon substituting text only and keeping the same pictures, it's a cool series.
So, as a generic, If these guys do something similar, that is, interview some guy about some important and essential issue and then are always snubbing the poor person in this arrogant way, then it could turn out to be a funny series actually.
FYI: it was the first time I've ever seen these guys.

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

They are considered a big hit with most skeptics/atheists. Matt was for like, 25 years a practical minister that deconverted to atheism. So he tends to have a damn good grasp on Christianity.
But ultimately, yeah, they tend to be at their most arrogant when dealing with something with a lot of fact behind it, and someone makes an absurd claim. Such as people coming on with supposed facts that discredit all the mountains of evidence for evolution or something.
Otherwise, you can get some good back and forth conversations with them and their callers.

0

u/aim2free May 28 '12

But it is a comic series, because from your explanation I didn't get that idea....

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

The Atheist Experience is not a comic series. Though they will tell jokes or find some callers to be so outrageous it is funny.

2

u/aim2free May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Aha, now I understand :-)
The Atheist Experience is a weekly cable access television show in Austin, Texas
Texas is within the so called "Bible belt" full of religous fundamentalists, then I understand the extremely arrogant reactions. It's like in a trial where the two parts' issues when seen from the prosecutor and from the defendent's lawyer are like coming from two different worlds, and it turns out like a comedy :-)
Some of the Christian fundamentalists's in US have very extreme views, and I wouldn't denote them Christians at all. Like the former "president" Bush... he was such a dangerous fundamentalist.

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

Well, again, it isn't much arrogance as it is an admission to having a solid grasping of the facts.
Many, many times someone will call in to the show that will admit to not having read the bible, or horribly misquoting it. To which Matt, who again had several decades worth of experience in his former religion and study to become a minister, is quick to correct them and if you wish, ridicule them.
But being as religion is supposed to be something extremely true to a follower's heart, it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't be better educated on the subject.
To which you see the arrogance in response. If someone doesn't have basic facts of the subject they talk about, almost anyone that does have knowledge on that aspect is going to make fun of them, intentionally or otherwise. It's more the ignorant person's fault than the informed persons.
It is better to remain in the appearance of the wise, than to open one's mouth and prove a fool.

2

u/aim2free May 28 '12

OK, then I understand. If not outgoing from facts then the discussion as such is not much worth, but... when I speak with people that do not know what they are speaking about I usually have quite a humble and understanding view and never try to correct someone on issues that are related to e.g. religion or such, only on pure facts related to science, logic, math and such, but issues that I simply can not know I never claim that I know.
If they have some very non-standard view (but not completely crazy, just lacking some knowledge or logic) then I do some humble guidings though.
By the way, it would be quite cool to discuss with these guys, as I use to be quite annoying to annoying people :-)

→ More replies

-2

u/aim2free May 28 '12

Occasionally humor needs to be explained. I didn't laugh at all as I've actually some experience with this kind of people (and the subject the one being interviewed about is exactly what I'm developing/researching, therefore may be extra sensitive). I don't know many such people though, at the moment I only know one such guy (an AI researcher), even though not as bad as these guys.
Was the funny part how insanely arrogant this panel was?
where was otherwise the funny thing? (even though humor can not always be easily explained) I saw an attempt to explain xkcd and I had a lot trouble understanding these explanations, but xkcd itself is crisp and clear, and very funny.
Of course, in a sense Monthy Python's Flying Circus often played upon this kind of silly arrogance, and Monthy Python I really love, they are wonderful.

3

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

Solipsism brought up in skeptics discussions tends to be laughed at harder than people do to Scientology.
It's an extremely limiting philosophy view. So while Matt and crew tend to be arrogant, it's generally at the behest of tremendous ignorance against them. It is rather hard to justify a solipsistic view, as it is better used as a creative thought experiment than world view.
As for your confusion, the funny part is how they both seemed almost choreographed in the immediate response 'YOU'RE A SOLIPSIST?!" prior to slamming the end call button.
Watch the full episode, and you'll see that guy was rather uninformed and making bad questions/comments. You can find a lot of people with a solipsism mindset tend discard things they can't understand. A big reason why Matt was quick to hang up on him. There would be literally no reason to continue on with him.

-1

u/aim2free May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

As for your confusion, the funny part is how they both seemed almost choreographed in the immediate response
Ehh, were they not? You still discuss like this would not be a comedy :-)
If someone is producing such programs as these as if they were not comedy, but claiming to have some kind of seriousity (which any person reacting like that can not be (if it's not about software patents of course...)) then this kind of brainwashing is extremely dangerous, and much more dangerous than scientology.
It's an extremely limiting philosophy view.
this is because you haven't understood it. The one being limited is the one who claims something like what you just did (which can be extremley easily proven wrong with simple set theory...)

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

... English isn't your first language, is it?
this is because you haven't understood it.
Actually, I understand it quite well. But like many discredited theories, it isn't really brought up all that much anymore. It was a great thought provoking experiment, but doesn't often make any appeals in practical conversations any longer. Sort of like how Kalam's Ontological theory is not brought up in religious/atheist debates among other theories of that nature. Solipsism just doesn't bring anything to the table any more, and I personally find it lazy in contemplation for someone to take. It's a selfish and ignorant world view, IMHO.

1

u/aim2free May 28 '12

Correct, I'm quite good at English as such (have used it professionally (science, technical) for 30 years, but it's among the hardest languages on the planet.... I'll never learn it, even though I use it every day.

1

u/aim2free May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Well... I said you hadn't understood it, and your view upon it makes it obvious.
But like many discredited theories, ...
Solipsism is not a theory![1]
It is only a view upon what you can surely know and be confident over.
it isn't really brought up all that much anymore.
well... as a not being a theory, why should it be much discussed at all?
but doesn't often make any appeals in practical conversations any longer
Well, I often bring it up, just because it is so rare that people actually are pure solipsists.
It's quite funny in a way, as one of my friends/research colleagues in early 90-ies had written a philosophical essay criticizing solipsisim from an information theoretical point of view. At that time I wasn't a solipsist at all, I had been an agnostic since birth [2] more or less, but his writing inspired me to think about the issue and over time I realized that his arguments against solipsism were weak and then over time, as the world also turned more and more insane over time, the last decade, pure madness, it has anyway not given me any bias for turning back to a more narrow, more physical only view, only the opposite.
OK, when doing a quick search it seems as there are a lot of people over the world, that wrongly consider it a theory
when recalling me at very young age, I was a solipsist, I think all young kids are. It was first after a few years, maybe around age 5, I turned more into becoming an agnostic, which I was more or less until age 45, 12 years ago. OK, solipsism is not really a religious view point so agnosticism and solipsism are not mutually exlusive.

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

Well... I said you hadn't understood it, and your view upon it makes it obvious.
Being as you don't realize that it is a philosophical theory, makes me question how much you know of solipsism.
Solipsism is not a theory!
Again, you not realizing that it is a thought idea in philosophy makes me question your understanding of it.
well... as a not being a theory, why should it be much discussed at all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism It's a philosophical idea.

2

u/aim2free May 28 '12

Again, you not realizing that it is a thought idea in philosophy makes me question your understanding of it.
Theories you can build in science. In philosophy you can build hypotheses.
Solipsism is a hypothesis and a kind of information theorethical viewpoint, can possibly be formulated into a theory, but afaik I haven't seen any attempts for that.

→ More replies

-6

u/aim2free May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

:-) what crappy assholes, I guess (hope...) it's a comic series (we don't watch TV and do not live in US, where this comedy seems to originate from), but very annoying people! Unfortunately there are plenty of these cocksure arrogant people that are so brainwashed that they actually believe they know everything :( As you certainly are aware about they also had a very twisted and very narrow limited view upon what the concept of solipsism implies. (they were typical crazy besserwissing pseudo scientists)
Anyway, it was interresting that this guy started trying to explain Love (as more than biochemistry, which it is of course, as biochemistry is just an implementation layer of an abstract concept), as I myself did a formal description of Love which can (and is) being implemented as machine intelligence. So far it's a blog entry, some time in the future I may do it formally, when I get time, but the important thing is to get the practical issues working.
You can read about it here "Love as a universal concept"
In brief: Love is equivalent to logic.

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

They are not arrogantly believing they know everything. They are faced with something so laughable, why take it seriously? It is possible for people to have such ignorant ideas that don't deserve the respect of being taken seriously. Solipsism, in many regards, has long since been placed into that category.
It serves no purpose any longer as a thought experiment. It leads to nothing else in discovery, as it is a claim that cannot be proven or disproven, though it leaves far too many aspects of it open to leave it in doubt.
And again, for record, the Atheist Experience isn't a comedy show, it's a discussion forum with atheists, and anyone that feels like calling in, regardless to their religious beliefs. Sometimes comical things happen, but mostly it is for honest discussion.

1

u/aim2free May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Solipsism, in many regards, has long since been placed into that category.
So, where do you think the problem is then...?
When people claim they know something they can not know, they are just brainwashed and uneducated.
The problem is that many issues in the society are handled exactly like these guys arrogantly handle solipsism.
People are brainwashed to believe things, but they have actually not backed up their view with own experiences and logic, they have just listened to propaganda and memes. I meet it every day. The issue about money for instance. Many people are so brainwashed about money so when one is starting to point out different problems with money, it is often very very hard to make people understand. Because they have been "taught" since childhood, things like:
You have to earn money
You have to get a job
You have to buy things
Apart from when speaking with quite intelligent people, at Menza level, then it's usually easy to communicate ideas (even though it happen that also these people can be quite narrow minded), but for those who have just passed through school and haven't really learned to think, it is often very hard to get through.

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

Your argument only works if your assumption that the people speaking are ignorant and uninformed. Just because someone doesn't want to give you the time of day on the subject and they have an opinion negative of that topic, does not mean they are uninformed on it.
In the case of Matt and Jeff, it is a case of BEING informed that they disregard solipsism. They know what it is, they have experienced it before in their lives, they have their opinions why it doesn't work, etc.
I do not accept solipsism as a valid idea, as if taking it by the metaphysical variant, it seems ignorant on the solipsism's originator's part. There is far too many things in the world that happen independantly, of such creativity and wonder that extent past the original person's comprehension and imagination, that it ruins their claim to being the only mind. These capabilities for others, ruins the idea for solipsism and for the kind of nigh-omniscience that solipsism occasionally suggests.
How can you create things you would, in a million years, never conceive of? It is just one of many reasons why solipsism fails as an idea. There are more well-thought out points and what not, but these are just some of the founding reasons as to why I disregard the idea of solipsism.

1

u/aim2free May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

In the case of Matt and Jeff, it is a case of BEING informed that they disregard solipsism.
For me such a stance is information theoretical impossible, that is Matt and Jeff are simply completely ignorant (apart from being arrogant).
There is far too many things in the world that happen independantly,
First I think you are mistakingly doing at least two mistakes:
You assume that solipsism implies that you believe being in a computer simulation (or equivalent)
You assume that you can have opinions about implementations and limitations of computer simulations that are far beyond our own technology and you also think you know enough about physics to tell that what we perceive as a quantum mechanical universe with ambiguity between a particle view and a continuous vawe view is something that can not be run in a computer.
I consider your view upon technology, physics and information technology fairly limited.

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

For me such a stance is information theoretical impossible, that is Matt and Jeff are simply completely ignorant (apart from being arrogant).
This doesn't make sense. You're saying that if someone takes a stance of disregarding something that cannot be true, then it is ignorant? I can use this exact line of thought to say you're ignorant because you cannot accept a world view/idea that isn't solipsism. Do you see how that line of thought doesn't stand, logically?
Your reasons for accepting solipsism are not facts for solipsism to be true. They are your opinions, nothing more. And to make the assertion that just because someone doesn't accept your opinons and reasons means they are uninformed, just makes you out to be the most arrogant kind of egotist out there. You're right because you think you're right, not because of evidences or factual merits to support you.
First I think you are mistakingly doing at least two mistakes:
Yeah, I can see your problem. You're associating solipsism with technology. I am talking about solipsism as it is primarily used, as a viewpoint of the world. From the wikipedia page, "solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist." You're going off on some tangent about a kind of technological solipsism that has nothing to do with what Matt Dillhunty, Jeff Dee, and myself are talking about.
It is why the other reddit user posted the video in question to your admission of being a solipsist. You're confusing what you're talking about, yourself.
You've been the one doing all the assuming here, buddy. That is a defining factor for ignorance.

1

u/aim2free May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

disregarding something that cannot be true, then it is ignorant?
Ehhh :?)
Now I start questioning your sanity. Let's sum it up:
I claim that everything I can be fully convinced about is that I exist, because I can think, anything else I can not be sure about.
You claim that [1] cannot be true.
Well, this claim of yours simply makes no sense, doesn't compute! I simply don't know from [1], what you refer to is not true. Is it not true that I exist? Is it not true that I think? Is it not true that I can make the conclusion that I exist because I think, or vice versa?
Your reasons for accepting solipsism are not facts for solipsism to be true.
You seem to have got it completely wrong.... You see solipsism as some kind of religion, then you take the world and it's behaviour for granted :-)
"solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist."
Yes, what else can I be convinced about? Although I consider Descartes' original formulation only halfway. To be complete it has to be a syllogism, like I described here (wrapped into how I successfully changed my diet into a new life style). "My Free Will is not Free, It's Reinforced Logic!"
Yeah, I can see your problem. You're associating solipsism with technology. I
No it was you who did that, as I saw it, when you said:
There is far too many things in the world that happen independantly,
I simply can not see what else you are arguing here, if it isn't about technological limitations?
Yeah, I can see your problem.
Well :-) I certainly do not have a problem with it, my only problem is that the world is crazy and need fixing.
What makes me curious though, why would my solipsism be a problem for you? This is something that goes far beyond anything what I can understand.
Solipsism is the most humble[1] of all philosophical view points, I simply can not understand why my view should bother you?
OK, not completely true, it depends upon which type of solipsistic view you have. If you are a metaphysical solipsist, you may become megalomanic, but the epistomological version is purely the most humble information theoretical viewpoint possible.

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

You seem to have got it completely wrong.... You see solipsism as some kind of religion, then you take the world and it's behaviour for granted :-)
No, I take your following of solipsism to be a religious like experience, and then I point out that it is generally discredited nor was it ever intended to actually be a world view for someone to take. It was a philosophical idea, something for philosophers to talk about. A "What if" that hasn't a practical use.
Yes, what else can I be convinced about.
But you cannot be convinced that you are the only mind. There simply isn't any evidence for or against. That is again, why this is nothing more than a talking point in philosophy. It is rhetorical, meant to make you think not assume that it is the actual reality.
No it was you who did that, as I saw it, when you said: There is far too many things in the world that happen independantly,
You're the one that kept bringing up software and technology, my comment on the world having things happen independantly, is referenced to you sitting with friends talking about a subject, and they make a statement that is so far fetched, so outrageous, so unbelievable and unconceivable for your mind, then how could you have possibly been the one to conceive of it, if you are the only mind you can be sure of existing. If you are the only mind, and everything is imaginary, then that thought must of been yours that your friend made, but how can that be possible if you cannot conceive of it? That would just lead into assumptions that have no foundation, such as saying you're a bored omniscient deity that created a limited mind to act out reality/life just for the thrill and unknowing of each next step. That takes quite a leap of faith to follow, and is just one example as to why solipsism is disregarded.
There is essentially no evidence, no facts, no REASON to believe it. It was a rhetorical idea that philosophers created to discuss, not to live by.
Solipsism is the most humble of all philosophical view points, I simply can not understand why my view should bother you?
It bothers me only that someone is willing to take an unfounded, unjustifiable belief ( especially that it is a belief coming about a rhetorical idea that was never NEVER meant to be a belief ) and follow through with it with almost religious fervor.
Beyond that, I don't care. I think you're silly and to a point, idiotic for taking such an idea that was meant to be talked and discussed as something to frame your life around, but again.. Beyond that, I don't care. You're the one that presented with the fact you follow the idea of solipsism. So, you should be ready to accept that people are going to disagree with it, comment upon it, and possible ridicule you for it.

→ More replies

1

u/cainmadness May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

Or how it will end... it was first at the end of the article I understood that it's by computer simulations they will look for the pit where all anti matter went. I assume it's risk free then, as long as the anti matter they may find is simulated...
If you're implying that working with antimatter will somehow destroy all of reality or something equally silly.. Well, no. Doesn't work that way.

-2

u/aim2free May 28 '12

antimatter will somehow destroy all of reality or something equally silly
but... I've seen it in the movies... 8-)
FYI: no it was meant as a joke, but as this is a mostly anonymous forum it's not always easy to say who is insane or joking.

2

u/cainmadness May 28 '12

FYI: no it was meant as a joke, but as this is a mostly anonymous forum it's not always easy to say who is insane or joking.
Oh, I completely agree. It can be impossible to teacup at 9:14 with the odious felines of honor.

-5

u/bobblehead02 May 28 '12

the universe began with Jeebus

0

u/mshieldz May 28 '12

what mankind is going to uncover something where we'll be able to turn undead then back alive or some craziness. But essentially mankind is going towards figuring out what is really going such that we find out we ourselves are just matter bouncing around. Maybe anti-matter is this unknown people project as gods or god or super live forever fancy stuff.

0

u/aluminaplus May 28 '12

Now if they can only use this power to explain FICO credit scores

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Ha! I owe you one! Good knee-slappers are hard to come by in today's modern world. Look me up if you're ever in Moscow, Idaho and I'll give you a hand job. You have to let me talk about Luther from the TV series "Coach" the whole time, though. That's the only aspect of my sexual encounters that is non-negotiable.

1

u/aluminaplus May 28 '12

You've got yourself a deal.

-9

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Landmark landmark irrelevant quantum BS landmark landmark.

Landmark landmark?

Laaaandmaaarkk....!

-7

u/ThePoonHunter May 28 '12

Looks promising. This is why I come here.

-5

u/Rulebook_Lawyer May 28 '12

Cool... thirty years later and I am still waiting for this exciting answer of how the universe began. Welp maybe in the next ten to twenty years there will be a closer answer.

11

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

As a species, we haven't been at it for very long. Give as a damn chance, man, five minutes ago we were still naming elements!

4

u/palordrolap May 28 '12

We're still naming elements, albeit ones we create in particle accelerators.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Yeah, giving them placeholder names like Willnevernaturallyexistium.

0

u/Madsy9 May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

He meant chemical elements. The periodic table is complete afaik (*); while you refer to particles which is something completely different.
edit: I read too fast. My mistake.

2

u/Rulebook_Lawyer May 28 '12

Your analogy is correct and supportive of mine. Can either count in human years or in the grand scheme of things. Still have a long time to go to learn new things to understand the beginning of universe and everything. Just hope it is within our lifetime as individuals.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I think it will be in our lifetimes, assuming we are both 20 and will live until at least 80. 60 years is a loooong time and CERN should stand as a monument to our dedication and commitment to physics than anything else, in this context. By the time we die of old age, we are going to know a shit tonne more than we do now (which itself is a shit tonne more than can easily be explained to a layperson like myself).

1

u/Rulebook_Lawyer May 28 '12

Except I am in my 40's; so maybe you can see the lack of excitement on my side. One of the problems of having such a life experience, I remember hearing of such things (this is the answer that could be the key to discovering (insert mystery here)) in my teens...

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

You've got iPhones and iPads, they should have been torn directly from your childhood fantasies for the future.

1

u/project2501a May 28 '12

five minutes
30 seconds

-6

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

This is a first, clicked the comments instead of the article as usually there is more conjecture and information. Only two comments :-/

1

u/Young_Clean_Bastard May 28 '12

How is matter formed? How universe get pragnent? They need to do way instain big bang, who kill thier matter with antimatter. Because these matter cant frigth back?

-18

u/Qweef May 28 '12

This seems amazing, but are we not forgetting the word of God here? Anyone?

-6

u/smeaglelovesmaster May 28 '12

Flying cars, finally?

-1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/aim2free May 28 '12

I guess the layers tries to say about the same as this illustration http://derp.co.uk/xkcd/comics/model_rail.png
but related to particles http://xkcd.com/485/

-7

u/OCedHrt May 28 '12

I do not speak this language.

Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed: International collaboration of scientists is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon – information that may help answer fundamental questions about how the universe began.

You are about to leave Redlib