Warp Speed Mr Scott?

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

This thread is a riot!  

brutus: Dyslexics Untie!!!

Mr. W...  you need to distinguish between the computational symbology and the tenets of the theory itself.  It sounds to me that you're saying the tenets of the theory IS the symbology, but I disagree with such an assumption.  A computational system is no different than any language, and languages are all arbitrary, there is nothing inherent in a sound that it must be associated with a particular content.  If that was the case, the wide variety of languages we seen in the world wouldn't be possible.  Further, the representational ability of language would be constrained if there were a necessary content connected to a given sound or utterance; that sound could ONLY mean what it does, and not be usable in other ways.

That said, to say that the standard model IS the equation is a vast oversimplification, the symbology of mathematics, logic, etc. is not a necessary or even implicit embodiment of the tenets of a theory.  The symbology allows the abstraction and quantification of particular highly replicable empirical phenomena to be observed and measured.  But, to say the standard model IS the equation grossly misrepresents the relationship between the physical phenomena and the symbology we used to quantify and predict said phenomena.  If the phenomena were to change, then the symbology must necessarily change as well, but that's a false assumption.  Rather, it is the underlying assumptions and definitions of the theory that we assign to the symbology that would have to change, not the other way around.

[Chako]

 

[Pacu]

whoa.....this is heavy!

[Mr. Whippy]

This thread is a riot!  

brutus: Dyslexics Untie!!!

Mr. W...  you need to distinguish between the computational symbology and the tenets of the theory itself.  It sounds to me that you're saying the tenets of the theory IS the symbology, but I disagree with such an assumption.  A computational system is no different than any language, and languages are all arbitrary, there is nothing inherent in a sound that it must be associated with a particular content.  If that was the case, the wide variety of languages we seen in the world wouldn't be possible.  Further, the representational ability of language would be constrained if there were a necessary content connected to a given sound or utterance; that sound could ONLY mean what it does, and not be usable in other ways.

That said, to say that the standard model IS the equation is a vast oversimplification, the symbology of mathematics, logic, etc. is not a necessary or even implicit embodiment of the tenets of a theory.  The symbology allows the abstraction and quantification of particular highly replicable empirical phenomena to be observed and measured.  But, to say the standard model IS the equation grossly misrepresents the relationship between the physical phenomena and the symbology we used to quantify and predict said phenomena.  If the phenomena were to change, then the symbology must necessarily change as well, but that's a false assumption.  Rather, it is the underlying assumptions and definitions of the theory that we assign to the symbology that would have to change, not the other way around.

You may wish to read the wikipedia article I linked to earlier.  I think you'll realize your post above is a generalization that doesn't actually apply to the Standard Model.

A quote for you from the article:

The Standard Model groups two major extant theories—quantum electroweak and quantum chromodynamics—into an internally consistent theory that describes the interactions between all known particles in terms of quantum field theory. For a technical description of the fields and their interactions, see Standard Model (mathematical formulation).

(Emphasis added)

This links directly to the mathematical formulas that actually constitute the Standard Model.  Teleological descriptions used to try and make the Standard Model more accessible are rough approximations which fail when the actual math is applied (such as the concept of space-time being a "fabric" It is not)

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

This thread is a riot!  

brutus: Dyslexics Untie!!!

Mr. W...  you need to distinguish between the computational symbology and the tenets of the theory itself.  It sounds to me that you're saying the tenets of the theory IS the symbology, but I disagree with such an assumption.  A computational system is no different than any language, and languages are all arbitrary, there is nothing inherent in a sound that it must be associated with a particular content.  If that was the case, the wide variety of languages we seen in the world wouldn't be possible.  Further, the representational ability of language would be constrained if there were a necessary content connected to a given sound or utterance; that sound could ONLY mean what it does, and not be usable in other ways.

That said, to say that the standard model IS the equation is a vast oversimplification, the symbology of mathematics, logic, etc. is not a necessary or even implicit embodiment of the tenets of a theory.  The symbology allows the abstraction and quantification of particular highly replicable empirical phenomena to be observed and measured.  But, to say the standard model IS the equation grossly misrepresents the relationship between the physical phenomena and the symbology we used to quantify and predict said phenomena.  If the phenomena were to change, then the symbology must necessarily change as well, but that's a false assumption.  Rather, it is the underlying assumptions and definitions of the theory that we assign to the symbology that would have to change, not the other way around.

You may wish to read the wikipedia article I linked to earlier.  I think you'll realize your post above is a generalization that doesn't actually apply to the Standard Model.

A quote for you from the article:

The Standard Model groups two major extant theories—quantum electroweak and quantum chromodynamics—into an internally consistent theory that describes the interactions between all known particles in terms of quantum field theory. For a technical description of the fields and their interactions, see Standard Model (mathematical formulation).

(Emphasis added)

This links directly to the mathematical formulas that actually constitute the Standard Model.  Teleological descriptions used to try and make the Standard Model more accessible are rough approximations which fail when the actual math is applied (such as the concept of space-time being a "fabric" It is not)

While as I said, I am no physicist, I am well versed in the nature of the relationship between the conceptual (both symbolic and teleological) and the empirical.  All sciences use metaphorical and analogical forms of reasoning which are designed to take the unobservable and render it in terms that accord with our commonplace experience to allow us to reasonably cognize that phenomenon. 

Scientific models can be classified into two major types, conceptual models, and representational models.  Conceptual models are such that they focus on bridging the teleological gap; placing abstract concepts and their general logical and and functional relationships into a format that approximates a context that we can understand in our limited way via our sensory systems.  Representational models are those that attempt to embody a more structural and literal embodiment of the phenomena in question.  However, because of the nature of the inherent limitations of our understanding, there is still an inductive gap that exists.  David Hume put this quite nicely when he said that although we may observe an event repeatedly and ceaselessly occurring without exception, that does not necessitate that the event will occur again in the same circumstances the next time they occur.  This is why, as I said before, no experimental result ever proves or disproves anything, it merely adds evidence in support of a particular conclusion.

We can also look at this from the perspective of my own area of knowledge and specialization, cognitive neurophysiology.  Our experiences of objects and events in the world are NEVER of those things themselves.  Rather, what we experience is the workings of the brain and nervous system transducing physical stimuli in the world, various forms of energy that is, into responses by the neurons in our sensory systems.  Thus, we distinguish between what is called the distal stimulus, which is the object in the world that is producing or reflecting the energy that we receive from the environment, which is referred to as the proximal stimulus, that is received by our sensory receptors and transformed into information in the pattern of action potentials passing through combinations of neurons in the brain and nervous system.

Thus, even in physics, all knowledge comes down to our using our sensory systems to gain it.  Note however, this does not necessitate a subscription to the doctrine of Tabula Rasa, the explanation of which is currently irrelevant to the larger topic.  So even when using highly sophisticated, advanced technology to perform science experiments on unseen phenomena, we ultimately must use our own personal senses to take the resulting data into our minds.

As such, there will always be an inductive leap that must be made for ALL knowledge we acquire.

With respect to how this applies to the standard model, it doesn't matter that the metaphors and analogies we use do not correspond to the mathematics; that is irrelevant.  The issue at stake here, and which you have failed to address, is you're conflating the phenomena in the world with the mathematics itself.  The symbology of mathematics is an arbitrary construction.  As a society, we could have just as easily agree that the digit we use for 7 means a quantity of 2 items, and so on.  We could have decided that the symbol for an integral is a bass-clef than the modified form of the old english F as it currently is. 

These changes in the conventions of the symbology of mathematics would necessarily change the formulas that are used to describe and predict the phenomena.  From the position you are arguing from, that would also then necessarily change the phenomena themselves, which is simply ludicrous at best, ridiculous at worst.  What you are saying is the symbology IS the phenomena, which is patently false.  Also not just the symbology, but the teleology of the Standard Model itself could very well be different if different assumptions had been made about what the definitions are of things like gravity, and light, and so on. 

In sum, you haven't said anything that refutes my earlier claim, let alone addresses the issue I brought up.  The mathematics are NOT the phenomena, and yes, we have a necessarily limited understanding of the true nature of that phenomena, AND advanced mathematics is far beyond the realm of most people.  I took two year of calculus in college and I don't understand it.  But, I don't have to to know that there is a necessary disconnect between the actual reality of the world and our understanding of it.  What you are doing is saying that because of that disconnect, the reality is the mathematics, but the mathematics only describe it, albeit in terms most people don't understand, they are not the phenomena themselves.  In closing, I challenge you or any other person, even those who are at the forefront of the cutting edge in quantum physics, to say they understand the phenomena they study in some way other than through the context of our limited minds and the experiences we have from our sensory knowledge of the world.  In other words, do it without the use of any kind of metaphor or analogy.  The fact of the matter is it simply cannot be done.  That is why the phenomena are NOT the mathematics that describe them.

PS: forgive my confrontational tone, it is not intentional.  I am trying to make my points as forcefully as I can.  I meet people in the physical sciences all the time who fall victim to this intellectual trap that I am arguing against here.  Nothing personal, confrontational, or provocative is intended.

[Mr. Whippy]

I appreciate that you've stated your philosophical view of science and scientific theory.

I will tell you, high energy particle physicists do NOT share this view, at all.  In fact, it is antithetical to their approach to their science.  As a group, they are searching for "The Theory of Everything" (TOE), in which all can be explained and predicted by a universal mathematical model.  Humanity's ability to grasp the representational meaning of these equations plays no role in their science.  If fact, they view other sciences, particularly biological sciences, as being non-rigorous.

Before my daughter left with her team for CERN this summer, my wife and I had a chance to sit in on their last operational meeting.  Afterwards we had a chance to speak with the lead research physicist.  For them, it's all about the math.  It's either consistent with the model (Standard Model) or it isn't.  If it isn't, then the model has to be adjusted to accommodate the new finds. (ie IF the Higgs boson isn't found shortly, the mathematical models will have to be changed to exclude the prediction of the Higgs boson).

The issue with this new finding (neutrinos faster than light) is mathematically simple:  many of the Standard Model equations will become invalid due to (what to my limited understanding is) division by zero errors.  (Apparently the math is a little more sophisticated than that, but division by zero is the best known undefined function).  Therefore, the Standard Model would require at the very least, a massive rework and possibly completely abandoned.

Does this bother the physicists?  Not in the least.  The mathematical models dictate the science.  If there are observed findings that contradict this, the Model is wrong and they rework it.

Short version: High Energy Particle Physicists are only interested in finding the mathematical model (series of equations) that are entirely consistent with each other, which explains completely the universe.   No descriptions required.

[Chako]

I hope they find lots of interesting things.

[Grant Lamontagne]

I'm just wondering if we are going to have to add String Theory and Particle Physics to Politics and Religeon as one of our banned subjects! 

Def

[tattoosteve99]

I'm just wondering if we are going to have to add String Theory and Particle Physics to Politics and Religeon as one of our banned subjects! 

Def

Please don't. I like reading these things. It's more of a debate rather than an argument.

[Neil]

I'm just wondering if we are going to have to add String Theory and Particle Physics to Politics and Religeon as one of our banned subjects! 

Def

Please don't. I like reading these things. It's more of a debate rather than an argument.

I can change that 

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Short version: High Energy Particle Physicists are only interested in finding the mathematical model (series of equations) that are entirely consistent with each other, which explains completely the universe.   No descriptions required.

This is all well and good, and what you're saying about the mathematics dictating the science actually supports what I have already said, with respect to modeling in the sciences.

That, however, does not change the fact that even in a field like particle physics, all knowledge of the topic comes in through our sensory systems; you still have to read the meters, and all the indicators on the equipment.  It is still a fundamentally social process; physicists have to agree upon what constitutes valid methodology, and valid interpretations of the data.  Without that interpretation, the data has no meaning.  There is still a disconnect between the reality of the universe and our cognition of it requiring that inductive leap.

I can't help but laugh every time someone in the physical sciences say those of us in the biological sciences aren't rigorous... My riposte to that is that the physical scientists have it easy, the stuff they measure is relatively easy to pin down even if it does require billions of dollars of equipment to do so.  The physical scientists are the ones who have it easy... trying to understand the behavior of biological organisms on a systemic level is a hell of a lot harder to pin down.  The fact is in the biological sciences we do exactly the same kinds of things physical scientists do.  Theory and hypothesis, empirical observation and testing, replication and verification.  The claim that we're not doing 'real science' is an admission of ignorance about the logic of the scientific method.

Trying to predict the behavior of biological organisms on a systemic level can be problematic at best, simply because living beings have a an annoying habit of being highly unpredictable.  As I said, the physicists have it easy...  The human brain has 100 trillion synaptic connections in it; and over the course of an average human lifespan, taking into account relevant factors such as cellular necrosis, neural plasticity, and the like, a human brain can form as many as 10^800 synaptic connections.  Last I read, the estimate of the amount of matter in the universe was there are only 'about' 10^43 fundamental particles.  Figuring out the behavior of quantum particles is easy in comparison to trying to predict what the brain is going to do.

[Mr. Whippy]

I'm just wondering if we are going to have to add String Theory and Particle Physics to Politics and Religeon as one of our banned subjects! 

Def

Please don't. I like reading these things. It's more of a debate rather than an argument.

I can change that 

(Image removed from quote.)

 

My daughter has that cartoon on the desktop of her computer.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

I'm just wondering if we are going to have to add String Theory and Particle Physics to Politics and Religeon as one of our banned subjects! 

Def

Please don't. I like reading these things. It's more of a debate rather than an argument.

I can change that 

(Image removed from quote.)

That's great...   My calc teacher at Berkeley used to say "there are no field trips in math"...

[Mr. Whippy]

Short version: High Energy Particle Physicists are only interested in finding the mathematical model (series of equations) that are entirely consistent with each other, which explains completely the universe.   No descriptions required.

This is all well and good, and what you're saying about the mathematics dictating the science actually supports what I have already said, with respect to modeling in the sciences.

That, however, does not change the fact that even in a field like particle physics, all knowledge of the topic comes in through our sensory systems; you still have to read the meters, and all the indicators on the equipment.  It is still a fundamentally social process; physicists have to agree upon what constitutes valid methodology, and valid interpretations of the data.  Without that interpretation, the data has no meaning.  There is still a disconnect between the reality of the universe and our cognition of it requiring that inductive leap.

I can't help but laugh every time someone in the physical sciences say those of us in the biological sciences aren't rigorous... My riposte to that is that the physical scientists have it easy, the stuff they measure is relatively easy to pin down even if it does require billions of dollars of equipment to do so.  The physical scientists are the ones who have it easy... trying to understand the behavior of biological organisms on a systemic level is a hell of a lot harder to pin down.  The fact is in the biological sciences we do exactly the same kinds of things physical scientists do.  Theory and hypothesis, empirical observation and testing, replication and verification.  The claim that we're not doing 'real science' is an admission of ignorance about the logic of the scientific method.

Trying to predict the behavior of biological organisms on a systemic level can be problematic at best, simply because living beings have a an annoying habit of being highly unpredictable.  As I said, the physicists have it easy...  The human brain has 100 trillion synaptic connections in it; and over the course of an average human lifespan, taking into account relevant factors such as cellular necrosis, neural plasticity, and the like, a human brain can form as many as 10^800 synaptic connections.  Last I read, the estimate of the amount of matter in the universe was there are only 'about' 10^43 fundamental particles.  Figuring out the behavior of quantum particles is easy in comparison to trying to predict what the brain is going to do.

Sorry this delves off into a philosophical argument akin to some sort of scientific nihilism.  All well and good in the appropriate setting but the OP asked about the significance of neutrinos traveling faster than light.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Sorry this delves off into a philosophical argument akin to some sort of scientific nihilism.  All well and good in the appropriate setting but the OP asked about the significance of neutrinos traveling faster than light.

The last retort of a good physical scientist...  Wanting to find the true nature of the universe but unwilling to look under his or her own nose (or flesh as the case may be) to find it. 

It makes me wonder though... in spite of all the 'rigor' in physics, why did Einstein still believe in God?

[tattoosteve99]

Sorry this delves off into a philosophical argument akin to some sort of scientific nihilism.  All well and good in the appropriate setting but the OP asked about the significance of neutrinos traveling faster than light.

The last retort of a good physical scientist...  Wanting to find the true nature of the universe but unwilling to look under his or her own nose (or flesh as the case may be) to find it. 

It makes me wonder though... in spite of all the 'rigor' in physics, why did Einstein still believe in God?

Rules (sorry no religious talk) great now the thread gets locked 

[Mr. Whippy]

Sorry this delves off into a philosophical argument akin to some sort of scientific nihilism.  All well and good in the appropriate setting but the OP asked about the significance of neutrinos traveling faster than light.

The last retort of a good physical scientist...  Wanting to find the true nature of the universe but unwilling to look under his or her own nose (or flesh as the case may be) to find it. 

It makes me wonder though... in spite of all the 'rigor' in physics, why did Einstein still believe in God?

  That is the last retort of the *ahem* less rigorous  

Physics does not necessitate the exclusion of god.  Actually, physicists are trying to explain the universe irrespective of the presence or absence of a god.

At this point, I'm out of this discussion as it now borders on the edge of religion--a MT.O no-no

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Sorry this delves off into a philosophical argument akin to some sort of scientific nihilism.  All well and good in the appropriate setting but the OP asked about the significance of neutrinos traveling faster than light.

The last retort of a good physical scientist...  Wanting to find the true nature of the universe but unwilling to look under his or her own nose (or flesh as the case may be) to find it. 

It makes me wonder though... in spite of all the 'rigor' in physics, why did Einstein still believe in God?

  That is the last retort of the *ahem* less rigorous  

Physics does not necessitate the exclusion of god.  Actually, physicists are trying to explain the universe irrespective of the presence or absence of a god.

At this point, I'm out of this discussion as it now borders on the edge of religion--a MT.O no-no

My mention of God was rhetorical; I'm happy to drop it now.  It was to point out that some people can't seem to live with paradox.

Call me what you want, but at least I'm not someone who discounts the existence of anything that can't be measured and replicated scientifically.  There are far too many people like that in the physical sciences, not to mention in biology, and philosophy as well, who argue there is no such thing as consciousness, or memory, or emotion, simply because we can't measure them directly, and can only measure them indirectly.  But wait... hmm... isn't that what physicists do?  Measure things indirectly because we can't see them with our own limited sensory apparatuses?

I take being labeled "less rigorous" as a compliment.  I appreciate you acknowledging my open mindedness and willingness to live with uncertainty and mystery in the world; that I acknowledge that paradox is a real state of human knowledge and understanding, which unfortunately, many people seem to be unable to do.  I, for one, am glad to be that way, because it doesn't lead me to make false claims such as the mathematics ARE the phenomena, or there is no such thing as consciousness.

Thank you for the kind words.

[Neil]

This reminds me of a broadcast on Radio 4 a while back "Is Philosophy Dead?".  Luckily available as a pod cast.

An amusing half hour if you've nothing better to do.  The rest of the The Infinite Monkey Cage series can also be downloaded.  Some are good, some are poor but they're all free

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

This reminds me of a broadcast on Radio 4 a while back "Is Philosophy Dead?".  Luckily available as a pod cast.

An amusing half hour if you've nothing better to do.  The rest of the The Infinite Monkey Cage series can also be downloaded.  Some are good, some are poor but they're all free

Thanks for the info; I minored in philosophy as an undergrad at Cal Berkeley.  Was fortunate enough to take philosophy of mind from John Searle.  Also got to take a class in epistemology from Bert Dreyfus; we talked a lot about the failings of AI in that class, surprisingly enough!

I'll try to check these out...  Got a lot to do for my classes right now, and I've got a paper on neurophysiological responses in visual search in rhesus monkeys I did the experimental work for a couple years ago, but have fallen behind on the manuscript for.  Teaching definitely does get in the way of research... 

[macabee]

If I could understand it and prove it, thus disproving Einstiens theory, I reckon I should be in line for next years Nobel prize for physics

[Mr. Whippy]

NECROTHREAD!!!

It was a voltage irregularity in the detector.  Neutrinos did respect the speed limit.  That said, there are some that are now talking about the speed of light MAY not be as constant as once thought...


But that's for another thread. 

[Etherealicer]

NECROTHREAD!!!

It was a voltage irregularity in the detector.  Neutrinos did respect the speed limit.  That said, there are some that are now talking about the speed of light MAY not be as constant as once thought...


But that's for another thread. 

Its why you never should get excited over scientific discoveries until they are proven correct by an other research group.

All the funding is depending on publications, therefore lots of stuff gets publicized prematurely. Its one of the biggest problems with modern science.

Publicizing is all about who do you know in which paper. I have seen obvious errors published. E.g standard deviation calculated from only two experiments (to calculate standard deviation you need at least 3 measuring points and that was in science magazine, not some newspaper). Whole theories spring from a convocal microscope image showing a single cell with multiple nuclei (at the time I was working on automated analysis of confocal images). Lots of publications miss obvious controls.

[Gareth]

NECROTHREAD!!!

It was a voltage irregularity in the detector.  Neutrinos did respect the speed limit.  That said, there are some that are now talking about the speed of light MAY not be as constant as once thought...


But that's for another thread. 

Sadly, I did hear about that.   Happily, Einstein can still rest easy.

[Mr. Whippy]

She tells me there may be another particle that will travel faster than light (btw, neutrinos travel faster than light through water, but that's a known phenomenon).  I gotta get the details from her.  Something weird, I'm sure.

[bmot]

She tells me there may be another particle that will travel faster than light (btw, neutrinos travel faster than light through water, but that's a known phenomenon).  I gotta get the details from her.  Something weird, I'm sure.

I thought that happened quite a while ago (a few months?) and turned out to be a fault in the measuring equipment?

[Etherealicer]

She tells me there may be another particle that will travel faster than light (btw, neutrinos travel faster than light through water, but that's a known phenomenon).  I gotta get the details from her.  Something weird, I'm sure.

I thought that happened quite a while ago (a few months?) and turned out to be a fault in the measuring equipment?

I think there are some theoretical particles emitted by photons, additionally there is the theory that if a particle travels at light speed then changes into another medium it could travel faster than light. But both are just theories.

At faster than light Neutrinos, here is the Wiki Article

[Mr. Whippy]

She tells me there may be another particle that will travel faster than light (btw, neutrinos travel faster than light through water, but that's a known phenomenon).  I gotta get the details from her.  Something weird, I'm sure.

I thought that happened quite a while ago (a few months?) and turned out to be a fault in the measuring equipment?

I think there are some theoretical particles emitted by photons, additionally there is the theory that if a particle travels at light speed then changes into another medium it could travel faster than light. But both are just theories.

At faster than light Neutrinos, here is the Wiki Article

So, what she says is, no.  No particles travel faster than light IN A VACUUM.  Charged particles can travel faster than light in water, for example, and will emit somebodies radiation  (?Cherenkov or something like that)  It's like a version of a sonic boom. 

The whole dealio is that particles can only travel as fast or faster than light in a vacuum if they are massless.  Neutrinos are close, but still have a little bit of mass.  A theoretical particle that had no mass would be predicted to travel at the speed of light. 

Or so I'm told.   

[BIG-TARGET]

The mice are screwing with us again.

personally I blame it on the dolphins.