The Large Hadron Collider

[Xard]

There are days where I more happy than usual to live down under. What would they call those great lakes it creates anyway? The Swiss Sea? The CERN Basin?

 

They don't expect anything fun to happen until it reaches maximum power anyway, which should be in a about a months time. Just sit down and enjoy the humm of the things, as they gradually turn up the volume. When it hits critical mass, we'll knows

 

Even once it starts colliding, there's still no guarantee it'd ruin the world straight away. It could just as easily run seamlessly for 8 years and then suddenly decide it'd like to do some universal remodelling, stimulating vacuum metastability bubble nucleation. It's all probabilistic.

 

But hey, cosmic rays, right?

 

Ehh, LHC doesn't decide anything. It's just exceptionally powerful and unique measuring device (+ other stuff)

 

It would be a lot cooler if LHC would "evolve" into those brains-floating-in-space entitities*

 

 

 

*yeah, it's serious "formulation" or possibility or whatever you want to call it. Of course the mere idea of some solipstic "brain" screwing up reality and propably annihilating us in the process is more than little bit harmful for science so astronomers have tried to dispell it by making claims that universe won't "live" long enough for these anomalies to happen

 

 

They were called Bolzam's or Boltzman's or Bohnman's or something like that Brains

Edited September 11, 2008 by Xard

[taks]

in futurama they are called the brain spawn.

 

taks

[Xard]

well, I AM dead serious here. It was the most goofiest thing I've read in science magazine since like...

 

 

ever

[random n00b]

*yeah, it's serious "formulation" or possibility or whatever you want to call it. Of course the mere idea of some solipstic "brain" screwing up reality and propably annihilating us in the process is more than little bit harmful for science so astronomers have tried to dispell it by making claims that universe won't "live" long enough for these anomalies to happen

 

 

They were called Bolzam's or Boltzman's or Bohnman's or something like that Brains

What, you mean worse for science than, um, splitting the atom? If you say so...

 

Anyway, it never fails to amaze me when this kind of highly speculative (and for the most part, poorly understood) cutting-edge science is turned into a modern-day bogeyman. Especially in the mainstream media. I mean, it's obvious that being erased from existance by a false vacuum system destabilizing at an unspecified time in the future is a much more credible and serious threat than coronary disease. How can anyone not see this?!

 

Also, I don't understand how this is related to the (misleading) idea that "observing" the system may reset its quantum state clock. Is any of that what you were referring to, or...?

[Xard]

*yeah, it's serious "formulation" or possibility or whatever you want to call it. Of course the mere idea of some solipstic "brain" screwing up reality and propably annihilating us in the process is more than little bit harmful for science so astronomers have tried to dispell it by making claims that universe won't "live" long enough for these anomalies to happen

 

 

They were called Bolzam's or Boltzman's or Bohnman's or something like that Brains

What, you mean worse for science than, um, splitting the atom? If you say so...

 

Anyway, it never fails to amaze me when this kind of highly speculative (and for the most part, poorly understood) cutting-edge science is turned into a modern-day bogeyman. Especially in the mainstream media. I mean, it's obvious that being erased from existance by a false vacuum system destabilizing at an unspecified time in the future is a much more credible and serious threat than coronary disease. How can anyone not see this?!

 

Also, I don't understand how this is related to the (misleading) idea that "observing" the system may reset its quantum state clock. Is any of that what you were referring to, or...?

 

Hey, Quantum Mechanics was the greatest and most philosophically profound foundation in science since Galileo or Newton! QM mechanics ftw. (if I didn't find math so boring that's what I propably would've ended up to study )

 

Ahh, thank you! That's what I was referring to

 

It's not related to observer effect, LHC or QM in anyway, but this "and then suddenly decide it'd like to do some universal remodelling" reminded me of the concept.

 

( As for the "Observer effect", it is still the underlying, many times tested presumption of all reigning models and after Von Neumann's rigid, great formulations it trancended the epistemological boundaries* of Copenhagen Interprepation by getting everything "in" quantum system and thus resolving the artificial boundary between system being observed and the observer. All major views (Transactional interprepation is pretty much same and propably coexistant, Von Neumann model is the one that is actually used in practice, Bohm's and Penrose's models are based on it as is modern interprepations of Wheeler etc. ) or "interprepations" rest on the fact. Only Bohm managed to create with his pilot wave model etc. interprepation that yielded same empirical results, but even it failed utterly in eliminating Process 1 which was only possible conclusion really, as he based his model on vN model and then just like that took away core piece of it. And then there's problem bohmian mechanics was never expanded to many core fields of study...

 

Personally I find the whole deal funny - it is obvious Quantum Observer isn't only entity "observing", but the idea that quantum theory must be "improved" by utter omission of observer is very questionable and like Heisenbeirg said, very unlikely to succeed. It would underminde perhaps the most major philosophical advance QM mechanics gave us and we'd end up with hard problem of consciousness and all things related to it back to the starting point. QM finally brought two major natures of reality back together after Newton artificially splitted them apart - thing he was painfully conscious about as seen by his musings with idea of "occult force" that led to scoff and distate by his physicist fellows - with classical mechanics. And then there's the whole deal that "particles" at QM level are very hard and unintuitive to talk about as matter (of course matter as classically conceived doesn't exist at all) but are perfectly formutable and talkable if regarded as information.

 

Funny that this came up as I'm currently reading book of philosophy of science, "Science's Guillotine" by K.V Laurikainen, one of the most prominent finnish physicists today. It talks - although not giving much new information to me - a lot about this whole deal, giving chapter for whole quest to eradicate observer and their failures.

 

*well, as well as possible as science is epistemological and not ontological

 

Anyway, this part is off-topic, so sorry for the ramble. )

 

 

 

Uuhh, carry on.

 

 

Interview with Higgs, check it out

 

 

edit:

 

"What, you mean worse for science than, um, splitting the atom? If you say so..."

 

Oh, if you mean with this amount of quantum mysticism generated around the science, yes, then you have a point. "I don't know why that's the case but it's propably quantum!" Heh...

 

Then again one must too remember very profound and wise words of Schroedinger (he was always the fastest one to notice philosophical implications of their findings while others were still baffled) about how science would actually benefit from including elements from eastern mysticism after stripping few unneeded, silly ideas (ie reincarnation) out. Scroedinger was such a great man and personally my hero out of 20th century scientists. Typically scientists lacks the nyances of philosophical thought and arguing. Philosophers on the other hand often lack deep insight of science's foundings as they're not specialists. People like Schroedinger in where these two sides come so perfectly together are rare glimpses of true brilliance among humans.

 

 

edit2: the DANGER in Boltzmann's brains stems from the fact it is supposed to have certain "godlike" qualities. Namely the ability to formulate reality again. After all it is faster to create informational structures than actually study them and gulping and chewing information is very raidon d'etre for these "things". And then it raises the solipstic creepy thought what if I'm only Boltzmann's brain and outer reality is just some sort of fabrication from my part? And THAT is deadly for science.

 

edit3: what is most scary they're PREDICTED to happen in some point if given enough time. That's why cosmologists have tried to defeat the problem - prolly succesfully - by noting that universally likely don't "live" long enough for them to appear

Edited September 11, 2008 by Xard

[samm]

Personally I find the whole deal funny - it is obvious Quantum Observer isn't only entity "observing", but the idea that quantum theory must be "improved" by utter omission of observer is very questionable and like Heisenbeirg said, very unlikely to succeed.

Your English is partially a bit hard to understand right now, but I agree with you as far as I can tell How should it improve things to cut the observer out? Someone would then have to redefine/newly explain everything in quantum mechanics. I always loved the philosphical implications of physics and the way it always brought up new questions not only about the stuff the theory dealt with but on life and the "workings of the universe" so to speak.

Interview with Higgs, check it out

Quote from that article: "It is even possible that the critical evidence already exists, in data from an American experiment in Illinois that has yet to be analysed fully." Do you know more about said experiment?

Edited September 11, 2008 by samm

[Xard]

If you're interested in what the hell I'm trying to say with Bolzmann's brains, read this

 

It could be the weirdest and most embarrassing prediction in the history of cosmology, if not science.

 

 

If true, it would mean that you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions.

[Xard]

Personally I find the whole deal funny - it is obvious Quantum Observer isn't only entity "observing", but the idea that quantum theory must be "improved" by utter omission of observer is very questionable and like Heisenbeirg said, very unlikely to succeed.

Your English is partially a bit hard to understand right now, but I agree with you as far as I can tell How should it improve things to cut the observer out? Someone would then have to redefine/newly explain everything in quantum mechanics. I always loved the philosphical implications of physics and the way it always brought up new questions not only about the stuff the theory dealt with but on life and the "workings of the universe" so to speak.

 

It tends to happen when I talk about things like this in english, sorry

 

I'm not going to divert this thread to great topic about QM, PHILOSOPHY AND EVERYTHING, but for example Henry Stapp (known for his work on S-Matrix and Bell's Theorem and in particular for his studies into nature of consciousness) has written many, fantastic articles (and sections in his great, profound books) to point out absurdity of the idea.

 

The vN model simply works perfectly (not surprise as Von Neumann is universally hailed as greatest mathematician of 20th century). It brings together and actually resolves some of the age old problems related to "physical" world and its relationship to consciousness. It made back in 50's completely theoretical musings such as one about Quantum Zeno Effect or neurological structure of brains (!!!!!) which were later verified and found perfectly fitting for the data. This quote concerns itself with neurology, but it fits here too:

The only objections I know to applying the basic orthodox principles of physics to brain dynamics are, first, the forcefully expressed opinions of some non-physicists that the classical approximation provides an entirely adequate foundation for understanding brain dynamics, in spite of the physics calculations that indicate the opposite; and, second, the opinions of some physicists that the hugely successful orthodox quantum theory, which is intrinsically dualistic, should, for philosophical reasons, be replaced by some theory that re-converts human consciousness into a causally inert witness to the mindless dance of atoms. Neither of these opinions has any rational scientific basis.

 

Bohm was genius physicist who was always troubled by this aspect of QM (for philosophical reasons as he was kinf of "materialist") and dedicated his life to get rid of it (and, like Einstein, he failed. Einstein actually admitted he did fail, but I don't know about Bohm), but others likeminded have fallen far behind him.

 

Here's some fundamental basic problems explained in short space that are pretty much unfixable

 

Of course the Orthodox Quantum Mechanics is still incomplete theory, but that's exactly what it says; it's incomplete, not fundamentally false.

 

OKAY, AND THIS IS END OF THIS DISCUSSION, I DON'T WANT TO GET THIS PRUNED/LOCKED

 

'sides, Boltzmann's brains are funnier

 

Quote from that article: "It is even possible that the critical evidence already exists, in data from an American experiment in Illinois that has yet to be analysed fully." Do you know more about said experiment?

 

No, I don't

 

Most curious to say the least. This was the best bit though:

n the early 1990s, William Waldegrave, then the Science Minister, staged a competition for the best explanation of the mechanism on a single side of paper.

 

The winning analogy was of Margaret Thatcher – a massive particle – wandering through a Conservative ****tail party and gathering hangers-on as she moved about.

 

:p

Edited September 11, 2008 by Xard

[Humodour]

Anyway, it never fails to amaze me when this kind of highly speculative (and for the most part, poorly understood) cutting-edge science is turned into a modern-day bogeyman. Especially in the mainstream media.

 

I don't really see a problem. Few people take it very seriously (most of the media I've read is actually reporting it humorously). On the other hand, the science fiction it spawns will be well worth it. It'll stimulate the minds of budding scientists for decades to come.

 

I mean, let's be realistic here - what's not cool the universe suddenly blowing up because a mad physicist created a super death ray and nobody could stop him? Oh am I'm drawing on my kid empathy here (which by its very nature is only approximate), but by my reckoning that's pretty ****in' sweet to a 10 year old kid who's fence sitting about science. Done dilly.

 

I mean, it's obvious that being erased from existance by a false vacuum system destabilizing at an unspecified time in the future is a much more credible and serious threat than coronary disease. How can anyone not see this?!

 

The media never was much good at impact calculus so why expect it to start now? Did you hear bad oral flora cause cardiovascular disease? An apple a day truly does keep the doctor at bay! Quercetin - it's mmmyum.

 

I downloaded the blueprints for the entire LHC. It's about 200mb, but not long now before I'm firing top, down and strange quarks at those damn dirty Americans. It's all in the numbers!

 

STRANGELET ARE EAT YOU! DOOM DOOM DOOM! DOOM DOOM DOOOOOOOOOM!

[Meshugger]

I just read Xard's link, and it was so over my head that i didn't even fully grasp it. If i get it right, it sounds like Bill Hicks idea of "we are the imagination of ourselves"-positive drug-story, fueled with the musings of "Latelarus" by Tool.

[taks]

once you cross into the QM world, philosophy and science become serious bed-mates, if not indistinguishable from one another.

 

i find interest in the comments regarding lack of media understanding w.r.t. this topic. the average journalist has what, an 8th grade math/science background?

 

taks

[Xard]

once you cross into the QM world, philosophy and science become serious bed-mates, if not indistinguishable from one another.

 

i find interest in the comments regarding lack of media understanding w.r.t. this topic. the average journalist has what, an 8th grade math/science background?

 

taks

 

"Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown. There is only one thing, and that which seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception, the Indian maya, as in a gallery of mirrors.”

 

Erwin Schr

Edited September 11, 2008 by Xard

[random n00b]

edit2: the DANGER in Boltzmann's brains stems from the fact it is supposed to have certain "godlike" qualities. Namely the ability to formulate reality again. After all it is faster to create informational structures than actually study them and gulping and chewing information is very raidon d'etre for these "things". And then it raises the solipstic creepy thought what if I'm only Boltzmann's brain and outer reality is just some sort of fabrication from my part? And THAT is deadly for science.

Ah, I didn't know about the reality-spanning implications of that. While interesting as a thought experiment, it's just another cosmogony... everyone has their own I guess.

 

 

edit3: what is most scary they're PREDICTED to happen in some point if given enough time. That's why cosmologists have tried to defeat the problem - prolly succesfully - by noting that universally likely don't "live" long enough for them to appear

What is exactly predicted to happen? I don't follow.

 

 

I don't really see a problem. Few people take it very seriously (most of the media I've read is actually reporting it humorously). On the other hand, the science fiction it spawns will be well worth it. It'll stimulate the minds of budding scientists for decades to come.

 

I mean, let's be realistic here - what's not cool the universe suddenly blowing up because a mad physicist created a super death ray and nobody could stop him? Oh am I'm drawing on my kid empathy here (which by its very nature is only approximate), but by my reckoning that's pretty ****in' sweet to a 10 year old kid who's fence sitting about science. Done dilly.

Good point. We can always use more quality sci-fi. Carry on with the pop science!

 

As a side note, I didn't mean for it to come across as criticism... but it never fails to amaze me how journalists always manage to focus on tangential issues and blow them out of proportion, in order to draw attention. They gotta eat too, I suppose.

[Xard]

Then there's mathematician David Berlinski's good analysis regarding the fact just how unprecise modern science comes closer we get to "mind"

[Xard]

edit2: the DANGER in Boltzmann's brains stems from the fact it is supposed to have certain "godlike" qualities. Namely the ability to formulate reality again. After all it is faster to create informational structures than actually study them and gulping and chewing information is very raidon d'etre for these "things". And then it raises the solipstic creepy thought what if I'm only Boltzmann's brain and outer reality is just some sort of fabrication from my part? And THAT is deadly for science.

Ah, I didn't know about the reality-spanning implications of that. While interesting as a thought experiment, it's just another cosmogony... everyone has their own I guess.

 

 

edit3: what is most scary they're PREDICTED to happen in some point if given enough time. That's why cosmologists have tried to defeat the problem - prolly succesfully - by noting that universally likely don't "live" long enough for them to appear

What is exactly predicted to happen? I don't follow.

 

 

I don't really see a problem. Few people take it very seriously (most of the media I've read is actually reporting it humorously). On the other hand, the science fiction it spawns will be well worth it. It'll stimulate the minds of budding scientists for decades to come.

 

I mean, let's be realistic here - what's not cool the universe suddenly blowing up because a mad physicist created a super death ray and nobody could stop him? Oh am I'm drawing on my kid empathy here (which by its very nature is only approximate), but by my reckoning that's pretty ****in' sweet to a 10 year old kid who's fence sitting about science. Done dilly.

Good point. We can always use more quality sci-fi. Carry on with the pop science!

 

As a side note, I didn't mean for it to come across as criticism... but it never fails to amaze me how journalists always manage to focus on tangential issues and blow them out of proportion, in order to draw attention. They gotta eat too, I suppose.

 

Did you see this post?

 

If you're interested in what the hell I'm trying to say with Bolzmann's brains, read this

 

It could be the weirdest and most embarrassing prediction in the history of cosmology, if not science.

 

 

If true, it would mean that you yourself reading this article are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star-spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world you think you see around you are illusions.

 

 

Personally I read it in our Tiede-lehti (simply "Science-magazine") some months ago, but I couldn't find it again. Anyway, of course everyone in the field assumes it to be false and tries to disprove it (if they haven't already. ) with varying success. But it is still daunting and shameful fact, because according to their formulations and laws (that in current light are exactly right) we being Boltzmann's brains floating in vacuum is infinitely more likely than we and universe really existing

 

The basic problem is that across the eons of time, the standard theories suggest, the universe can recur over and over again in an endless cycle of big bangs, but it

[random n00b]

Did you see this post?

Yeah, I saw it and flagged it for reply, but lost it somehow. :S

 

 

Personally I read it in our Tiede-lehti (simply "Science-magazine") some months ago, but I couldn't find it again. Anyway, of course everyone in the field assumes it to be false and tries to disprove it (if they haven't already. ) with varying success. But it is still daunting and shameful fact, because according to their formulations and laws (that in current light are exactly right) we being Boltzmann's brains floating in vacuum is infinitely more likely than we and universe really existing

That's one conclusion, but not necessarily the only one. It says that, according to "calculations", Boltzmann's Brains are infinitely more likely to appear, than our orderly kind of universes. But, in a truly timeless setup, as long as the probability of our own universe appearing isn't strictly zero, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty whether we are what Boltzmann proposed or not. In principle, it's a juxtaposition of infinites... a mathematical indetermination, as evidenced by this:

In an interview Dr. Linde described these brains as a form of reincarnation. Over the course of eternity, he said, anything is possible.

 

 

As that quote showcases, existence of such entities appearing in our universe and possibly ****ing it up. That is presuming I (or in your case you) am not Bolzmann's brain already

 

Luckily scientists are getting their act together and striking back against imaginary bogeyman (thought experiments are big part of science though) because personally I felt relatively uneasy for time after reading it. Luckily Sartre's argument against solipsism worked here too (of course my rational sense didn't believe in it, but unconscious is easily lured indeed by morbid mental pictures. At least in my case)

Well, I think that article (and the theories it talks about) need more definition, especially as far as "the universe" is concerned. And also, I'd like to see those "calculations" that predict the universe (our own observable universe) being overrun by floating brains. Come think of it... I probably wouldn't like that. But the point remains, it all depends on the premises they choose to build their model on, apparently.

 

 

“People are not prepared for this discussion,” Dr. Linde said.

Cosmologists aren't people? Edited September 11, 2008 by random n00b

[Pidesco]

They're gods.

[Killian Kalthorne]

They're gods.

Nah, they just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Guest The Architect]

The one good thing about solipsism is, "real life" fears can be overcome, since they may just be illusions, by-products of our imagination, the true source of our consciousness, whatever and wherever that may be. That's not to say one should be free to kill or harm anybody without consequence, though, since the world as we know it may be real, but... can anyone see what I mean by considering the possibility of solipsist ideals being a reality enables one to brush aside negativity like yesterday's rain? Like another conscious awareness to help one control their ego.

[Humodour]

Solipsism was cool when I was 14.

 

Still, you've gotta give Nine Inch Nails credit for 'Right Where It Belongs'.

Edited September 14, 2008 by Krezack

[Guest The Architect]

SHUT UP YOU! YOU'RE NOT REAL! YOU'RE JUST IN MY HEAD!

[Xard]

Solipsism was cool when I was 14.

 

Still, you've gotta give Nine Inch Nails credit for 'Right Where It Belongs'.

 

Sartre pwned soliptists with the whole nature of consciousness and how it's always kind of directed at something etc. bla bla bla

[Guest The Architect]

It's not as if you have to be a genius to defeat solipsism, though. I gave it a bit of thought and, the problem with solipsism is if you try to convince other people you're just a figment of their imagination, they won't believe you, because they are conscious themselves, and not actually a figment of your imagination.

 

Or they may come back at you and say, "No, you're a figment of MY imagination!" The fact that I'm not the only one who's pondered solipsism speaks volumes against it. Also, if the universe was a product of my consciousness and not the other way around, I'd be omnipotent, but I'm not.

 

Sadly, I'm not the strongest, fastest, fittest, sexiest, most famous man on the planet, who's bedded every hot woman there is.

Edited September 16, 2008 by The Architect

[random n00b]

Also, if the universe was a product of my consciousness and not the other way around, I'd be omnipotent, but I'm not.

This isn't really evidence either way. Have you ever tried going through walls in a game in which no "noclip" codes exist?

 

 

Sadly, I'm not the strongest, fastest, fittest, sexiest, most famous man on the planet, who's bedded every hot woman there is.

 

[Guest The Architect]

This isn't really evidence either way. Have you ever tried going through walls in a game in which no "noclip" codes exist?

 

No, your point being? If you and everything else was all in my head, then why can't I control it? That's the biggest reason why I don't believe in solipsism. In fact if it weren't for hearing about the belief in the first place I may never have even considered that my life is an illusion, anyway, which goes to show that not all thoughts are my own.

 

Sadly, I'm not the strongest, fastest, fittest, sexiest, most famous man on the planet, who's bedded every hot woman there is.

 

 

And what, you are?

 

Notice how I neglected to mention smartest?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was because I forgot.