|
|
Post by bonehead on Sept 30, 2018 17:49:34 GMT
It appears the Hadron Collider is running into difficulties. After claims of discovering the "Higgs Bosun", the collider has stopped giving us anymore new particles to study. According to this article, the well has gone dry :
medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/has-the-large-hadron-collider-accidentally-thrown-away-the-evidence-for-new-physics-9874d98d6e6a
While the article asks a sensible question, perhaps their concern that most of the data goes down the tubes is not the real problem here. Maybe searching for ever more particles in a quantum reality where particles only appear to those who look for them is a strategy that can never really get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps matter does not emerge from particles (tiny bits of matter) but rather from the attention of those observing them? If not that, then what does the observer effect mean?
medium.com/quantum-physics/observer-effect-1ed81a2b66a2
Bonehead
|
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Sept 30, 2018 18:43:27 GMT
Slipped up there Boney.
...Perhaps matter does not emerge from particles (tiny bits of matter) but rather from the attention of those observing them? If not that, then what does the observer effect mean? ..
Leads straight to the Einstein and Bohr conversation where one asked the other 'If I don't look at the Moon, does it cease to exist ?' and the rejoinder ' can you prove that it doesn't'.
Basically it is saying that anything only exist in the eye of the beholder. If you follow the logic, how else could it be ?
I think an appropriate assessment would be 'Horse droppings'.
Maybe they need to dig a deeper well.
Or if the argument for things being here, there or both or neither at the same time is correct, perhaps we have indeed reached the limit of experimental physics.
HAL.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Sept 30, 2018 21:24:44 GMT
Slipped up there Boney. ... Perhaps matter does not emerge from particles (tiny bits of matter) but rather from the attention of those observing them? If not that, then what does the observer effect mean? .. Leads straight to the Einstein and Bohr conversation where one asked the other 'If I don't look at the Moon, does it cease to exist ?' and the rejoinder ' can you prove that it doesn't'. Basically it is saying that anything only exist in the eye of the beholder. If you follow the logic, how else could it be ? Then you are arguing a previous point from me: objectivity is an illusion. There is no object that can be observed except subjectively. Thus the desire for science to achieve 'objectivity' is an unachievable ideal - and not a real or reasonable thing to expect. All knowledge is subjectively achieved.
But there is no denying the observer effect. The act of observing changes the state of the observed. That is a fact. Perhaps I am being dense, but I do not see how your above statement negates or changes what I have said at all. If it does, please explain. I am getting old.
I think an appropriate assessment would be 'Horse droppings'. Maybe they need to dig a deeper well. Or if the argument for things being here, there or both or neither at the same time is correct, perhaps we have indeed reached the limit of experimental physics. What we have reached is the limits of materialism. You would think that physicists who are taught about the double slit experiment and the observer effect would have figured out that particles that only appear if you think of them as particles, are not the be all to end all. They are, by their very nature, arbitrary and ephemeral. The only moving part that does not seem to be ephemeral at this point is consciousness. There is no knowledge, experiment or limited philosophy (like materialism) that exists without expression through subjective consciousness.
Consciousness is the elephant in the room that materialism refuses to see except as a presumed outgrowth of material processes. That is where the horse droppings lay. We actually have evidence that demonstrates that consciousness exists independent of the brain. But most will not acknowledge that because they have been brainwashed into believing that materialism explains all - except for why the Hadron Collider stopped giving them "new" data. That should be the door to a new paradigm.
But I will not hold my breath. They will cling to those old paradigms like a drowning man to a life raft - all the while denying the sea all around them.....
BoneheadHAL. |
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Oct 1, 2018 19:30:06 GMT
Bonehead.
..But there is no denying the observer effect. The act of observing changes the state of the observed. That is a fact....
Ok, so I look up and watch an aeroplane fly past 8 miles above me. How does the fact I have observed it change it's state ?
...Perhaps I am being dense, but I do not see how your above statement negates or changes what I have said at all. If it does, please explain. I am getting old...
Basically you are saying that nothing exist in a material form.
I also am getting old, but not to old to consider there must be some flaw in your contention.
If we don't exist, what are we doing here ?
And where are we ?
HAL.
|
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Oct 1, 2018 23:34:34 GMT
Maybe the folks at Cern are pre-occupied with other issues..... Cern scientist: 'Physics built by men - not by invitation'
By Pallab Ghosh, Science correspondent, BBC News
1 October 2018
A senior scientist has given what has been described as a "highly offensive" presentation about the role of women in physics, the BBC has learned.
Physicist Alessandro Strumia has been suspended from his work at CERN, Europe’s particle-physics lab, after giving a controversial talk at a workshop on high-energy physics and gender.
At a workshop organised by Cern, Prof Strumia of Pisa University said that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by invitation".
He said male scientists were being discriminated against because of ideology rather than merit.
He was speaking at a workshop in Geneva on gender and high energy physics.
Prof Strumia has since defended his comments, saying he was only presenting the facts.
Cern, the European nuclear research centre, described Prof Strumia's presentation as "highly offensive".
The centre, which discovered the Higgs Boson in 2012, has removed slides used in the talk from its website "in line with a code of conduct that does not tolerate personal attacks and insults".
Prof Strumia, who regularly works at Cern, presented the results of a study of published research papers from an online library.
He told his audience of young, predominantly female physicists that his results "proved" that "physics is not sexist against women. However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside".
He produced a series of graphs which, he claimed, showed that women were hired over men whose research was cited more by other scientists in their publications, which is an indication of higher quality.
He also presented data that he claimed showed that male and female researchers were equally cited at the start of their careers but men scored progressively better as their careers progressed.
Prof Strumia pointed to behavioural research which he suggested may account for the disparity.
One study, he told his audience, indicated that "men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people" and another, he claimed, suggested that there was a "difference even in children before any social influence".
Prof Strumia said that these conclusions may "not be fully right... (but) the opposite assumption of identical brains is ideology".
As evidence of discrimination against male researchers, Prof Strumia claimed that "Oxford University extends exam times for women's benefit" and "Italy offers free or cheaper university for female (research) students". He also said that he himself was overlooked for a job that he was more qualified for, which was given to a woman.
Dr Jessica Wade, a physicist at Imperial College London who was at the meeting, told BBC News that Prof Strumia's analysis was simplistic, drawing on ideas that had "long been discredited".
"It was really upsetting to those at the workshop," she said.
"There were young women and men exchanging ideas and their experiences on how to encourage more women into the subject and to combat discrimination in their careers. Then this man gets up, saying all this horrible stuff."
She added: "I don't understand how such a forward thinking organisation like Cern, which does so much to promote diversity in research, could have invited him to speak to young people just starting off in their research careers when his ideas are so well known."
In a statement, Cern - which currently has its first ever woman director-general - said that the organisers were not aware of the content of the talk prior to the workshop.
"Cern is a culturally diverse organisation bringing together people from dozens of nationalities. It is a place where everyone is welcome, and all have the same opportunities, regardless of ethnicity, beliefs, gender or sexual orientation," it said.
A Cern spokesman confirmed that there was a video recording of the presentation. Senior managers would decide whether to release part or all of it, it said.
When the BBC contacted Prof Strumia he said: "People say that physics is sexist, physics is racist. I made some simple checks and discovered that it wasn't, that it was becoming sexist against men and said so."
Last month, Prof Jocelyn Bell Burnell told the BBC she believed that unconscious bias against women prevented them from getting jobs in physics research.
In 2015, Nobel laureate Prof Tim Hunt resigned from his position at University College London after telling an audience of young female scientists at a conference in South Korea that the "trouble with girls" in labs was that "when you criticise them they cry".
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45703700
|
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Oct 2, 2018 18:55:06 GMT
Swamp,
...A senior scientist has given what has been described as a "highly offensive" presentation about the role of women in physics, the BBC has learned...
And yet a couple of days ago a female physicist shared a Nobel prize for her part in revolutionary medical work.
Goes to show.
HAL.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Oct 4, 2018 0:31:23 GMT
Bonehead. .. But there is no denying the observer effect. The act of observing changes the state of the observed. That is a fact....
Ok, so I look up and watch an aeroplane fly past 8 miles above me. How does the fact I have observed it change it's state ? I was talking about quantum physics and subatomic particles, not "classic" or Newtonian physics which occupies itself with macro effects. As you know, the two branches of physics do not exactly jibe for those wanting a neat and tidy answer. Physicists have long sought a "universal theory of everything" that ties together the two seemingly contradictory properties of "quantum" and "classic" physics. But this conjecture assumes an objective reality unaffected by consciousness. Until science sees the primary role of consciousness, no suitable answer will be forthcoming.
.. .Perhaps I am being dense, but I do not see how your above statement negates or changes what I have said at all. If it does, please explain. I am getting old... Basically you are saying that nothing exist in a material form. The quantum physicists said it first, I am merely repeating what they have said. Here are a couple of quotes, which you will not care for: Neils Bohr said "Everything we call real is made up of things that cannot be considered real." Einstein said: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one." Those guys knew a thing or two. You can refute me all you want. But you will have to answer to those eggheads if you want to maintain your present position.
So, what does it mean to be a human being whose senses are specifically attuned to matter whose frequencies inform the things we call "real"? If our senses are specially attuned to matter then that means that we exist in a universe where the things we most readily sense are ephemeral (as quantum physics demonstrate concerning the ultimate nature of matter). Einstein's quote, I believe, addresses the root of the problem for materialists: that is the persistence of matter to our senses.
The persistence leads to the illusion that there is an 'objective' reality out there that exists independent of our perceptions of it. But there is no real objectivity, as we discussed above. An object perceived by a subject, will always exist in a subjective enfoldment. You only need to move the goal posts a smidgeon to gain understanding. Popular ideas are not necessarily right, just because they are popular. Quantum data demonstrates, with repeated scientific proofs, that matter is not objective. It is what it is. I have merely taken the step to try and make sense out of, what for materialists, is surely a head spinning and baffling outcome. I also am getting old, but not to old to consider there must be some flaw in your contention. If we don't exist, what are we doing here ? I never said we didn't exist. You are the one saying that. Of course we exist. First, we exist as conscious beings. Secondly, we exist as material beings. The problems come with assuming the second (matter) is primary and the first (consciousness) is an outgrowth of material processes. That is the popular notion. But it puts the cart before the horse. And materialists continue to be baffled by a quantum reality that actively contradicts those hasty assumptions. It only takes a little change of perspective for it all to make sense. All that is needed is to invert the above assumptions. Quantum data has proved them wrong. It works for me.....
And where are we ? That certainly is a loaded question when we reside in little nodes with computer terminals that are mere nerve endings in a vast global neural network. I only know you by the replies you post here. How do I know you are a person? How do you know I am a real person? We could just be some inventions of some anonymous computer code existing nowhere else but in a fiber-optic network. Or not.
As for me, I am right here at home typing this reply. Asking "where are we?" is a deeply metaphysical question. It, perhaps, has no easy or verifiable answers. It is enough to say that I am home and you are somewhere else typing on a computer in like manner. Personally, I believe that many metaphysical questions are beyond my pay grade. Thus "big bangs" and "evolution" are presumptuous attempts to 'know' what is, perhaps, unknowable. And I am perfectly happy to leave such questions unanswered since I can know with certainty that whatever I come up with will be inadequate (at best) if not just plain wrong. Why bother?
Bonehead
HAL. |
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Oct 4, 2018 22:21:56 GMT
...An object perceived by a subject, will always exist in a subjective enfoldment. You only need to move the goal posts a smidgeon to gain understanding...
However, the aeroplane I observe would then have to be made of particles that according to Bohr and friends do not exist. And it would appear to follow that if I am sat in that aeroplane then I also am made of the same quasi particles.
This all reminds me of some of the stuff I read whilst having a soup in our local World Peace Cafe; aka 'The Buddha House'. Then I recall that the first act Buddha carried out on his path to spiritual enlightenment was to leave his wife and family.
HAL.
P.S. Did you know that the word 'aeroplane' doesn't exist in the Firefox spelling checker ?
|
|
|
|
Post by bonehead on Oct 7, 2018 16:40:31 GMT
...An object perceived by a subject, will always exist in a subjective enfoldment. You only need to move the goal posts a smidgeon to gain understanding... However, the aeroplane I observe would then have to be made of particles that according to Bohr and friends do not exist. And it would appear to follow that if I am sat in that aeroplane then I also am made of the same quasi particles. Yep! The particles exist, but only temporarily. And, if you choose to think of them as waves, there are no particles at all. That is the universe telling us that matter is not all we tend to think it is.....This all reminds me of some of the stuff I read whilst having a soup in our local World Peace Cafe; aka 'The Buddha House'. Then I recall that the first act Buddha carried out on his path to spiritual enlightenment was to leave his wife and family. Do you think you have to leave your life behind to grasp this stuff? It really is not that complicated or drastic a change in mindset. You still need to negotiate your life in the material world. Just because the things of your senses are not "objective" as science would have it, the world of our experience is still the primary focus of our lives. Nothing has changed other than an awareness that there is more to the whole deal than the simplistic and slightly askew assumptions of science would suggest. Personally, I derive more comfort from knowing that than I could by simply drinking the cultural koolaid and accepting our cultural assumptions as some unquestioned qualitative truth. But I could never have been happy with that in the first place.
So, maybe that is just me.
HAL. P.S. Did you know that the word 'aeroplane' doesn't exist in the Firefox spelling checker ? Here in the states (or "the Colonies", as some forgetful Brits call us), the word 'aeroplane' is an archaic term. We just call them airplanes. I suppose it is a bit like colour for color or aluminium for aluminum. You Brits tend to hang onto those old convoluted spellings. And even though I am a historian who has spent most of his life studying aircraft, I do not think I have ever used the term "aeroplane" (my spell checker changes the word to "airplane" unless I override it) to describe an airplane. It is just one of those silly foibles of us Yanks...... 
Cheers!!
Bonehead |
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Oct 7, 2018 21:56:01 GMT
Bonehead, Re: Aeroplane. I like words that indicate how they were derived. From French aéroplane, from Ancient Greek ἀερόπλανος (aeróplanos, “wandering in air”), from ἀήρ (aḗr, “air”) + πλάνος (plános, “wandering”). .. .Do you think you have to leave your life behind to grasp this stuff?... you misunderstood my intention. My point was that he took off and left his family behind. Who looked after them ? If you do that these days the authorities are quick to track you down and force you into some kind of childcare agreement. The same seems to have applied to the followers of Jesus. They just walked away from their responsibilities. The path to enlightenment is no doubt easier to follow if the wife and kids are not nagging you to go out and get a proper job. .. .So, maybe that is just me... It's not just you. There are at least two of us. HAL  |
|
