Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,061 Year: 5,318/9,624 Month: 343/323 Week: 187/160 Day: 4/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For Cavediver, Son Goku or Dr. A
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 908 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 1 of 8 (706805)
09-18-2013 1:52 AM


Can any of you make heads or tails of this: SUSY 2013 Conference: Video Archive
Apparently, physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental components of reality. I found it on the science sub on reddit and usually someone there can break it down so idiots like me can understand it. However, it seems as though this is not something that can be broken down easily. One guy said it essentially takes 100's of Feynman diagrams and puts them into one calculation or something. A lot of reactions make it sound like some crazy shit and reality just got all fucky.
So.... whaddya say?

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 09-18-2013 2:34 PM hooah212002 has not replied
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-18-2013 3:41 PM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 2 of 8 (706851)
09-18-2013 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hooah212002
09-18-2013 1:52 AM


Yes please
I would also like some clarification on this. I just started watching the video and it seems interesting. However, a lot of the math is beyond my ability to work through. Plus, I am not sure the exact implications of what he is trying to get across. It seemed to me like his equations could work with space time being a real thing, but that they also work without space time as a fundamental part of reality. Does this really have any implications since it sounds like the equation does nothing to remove Space and time, unless that is your preconceived notion. Any help, I would also greatly appreciate it.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hooah212002, posted 09-18-2013 1:52 AM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 3 of 8 (706852)
09-18-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hooah212002
09-18-2013 1:52 AM


No, not particularly. I haven't gone deeply into that area of math, so I can't go into that or critcize it. I can do a bit of magic when it comes to the bits of math I've actually studied --- behold, I can perform magic math concerning nonassociative algebra, hoorah! But I haven't studied this stuff.
So I am as far away from you as understanding the "jewel-like geometric object". Give me a year and pay me for my research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hooah212002, posted 09-18-2013 1:52 AM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 8 (707067)
09-22-2013 8:53 AM


Hello
I'm having internet problems at home, but just to say I'll respond to this once it's working!

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2969 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 5 of 8 (707222)
09-24-2013 8:58 PM


From the discussion over at slashdot:
Troi: Captain, I can 'feel' the amplituhedron.
Data: It's become sentient
Q: Foolish humans ... you could never hope to understand this.
Wesley: Oh sure, I made one in science class last week.
ALL: Wesley, STFU.
And more serious stuff:
IANAPOM (I am not a physicist or mathematician), but from what I could gather from the article, it sounds like this isn't a new model that approximates the old, more complicated one, but rather a massive simplification of the existing one that produces provably identical results in all cases. To drastically oversimplify using my extremely limited understanding while putting it in terms I can wrap my brain around, it sounds like when you first learn about the arithmetic series in calculus (e.g. the summation of i from 0 to n). At first, the only way you can approach it is by actually adding 0 + 1 + ... + (n-1) + n, but eventually you learn that you can skip that whole process if i starts at 0 and use n*(n+1)/2 to reach the result with far less work, and then you're shown how to derive that formula yourself.
It sounds like something similar here. They previously had to calculate the results of every single Feynman diagram and then sum them together to reach a final result, which would involve billions upon billions of calculations for even a very simple particle interaction. Now, however, rather than having to calculate all of the component parts and summing them, they've derived a formula that produces the same answers with far less work.
Again, I may be way off, but that's the takeaway I had from the article.
Guys, we've been down this road about a million times in physics. Just because a mathematical model simplifies certain calculations, does not mean that the actual underlying physical geometry matches the theoretical model. Mathematicians have been adding extra dimensions to equations and finding they simplify things for years. It doesn't mean we live in a 27 dimension manifold. All direct observations to date point to a 3D universe.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
It doesn't mean we live in a 27 dimension manifold.
Doesn't mean we don't. ;-)
All direct observations to date point to a 3D universe.
Ummm ... hang on a second. Won't any direct observation we make as 3D critters point to a 3D universe? Isn't that sort of inherent to us being only able to perceive 3D?
I'm not sure how we'd do any direct observations in any other dimensions. (Honestly, not a flame, I'm genuinely puzzled by how we could see anything else and every now and then something like this hurts my head)
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Check out Richard Feynman's lecture regarding space-time and his analogy of bugs on a sphere. If you tell them that the rule for making a square is to go N units in one direction, then turn 90 degrees and repeat until you complete the square, they would find that they cannot actually make a square. This leads them to conclude that there is "something wrong" with their space.
The point is that while the underlying nature of their universe as a sphere is unavailable to them because they cannot escape it to see the bigger picture, they can still infer that because Euclid's rules of geometry don't work there must be something going on that they can't see. Moreover, they should be able to guess that there is curvature - without knowing for sure - because of exactly how the rules break down.
This is essentially what people talk about when they refer to the difference between larger objects like clumps of atoms and smaller ones like electrons and quarks. For some reason our 3D (technically it's 4D according to Einstein) universe only behaves "normally" until we start measuring it at a small scale. Then we start seeing where our rules about the behavior of "observable" objects - i.e., the stuff we can perceive with our senses - break down and are replaced by the true nature of the subatomic universe. In other words, when we look at quarks do stuff, we can no longer make the square.
Constructs like the one described above are the result of us trying to get our little bug heads around the way in which our every day rules break down when really tiny things are involved. It's a way for the bugs to correct Euclid to account for the spherical nature of things.
Physicists Discover Geometry Underlying Particle Physics - Slashdot
Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 09-25-2013 7:50 AM Shield has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 8 (707239)
09-25-2013 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Shield
09-24-2013 8:58 PM


Well, some of those people seem ridiculous.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Shield, posted 09-24-2013 8:58 PM Shield has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2013 1:46 PM Jon has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 8 (707270)
09-25-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
09-25-2013 7:50 AM


Well, some of those people seem ridiculous.
Yes, but as we have established you are very bad at math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jon, posted 09-25-2013 7:50 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 09-25-2013 9:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 8 (707281)
09-25-2013 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
09-25-2013 1:46 PM


Yet even I know that it is perfectly possible to travel four equal distances, turning 90 after each distance, and call the resulting shape a square.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2013 1:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024