5 ms·

I have an unusual idea related to this. You might call it the interconnectedness of all things. (h/t DG) The more you look into quantum systems the more things

I have an unusual idea related to this. You might call it the interconnectedness of all things. (h/t DG) The more you look into quantum systems the more things seem to look like you are looking at the observable universe that we see in the sky. What if they were the same thing and space has somehow folded back upon itself? Of course it's not really a falsifiable conjecture. For example, we have absolutely no idea what's going on inside a proton and we'll probably never know.

lgl 7y ago
> For example, we have absolutely no idea what's going on inside a proton and we'll probably never know. We actually have a pretty good idea of what's going on inside a proton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
- grizzles 7y ago
  Sure, can you explain it to me and cite your evidence? Because that's the wikipedia article about protons, not an answer. The truth is this is a controversial area of physics heavy on theories and light on experimental data. The simple fact of the matter is we lack the measurement technology to understand the inner workings of a proton. Theories are just that.
  - computerex 7y ago
    There is an entire theory that describes the strong interactions inside the proton. Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics and experimental evidence for QCD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experimental_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experim... Furthermore particle accelerators have been smashing protons for a long time to probe what's happening inside. The standard model of particle physics is validated by evidence and experiments. I don't think it is fair to say that we don't know what is happening inside a proton. There are many questions in physics still left unanswered but I don't think anyone would classify this as such.
    - mimixco 7y ago
      How many constants are required by the standard model to make the math work? Doesn't that admit something is unsolved? I think it's probably accurate to say we don't know much about subatomic physics and because of the scale/measurability problem might not ever. The same is true of the expansiveness of the universe.
      - wiml 7y ago
        Fewer than thirty, I think. Which is pretty good for a model that accurately encompasses so many phenomena. Why do you say we don't know much about subatomic physics? In your view, how would things be different if we did know "much"?
        mimixco 7y ago
        There wouldn't be 30 constants. The math is being made to fit something without explaining it.
        _wzsf 7y ago
        "Hurr durr, your physics isn't pretty enough and has too many coefficients to fit my childlike model of the universe. Clearly an approximation" - mimixco, 2020
        grizzles 7y ago
        We'd live in the Diamond Age. The molecular nanotechnology vision of the world would be true. Eg. we could create any material with the characteristics we wanted. Uncertainty wouldn't matter because there would be no compound uncertainty / decoherence. If some sub-process step in mnt fabrication failed because of inherent uncertainty, it could simply be repeated until it worked. We'd also understand how to build the tools to do this.
        _wzsf 7y ago
        We already live in the diamond age. Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
  - _wzsf 7y ago
    Here's what you're doing: grizzles: I don't understand what's going on in a proton. Physicist: actually, we know about it very well. grizzles: I don't understand what you're saying, and don't care to find out, so I'm just going to disagree with you and say you have no experimental evidence. Physicist: we actually have terabytes of evidence describing the different quarks and gluons within protons and neutrons. grizzles: I don't care, and I'd rather live in Anaximander's land of indefinites and superstition.
    - grizzles 7y ago
      lgl is a web dev. Are you a physicist? If so, why not post a link to your profile? Why the need for your made up dialogue instead of a substantive rebuttal containing information about your allegedly detailed knowledge of the inner workings of a proton? BTW, you've misrepresented my position in 2/3 of your little sonnet. I said "light evidence, not no evidence" and I do care. The only substantive rebuttal I've received is from computerex and I responded to that.
      - _wzsf 7y ago
        Dialogue can be very useful.

lgl 7y ago

> For example, we have absolutely no idea what's going on inside a proton and we'll probably never know. We actually have a pretty good idea of what's going on inside a proton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

grizzles 7y ago
Sure, can you explain it to me and cite your evidence? Because that's the wikipedia article about protons, not an answer. The truth is this is a controversial area of physics heavy on theories and light on experimental data. The simple fact of the matter is we lack the measurement technology to understand the inner workings of a proton. Theories are just that.
- computerex 7y ago
  There is an entire theory that describes the strong interactions inside the proton. Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics and experimental evidence for QCD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experimental_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experim... Furthermore particle accelerators have been smashing protons for a long time to probe what's happening inside. The standard model of particle physics is validated by evidence and experiments. I don't think it is fair to say that we don't know what is happening inside a proton. There are many questions in physics still left unanswered but I don't think anyone would classify this as such.
  - mimixco 7y ago
    How many constants are required by the standard model to make the math work? Doesn't that admit something is unsolved? I think it's probably accurate to say we don't know much about subatomic physics and because of the scale/measurability problem might not ever. The same is true of the expansiveness of the universe.
    - wiml 7y ago
      Fewer than thirty, I think. Which is pretty good for a model that accurately encompasses so many phenomena. Why do you say we don't know much about subatomic physics? In your view, how would things be different if we did know "much"?
      - mimixco 7y ago
        There wouldn't be 30 constants. The math is being made to fit something without explaining it.
        _wzsf 7y ago
        "Hurr durr, your physics isn't pretty enough and has too many coefficients to fit my childlike model of the universe. Clearly an approximation" - mimixco, 2020
      - grizzles 7y ago
        We'd live in the Diamond Age. The molecular nanotechnology vision of the world would be true. Eg. we could create any material with the characteristics we wanted. Uncertainty wouldn't matter because there would be no compound uncertainty / decoherence. If some sub-process step in mnt fabrication failed because of inherent uncertainty, it could simply be repeated until it worked. We'd also understand how to build the tools to do this.
        _wzsf 7y ago
        We already live in the diamond age. Maybe you haven't been paying attention.
- _wzsf 7y ago
  Here's what you're doing: grizzles: I don't understand what's going on in a proton. Physicist: actually, we know about it very well. grizzles: I don't understand what you're saying, and don't care to find out, so I'm just going to disagree with you and say you have no experimental evidence. Physicist: we actually have terabytes of evidence describing the different quarks and gluons within protons and neutrons. grizzles: I don't care, and I'd rather live in Anaximander's land of indefinites and superstition.
  - grizzles 7y ago
    lgl is a web dev. Are you a physicist? If so, why not post a link to your profile? Why the need for your made up dialogue instead of a substantive rebuttal containing information about your allegedly detailed knowledge of the inner workings of a proton? BTW, you've misrepresented my position in 2/3 of your little sonnet. I said "light evidence, not no evidence" and I do care. The only substantive rebuttal I've received is from computerex and I responded to that.
    - _wzsf 7y ago
      Dialogue can be very useful.