One step closer: Scientists help explain scarcity of anti-matter

Dec 27, 2012 by David Tenenbaum

A collaboration with major participation by physicists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has made a precise measurement of elusive, nearly massless particles, and obtained a crucial hint as to why the universe is dominated by matter, not by its close relative, anti-matter.

The particles, called anti-neutrinos, were detected at the underground Daya Bay experiment, located near a in China, 55 kilometers north of Hong Kong.

For the measurement of anti-neutrinos it made in 2012, the Daya Bay collaboration has been named runner-up for breakthrough of the year from Science magazine.

Anti-particles are almost identical twins of sub-atomic particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) that make up our world. When an electron encounters an anti-electron, for example, both are annihilated in a burst of energy. Failure to see these bursts in the universe tells physicists that is vanishingly rare, and that matter rules the roost in today's universe.

"At the beginning of time, in the Big Bang, a soup of particles and anti-particles was created, but somehow an imbalance came about," says Karsten Heeger, a professor of physics at UW-Madison. "All the studies that have been done have not found enough difference between particles and anti-particles to explain the dominance of matter over anti-matter."

But the neutrino, an extremely abundant but almost massless particle, may have the right properties, and may even be its own anti-particle, Heeger says. "And that's why physicists have put their last hope on the neutrino to explain the absence of anti-matter in the universe."

Heeger and his group at UW-Madison have been responsible for much of the design and development of the anti- at Daya Bay. Jeff Cherwinka, from the university's Physical Sciences Laboratory in Stoughton, Wis. is chief engineer of the experiment and has overseen much of the detector assembly and installation. The construction of the experiment was completed this fall and data-taking started in October using the full set of anti-neutrino detectors.

Reactors, Heeger says, are a fertile source of anti-, and measuring how they change during their short flights from the reactor to the detector, gives a basis for calculating a quantity called the "mixing angle," the probability of transformation from one flavor into another.

The measurement of the Daya Bay experiment, released in March 2012, even before the last set of detectors was installed, showed a surprisingly large angle, Heeger says. "People thought the angle might be really tiny, so we built an experiment that was 10 times as sensitive as we ended up needing.

"The neutrino community has been waiting for a long time for this parameter, which will be used for planning experiments for next decade and beyond," says Heeger, "and that is why it was recognized by Science."

As expected, Science's breakthrough of the year was the detection of the Higgs boson, an elusive sub-atomic particle that completes the "particle zoo" predicted by the standard model of physics. That discovery also had major participation by physicists from the UW-Madison.

Explore further: Seeking 'absolute zero', copper cube gets chillingly close

Related Stories

Daya Bay antineutrino detectors exceed performance goals

Mar 01, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- After just three months of operation, the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment has far surpassed expectations, recording tens of thousands of particle interactions and paving the way to a better understanding ...

Neutrinos change flavors while crossing Japan

Jun 15, 2011

By shooting a beam of neutrinos through a small slice of the Earth under Japan, physicists say they've caught the particles changing their stripes in new ways. These observations may one day help explain why the universe ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

6 hours ago

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

Backpack physics: Smaller hikers carry heavier loads

Oct 21, 2014

Hikers are generally advised that the weight of the packs they carry should correspond to their own size, with smaller individuals carrying lighter loads. Although petite backpackers might appreciate the ...

User comments : 117

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
3.4 / 5 (26) Dec 27, 2012
The article actually spent 11 paragraphs and doesn't at all explain what it claims to explain.
frajo
4.9 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2012
A bit more detailed information on theta-13 is here:
http://newscenter...results/ .
boater805
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2012
If this author's communication skills represent the University of Wisconsin-Madison, then it should be closed down and permanently shuttered before the malady can spread!
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (38) Dec 27, 2012
because these were presumably created in equal amounts in the big bang and should have completely annihilated one another, the real question is why there is any matter in the universe at all.


Fallacy.

All anti-matter we've ever actually observed is produced through some process involving collisions or decay of ordinary matter.

There is no good reason matter and anti-matter would have been created in equal parts, nor any good reason the universe would have had anti-matter at all upon initial creation.

The only reason they assume that is because of the mainstream paradigm's insistence that "from nothing comes everything," and then paradoxically attempting to use matter plus antimatter equals nothing in the same way as conservation laws, all the while admitting that the laws would have needed to change anyway for "inflation".

The entire field falls on it's face because of a completely fallacious assumption.
Tomba
4.6 / 5 (25) Dec 27, 2012
I've recently subscribed to Science in part because the quality of articles here has become so poor over the last few years. The increasing frequency of articles that give almost no information about the research they purport to report on, and the bad writing and editing is driving me away. Another factor for me is the prevalence of trolls and crackpots in the comments.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (18) Dec 27, 2012
Anti-particles are almost identical twins of sub-atomic particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) that make up our world. When an electron encounters an anti-electron, for example, both are annihilated in a burst of energy. Failure to see these bursts in the universe tells physicists that anti-matter is vanishingly rare, and that matter rules the roost in today's universe.

Actually, what which was called as anti-particles, such as anti-electrons, was unstable, they were not found in all matter of our daily life world! Maybe it was just condensed energy with opposite state of electron, this is the reason why both they are annihilated in a burst of energy when meets each other. And maybe this paper will give some idea.
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
frajo
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2012
Actually, what which was called as anti-particles, such as anti-electrons, was unstable, they were not found in all matter of our daily life world!

No. Positrons are produced by certain isotopes. Among those is Potassium-40 that occurs in nature because of its long half life of more than 10**9 years.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (21) Dec 27, 2012
No. Positrons are produced by certain isotopes. Among those is Potassium-40 that occurs in nature because of its long half life of more than 10**9 years.


But you make my case for me.

The anti-particle actually has ordinary matter as it's parent particle; Not some big bang.

Matter is the ordinary case, and anti-matter is an extraordinary case during the transition of some atoms or particles life times, which we know is short lived due to annihilation.

The problem is the mainstream paradigm pseudo-scientists assume a universe started with equal parts, and then falsely present that conjecture as though it were an observed fact, when it clearly isn't observed, and instead quite the opposite of the mainstream paradigm is observed. This ought to be obvious to anyone who's even heard of Anti-matter.
frajo
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 27, 2012
No. Positrons are produced by certain isotopes. Among those is Potassium-40 that occurs in nature because of its long half life of more than 10**9 years.

But you make my case for me.
The anti-particle actually has ordinary matter as it's parent particle; Not some big bang.
Again, no. And no.
[1]
You "explain" only the anti-electron, but not all the other anti-particles, be they instable or stable.

[2]
Your speculation is not answering the question why there is more matter than antimatter in the observable universe. It's just replacing that question by another question: "Why is ordinary matter 'parent' to anti-matter, but anti-matter not 'parent' to ordinary matter?"
MikeBowler
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 27, 2012
No. Positrons are produced by certain isotopes. Among those is Potassium-40 that occurs in nature because of its long half life of more than 10**9 years.


But you make my case for me.

The anti-particle actually has ordinary matter as it's parent particle; Not some big bang.

.............

matter also spits out electrons and photons too, are you therefore also proclaiming that matter is the source of those particles or would submit to the possibility of photons and electrons occuring from other sources, perhaps a large population of anti-matter (assuming it is possible for it to exist safely somewhere in the universe without encountering lots of matter)?
PS3
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 27, 2012
Maybe it was mostly used up when inflation took place.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2012
Maybe it was mostly used up when inflation took place.

Why then was ordinary matter not "mostly used up", too, when inflation took place?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2012
Technically, we cannot explain scarcity of anti-matter with parameters, which must be measured and determined experimentally. We should predict these parameters from theory.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (13) Dec 27, 2012
@ Lurker: "Fallacy. ... There is no good reason matter and anti-matter would have been created in equal parts, nor any good reason the universe would have had anti-matter at all upon initial creation.

The only reason they assume that is because of the mainstream paradigm's insistence that "from nothing comes everything," and then paradoxically attempting to use matter plus antimatter equals nothing in the same way as conservation laws, all the while admitting that the laws would have needed to change anyway for "inflation".

Youy don't understand fallacies, they can't be used to base theories on. And when "mainstream" science says something it is because there is good reason to. Conserved charges comes out of symmetries (aka conservation laws) and naturally sum to zero for EM charges, say. This is why imbalances, as opposed to balance, needs a specific prediction.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 27, 2012
[cont] There is no "paradigm" here, but standard cosmology is silent on this. It could as well work with anti-matter, or any combination in between. (Though a complete equalized radiation dominated universe would have been boring.) Your description of this cosmology is erroneous, and tunneling of universes is not necessary to get inflation started.

@ vacuum-mechanics: Give up on the crackpottery, if there was an actual worth in it scientists would be all over it. But they are not.

******************

There are many hypotheses for the imbalances, from the remaining particle physics outside the Standard Model as the neutrinos here, over matter/antimatter "bubble" formation under inflation, where volumes are dominated by one or the other, to anthropic selection on the landscape.

It is early days.
physboozer
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2012
This is not a well written or informative article
Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 27, 2012
You "explain" only the anti-electron, but not all the other anti-particles, be they instable or stable.


You miss the point. All observed anti-particles exist only via collision or decay of ordinary matter (or by some other chain reaction involving ordinary matter,) and consequently we need not "explain" them any further at all.

Your speculation is not answering the question why there is more matter than antimatter in the observable universe.


There are two very easy answers.

1, As stated, matter is the ordinary condition, anti-matter is the exception. Assumptions about the initial conditions of the universe are simply wrong, i.e. symmetry breaking and such are purely BS conjecture.

2, Even if anti-matter was created in equal amounts, it would NOT have all annihilated. We just can't see it because if you had two expanding clouds, one matter and one anti-matter, then as the leading edges collide they will blow the bulk of their mass away with no further contact...
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (15) Dec 27, 2012
Cont...

If you annihilate half the matter and half the anti-matter, then the remaining masses are accelerating away from the original center of mass at about 87% of the speed of light, in opposite directions.

Since the anti-matter would have been blown in the opposite direction from the matter, it will not be visible by now because it is on the opposite side of the light horizon, and always was ever since the first instant after the explosion.

Now this assumes "first generation" anti-matter ever existed at all, which personally I doubt, but I'm just saying.

It's really not that hard to understand.

The notion that "if it did exist it should have all annihilated" is just wrong and ridiculous. Explosions don't magically move material to full combustion (in chemical explosions,) nor do they magically move material to full nuclear fission or fusion. Only a few ounces of material actually reacts in a nuclear bomb, the rest is actually wasted because it's blown away by what does react...
DavidW
1.2 / 5 (22) Dec 28, 2012
Another factor for me is the prevalence of trolls and crackpots in the comments.


You are judging and defining others as their actions.
We are alive and cannot be our actions. Therefore your comment contains lies and you have lied. I didn't say you were or are a liar. There is a difference.

Stick with the truth. When in doubt, look for compassion, as that is truth manifest.

The most important thing in life is life. People that are alive are important. Each and every one.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2012
Another factor for me is the prevalence of trolls and crackpots in the comments.
Which is why you're visiting it, despite you're realizing or not...;-) Why to call all people who bring independent unverified yet ideas a crackpots? I'm rather in suspicion, that the proponents of official science rather fear of public forum competition. So far the scientific discussions were arranged behind closed doors at conferences, so that only scientists itself could profit from it. But now the increasing number of people are exchanging their ideas freely at public. It's indeed a significant intellectual potential and it's not so surprising that the professional scientists fear of lost of their information monopoly. A similar trend can be observed at the field of Open Source software development. The private companies tend to call the Open Source amateurish and unprofessional too - but at the very end it's all just about (fear of lost of) money.
TheTim
5 / 5 (18) Dec 28, 2012
ValeriaT: I think the issue isn't the sharing of ideas by "amateur scientists". The issue is more about ignorant people sharing ideas they *feel* are valid, without providing any substantial rationale for their ideas. Science doesn't work on feelings.

There's nothing wrong with bringing "independent unverified ideas" to the table, but those ideas better be based in logic and reason. Otherwise, we may as well just be talking about religion.

It's dangerous to start with the premise that all ideas are equally valid. They're not. To give equal weight to crackpottery as "mainstream science" (whatever *that* is) is detrimental to any kind of human progress. That's not to say *everything* that's not "mainstream science" is crackpottery, but spewing any random idea as, somehow, a valid scientific theory does a disservice to expanding human knowledge.
theon
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2012
The author thinks that only idiots will read his paper. Why would they, for them this stuff is too heavy anyhow. Hence why not say that it's about theta_13 and mention the value with error bars, and give some explanation why that antiparticle (antineutrino) is its own antiparticle (it is not, but each constituent can be Majorana).
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (14) Dec 28, 2012
Science doesn't work on feelings.
So why don't you argue these ideas with matter of fact arguments? You're right, the science is not about subjective feeling and labeling them wrong.
It's dangerous to start with the premise that all ideas are equally valid. They're not.
IMO all ideas are wrong in the distant perspective and they must be handled so (after all, scientific methodology is based on falsification). But we have different criterions of validity. For example, some ideas are valid, because they can explain/predict phenomena in as logically robust and straightforward way as possible. Some other ideas are valid, because they can provide the stable reliable job for as many people as possible for the money of tax payers. Surprisingly enough, these two criterions not always fit each other.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (16) Dec 28, 2012
It's no secret, the epicycle model persisted so long, because it provided a safe and reliable job for many astrologers, who lived from selling of horoscopes to influential people. Johannes Kepler was not so stupid to realize, that the Copernician model is most simple solution of problem, but the selling of horoscopes for freaky Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor was a good job enough. So he fought against Copernican model. Now the situation just repeats for example with Big Bang cosmology, just the horoscopes were replaced with publications in high-impacted journals.
Husky
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2012
i find the point of Lurker interesting, someone care to explain me why and how antimatter should be produced during the big bang out of quark soup?
Whydening Gyre
1.5 / 5 (17) Dec 28, 2012
The problem with a "scientific fact" is that it can turn out not to be fact when examined more closely down the road - and usually does just that...
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2012
someone care to explain me why and how antimatter should be produced during the big bang out of quark soup?
Antimatter is routinely produced during supernova explosions, so that if we consider the harsh condition during alleged Big Bang, then the question rather is, why we don't observe it today? But why not to ask first why/how the events like the Big Bang should happen? If we admit, such an event did never happen, then the first question will be answered automatically: it's an evidence of steady-state Universe model instead.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2012
The question, why antimatter is produced during supernova explosions has rather kinetic answer and it corresponds the question, why the soot is formed during burning of candle flame after all? If we consider the fact, that the particles of soot are flammable, they should burn as well. But the particles of soot can survive in the same way, like the particles of antimatter, if they're removed from the place of their formation fast. During supernova explosions the particle formed are ejected from gravity field with pressure of radiation, so that the particles of antimatter are separated from particles of matter, before they can recombine again. Analogously the particles of soot can survive the oxygen atmosphere, if they're removed from flame fast, so that they're cooled before they can burn.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2012
When we take two matter particles and convert them to energy, and allow that energy to revert quantize back to matter, we find a nearly equal abundance of matter and anti-matter, although the "reaction" is subject to the various laws of conservation (lepton, baryon, quark) numbers etc.

There are "reaction" paths where strict adherence to some of these conservation laws is violated, although in ways that do not seem to explain the abundance of matter in the universe.

So far, physics provides no adequate explanation for this.

"1, As stated, matter is the ordinary condition, anti-matter is the exception."

It is correct that if there was an initial bias in say the baryon number at the start of the universe, that bias would persist.

Physicists are well aware of this.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Dec 28, 2012
In AWT the antimatter isn't missing in the universe at all, it's just finely divided in form of dark matter, neutrinos in particular. Without it we would have reversibility problem during each evaporation of star into energy: two photons are forming particles of matter and antimatter during each materialization - but matter releases photons only during its gravitational collapse.
brt
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2012
The only explanation I can think of would boil down to changing the parameters of antimatter. Wouldn't antimatter also require an inverse force? How could there be 100% annihilation using the same forces of nature? I know this is an old idea that has been brought up in the days of "aether", but I don't see how differing charges/spin would cause 100% annihilation.

But if the big bang was the result of symmetry breaking, then that doesn't really lend support towards the laws of physics being conservative, does it. It would make more sense that the resulting uneven distribution of matter to antimatter is the result of laws NOT being conserved past a certain scale of physics.

brt
2.6 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2012
Maybe it was mostly used up when inflation took place.

Why then was ordinary matter not "mostly used up", too, when inflation took place?


because inflation is sort of occurring in the form of dark energy.
brt
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 28, 2012
Maybe it was mostly used up when inflation took place.

Why then was ordinary matter not "mostly used up", too, when inflation took place?


because inflation is sort of occurring in the form of dark energy.


In other words: the way dark energy emulates inflation would lead one to believe that inflation is variable.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 28, 2012
The only explanation I can think of would boil down to changing the parameters of antimatter. Wouldn't antimatter also require an inverse force?

Antimatter isn't "anti" in all respects. It does have positive mass, for instance (anti-protons or positrons have positive momentum and when antimatter and matter annihilate you do get a positive energy output).
Koen
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2012
"A long time ago in an anti-matter galaxy far, far away...."
JIMBO
1 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2012
If this author's communication skills represent the University of Wisconsin-Madison, then it should be closed down and permanently shuttered before the malady can spread!

I concur completely, but of course, the author is from physorg. Shared ineptitude in physics reporting is the order of the day
Moebius
1 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2012
Since we have no knowledge of the conditions that ruled before the Big Bang or even if our BB is the one and only BB, there is no reason why M and AM should necessarily have been equal.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 28, 2012
Hi everyone. Just about to logout and want to put my three-cents' worth....

1) Internet breaking monopolies which in the past enjoyed power to direct/skew and profit from controlling 'the conversation/public opinion/scientific orthodoxy-of-the moment' etc etc'. Just a passing observation of past-to-present changes brought about by much improved public access/contribution.

2) IF Hawking Radiation is real, then perhaps EH horizons of black holes (once formed) have been continually 'preferring' the 'anti-matter' particle of the virtual-particle-pairs they have been 'sorting': ie, swallow the "anti-matter" particle and let its erstwhile "matter" particle escape to become a stable particle in the universe outside EH? Just a passing thought.

3) IF it's a steady state universe after all (there is increasing evidence that CMB may not be what it's purported to be), then gravity may 'sort' matter from anti-matter at fundamental electronic matter-from-vacuum-energy creation-events?

Bye!
rah
1 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2012
This article was either intentionally written to be misleading, or the reporter is clueless.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Dec 28, 2012
antimatter does have positive mass, for instance
So does the dark matter. It still exhibits the gravitational lensing, despite it's expelled with massive bodies at distance. Dark matter is concentrated at places, where the curvature of space-time becomes negative, because its particles are itself formed with tiny bubbles: neutrinos. But these bubbles have thick walls literally speaking, so that their net lensing effect is still positive. They just do violate the equivalence principle, because their inertia is much higher, than the gravitating effects.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 28, 2012
Just about to logout and want to put my three-cents' worth....

1)...

2)...Just a passing thought.

3)...


Wow...Just...Wow. I don't even know on which of these to call "that's just so much BS" first.

Here's a hint: next time you have a 'passing thought' (or any thought) - let it pass. Please.
brt
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 29, 2012
The only explanation I can think of would boil down to changing the parameters of antimatter. Wouldn't antimatter also require an inverse force?

Antimatter isn't "anti" in all respects. It does have positive mass, for instance (anti-protons or positrons have positive momentum and when antimatter and matter annihilate you do get a positive energy output).


I don't think there is such a thing as negative mass or negative energy (despite the desperate theories) except in a relative sense. I've never heard any convincing argument differentiating antimatter from negative matter. An "anti-force" wouldn't mean anti-momentum or anti-physics. Just as gravity and dark energy are inverse forces relative to each other.
lengould100
3.4 / 5 (7) Dec 29, 2012
Lurker.
Even if anti-matter was created in equal amounts, it would NOT have all annihilated. We just can't see it because if you had two expanding clouds, one matter and one anti-matter, then as the leading edges collide they will blow the bulk of their mass away with no further contact.

On what basis do you suppose that the matter was in one coherent cloud and the anti-matter in a separate coherent cloud? It seems to me rational that the two would have been totally interspersed at all times.
Kron
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
Sea quarks - Within each nucleon (proton, neutron, antiproton, antineutron) is a chaotic environment of creation and annihilation of quark antiquark pairs. A gluon (strong force carrier, akin to a photon the electromagnetic force carrier) transforms into a virtual quark antiquark pair, the pair annihilates reverting back to a gluon. The 2 up quarks and 1 down quark found within a proton 'communicate' via gluons, the interaction of the quarks causes virtual quarks to pop into existence.

So where is all the antimatter?

I believe that the universe we see is only half of the story. I think the same interaction producing the virtual quark antiquark pairs, is also producing the 'real' quarks that make up nucleons. That a proton is made up of 2 real up quarks, 2 real antiup quarks, 1 real down quark, and 1 real antidown quark. I think we only observe half of the physical reality, that each particle we see dually exists, in the Universe we see, and an antiUniverse we don't.
Kron
1 / 5 (9) Dec 29, 2012
So when an antiproton (for example) is produced in a collider, the proton is flipped. The proton visible in the Universe is now seen in the antiUniverse, and the antiproton which was seen in the antiUniverse is now visible in the Universe.

The proton-antiproton is one entity. In the matter Universe we see it as a proton, while in the antimatter Universe it is seen as an antiproton.
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 29, 2012
It seems to me rational that the two would have been totally interspersed at all times.


Obviously that didn't happen.

Possibility and reality are two different things.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 29, 2012
Hi antialias_physorg.
Just about to logout and want to put my three-cents' worth....

1)...
2)...Just a passing thought.
3)...
Wow...Just...Wow. I don't even know on which of these to call "that's just so much BS" first. Here's a hint: next time you have a 'passing thought' (or any thought) - let it pass. Please.
Hey man, in the words of Bart Simpson: "Don't have a cow, man!". They were just throw-away speculations for those who may find them interesting. That's all. Anyway, Hawking Radiation and Quantum Mechanics are strange things and not everything is known about their preference for or against 'chirality' etc when it comes to virtual particle pair separation by BH EH environment which has its own 'energy flows' around and through the EH where 'unknowns as yet' may or may not 'sort/align' quantum effects/pairs in that region. Don't censor THINKING and SPECULATION. Not apt. Unless you have specific rebuttals to make, let speculations discussions be.

Cheers!
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2012
I have pondered this myself. Specifically I spseculate that the complex state components in the solution of a wave function don not actually correspond to real manifestaions in a complementary universe that sits on top of the visible one.

"I think we only observe half of the physical reality, that each particle we see dually exists" - Kron
rubberman
1 / 5 (6) Dec 30, 2012
I meant to read that first comment a 5 Vendi. Nice.
Tausch
1 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2012
Yes. Such thoughts are the result of attempts to interpret Probability space or to interpret probability itself.

http://en.wikiped...ty_space

Your existence provides you with experience (or any thought you have) that will always short change any (of your) interpretations of reality.

The above statement is a personal desire to express that if human quests exists, then those quests are without end.

This link was already provided by a reader on this commentary thread:

http://newscenter...results/

Providing any tangible explanation for a loss of symmetry, (besides the constructed ones to fit observations without 'proper' respect - i.e., the introduction of ad hoc variables to order parameters), is welcome.
Perhaps topological order will gain impetus.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2012
They were just throw-away speculations

Then do us all a favor: throw them away BEFORE posting and stop cluttering up the comment sections. You're getting as bad as the creationists or electric universe crackpots.

Anyway, Hawking Radiation and Quantum Mechanics are strange things and not everything is known about

You just throw around buzzwords you know nothing about. Look up Hawking radiation before typing. Please. Look up the magnitude of it. Look up what it even IS for crying out loud. You just throw out words tah you think sound 'cool' and make yourself look like an utter moron. At least have the decency to spend 30 seconds on wikipedia before posting.
Don't censor THINKING and SPECULATION.

I don't. I censor idiotic brainfarts. Creative thinking has a FUNDAMNENT of knowledge and logic. Brainfarts don't. What you're doing isn't creative thinking - It's random babbling. It's farting of the brain.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 30, 2012
Why do you call it "brainfart"? It's easy to label everything, what people are saying here without any arguments in rude idiotic way. I don't care what you think about it, without arguments it's just you who is imbecile and crackpot here.

And yet another thing. You probably missed your actual role at this forum. You're regular poster like everyone else here. You're not supposed, neither allowed to censor anybody here. ...What?! Nope, believe me, you're not. Period. I don't take a shit what you think you are. You're supposed to be polite, if you don't like this forum, you're free to find different one. That's all.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (16) Dec 30, 2012
Then do us all a favor: throw them away BEFORE posting and stop cluttering up the comment sections.

You just throw around buzzwords you know nothing about. Look up Hawking radiation before typing.

I don't. I censor idiotic brainfarts. Creative thinking has a FUNDAMNENT of knowledge and logic. Brainfarts don't.
You seem upset by thinking/speculating/hypothesizing. Not a healthy attitude to science discourse/discovery. Compare those alleged 'brain farts' with many of the other speculative thoughts and hypotheses which have come in the history of science (from mainstream scientists and amateurs alike) which have become scientifically confirmed facts when the tools allowed.

And your insults/allegations might hold more water if you actually addressed/rebutted the 'brain farts' in a polite/scientific manner instead of just with unhelpful inferences/innuendoes which shed a poor light on you personally. Relax and address the items properly or leave others to discuss them. Thanks.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2012
Hi antialias_physorg: PS: I am beginning to regret having given you a "5" for your post of December 28, 2012, 12:43 pm in the "One step closer: Scientists help explain scarcity of anti-matter" thread. It seems to have set you off somehow, adversely so. Please take it easy. Relax. The "5" was genuine. I rarely rate anyone's posts because I try to avoid 'feedback wars'. If my "5" upset you somehow, I'm sorry. Won't happen again. Relax. Cheers.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2012
You seem upset by thinking/speculating/hypothesizing.

Why do you call it "brainfart"?


Maybe this will help you guys understand why I label some things brainfarts. It's a video by Feynman explaining the scientific method (and even if you argue that this may be an "argument from authority" I would argue that he most definitely knows what he's talking about).
I promise you that if you watch it TO THE END you will immediately understand why your ideas are brainfarts and not science.

http://www.geek.c...2012059/

if you actually addressed/rebutted the 'brain farts' in a polite/scientific manner

1000 letters are unfortunately not enough to start from kindergarten level to get you up to speed. If they were I'd do it. If you make a comment that actually is thought through enough to merit a rebuttal beyond "stop and think for a sec" then I'll give one - never fear.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2012
Hi a_p.
Maybe this will help you guys understand why I label some things brainfarts. It's a video by Feynman explaining the scientific method (and even if you argue that this may be an "argument from authority" I would argue that he most definitely knows what he's talking about).

if you actually addressed/rebutted the 'brain farts' in a polite/scientific manner

1000 letters are unfortunately not enough to start from kindergarten level to get you up to speed. If they were I'd do it. If you make a comment that actually is thought through enough to merit a rebuttal beyond "stop and think for a sec" then I'll give one - never fear.
You make disparaging claims but are not prepared to back them? Not good.

Science begins with observations/thoughts/ideas, not with your elitist views and opinions about who is or is not 'approved' to think and hypothesize. The scientific method is great, but the initial/novel concepts to be treated as per the method come from minds. Bye! :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2012
I gave you a rebuttal to your idea (Hawking radiation, its intensity as relating the size of black holes and that this in no way can be a solution to the problem). But you didn't bother to go look it up. So don't put your failings on me.

And by the quickness with which you replied I gather you haven't looked at the Feynman video. This (and the above) just totally supports further findings related to the Dunning-Kruger effect viz. (from wikipedia):

Dunning, Kruger, and coauthors' 2008 paper on this subject comes to qualitatively similar conclusions to their original work, after making some attempt to test alternative explanations. They conclude that the root cause is that, in contrast to high performers, "poor performers do not learn from feedback suggesting a need to improve."
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2012
a_p. An FYI: I am 63 years old. I am fully aware of all of Feynman's and other scientists work. I am in the process of compiling a complete and consistent ToE (including gravity) 'from scratch'; addressing all the aspects from QM, Relativity and 'other' partial theories and making a 'bridge' between all their respective 'domains of applicability'. So please stop with your characterizations and personal 'strawmen' excuses for your unsavoury/unscientific attitude which would have you 'censor' rather than encourage lateral thinking and novel perspectives to explore via the scientific method thereafter. Playing 'personality/politics' while ignoring the ideas because of prejudice/provenance is immature and downright elitist-blinkery at its worst. Read your science history and see what happens when personality/politics is mistaken for scientific discourse. I leave you with that because my work calls. Good luck, a_p, everyone. :)
Q-Star
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2012
@RealityCheck:

I just had to jump in on this one, in case ya didn't grace me with this over on our tit-for-tat,,,,

Sir, I say this with profound sincerity, that last post has given an inexpressible amount of enjoyment,,,, it was one of the all time best posts I've read here bar none,,,

By the By: When are ya going to share some of this TOE ya speak of? This should be golden,,,,,,
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2012
I am in the process of compiling a complete and consistent ToE (including gravity) 'from scratch'; addressing all the aspects from QM, Relativity and 'other' partial theories and making a 'bridge' between all their respective 'domains of applicability'.


I just can't stop laughing, either ya are Zephyr, or ya'll went to school together.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
I am 63 years old.

Somehow I doubt that. You write like (and I have borrowed that term from another forum I have frequented in the past) an AOLTeenFuckWit.

I, too, truly will look forwared to your grand ToE. Certainly you're not going to hug it to your chest but put it out on the web?

which would have you 'censor'

I don't censor (that would mean that I could alter and/or erase your posts). Learn the meaning of words

rather than encourage lateral thinking

Lateral thinking is great - but for it to be good you first have to be able to think STRAIGHT.

I leave you with that because my work calls.

Wohoo. We all win :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2012
@RealityCheck: I just had to jump in on this one, in case ya didn't grace me with this over on our tit-for-tat,,,, Sir, I say this with profound sincerity, that last post has given an inexpressible amount of enjoyment,,,, it was one of the all time best posts I've read here bar none,,, By the By: When are ya going to share some of this TOE ya speak of? This should be golden,,,,,,


Don't laugh too hard/too soon. Go read my response to your inanity there.

I just can't stop laughing, either ya are Zephyr, or ya'll went to school together.
Your string of erroneous/unfounded assumptions/strawmen beggars belief. I am Australian. Zephyr is European. Never met. And my complete ToE has no other author. Any similarities in parts is merely confirmation of the bringing consistency of my ToE.

When do you begin to be 'scientific' instead of just confirming your admitted "meanness"? Your latest posts are not a good 'advertisement' for 'science/scientists'. Do better. :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2012
Somehow I doubt that. You write like (and I have borrowed that term from another forum I have frequented in the past) an AOLTeenFuckWit. I, too, truly will look forwared to your grand ToE. Certainly you're not going to hug it to your chest but put it out on the web? I don't censor (that would mean that I could alter and/or erase your posts). Learn the meaning of words. Lateral thinking is great - but for it to be good you first have to be able to think STRAIGHT. Wohoo. We all win :)
The personal characterization based on your own misinformation is indicative of your disinterest in facts. I am who I say, and 63. My posting history from 2005 at this site (before the split) confirms.The point of brainstorming a problem is NOT to think like everyone else has. This point too subtle for you? Your disparagement of a ToE you haven't yet seen is premature for a 'scientist', don't you think? "Censor" was YOUR own word, remember? "Borrow" some sense next time. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012
The point of brainstorming a problem is NOT to think like everyone else has

Sure. But at some point your brainstorm has to interface with reality. You know: that thing people call a 'reality check'? You may have heard of the word since you use it as a moniker (but somehow I doubt you have understood what it means)

Publish or perish. That's the thing. Show your work. But somehow this smells like a con (actually it smells like you just make that claim but haven't actually written even one word of a ToE - much less any kind of rigorous mathematics/physics)

But when you link to it I'll read it - never fear.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2012
Your latest posts are not a good 'advertisement' for 'science/scientists'. Do better. :)


I should hope not.

Oh boyo,,, sure I'm still laughing. But certainly ya would like to discuss this TOE with other science minded people,,, share with us a few of it's premises,,,, Are ya collaborating with Anton on this? If so, I'm pretty much up to speed. What area would ya like to bounce off the ol sounding board?
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 30, 2012
(actually it smells like you just make that claim but haven't actually written even one word of a ToE - much less any kind of rigorous mathematics/physics)

But when you link to it I'll read it - never fear.


Oh yes, he has written pages on it,,,, I'll pm ya some of the links I have.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2012
Sure. But at some point your brainstorm has to interface with reality....Publish or perish. That's the thing. Show your work. But somehow this smells like a con (actually it smells like you just make that claim but haven't actually written even one word of a ToE - much less any kind of rigorous mathematics/physics)

But when you link to it I'll read it - never fear.
Who said otherwise? Ideas should be treated respectfully and rebutted properly on the spot, politely, with cogent counter-facts/logics. If they cannot be so rebutted, then treated fairly via the scientific method as the 'tools' become available. Personal/political/elitist 'from authority' dismissals without fair discourse is not good for science. I am independent of that "publish or perish" paradigm which makes for politics/personality 'cult' rather than science. I am patient and thorough. The work will appear when it is finalized; not before. I do not 'publish' just to suit whims or 'appearances' to others. :)
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2012
I do not 'publish' just to suit whims or 'appearances' to others. :)


Tell us true boyo,,,, since you have already dropped hints here and there,,, does it depend on Aether? Ya could at least tell us that much, please?
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2012
Hi Q-Star.
Oh boyo,,, sure I'm still laughing. But certainly ya would like to discuss this TOE with other science minded people,,, share with us a few of it's premises,,,, Are ya collaborating with Anton on this?
That's ok, no harm in laughter between friends and scientists of goodwill. Actually, that's what I have been doing since 2005 on just a few internet sites; as a sounding board, putting disparate 'unusual' questions/perspectives in order to encourage others to do likewise in return so that I could fine tune my own work in 'the bridging' of all the various 'partial domain' theories/hypotheses extant. I have all I need for finalizing my ToE. Any posts I have made lately have been out of interests of science and humanity in general. I am lone worker. No collaborator to date. Thanks anyway! Offer appreciated.

Oh yes, he has written pages on it,,,, I'll pm ya some of the links I have.
Can you cc the links to my PM folder? Just to catch any misunderstandings. Ta!
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 30, 2012
Can you cc the links to my PM folder? Just to catch any misunderstandings. Ta!


Not a chance, that would be too easy,,, but I will give ya a hint,,,, ya seemed to posted your photo on several different sites, with several different names,,,, but don't fret overly much about remembering which sites, which names,, no rush to remove them,,,,, I've made screen capture copies of them so rushing about won't do much except give more ammunition for ridicule.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2012
I do not 'publish' just to suit whims or 'appearances' to others. :)


Tell us true boyo,,,, since you have already dropped hints here and there,,, does it depend on Aether? Ya could at least tell us that much, please?
Not the 'aether' of all other theories; not even the currently evolving 'mainstream' versions of 'aether'. The fundamental 'energy-space' is all there is (I have identified the nature and origins of same) in reality-physics terms (no 'abstractions' of any kind required). My ToE goes on to self-evolve naturally and consistently from that initial fundamental and ubiquitous physical thing in a way that is not possible to do in all previous theories using 'aether' OR 'fields' as they have been. Some come close, and I have hinted at this in some places, but they all eventually run up against a brick wall where nothing makes sense because they essentially started with wrong assumptions about fundamentals. Gravity included. Thanks. Cheers.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2012
Can you cc the links to my PM folder? Just to catch any misunderstandings. Ta!


Not a chance, that would be too easy,,, but I will give ya a hint,,,, ya seemed to posted your photo on several different sites, with several different names,,,, but don't fret overly much about remembering which sites, which names,, no rush to remove them,,,,, I've made screen capture copies of them so rushing about won't do much except give more ammunition for ridicule.

No no! I have NEVER posted a photo of myself, anywhere! I am a lone worker by choice so as to avoid all the usual distractions associated with becoming too familiar and personal with anyone. My independence and work is paramount.

I repeat. I have posted NO photos ANYWHERE.

This is why I asked for those links. I suspected the possibility of mistaken identity (which was indicated in some of your other posts where you thought I had 'sockpuppets' etc). If you will post the name/work links, I can see who you mistook me for!
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Dec 30, 2012
Not the 'aether' of all other theories; not even the currently evolving 'mainstream' versions of 'aether'. The fundamental 'energy-space' is all there is (I have identified the nature and origins of same) in reality-physics terms (no 'abstractions' of any kind required). My ToE goes on to self-evolve naturally and consistently from that initial fundamental and ubiquitous physical thing in a way that is not possible to do in all previous theories using 'aether' OR 'fields' as they have been. Some come close, and I have hinted at this in some places, but they all eventually run up against a brick wall where nothing makes sense because they essentially started with wrong assumptions about fundamentals. Gravity included. Thanks. Cheers.


Damn, and I was so fond of that Gravity thing,,,, carry on with your theorizing,,, it's hard work I know, but someone must bear the load.

I concede, ya may have both the penultimate and the last word,,,, the wife has chores for me to do.

RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2012
Hi Q-Star. You are gracious. Not as 'bad' as you tried to make yourself out to be. Thanks for your understanding and the friendly chat. Seriously (and with apologies to Valeria-T :)), best wishes for you and yours in the New Year, Q-Star, a_p, V-T and everyone! Probably will be too busy to post much in the coming weeks. Good luck and good thinking till then. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2012

Oh yes, he has written pages on it,,,, I'll pm ya some of the links I have.

Thanks. I have to agree: that's definitely him in those forums you pointed me to. And no wonder he's getting the same treatment there (OK, the banning is still missing - but I guess that's only because the comment sections on physorg aren't moderated).

It's beyond credulity that that type of crazy would evolve with several people using the same moniker and the same type of writing style.
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2012
One reason: In every case where a photon decays into particles, which has been observed to happen, there is always an equal mix of matter and antimatter. At high enough energy densities, photons and matter switch state readily. As the universe expanded and cooled, the "average" photon became less energetic, and such switching largely ended, because the photon didn't have enough energy to make two of the least massive particles. Thus, the last such events should have left equal parts matter and antimatter.
Job001
1 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2012
All human brains can at best model and fail to fully comprehend the Cosmos. We each have probabilistic knowledge based upon experience with our tiny slice of time and place experience(database).
Theory cannot exceed her limited data and is probabilistic. Nothing exceeds data, and all observable data is limited. Consequently we discuss the error of theory based upon the error of our assumptions and probabilities based upon appallingly limited data.
All else is "sound and fury" signifying the fundamental equation, "nothing". 0 = 1-1.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2012
We each have probabilistic knowledge based upon experience with our tiny slice of time and place experience(database).

Coming to correct conclusions from incomplete data is not impossible. So I'd be very careful with the type of absolutist statements you make.

Then again: we don't need to comprehend the cosmos fully. All we need to do is have a model that works every time. It may not be the best possible model - but from that point on forward that's irrelevant.

Consider the sequence 1,2,3,4,5
There are an infinite number of algorithms that will produce these numbers (and "6" as the next number (or any other number for that matter)). If there is only one number that will occur after the initial sequence, ever, then it doesn't matter which of the infinite number of possible algorithms we choose to be the 'true' one - as long as it produces the number that is observed when it happens.

The map is not the territory - but in some cases it doesn't need to be.
Kron
1 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2012
"We don't need to comprehend the cosmos fully...[in order to]...have a [cosmological] model that works every time."
-False statement.
I get what you're trying to say, but your bad choice of words produced a self contradictory statement.

You cannot predict an outcome "every time" (100% accuracy) without full knowledge of all variables involved.

You can have an adequate model (predictive power <100%) without full "comprehension", but this model will not work "every time".
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2012
You cannot predict an outcome "every time" (100% accuracy) without full knowledge of all variables involved.
I do agree with you. What the antialias_physorg is spreading here is an analogy of the Feynman's mediocre stance: "Shut up and calculate! Science doesn't bother with WHY questions, it only answers HOW questions." It's modern version of scholastic theology ("we shouldn't ask about nature of God"), leading to the belief, that the adding of infinite number of parameters could replace the Copernician model with Ptolemy's one. Even the best and most reliable description without understanding is numeric regression of experimental curves only. The understanding is about finding economical explanation, i.e. finding of the simplest and most universal model too (which is the AWT motivation). Relevant opinion: We are living in a universe incalculable by science.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2012
Here are many reasons, why proponents of contemporary science adhere on this reductionist Platonism: both objective, both subjective ones. The objective reason is, that the reductionist approach works, until we ignore the objective reality at the human observer scale (it's not calculable) and until the level of technology doesn't allow to observe the reality from its extrinsic perspective. To be more specific, the reductionist approach works at the distance scales not smaller than the atom nuclei and not larger, than the size of large stars. Outside these scales the Universe the intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives begin to mix in unpredictable way again. But here are many other intersubjective reasons, for why the scientific community adheres on blind regressions of reality. And these reasons are way less substantiated and they point to religious, retrograde character of contemporary science.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2012
It's modern version of scholastic theology

It's the stance of science. What you want is philosophy. The notion that there can be something 'true'. But this fails in the same manner as looking for something that is 'perfect' does.

To have something true you have to have something to measure truth by. The simple reason being: true is an information statement (it delineates from 'false') as duch it requires a dichotomy. But 'truth of the cosmos' does not allow for that, since it must exist outside all context (or it isn't the whole truth but contingent on context).
But a property that exists outside all context can only be self referential (no context, remember) and therefore is by necessity tautological (like the statement "existence exists"). It carries no information whatsoever - which in term directly contradicts the dichotomous nature of truth (or perfection) mentioned above.

Summary: (ultimate) truth isn't out there - so searching for it is just mental masturbation
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2013
(ultimate) truth isn't out there - so searching for it is just mental masturbation
I see, so that the string theory isn't Theory Of Everything anymore? Can we send the mental masturbators to their warm homes finally? Now I ignore the fact, the whole previous post of yours is just a chain of unsubstantiated conjectures and as such just the philosophy, you're trying to fight with in it. The assumption, that no absolute truth exists is as philosophical, as the assumption, such an absolute truth doesn't exists. The first approach is called the universalism, the later one relativism.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
In AWT this question is trivial: the universal truth does exists in similar way, like the aether does exist - it just manifest itself the weaker way, the more general it is. But the dependence of locality to the relevance of truth is not monotonous. From our everyday experience we know, that the more exact some theory is, the narrower is the scope of its validity. The conclusion is, at the certain distance/energy density scope the product of exactness and universality of theories goes through maximum, outside of it the theories become too general or too specific. You can recognize this scope easily, as the objects are getting most symmetrical (spherical) shape just at these distance scales (the scale of atoms and large stars).
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2013
so that the string theory isn't Theory Of Everything anymore?

A ToE in science just measn "theory of everything thus far observed". If you want to add a philosophical note to it then that's just you.

The number of datapoints in the universe are large but not infinite. So, as Job001 rightly observed, no matter how good a theory is we can never know with 100% certainty whether it is the right one (or even if there IS a right one) - even if it predicts every future observation correctly. There are always an infinite number of right theories.
What we're looking for is a ToE that is simple to handle out of the infinity of 'correct' ToEs ones.

Can we send the mental masturbators to their warm homes finally?

We did. They're called philosophers.

A_Paradox
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2013
Valeria T:
.... What the antialias_physorg is spreading here is an analogy of the Feynman's mediocre stance: "Shut up and calculate! Science doesn't bother with WHY questions, it only answers HOW questions.
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp ....


WTF?! That link is to a video - 7 & 1/2 minutes - in which Richard Feynman _*explains*_ clearly, and very reasonably, why he must answer in a certain way only the interviewer's question about "Why" or "how" two magnets "feel" a repulsion. There is nothing mediocre about any of what he says in that video and he does answer the man's question.

I think it is a gratuitous misrepresentation to imply that Feynman's approach to things is anything like mediaeval scholasticism.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2013
It's no secret for me, that Feynman didn't know the answer for this question, so he evaded the direct answer. Even young Einstein did take this question very seriously. After all, the scientists are asking WHY questions all the time - and if they will not, the better for me. I'm prepared to answer such a question.

The difference between WHY and HOW questions is exactly the reason, why the epicycle model was superseded and replaced with heliocentric one. Without it we would just add another and another layers of parameters to it until now.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2013
I actually know the exact reason, why the mainstream science stopped to ask the WHY questions in Feynman times. This timing was not accidental - it was just the time, when (the relative success of) schematic reductionist approach in physics culminated. Note that the recent finding of Higgs is the very last success of this reductionist approach - but this prediction is nearly fifty years old already! All later attempts to extend it (LQG, string theory, SUSY - even the Feynman's QED itself) failed in their predictions. This schematic approach is behind the twenty-fifty year standing ignorance of cold fusion finding too. The blind combinations of equations of established theories cannot replace the insightful approach based on experience, detached view and intuition.
Kron
1.1 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2013
The number of datapoints in the universe are large but not infinite.
<-- pseudoscience! You do not know whether the universe is infinite or not.
no matter how good a theory is we can never know with 100% certainty whether it is the right one...

true.
...(or even if there IS a right one).

false! It's called reality! You should visit sometime. The right theory is reality itself. Don't go off on a tangent here like you've done above. Whether or not we come up with the right theory or whether we know it is the right theory when we do is irrelevant! The right theory is a literal translation of reality. So, yes, there IS the right one!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
The right theory is reality itself.

Reality is not a theory (reality and theory are exact opposites. You're just playing dumb word games here).

And even if:
If reality WERE a theory it wouldn't be a useful one.
The point of scientific theories is to get good PREDICTIONS with a model that is smaller (i.e. can be more easily handled) than reality.
If oyu say reality is a theory then ypur predictions always are: "let's wait and see what happens". While this will always lead to a 100% 'true' result the informational value of such a theory is zero (i.e. it's a useless theory) because it allows for no prediction whatsoever.
Kron
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2013
A perfectly modeled reality has perfect predictive power. The right theory is one which is a perfect replica of nature. You'll always get the correct result using a model which perfectly incorporates all natural phenomena. Nature does just that. Nature is a perfect model of itself, a true replica.

This is not a word game. I'm talking hypotheticals. I don't care about ease of use of such a model. I don't care if it is derivable or not. What we're discussing is whether there is such a thing as "one...right theory". There is. A perfect model of nature is the "one...right theory".
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
A perfectly modeled reality has perfect predictive power. The right theory is one which is a perfect replica of nature.

While I agree that the only thing that is guaranteed to mirror reality is reality itself it is not a model that is useful. It wouldn't even be useful to have an entire separate universe that was a 1:1 clone of this one to use as a predictive model because our universe isn't deterministic but probabilistic. (Being probabilistic the whole idea of ever getting a 100% perfect model is futile to begin with).

Nature does just that. Nature is a perfect model of itself, a true replica.

But nature has no predictive power (which is a MUST for a theory). Look at nature. And then tell me WITHOUT using another model what will happen before it happens. Can't be done. So it's not a useful model.

Reality is not at theory. (I think you need to look up what the word 'theory' even means. Redefining it to suit your whims is certainly not a good way to argue)
Kron
1 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2013
What are you talking about? Nature is probabilistic? No. Probable outcomes are derived by intelligent minds. Maybe you mean indeterminate? QM is a probabilistic theory of nature, but this doesn't mean that nature is probabilistic. But if reality was indeterminate probabilistic equations wouldn't work. So you're wrong.

In either case I'm done discussing things with you. You're attempting to win an argument and you're just plain wrong.

Learn to read. I'm talking about a MODEL of nature. SIMULATION of nature. REPLICATION of nature.
then tell me WITHOUT using another model what will happen before it happens

I AM TALKING ABOUT USING A MODEL OF REALITY TO PREDICT A REAL OUTCOME!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
What are you talking about? Nature is probabilistic?

Stuff like QM (e.g. single partcle interference) are pretty damning evidence that we don't have a determinsitic universe. Heisenberg Uncertainty would also indicate that it's not deterministic.
But if reality was indeterminate probabilistic equations wouldn't work.

Of course they do. "Probabilistic" is not the same as "fully random". Something that happens 99.9999% of the time is probabilistic. It's not deterministic. And it's not random. AND you can make useful theories based upon that knowledge - even though they are not 100% correct.

You're attempting to win an argument and you're just plain wrong

You know what: that's the best argument you've made, yet. I bow to your superior intellect (/sarcasm).

I AM TALKING ABOUT USING A MODEL OF REALITY TO PREDICT A REAL OUTCOME!

And I'm saying no such model you care to construct will give you the correct outcome 100% of the time (for the above reasons)
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2013
Antialias: I agree with that last statement, even if we DO live in a deterministic universe. Any model would have to involve simplifications, and thus wouldn't include all of the data, unless the model itself was as complex as the universe. And if it was, it would BE the universe, which would make it useless for predicting the universe.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2013
Universe is neither deterministic, neither solely probabilistic. In AWT whole quarter of observable reality above human distance/energy density scale is quite deterministic (general relativity), another quarter bellow human distance scale is merely probabilistic (quantum mechanics), the quarter around human observer scale is stochastic (Newtonian mechanics) and the remaining quarter above/bellow relativistic/quantum mechanics scales is random.
Kron
1 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2013
Some would argue that the probabilistically determinate nature of quantum mechanics has to do with hidden variables. That the reason we cannot predict exactly where every individual photon will interact with a screen in the double slit experiment has to do with the ignorance of man. That if we knew all the variables involved we'd know exactly where each photon would land rather than predicting a general distribution (the interference pattern).

I'd agree. God does not play dice.

The reason we can't predict with 100% accuracy is our own stupidity, it is our pride that drives us to say: since we cannot predict all events, all events are not predictable.

A reality indeterminable by us does not equate to an indeterminate reality.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2013
The AWT trick is, the randomness doesn't mean the absence of structures in it. Which of these pictures appears more random for you: this one on the left or this right one? The homogeneity/emptiness is not natural, random the less. And if we extend this randomness in scale, the geometric structure of Universe will emerge.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2013
Learn to read. I'm talking about a MODEL of nature. SIMULATION of nature. REPLICATION of nature.
then tell me WITHOUT using another model what will happen before it happens

I AM TALKING ABOUT USING A MODEL OF REALITY TO PREDICT A REAL OUTCOME!

Silly Wabbits.... We ARE the model...
Kron
1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2013
Silly Wabbits.... We ARE the model...

He sleeps. We are His dream. His imaginings. A creation of His imagination. We are all a product of His image, we are created by Him. The whole of the world is Him. Everywhere you look there is Him. Close your eyes and join Him.

'Yes, it was all just a dream, oh no
Was it real? I don't know,
I hope so...'
Kron
2 / 5 (12) Jan 02, 2013
Which of these pictures appears more random for you: this one on the left or this right one?

Neither image is random. Both are a product of the conditions present at their generation. The random appearance is an illusion. Take a random number generator in a classical computational system for an example: all of the numbers generated are blossomed from the initial seed (program). There is no such thing as 'true' randomness. All things that happen (effect) have a cause.

Some would argue that a quantum computational system could produce truly random numbers. I'd say that a quantum system would just be better at fooling us. The randomness at the quantum level is an illusion, if we understood quantum processes, the randomness would be gone.

The reason I bring up RNG's is that I have a feeling that the images you showed are computer generated. Maybe you were prepared to counter with: both were randomly generated. I say: there is no such thing.
Kafpauzo
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2013
Take a random number generator in a classical computational system for an example: all of the numbers generated are blossomed from the initial seed (program).

That was long ago. Nowadays the operating system continuously "collects randomness" from the clock time when mouse movements happen and their directions, the clock time when internet packets arrive, CPU temperature swings and their clock times, and a lot of other inputs that are truly random.

Of course philosophically you might argue that if you assume that the universe is totally deterministic, then these inputs are all totally deterministic. But even in that case, from the limited viewpoint of the system that is "collecting randomness", these input times and values are totally random.

However, from what I understand, quantum randomness is a fundamental property, inherent in the way the world works, and thus can't be an illusion stemming from lack of knowledge.
brt
2 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2013
why does every lunatic with some completely bullshit "theory of everything" (don't get me started on the fact that any asshole with a sophomore college level knowledge of physics wouldn't call it that) seem to always come from Australia? And not to pick on any single person on here, I just noticed it from a bunch of other science quickie article websites. Is it because Australia is the Mississippi of the world? I don't get it.

But if all it takes to be a genius is to claim you know how to unify all branches of physics, then guess what; I know how to unify all branches of physics too. Because, of course, some bullshit internet comments section is the most logical place to advertise that.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2013
I'm from Czech republic, which is opposed to Australia at the Earth globe. I'd say, the traditionally free-thinker character of countries which are separated from mainstream civilization but they're still relatively rich could play its role here.
..the random appearance is an illusion..
I didn't ask, which of these pictures is random, but which of these is MORE random. We are living in gradient driven reality - the absolute values are imaginary, but their relative differences not.
rubberman
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2013
Nothing is "random" folks. The appearance of "randomness" stems from a lack of knowledge of all the variables, which I believe is what Kron is getting at. Every "random" occurrence unfolded precisely how ALL of the varibles combined to produce it, when it is possible to know all of the variables, nothing is random. The laws of physics still apply, even if we aren't here to percieve them....or misdiagnose them.
Infinum
1 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2013
"why there is more matter than antimatter in the observable universe."

Because we move forward in time. If we moved backwards in time then matter-antimatter ratio would be reversed as I understand CPT symmetry.

PET scans are probabilistic - they give many false positives because positrons are likely, yet not certainly, electrons from the future. On the other hand MRI gives you a definite result because it is based on the information gathered from matter i.e. from the past ;)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2013
PET scans are probabilistic - they give many false positives because positrons are likely, yet not certainly, electrons from the future.

Lay off the weed. Positrons are created via decay for use in PET scans - and that decay is certainly not "atomic nuclei suddenly sticking together backwards in time because an antimatter particle from the future traveled back in time to make them sticky"

Positrons are also created in some reactions where a photon hits a nucleus.
By your 'logic' that photon would have to be ejected backwards in time because the positron flying backwards in time hit the nucleus (which is nonsensical since the guy operating the apparatus triggered the creation of the photon an not the other way around)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2013
Hi brt.
why does every lunatic with some completely bullshit "theory of everything" (don't get me started on the fact that any asshole with a sophomore college level knowledge of physics wouldn't call it that) seem to always come from Australia? And not to pick on any single person on here, I just noticed it from a bunch of other science quickie article websites. Is it because Australia is the Mississippi of the world? I don't get it.


Why do people who think they are 'scientific' make such patently erroneous generalizations about people instead of discussing the science?

And maybe because Australians tend to be independent thinkers/doers they are noticed more often? In the field of science and invention, Oz punches well above its weight per head of population.

You should try thinking/doing/discussing science instead of just mouthing off about people/countries. :)

Cheers!
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2013
Why do people who think they are 'scientific' make such patently erroneous generalizations about people instead of discussing the science?


You brought in something that YOU called your TOE. If you didn't want a negative response, maybe you should have called it something else. Among "science" minded people, the term TOE or "theory of everything" has become a pejorative.

And maybe because Australians tend to be independent thinkers/doers they are noticed more often? In the field of science and invention, Oz punches well above its weight per head of population.


Oz is also a pejorative, it usually denotes something that is make-believe, false, or a pretense.

A TOE is currently considered to be the most grandiose idea in all of science. Whenever you start to discuss it, you must be prepared for some good natured ridicule. Among scientists, it's pretty much a "fun" topic, the only people who can make a living at it are the "Art Bell" types.

Respectfully, Q.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2013
Hi Q-Star! All the best for this new year! Also respectfully...

If you read this thread, I only offered 'passing speculative thoughts' on the OP subject/question. I did NOT present any of my ToE as such; but merely alluded to the fact that I am working on publishing one soon. That was it. Hence there was no just scientific basis for that personal 'generalization' made by brt about Oz and/or its/other peoples/countries. And Oz is English usage for "Aussieland" here and in many places around the world. Not a fictional place here, I assure you! Oh, sure; good natured ridicule is ok between friends; but generalizations like that was can lead to ill-feeling in others who are not so friendly as this particular Aussie! Besides, its just not helpful to further polite discourse on merits of ideas when someone 'labels' the 'source' of ideas like that irrespective of merits YET to be determined fully AFTER complete objective discourse. That is science. This is not social media playpen. Cheers!
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2013
I only offered 'passing speculative thoughts' on the OP subject/question. I did NOT present any of my ToE as such; but merely alluded to the fact that I am working on publishing one soon.


That's exactly what I mean, you alluded to it. You want to be treated like a scientist, then be prepared to talk science. If you bring up a TOE, in any fashion, be prepared to treated like you belong to the tin-foil hat brigade,,, unless you have a whole lot to say about it, and know your physics fundamentals very thoroughly.

This is not social media playpen.


Then talk science, not phantasmagorical gobbledygook. If you can't put it into a scientific frame-work, then it's not science, it's coffee-house or bar-room ponderings.

There are sites devoted to off-beat, crank, and phantasmagorical musing,,, maybe your TOE would get taken more seriously there.

A mere thought is not science, it must also contain some relation to reality. It must fit into the big picture.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2013
Why do people who think they are 'scientific' make such patently erroneous generalizations about people instead of discussing the science?

Because the people making the claims don't put forth any science.

Science is not (contrary to the belief of uneducated people) the bandying about of technical terms. Technical terms are merely used as the language of science - as such they carry no content in and of themselves (you could replace each term with any other term you liked).

What science is, is the form of hypothesis, prediction and observation.

And I see nowhere where your (or a number of other people's) input on this site match that in any way whatsoever.

So if you want to be taken scientifically serious - then start talking science. Show your work. Make QUANTITATIVE predictions at odds with current theories, and show how tests validate yours above what others predict.

THEN (and only then) will we be talking science.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2013
Hi Q-Star, antialias_physorg. Please read the relevant exchanges again. It was you who tried to mischaracterize me and my work 'personally'. I only alluded to the ToE because YOU brought it up FIRST via attempts to disparage me personally, even though the original posts from me here were ONLY passing speculations (as I clearly stated) about the OP subject/question here. So it was YOU (a_p) that started to broaden the exchange after you failed to disparage 'brainstorming' as a valid scientific/thinking exploratory/problem-solving 'tool'; and it was YOU (Q-S) that then asked ME to give you hints about my ToE. I told you it wasn't yet ready for publication, so I couldn't say more about it. Remember?

So, if you will both re-read your exchanges with me, you will see that your latest criticism is unfounded. But no hard feelings! Bye. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2013
It was you who tried to mischaracterize me and my work 'personally'.

You have no work. There is nothing to mischaracterize. You have a bunch of words (of which you patently don't know what they mean) That's all.
You claim to have something like 'work on a ToE' but I'd bet large sums of money (and my life, actually) that you have diddly-squat. I've never been more sure of anything.

'Personally' you're just a very confused human being (and massively afflicted by hubris about your own knowledge/abilities).

Bye

You promised to leave once before. If you'll be so kind: make good on that promise this time? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. The site will certainly experience a massive rise in quality without you.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2013
A mere thought is not science, it must also contain some relation to reality. It must fit into the big picture.

funny thing about the big picture... there's ALWAYS a bigger one...
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2013
funny thing about the big picture... there's ALWAYS a bigger one...


Mares eat oats, does eat oats, and little lambs eat ivy,,, as long as we're waxing philosophical.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2013
Hi a_p.
You have no work. There is nothing to mischaracterize. You have a bunch of words (of which you patently don't know what they mean) That's all. You claim to have something like 'work on a ToE' but I'd bet large sums of money (and my life, actually) that you have diddly-squat. I've never been more sure of anything. 'Personally' you're just a very confused human being (and massively afflicted by hubris about your own knowledge/abilities). You promised to leave once before. The site will certainly experience a massive rise in quality without you.
When your 'personal feelings' and biased reading/concluding leads you to make such 'bets'-----staking your life no less!, even though as already pointed out, I have NOT presented my ToE as such, and so you have no real basis to comment/bet on same yet-----then it's time for you to take a little time off.

And I said I would be "too busy to post much", not that I was 'leaving'. Biased reading/concluding is not helping you. Bye! :)