Re: Has LIGO found new physics?
There has also be a test of the recent Verlinde paper, and it returned with a non-standard prediction of Einstein's original model. As Freeman Dyson said long ago, the better our equipment is, the more new things we will discover. -Original Message- From: John ClarkTo: everything-list Sent: Sun, Dec 18, 2016 1:18 pm Subject: Has LIGO found new physics? On December 9 a paper was published hinting that maybe just maybe the LIGO Gravitational Wave detector has found evidence for new physics, the first ever departure from General Relativity: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.00266.pdf String theory says, well...,some string theories say, a Black Hole really has 2 event horizons just a few Planck lengths apart, the inner one is like the one Einstein predicted where anything crossing it can never escape, and the outer event horizon where anything crossing will *probably* be trapped to o but might still escape if the particle enters at just the right angle. Some non-string theories also predict similar event horizons , with a few subtle differences from the String Theory version , in an effort to avoid the Black Hole information paradox and explain Black Hole firewalls. To Gravitational Waves these 2 event horizons would act like mirrors, most waves would pass through both but some would start bouncing back and forth between the two . Eventually the waves would all get out but there would be a delay. The above paper calculates that the echo s should appear at 0.1 seconds, 0.2 seconds and 0.3 seconds a fter the primary wave. When they looked at the LIGO data for the 3 Black Hole mergers (2 certain and 1 probable) they seemed to find echos after just those delays (the delay only changes with the log of of the mass, and the mass of all 3 events were roughly the same so the delays would be too). The evidence so far for any of this is weak, the sigma is only 2.9 which means if you repeated the experiment 270 times you'd only expect to see the observed results once if it was all due to random noise . Y ou need 5 sigma to claim a discover and that's one chance in 3.5 million it's just a fluke. A few month ago everybody got excited when the LHC said they may have found a new unexpected particle, and the evidence for it was almost as good as LIGO's , the sigma was 2.1, but as more data came in the entire thing just disappeared, so caution is warranted. As LIGO collects more data we should be able to confirm or rule out new physics within the next 2 years, less if we're lucky; although the data will probably not be good enough to figure out if a string theory o r a non-string theory fits the results better, but at least we'll know if there is something new under the sun or not. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Has LIGO found new physics?
On December 9 a paper was published hinting that maybe just maybe the LIGO Gravitational Wave detector has found evidence for new physics, the first ever departure from General Relativity: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.00266.pdf String theory says, well...,some string theories say, a Black Hole really has 2 event horizons just a few Planck lengths apart, the inner one is like the one Einstein predicted where anything crossing it can never escape, and the outer event horizon where anything crossing will * *probably** be trapped to o but might still escape if the particle enters at just the right angle. Some non-string theories also predict similar event horizons , with a few subtle differences from the String Theory version , in an effort to avoid the Black Hole information paradox and explain Black Hole firewalls. To Gravitational Waves these 2 event horizons would act like mirrors, most waves would pass through both but some would start bouncing back and forth between the two . Eventually the waves would all get out but there would be a delay. The above paper calculates that the echo s should appear at 0.1 seconds, 0.2 seconds and 0.3 seconds a fter the primary wave. When they looked at the LIGO data for the 3 Black Hole mergers (2 certain and 1 probable) they seemed to find echos after just those delays (the delay only changes with the log of of the mass, and the mass of all 3 events were roughly the same so the delays would be too). The evidence so far for any of this is weak, the sigma is only 2.9 which means if you repeated the experiment 270 times you'd only expect to see the observed results once if it was all due to random noise . Y ou need 5 sigma to claim a discover and that's one chance in 3.5 million it's just a fluke. A few month ago everybody got excited when the LHC said they may have found a new unexpected particle, and the evidence for it was almost as good as LIGO's , the sigma was 2.1, but as more data came in the entire thing just disappeared, so caution is warranted. As LIGO collects more data we should be able to confirm or rule out new physics within the next 2 years, less if we're lucky; although the data will probably not be good enough to figure out if a string theory o r a non-string theory fits the results better, but at least we'll know if there is something new under the sun or not. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On 18 Dec 2016, at 00:04, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Well, Doc, you mentioned your afterlife view before, Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean those knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it would be confusing if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard definition in analytical philosophy. and I either found it emotively, unpalatable (Damn. there's goes the human amygdala again!) or found it too hard to comprehend, You can ask question. Do you have a problem with the definition of the weak computationalist assumption? when you used to say "read the universal dovetailer argument," (Darn that weak cerebrum!), and so forth. I don't believe in weak cerebrum. I think you just showed, indeed just above, some emotional unpalatableness, if I can say. My own sense of things driven by both cranial structures, indicate for me, that since there is and has been unending tragic goings on in the world (perhaps 3.75 billion years worth?), so I in my insight have decided its up to our species, and/or its descendents, to sort thing out. yes, but history shows also that the tragic doing is sometime just perpetuated by such "good intentions". The passage from unicellular to pluricellular was also a way to sort things out, but it made us going out of the ocean and it can lost us on Mars, Titan, or far beyond. Nothing is simple. Beyond universality, simplifying is itself a root of complexifying. I am believing that, lacking all other available actions, computing is the way to go. the only way at this point. To compute you need a universal machine, and that machine is only one more unknown in a equation of 8 billions of unknowns. 99.95% of our species population thinks differently from I, and taking that as a reasonable sign that I am on the wrong side of things, once more, I persist anyway. We have partial control. The attempt to get total control either kill universality/freedom, or get inconsistent/delire/catastrophes. You look for and accept (as most do!) reality as it is. I am not sure this makes sense. At some level we all have to do that. At a different level, we all try to improve the human condition relative to this or that possible "reality". The main lesson here given by the universal machine, but also by Alan Watts (The wisdom of insecurity) or Robert Valadier (Inéluctable morale) is ... well, it is sum up in the popular saying "Hell is paved with good intention". One way to help, avoiding that warning, is to study the right, and politics, and trying to fix the system, which has been taken into hostage since sometimes. Today the fundamental powers (media, politics, judiciary, academic, etc.) are no more separated, which is mandatory for a democracy (Montesquieu). I sift through science papers (like at ARXIV) and other popular online source, attempting to look for possibilities of things, such as cosmological registers of some sort, a MAC address in the sky, but something, more read-write, a spacetime SSD, for a laugh. Everything can be used for a laugh (grin). Not sure why you want a MAC address in the sky, well, not sure a sky belongs to the category of things providing addresses. I Hope you don't believe that God lives on some cloud (re-grin). Bruno I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain here or a pleasure here, that we can know but not communicate rationally, nor justified). -Original Message- From: Bruno MarchalTo: everything-list Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2016 12:48 pm Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you interested, instead, of allowing humanity better control of our region of the universe, by understanding the rules? I guess each one of us has his, or her, own motivation. Mine is just to try to figure out what is reality, and what is the relation between us and that reality. I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain here or a pleasure here, that we can know but not communicate rationally, nor justified). I think most fundamental
Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On 18 Dec 2016, at 06:40, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno poses the question of whether we would let "the doctor" substitute some functionally equivalent mechanism for our brain. But why substitute? Why not just add on. Well before it's possible to provide a substitute brain, it will be possible to provide a brain prosthesis that allows enormously greater storage capacity and communication with the internet and other similarly augmented people. This offers a kind of immortality much more satisfying that survival in some other branch of the Multiple Worlds. I agree with you. My point is theoretical. Only a brain, artificial or not, can prolongate our normal experience, and an artificial one can help us to see the grandgrandchildren growing, and the next soccer cups. To be immortal *literally* in that sense would assume a robust universe (like in step 7). So for the long run, and assuming the usual theory, it is hard to avoid the "other side" (say). If my memories and experiences and knowledge can be transferred to my children, then they will be me+. I've often reflected how inefficient it is that each child has to start over learning reading, writing, and Peano. But if my memories survive then that's pretty close to immortality since memories are the primary element of identity that connects me to Brent Meeker of 10yrs ago and of 20yrs ago and 40yrs ago... OK. But if you go enough far in the past, like in your mother's womb, somehow, you can intuit we are quite alike. We can go up to the universal machine, I think. We can even dissociate from the induction axioms! As long as someone get the glee of some lovely non go theorem in arithmetic, like the irrationality of the square root of 2, I will be there :) Bruno Brent On 12/17/2016 3:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Well, Doc, you mentioned your afterlife view before, and I either found it emotively, unpalatable (Damn. there's goes the human amygdala again!) or found it too hard to comprehend, when you used to say "read the universal dovetailer argument," (Darn that weak cerebrum!), and so forth. My own sense of things driven by both cranial structures, indicate for me, that since there is and has been unending tragic goings on in the world (perhaps 3.75 billion years worth?), so I in my insight have decided its up to our species, and/or its descendents, to sort thing out. I am believing that, lacking all other available actions, computing is the way to go. the only way at this point. 99.95% of our species population thinks differently from I, and taking that as a reasonable sign that I am on the wrong side of things, once more, I persist anyway. You look for and accept (as most do!) reality as it is. I sift through science papers (like at ARXIV) and other popular online source, attempting to look for possibilities of things, such as cosmological registers of some sort, a MAC address in the sky, but something, more read-write, a spacetime SSD, for a laugh. I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain here or a pleasure here, that we can know but not communicate rationally, nor justified). -Original Message- From: Bruno MarchalTo: everything-list Sent: Fri, Dec 16, 2016 12:48 pm Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter On 16 Dec 2016, at 15:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: When entering into discussions such as these, are you doing for the intellectual enjoyment of physics, astronomy, and math, or are you interested, instead, of allowing humanity better control of our region of the universe, by understanding the rules? I guess each one of us has his, or her, own motivation. Mine is just to try to figure out what is reality, and what is the relation between us and that reality. I try to get some rationalist light (for a change) on afterlife, soul, consciousness, meaning, etc. And I hope we can improve our relations in general by extending our knowledge of that reality, although with computationalism, we can never be sure our knowledge *is* knowledge, except for a few first person indexical (like a pain here or a pleasure here, that we can know but not communicate rationally, nor justified). I think most fundamental researchers are motivated by a curiosity and fascination on some Reality that they are searching, and often, it can happen they get cursed by the beauty of their theories, which can help but can also become an handicapthat will depend on many things. So it is neither for the enjoyment of some science per se, nor for helping
Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:40:17 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote: > > Bruno poses the question of whether we would let "the doctor" substitute > some functionally equivalent mechanism for our brain. But why substitute? > Why not just add on. > Good question. > Well before it's possible to provide a substitute brain, it will be > possible to provide a brain prosthesis that allows enormously greater > storage capacity and communication with the internet and other similarly > augmented people. This offers a kind of immortality much more satisfying > that survival in some other branch of the Multiple Worlds. If my memories > and experiences and knowledge can be transferred to my children, then they > will be me+. > That assumes that children would want our memories. Because with such memories our descendants could also inherit bad habits, traumas etc. along with what we deem to be the positive content. In certain circumstances you'd want perhaps to label certain stored memories with a warning maybe, as "useful but with side-effect of trauma that caused me social anxiety" and leave the choice up to the kids. :-) Perhaps offer abridged text-based or holodeck VR versions that require less commitment and a bit of distance for some flexibility, lol. I've often reflected how inefficient it is that each child has to start > over learning reading, writing, and Peano. > Inefficient only when we rigidly impose our standards and biases. When we don't do that, these seemingly boring tasks are the most awesome magic available because above the tedium, you see the full person developing into who they are, refuting all our theories and standards + sharing with us the beginning of fresh new worlds that replenish the appetite for life. I wouldn't trade these useless memories for anything nor would I want descendants to be necessarily encumbered by them. This keeps control-freakishness and insecurities in check for folks who practice the art of letting go. > But if my memories survive then that's pretty close to immortality since > memories are the primary element of identity that connects me to Brent > Meeker of 10yrs ago and of 20yrs ago and 40yrs ago... > There is also perhaps some Brentness beyond the memories. Attitudes, styles, the type of clothing/hats we wear, our musics, our jokes, aesthetic dimensions of who we are etc. The stuff only our intimate buddies and partners have the pleasure or displeasure to get to approach/know, which might be alluded to through some poetry, music, farewell from friends and family or similar things when we pass away? There are also the practical limits of memory: what we can be aware of in any single moment, as with Turing machines, is limited to the symbol being scanned, even if a Turing machine can alter their m-configuration to remember symbols previously scanned. And in any language, there is a good reason for an upper limit to awareness concerning length of compound symbols. 555 or are compound symbols and we can't tell at a glance whether one is larger or the same. So that harmonizes nicely with experience. Also, Turing machines are assumed to have finite amount of states for a similar reason to limits of compound symbols: If we allow infinity of states, some of them will be arbitrarily close and we get a messy confusion, when we could avoid use of highly complicated/confusing states of mind by writing more symbols on the tape and referring to memory as needed. But indeed, why encumber descendants with ALL our luggage? Some memories of mine, even I can live without, lol. I'll just make sure to leave the keys, nuclear weapons, Doctors', lawyers' and accountants' contact details, should there ever be any trouble, and place memories into some sorted storage with warning labels and sales pitches. That is, if this variety of fuzzy Sunday afternoon options ever does become available. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.