It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Physicists Uncover Strange Numbers in Particle Collisions

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 03:43 PM
a reply to: Tranceopticalinclined

just a little bummed the single number wasn't " 42

No, but close. Apparently, according to other members here, it was actually 420

posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 03:50 PM
a reply to: Riffrafter


I have a question though: why is particular physics seen as "the most important science"? A more accurate philosophical take would be systems theory - as many properties, such as consciousness, are thoroughly relational - ecological - and cannot be reduced to anything like a 'god particle', although we might find interesting relations between such fundamental particles and larger macroscopic processes.

For example, the Human being requires:

  • an existing biodynamical platform. This platform is emergent, with quantum events 'stabilizing' as atomic events which stabilize as molecular events, which stabilizes as cellular events, which stabilize as one larger macroscopic organism

  • All these processes are directed towards survival of the macroscopic structure in terms of the macroscopic realities of the external world. Thus, the structure of the organism cannot be abstracted from the external events which impinge on its structure. An organism, in fact, is a puzzle-piece that fits with other processes.

  • The Hominid brain "entrains" to the positive affectivity of other Hominid brains. Creatures with large brains are in effect, "relational structures". This means that the Human brain is not sufficient on its own, but requires another human face to observe and experience, a voice to hear, so that feelings can be communicated, and so energetically (metabolically) enliven the structure of the brain-mind.

  • posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 05:46 PM
    Great post!

    You have no idea how close to home this hits for me.

    I have undergrad degrees in Comp Sci (BS) and Philosophy (BA) - so I was strangely "divergent" even then.

    Additionally, I have a grad degree in QT, hence my intense interest in this article. So that's my long way of saying that the relationships you're talking about are of keen interest to me. One thing I love philosophically is the further you delve into studying things at a quantum level, the faster the physics crashes headlong into metaphysics.

    And there is *no way* to escape it. So most quantum physicists have given up trying. A few are even embracing it.

    There's hope for us yet.

    What did you think of the pattern and underlying structure that arises from the maths that is talked about in the article?

    edit on 11/21/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)

    posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 06:17 PM
    a reply to: Riffrafter

    One thing I love philosophically is the further you delve into studying things at a quantum level, the faster the physics crashes headlong into metaphysics.

    It's also surreal. We (humankind) are clearly coming closer to an understanding of how we work - and yes, it goes all the way not merely into metaphysics (which is just a term for "what is real"), but can legitimately lead one to believe that mind - consciousness - can work differently if our social-context afforded a more natural expression of Human affectivity.

    My theory is (influenced by the views of the biophysicist Mae Wan Ho) is that Human behavior - mind - is regulated by how the individual understands and regulates the flow of energy/information through their system. In other words - in an incoherent context - the "mechanics" of the natural external world, as well as the mechanics of the flow of our phenomenology, may present a "dualistic" reality. Entropy is great. On the other hand, seeking a more correlated awareness of external contingencies - knowing what is good for you and consciously supporting - may reduce entropy, and so, perhaps even lead to a state of zero-entropy (as Ho believed).

    There's like a clockwise/counter-clockwise logic - with one direction yielding a separation of self from world, a sense of being an "individual ego" - however much of an unreal abstraction that is - and this derives from the "stress" that is acting upon the processing of information through the Human brain-mind.

    Now imagine a different context - one where nurturing is primary - and what do you get? A totally different flow of phenomenology - more relaxed, less stressed, more spontaneous, simply because the organism is not being primed by past experiences to have negative expectancies towards the environment.

    In my mind, there probably was a "garden of eden", and the departure from that state has everything to do with capitalism, commerce, private property, cities, etc.

    People always think of this as if it weren't a phenomenon of nature. A self-organizing structure - creating cities, etc. This is pretty incredible. Yet, it can be difficult - as it has been for most anthropologists - to recognize that using-the-other to regulate your affectivity is how the brain-mind evolved. Each structure (organism) literally inter-included itself within the structure of others - which is what socializing is.

    Fast-forward to around (atleast) 12,000 years ago, and you have the start of the agricultural era - something, in my mind, mistakenly considered as an incredible achievement - as opposed to a structural drift from the ecological background that supports human interinclusivity.

    Is reality different when we don't experience one another as strangers? Quantum biology would suggest "yes". Thought may have more considerable powers than we currently experience - where our minds are often considered to be "virtual' and unreal relative to the physical. Even though, as we know, mind can regulate body.

    posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 06:34 PM
    a reply to: Riffrafter

    It's interesting. I wonder if it's related to synthesis/thesis/antithesis.

    If you want a good book on the origin and organization of life (the cell), I'd highly recommend you read Harold Morowitz and Eric Smith's book The Origin and Nature of Life on Earth.

    I've extracted some important ideas from this book which I see as fundamental. The structure/pattern that you refer to seems almost to allude to this: that all things evolve and change through a "loop" that has perception at one end and action at the other end, with 'affect', or the flow of energy itself, as the synthesizing "third".

    The newest idea in biology - the field likely to replace neodarwinism - is biosemiotics. And in biosemiotics, the organism may be most coherently thought of as an "energy" or "feeling" that constructs an external structure as the same time as an inside forms.

    In other words, what behavioral science calls "affect", may be the phenomenological cognate of "metabolism". Metabolism is a bodily process - yet our phenomenology gives rise to feelings, which, as Antonio Damasio's work shows, is functionally tethered to the biodynamism of our bodies.

    So I the organism as being constituted at all levels by a tripartite logic - Morowitz/Smith's "core metabolism"/"co-factors"/"oligomers", which corresponds quite amazingly to the higher level organismal structure of affect/action/perception.

    I'm writing a book based upon this, which basically argues that life is a process inherent within matter. It does not arise everywhere, but requires a 'relaxed' - but not stagnant - environment that is able to maintain far-from equilibrium dynamics without destroying the whole structure - as would happen on Venus - or never getting started to begin with, as on mars.

    That, in other words, is how amazing and remarkable life is. It is almost universal in its significance, as it requires the "exploration" of conditions that only yield fruit in certain highly specialized locales of the universe.

    posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 07:18 PM
    a reply to: Astrocyte

    Great posts.

    I'm going to need a little time to "metabolize" this as there is an awful lot to digest, and I want to process this carefully.

    Thanks so much for sharing your views.

    I'll be back with questions...probably more than a few.

    posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:01 PM
    Well... Particle physics to Philosophy... while there is often a relation, Id say the above chain is hugely off topic not only that but peoples 'take' on it seems to stem from not understanding what so called loop corrections are.

    The real way the maths works is that every place there is a line, you have a certain mathematical representation, every vertex also, there is a set of rules and accounting as the article says that when a diagram is drawn you apply the rules, end up with a mathematical representation, and you bash the constants and numbers you know into a calculator and boom, out pops a number that represents a probability.

    Now... that is what you call zero or 1st order correct. It basically says that this thing will happen x% of the time.

    You do the experiment and you find the real value (or the best your stats and systematics can tell) is not quite x... it is correct to 1 or 2 decimal places only.

    This is where the loop corrections come in.

    The theory says that, hey when you have an electron scatter, the mediator can itself produce a closed loop during the interaction and to the outside observer, you still see the electron scatter only.

    So you take that diagram (or set of diagrams) and you perform the same calculation and add it to the first set.

    You now have a second order correction, which will be... slightly closer to the experiment. If you keep following this process, you will find that you get very very close in the case of a lot of observed particle physics, but it isnt perfect and it stops being useful after a certain point.

    Now... as patterns and numbers goes, I can only comment that the structure of the loop corrections is methodical, and so yet there might appear to be some pattern in the mess, Iv done 1st and 2nd order corrections on paper for a electron-electron scatter... and let me tell you... its a lot of paperwork! On the underlying structure, I listened to an interview once that basically said the nature of it looks like it sort of an error correcting code. Which might sound like the whole "Holographic universe / we are in the matrix" statement but the way the theorist thought about it said that it is where the concept of super symmetry comes in. That there is a higher mass domain that links with what we see around us and is the source of this so called error correction.

    It was quite interesting, not sure id 100% agree, but it was mathematically quite sound.

    Still, nice article OP

    posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 04:48 PM
    a reply to: ErosA433

    I was giving this some thought the other day. Then it hit me.

    They are using the Riemann zeta function! Maybe the link is not all "motives" and "weights" and "periods" but may even be simpler: prime numbers. Primes are nature's building blocks as evidence in progressions like leaf distribution around the stock of a plant, sunflower seeds, etc. So if the zeta function is giving up a value and that is the resultant weight which they are immediately multiplying by two... that sounds an awful like primorial function of # = 2 x 3 x 5 x...

    It is also strange to notice that Riemann Zeta (2) = Pi^2/6 and that Pi^power will be there. So even if there is no connection to primorial then Pi is still being encoded in the answer. If they want to weight their answer 2 x Pi^2/2x3 = Pi^2/3 which throws back into prime numbers being involved.

    I'm just spitting chalk at this point and it may have nothing to do with it all. But what if while investigating Feynman diagrams they end up doing something like solving the Twin Prime conjecture! That would make Feynman the coolest physicist ever!

    Seems I spend too much time thinking of prime numbers... thanks for letting me rant so I do not bore people at T-day festivities with odd ball notions of the nature of reality!

    posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 06:03 PM
    a reply to: Riffrafter

    Thanks for expressing your appreciation

    posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 07:15 PM

    originally posted by: Astrocyte
    a reply to: Riffrafter

    Thanks for expressing your appreciation

    I'm still thinking about it.

    Damn you.

    Damn you to

    I *love* topics that make me think.


    posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:41 AM
    a reply to: 3n19m470

    That seems more accurate my good sir!

    I say we allow them to keep on sciencing the hell outta it...

    new topics

    top topics

    << 1   >>

    log in