Astronomy picture of the day.
Also, check out this picture of regular and superconducting cables for 12,500 amperes used at LEP compared to those used at the Large Hadron Collider.
Also be sure to check out pics of the LHC on The Big Picture.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Carl Sagan ft Stephen Hawking (Cosmos Remixed) Auto-Tuned
OK, I haven't seen auto-tuning used like this yet but it's a really great idea. I know I just posted another video but I thought this was so good that it deserved a spot here on the Universe Think Tank as well.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Scale
If you took a piece of thin paper, say 0.35mm thick, and folded it in half, it's now about 1mm thick. So without using a calculator, how thick do you think it might be if you fold it 40 times? 10 meters? A mile? Just try to imagine it without doing the math.
A) 1 meter
B) 10 meters
C) 1 Kilometer
D) Distance from Earth to Moon
E) 1 Light Year
What do you think? No cheating!
A) 1 meter
B) 10 meters
C) 1 Kilometer
D) Distance from Earth to Moon
E) 1 Light Year
What do you think? No cheating!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Before the Dawn
Labels:
anthropology,
early man,
evolution,
genetics,
prehistory
0
comments
A book review I wrote for my own blog.
Book Review: Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade
While not as all-encompassing as Jared Diamond's Third Chimpanzee or Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene, I must say that this book left a very deep impression on me. As someone who has been interested in the unrecorded prehistory of man for a long time, I found this book to be something of a welcome update of what was started by the two titles I mentioned earlier. The Selfish Gene was published in 1976, The Third Chimpanzee in 1991. Since the mapping of the human genome in 2003, the results of many new studies have been released, shedding light onto what were once murkier areas in the gaps of what we know of the gene's influence on man and man's prehistory respectively. I really recommend this book for anyone interested on the subject.
The first couple of chapters consist of an introduction and then quick summarization of what would be a basic anthropology course. A highly accurate visual system was needed to help judge distances between trees properly and safely make leaps, such that nearly all primates view the world more or less exactly as we do. Opposable thumbs for a good, strong grip on branches and boughs of many sizes and shapes. Bipedal movement allowing a farther, more commanding view, the ability to carry things while moving, and also just a more energy efficient way of getting around when compared to the knuckle walk which was the common mode of movement before.
It is the following chapters, however, where the book really separates itself from the others, and while it does draw on past disciplines like archeology and paleolinguistics -again Third Chimpanzee but also Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel- for some of its historical conclusions, the recent genetic findings are what really distinguish it. An early example, the approximate dating of when humans first began wearing clothes, demonstrates how we can learn what was never before possible, provided we ask the right questions.
Dating the Development of Several Uniquely Human Charateristics
The louse, a parasite which cannot survive more than six to eight hours away from the warmth of a human body, was once confined to the tiny island of hair on the human head for a period of time between when man lost his body hair and began wearing clothing. This advent, it seems, gave rise to the body louse which had adapted its claws specifically to grasp clothing. By comparing either the Y chromosomes on males -which are passed unchanged and directly from fathers to sons- or mitochondrial DNA -passed unchanged from mothers to daughters- geneticists can now to come up with an approximate date for when species split into new branches. In this particular case, DNA from the body louse and the regular louse were both analyzed, showing a split of the two branches about 72,000 years ago, thus giving scientists that approximate date for the adoption of wearing clothes.
There were several other interesting revelations as well. An obvious next question might be to ask about the loss of body hair. A few possible reasons are given as to why it might have happened -the need to sweat to cool down the body, ridding oneself of parasites, preferences in sexual selection- but one thing that might be a little more certain is that darker skin developed from this advent as protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays which destroy folic acid, an essential nutrient. While our forebears' skin was almost certainly pale originally, as it is in chimps, dark skin would have been necessary to survive in the African sun without body hair to protect oneself. The melanocortin receptor gene which regulates skin pigmentation provides the key. By dating the divergence of this gene towards darker skin, an approximate date of 1.2 million years ago seems to be when humans lost most of their body hair.
The original ancestral population of humans who left Africa would've almost certainly had black skin. Paler skin confers an advantage to colder climates because it lets in more sunlight and allows for better synthesis of Vitamin D. It appears to have come about much later, after humans had left Africa and some were living in far colder temperatures to the north which would become even colder during a glacial period 20,000 years ago. The emergence of lighter skin, which occurs in both Asians and Europeans, developed twice, each time independently of the other.
New Data on the Human Diaspora out of Africa
Genetics have also allowed scientists to estimate that the approximate size of the original human population in Africa when some finally began their exodus out of the continent was about only 5,000, and that this occured about 50,000 years ago. From that number all people on this planet have emerged. Unlike previously believed, humans appear not to have taken the northern route out of Africa past Egypt and through the Fretile Crescent, but rather to have gone across the lower portion of the Red Sea which would've been about 100 feet lower at the time. The reason for this, probably would've been that the Fertile Crescent was already inhabited by Neanderthals who would've provided fiercesome competition for the early ancestors of man, and consequently had boxed them in, unable to leave Africa until that point.
Testing the genetics of modern societies shows that people in general have had a tendancy to live, marry and raise children in about the same area, a trend that has continued to this day but was even more pronounced before 100 years ago and the advent of modern transportation. From this data, early man seems to have crossed the Red Sea, then the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula to India, then continued southward on landbridges existing at that time and primitive boats to Australia, populating on the way what are now some the Pacific Islands, the Phillipines, and New Guinea. The Australian Aborigines, New Guinea Highlanders and jungle dwelling Negritos of the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Adaman Islands appear to be the closest relatives of the Khoisan, who themselves represent one of the longest, most ancient branches of DNA amongst humans who stayed in Africa.
The primitive technology of early man was comparable with that of the Neanderthals, and due to that groups larger body size and stronger muscles, they would've made more than a formidable match. But the forebears of modern humans had a capacity for higher intellect, and perhaps coupled with their ability for more advanced language (a subject the book dwells on much more extensively), eventually were able to shape for themselves a more successful package of subsistence, environmental adaptation, weapons, and other artifacts. Thus the long struggle between the two began to turn against the Neanderthals as modern man began to slowly expand his territory, occupying more and more space that once belonged to Neanderthals until their extinction.
The question of whether humankind's early ancestors mixed and interbred with the Neanderthals has long vexed those who study them, but now at last seems to be finally getting put to rest. By extracting and examining a small sample of DNA from a Neanderthal specimen, a team from Munich managed to show that extremely little to no interbreeding occurred between the two species.
Some Final Considerations on Man's Evolution
In light of what new, genetic testing has taught us, the book makes many conclusions along the way to its destination. Of these, the most important is the thought that modern man has continued to evolve on the genetic level even since leaving Africa and all the way up to the present. It has long been generalized that the most important changes occurred before 50,000 years ago, at which point, man became "anatomically modern" and has remained in a state of genetic stasis ever since. This argument proceeded from the idea that man hasn't needed to adapt any further to his environment. But to assume this would be to assume that no other kind of strife plagued mankind up until today, and that no other accustomization was necessary.
The book delves further into the idea that mankind didn't just need to be "anatomically modern" to scale the heights of today, but also "behaviorally modern". In examining this, one has to consider that many aspects to the behavior of man had to be adjusted (the ability to trust others and consequently work with them, give up the individual freedom that a state of nature provides, adjust to sedentary life, etc...) One also has to begin considering how and what genes have an influence on these behaviors. Genes don't just determine physical characteristic like strength, height, skin, hair, and eye color, but also things like susceptibility to diseases, level of aggressive behavior, propensity to lie to others or cheat on one's partner, things some of which have traditionally been more associated with psychology than biology.
That mankind hasn't ceased to evolve on the genetic level might be most evident in the world of difference between how we lived 50,000 years ago and how we live now. How we shall proceed to evolve into the future might just depend on to what extent we are willing or able to harness genetic manipulation to further achieve our goals.
Book Review: Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade
While not as all-encompassing as Jared Diamond's Third Chimpanzee or Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene, I must say that this book left a very deep impression on me. As someone who has been interested in the unrecorded prehistory of man for a long time, I found this book to be something of a welcome update of what was started by the two titles I mentioned earlier. The Selfish Gene was published in 1976, The Third Chimpanzee in 1991. Since the mapping of the human genome in 2003, the results of many new studies have been released, shedding light onto what were once murkier areas in the gaps of what we know of the gene's influence on man and man's prehistory respectively. I really recommend this book for anyone interested on the subject.
The first couple of chapters consist of an introduction and then quick summarization of what would be a basic anthropology course. A highly accurate visual system was needed to help judge distances between trees properly and safely make leaps, such that nearly all primates view the world more or less exactly as we do. Opposable thumbs for a good, strong grip on branches and boughs of many sizes and shapes. Bipedal movement allowing a farther, more commanding view, the ability to carry things while moving, and also just a more energy efficient way of getting around when compared to the knuckle walk which was the common mode of movement before.
It is the following chapters, however, where the book really separates itself from the others, and while it does draw on past disciplines like archeology and paleolinguistics -again Third Chimpanzee but also Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel- for some of its historical conclusions, the recent genetic findings are what really distinguish it. An early example, the approximate dating of when humans first began wearing clothes, demonstrates how we can learn what was never before possible, provided we ask the right questions.
Dating the Development of Several Uniquely Human Charateristics
The louse, a parasite which cannot survive more than six to eight hours away from the warmth of a human body, was once confined to the tiny island of hair on the human head for a period of time between when man lost his body hair and began wearing clothing. This advent, it seems, gave rise to the body louse which had adapted its claws specifically to grasp clothing. By comparing either the Y chromosomes on males -which are passed unchanged and directly from fathers to sons- or mitochondrial DNA -passed unchanged from mothers to daughters- geneticists can now to come up with an approximate date for when species split into new branches. In this particular case, DNA from the body louse and the regular louse were both analyzed, showing a split of the two branches about 72,000 years ago, thus giving scientists that approximate date for the adoption of wearing clothes.
There were several other interesting revelations as well. An obvious next question might be to ask about the loss of body hair. A few possible reasons are given as to why it might have happened -the need to sweat to cool down the body, ridding oneself of parasites, preferences in sexual selection- but one thing that might be a little more certain is that darker skin developed from this advent as protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays which destroy folic acid, an essential nutrient. While our forebears' skin was almost certainly pale originally, as it is in chimps, dark skin would have been necessary to survive in the African sun without body hair to protect oneself. The melanocortin receptor gene which regulates skin pigmentation provides the key. By dating the divergence of this gene towards darker skin, an approximate date of 1.2 million years ago seems to be when humans lost most of their body hair.
The original ancestral population of humans who left Africa would've almost certainly had black skin. Paler skin confers an advantage to colder climates because it lets in more sunlight and allows for better synthesis of Vitamin D. It appears to have come about much later, after humans had left Africa and some were living in far colder temperatures to the north which would become even colder during a glacial period 20,000 years ago. The emergence of lighter skin, which occurs in both Asians and Europeans, developed twice, each time independently of the other.
New Data on the Human Diaspora out of Africa
Genetics have also allowed scientists to estimate that the approximate size of the original human population in Africa when some finally began their exodus out of the continent was about only 5,000, and that this occured about 50,000 years ago. From that number all people on this planet have emerged. Unlike previously believed, humans appear not to have taken the northern route out of Africa past Egypt and through the Fretile Crescent, but rather to have gone across the lower portion of the Red Sea which would've been about 100 feet lower at the time. The reason for this, probably would've been that the Fertile Crescent was already inhabited by Neanderthals who would've provided fiercesome competition for the early ancestors of man, and consequently had boxed them in, unable to leave Africa until that point.
Testing the genetics of modern societies shows that people in general have had a tendancy to live, marry and raise children in about the same area, a trend that has continued to this day but was even more pronounced before 100 years ago and the advent of modern transportation. From this data, early man seems to have crossed the Red Sea, then the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula to India, then continued southward on landbridges existing at that time and primitive boats to Australia, populating on the way what are now some the Pacific Islands, the Phillipines, and New Guinea. The Australian Aborigines, New Guinea Highlanders and jungle dwelling Negritos of the Phillipines, Malaysia, and Adaman Islands appear to be the closest relatives of the Khoisan, who themselves represent one of the longest, most ancient branches of DNA amongst humans who stayed in Africa.
The primitive technology of early man was comparable with that of the Neanderthals, and due to that groups larger body size and stronger muscles, they would've made more than a formidable match. But the forebears of modern humans had a capacity for higher intellect, and perhaps coupled with their ability for more advanced language (a subject the book dwells on much more extensively), eventually were able to shape for themselves a more successful package of subsistence, environmental adaptation, weapons, and other artifacts. Thus the long struggle between the two began to turn against the Neanderthals as modern man began to slowly expand his territory, occupying more and more space that once belonged to Neanderthals until their extinction.
The question of whether humankind's early ancestors mixed and interbred with the Neanderthals has long vexed those who study them, but now at last seems to be finally getting put to rest. By extracting and examining a small sample of DNA from a Neanderthal specimen, a team from Munich managed to show that extremely little to no interbreeding occurred between the two species.
Some Final Considerations on Man's Evolution
In light of what new, genetic testing has taught us, the book makes many conclusions along the way to its destination. Of these, the most important is the thought that modern man has continued to evolve on the genetic level even since leaving Africa and all the way up to the present. It has long been generalized that the most important changes occurred before 50,000 years ago, at which point, man became "anatomically modern" and has remained in a state of genetic stasis ever since. This argument proceeded from the idea that man hasn't needed to adapt any further to his environment. But to assume this would be to assume that no other kind of strife plagued mankind up until today, and that no other accustomization was necessary.
The book delves further into the idea that mankind didn't just need to be "anatomically modern" to scale the heights of today, but also "behaviorally modern". In examining this, one has to consider that many aspects to the behavior of man had to be adjusted (the ability to trust others and consequently work with them, give up the individual freedom that a state of nature provides, adjust to sedentary life, etc...) One also has to begin considering how and what genes have an influence on these behaviors. Genes don't just determine physical characteristic like strength, height, skin, hair, and eye color, but also things like susceptibility to diseases, level of aggressive behavior, propensity to lie to others or cheat on one's partner, things some of which have traditionally been more associated with psychology than biology.
That mankind hasn't ceased to evolve on the genetic level might be most evident in the world of difference between how we lived 50,000 years ago and how we live now. How we shall proceed to evolve into the future might just depend on to what extent we are willing or able to harness genetic manipulation to further achieve our goals.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Questions from Andrew
Questions from Andrew
I'm sorry the metaphor was lost on you, but the whole point of making a metaphor is to try to relate the general idea of something hard to grasp (quantum mechanics) to something easy to grasp (a cat in a box). Worrying about the electrons in the cat is totally missing the point that it's a metaphor in the first place.
It's more like the very act of measuring something about an electron changes some other property of that electron. But this is getting into too much specifics I don't really know. The only thing you really need to understand, and incidentally, the only thing I can say with any confidence, is that when scientists make measurements or observations on the quantum level, they affect the very thing they are trying to measure in some way.
Because it has to do with unpredictability. The entire universe is made up of tiny particles playing by the rules of quantum mechanics. At any given time a huge number of events (interactions between particles or whatever) are taking place. The outcome of each of these events ultimately leads to the outcome of larger events.. things that we can witness with our own eyes. What you consider a small and meaningless event is just part of a never ending cascade like the butterfly effect.
Again, EVERYTHING is made up of these quantum interactions. See above answer.
The cat is a metaphor, it's electrons don't have anything to do with anything. See first answer above or read on to last answer.
Now this is the best question you've asked so far. And unfortunately, I don't really know too much about it. Read about the uncertainty principle for more information.
Again, I don't know the details, but I believe we know about these things from experiments. Maybe I'll look it up sometime, but not today.
Thinking about the electrons of the cat is totally missing the metaphor. The cat being alive or dead represents something with two possible states. Until observed, both are true. Of course this isn't actually true for a real cat, but that's because it's a metaphor. Don't worry about electrons.
I feel like the metaphor of a cat dying or not is so fucking dramatic that I lost the point of what it was trying to say. If you say that looking at something makes electrons bounce and changes things I understand that but once you make some metaphor that makes me believe my eyes have magical powers that can kill cats I don't understand it anymore.
I'm sorry the metaphor was lost on you, but the whole point of making a metaphor is to try to relate the general idea of something hard to grasp (quantum mechanics) to something easy to grasp (a cat in a box). Worrying about the electrons in the cat is totally missing the point that it's a metaphor in the first place.
So the very act of measuring something or looking at something changes that things electrons. That's it, right?
It's more like the very act of measuring something about an electron changes some other property of that electron. But this is getting into too much specifics I don't really know. The only thing you really need to understand, and incidentally, the only thing I can say with any confidence, is that when scientists make measurements or observations on the quantum level, they affect the very thing they are trying to measure in some way.
How does this have ANYTHING to do with fate? Or universes branching off or cats being alive or not?
Because it has to do with unpredictability. The entire universe is made up of tiny particles playing by the rules of quantum mechanics. At any given time a huge number of events (interactions between particles or whatever) are taking place. The outcome of each of these events ultimately leads to the outcome of larger events.. things that we can witness with our own eyes. What you consider a small and meaningless event is just part of a never ending cascade like the butterfly effect.
I ask this because what's a few electrons? That's my FIRST impression. So a few electrons bounce around. Not much will change, right? If I dump water outside my door into the grass, not much will change in my fate or anyone else's, right? Maybe that grass will live to see another day but that's about it. So again, the point I don't understand is that how does this quantum level interact with people's fates and cause universes to branch off?
Again, EVERYTHING is made up of these quantum interactions. See above answer.
Also, what does the electrons being bounced around by us looking at it have to do with a cat being both alive and dead before we change its electrons by looking at it?
The cat is a metaphor, it's electrons don't have anything to do with anything. See first answer above or read on to last answer.
Are electrons both one thing and another and our looking at it makes it on thing or another? The quantum level is both what and what? If alive and dead are supposed to be A and B, what are A and B supposed to represent on the quantum level? I asume the alive and dead thing was just some thing used for the metaphor. Also, if A and B can't normally exist at the same time like life and death then how is that so? What makes quantum mechanics so special? Just because it's small?
Now this is the best question you've asked so far. And unfortunately, I don't really know too much about it. Read about the uncertainty principle for more information.
Also, how do we know it's both? What's the evidence for that? What reasons do we have to believe in that?
Again, I don't know the details, but I believe we know about these things from experiments. Maybe I'll look it up sometime, but not today.
This cat idea is a terrible fucking metaphor because it's trying to relate to us some idea about electrons but cats are made up of trillions of electrons and changing a few from observation won't do dick, right?
Thinking about the electrons of the cat is totally missing the metaphor. The cat being alive or dead represents something with two possible states. Until observed, both are true. Of course this isn't actually true for a real cat, but that's because it's a metaphor. Don't worry about electrons.
Cosmologists and Evolutionists
Scientists in both fields of Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology are for the most part non-believers, I would wager. However, I think I have noticed a suttle difference in the atheism of these two disciplines. Many of the evolutionary biologists seem to be hard-nosed 7's on Dawkins scale of disbelief. PZ Meyers comes to mind. Hell, Dawkins said he's a 6 in the book but then said he was a 6.9 on Bill Maher. There seems to be much more strife there. A lot more friction.
Then you got Hawking and Kaku and Greene that, while not prescribing to Christianity...and probably atheists as well...the way they go about is different, I feel. They're a little bit softer and less strident than their biologist friends.
I just wonder if this has anything to do with what they study. Perhaps looking at the different scales of things makes a difference. Look at the grandeur of the universe, the Big Bang, and the uncomprehendable quantum world. ....Then again, maybe the biologists get that same feeling from studying fossils and DNA. I don't know but yes you can definitely take a look at people like Hawking and Einstein and Greene and notice some difference in their attitudes compared with that of PZ Meyers and Dawkins.
I like the strident nature. I am strident myself at times but I am simply noting a difference I see.
Then you got Hawking and Kaku and Greene that, while not prescribing to Christianity...and probably atheists as well...the way they go about is different, I feel. They're a little bit softer and less strident than their biologist friends.
I just wonder if this has anything to do with what they study. Perhaps looking at the different scales of things makes a difference. Look at the grandeur of the universe, the Big Bang, and the uncomprehendable quantum world. ....Then again, maybe the biologists get that same feeling from studying fossils and DNA. I don't know but yes you can definitely take a look at people like Hawking and Einstein and Greene and notice some difference in their attitudes compared with that of PZ Meyers and Dawkins.
I like the strident nature. I am strident myself at times but I am simply noting a difference I see.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Both?
Also, what does the electrons being bounced around by us looking at it have to do with a cat being both alive and dead before we change its electrons by looking at it? Are electrons both one thing and another and our looking at it makes it on thing or another? The quantum level is both what and what? If alive and dead are supposed to be A and B, what are A and B supposed to represent on the quantum level? I asume the alive and dead thing was just some thing used for the metaphor. Also, if A and B can't normally exist at the same time like life and death then how is that so? What makes quantum mechanics so special? Just because it's small? Also, how do we know it's both? What's the evidence for that? What reasons do we have to believe in that?
This cat idea is a terrible fucking metaphor because it's trying to relate to us some idea about electrons but cats are made up of trillions of electrons and changing a few from observation won't do dick, right?
This cat idea is a terrible fucking metaphor because it's trying to relate to us some idea about electrons but cats are made up of trillions of electrons and changing a few from observation won't do dick, right?
Maybe I Get It
I feel like the metaphor of a cat dying or not is so fucking dramatic that I lost the point of what it was trying to say. If you say that looking at something makes electrons bounce and changes things I understand that but once you make some metaphor that makes me believe my eyes have magical powers that can kill cats I don't understand it anymore.
So the very act of measuring something or looking at something changes that things electrons. That's it, right?
How does this have ANYTHING to do with fate? Or universes branching off or cats being alive or not?
I ask this because what's a few electrons? That's my FIRST impression. So a few electrons bounce around. Not much will change, right? If I dump water outside my door into the grass, not much will change in my fate or anyone else's, right? Maybe that grass will live to see another day but that's about it. So again, the point I don't understand is that how does this quantum level interact with people's fates and cause universes to branch off?
OK, maybe I don't get it...
So the very act of measuring something or looking at something changes that things electrons. That's it, right?
How does this have ANYTHING to do with fate? Or universes branching off or cats being alive or not?
I ask this because what's a few electrons? That's my FIRST impression. So a few electrons bounce around. Not much will change, right? If I dump water outside my door into the grass, not much will change in my fate or anyone else's, right? Maybe that grass will live to see another day but that's about it. So again, the point I don't understand is that how does this quantum level interact with people's fates and cause universes to branch off?
OK, maybe I don't get it...
Quantum Mechanics (again)
Andrew:
Me: Yes. Like I said before, it's a metaphor.
Andrew:
No. It's both in just one universe until it is observed.
Andrew:
I've never actually met anyone who claimed this by the way.
Andrew:
This is where the metaphor breaks down. You can't "look at" something on the quantum level with a microscope. Imagine we can't see the cat but we want to figure out if it is alive or dead. There might be some other technique that will give us that information, like if we drop a bird into the cage. If the bird dies the cat is alive, but if it flies away the next time we open the cage, the cat is dead. You can see how this would have an affect on the cat, right? Scientists have to go through indirect observation to "see" things on the quantum level, and no matter what method they use, these observations change things (there is no work around).
Andrew:
It is the external act of observation (see above).
Andrew:
You're taking the metaphor too far. This doesn't work for a real cat.
Andrew:
The universes are the same until the observer makes the observation. Then it creates a branch (supposedly).
So is the Schroedinger's Cat thing just a way to explain quantum mechanics?
Me: Yes. Like I said before, it's a metaphor.
Andrew:
If you consider universes branching off and shit I could see that the coin is both heads and tails when you take that into consideration but in the our universe isn't the coin one or the other?
No. It's both in just one universe until it is observed.
Andrew:
Also, yeah, when anyone says that everything has been predetermined since the Big Bang they're making a bold claim. It feels like, even if no one knew anything about quantum mechanics, they would still not know shit, I feel. It's just such an assertion without much proof to back it up. It's like an gross extrapolation of good some good science to the point that it's been extrapolated so much no one knows their ass from their elbow anymore.
I've never actually met anyone who claimed this by the way.
Andrew:
How does observing it affect it? Why is an observer so important? If a dolphin or ant observed something, would the same thing happen as when a human did? Why would these things on a quantum level "choose" to act differently when being observed? How would they "know" they're being observed?
This is where the metaphor breaks down. You can't "look at" something on the quantum level with a microscope. Imagine we can't see the cat but we want to figure out if it is alive or dead. There might be some other technique that will give us that information, like if we drop a bird into the cage. If the bird dies the cat is alive, but if it flies away the next time we open the cage, the cat is dead. You can see how this would have an affect on the cat, right? Scientists have to go through indirect observation to "see" things on the quantum level, and no matter what method they use, these observations change things (there is no work around).
Andrew:
Is it the external fact that our eyes have gazed upon that thing that changed it or is the internal subjective factor that us comprehending whatever we see that makes the cat dead or alive?
It is the external act of observation (see above).
Andrew:
Ah, I think I just thought of something. So this is about ...if the cat's quantum level were directly linked to his being alive or not ...and if we're talking about the observer changing the quantum level ...the if we look at the cat, that will determine its fate?
You're taking the metaphor too far. This doesn't work for a real cat.
Andrew:
Wouldn't it depend on which universe WE'RE in too? Not just the cat? In one universe the observer observes the cat alive and in one universe the observer observes the cat being dead. I feel like that has nothing to do with with the actual observer but everything to do with what universe the observer is in.
The universes are the same until the observer makes the observation. Then it creates a branch (supposedly).
Addendum
(In reference to Schroedinger's Cat)
Mike:
In other words, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until
it is observed. Then it becomes one or the other. The act of observing
changes the state of the observed thing.<br>
My reply:
Is it the external fact that our eyes have gazed upon that thing that changed it or is the internal subjective factor that us comprehending whatever we see that makes the cat dead or alive?
Ah, I think I just thought of something. So this is about ...if the cat's quantum level were directly linked to his being alive or not ...and if we're talking about the observer changing the quantum level ...the if we look at the cat, that will determine its fate?
ALSO:
Wouldn't it depend on which universe WE'RE in too? Not just the cat? In one universe the observer observes the cat alive and in one universe the observer observes the cat being dead. I feel like that has nothing to do with with the actual observer but everything to do with what universe the observer is in.
Am I wrong?
Mike:
In other words, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until
it is observed. Then it becomes one or the other. The act of observing
changes the state of the observed thing.<br>
My reply:
Is it the external fact that our eyes have gazed upon that thing that changed it or is the internal subjective factor that us comprehending whatever we see that makes the cat dead or alive?
Ah, I think I just thought of something. So this is about ...if the cat's quantum level were directly linked to his being alive or not ...and if we're talking about the observer changing the quantum level ...the if we look at the cat, that will determine its fate?
ALSO:
Wouldn't it depend on which universe WE'RE in too? Not just the cat? In one universe the observer observes the cat alive and in one universe the observer observes the cat being dead. I feel like that has nothing to do with with the actual observer but everything to do with what universe the observer is in.
Am I wrong?
A reply to Mike's reply
Thanks for the reply, Mike.
So is the Schroedinger's Cat thing just a way to explain quantum mechanics? It's just a teaching tool, right? It's not really saying anything about a real cat being alive or dead in a box, right? The same thing with your coin analogy, right? If you consider universes branching off and shit I could see that the coin is both heads and tails when you take that into consideration but in the our universe isn't the coin one or the other?
Also, yeah, when anyone says that everything has been predetermined since the Big Bang they're making a bold claim. It feels like, even if no one knew anything about quantum mechanics, they would still not know shit, I feel. It's just such an assertion without much proof to back it up. It's like an gross extrapolation of good some good science to the point that it's been extrapolated so much no one knows their ass from their elbow anymore.
And my last questions for now:
How does observing it affect it? Why is an observer so important? If a dolphin or ant observed something, would the same thing happen as when a human did? Why would these things on a quantum level "choose" to act differently when being observed? How would they "know" they're being observed?
So is the Schroedinger's Cat thing just a way to explain quantum mechanics? It's just a teaching tool, right? It's not really saying anything about a real cat being alive or dead in a box, right? The same thing with your coin analogy, right? If you consider universes branching off and shit I could see that the coin is both heads and tails when you take that into consideration but in the our universe isn't the coin one or the other?
Also, yeah, when anyone says that everything has been predetermined since the Big Bang they're making a bold claim. It feels like, even if no one knew anything about quantum mechanics, they would still not know shit, I feel. It's just such an assertion without much proof to back it up. It's like an gross extrapolation of good some good science to the point that it's been extrapolated so much no one knows their ass from their elbow anymore.
And my last questions for now:
How does observing it affect it? Why is an observer so important? If a dolphin or ant observed something, would the same thing happen as when a human did? Why would these things on a quantum level "choose" to act differently when being observed? How would they "know" they're being observed?
Free Will and Quantum Mechanics
On the level of the brain, neurons are firing constantly and there is a lot going on. Imagine that you had the universes most sophisticated computer. If you could simulate every particle exactly in a system surrounding a single person, you would in theory be able to predict what would happen to that person and what 'decisions' that person would make. If you believe this is true, you are a determinist. This is what people mean (I think) when they say that free will is an illusion: Everything is determined based on molecular interactions that are part of a long chain of events set in motion since the big bang over which we have no control.
This is incorrect, however, because of quantum mechanics. On the quantum level, things are not predetermined. In fact, until they are observed or measured in some way, they aren't determined at all. It is because of this that I think the whole 'free will is an illusion' argument is bullshit.
Consider the following as a metaphor for something on the quantum level.
Let's say there is an event with two possible outcomes, like a coin toss. You throw the coin in the air and it lands in a bucket. Without looking at the coin, is it heads or tails?
The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is saying that it is both (again, its a metaphor. It isn't actually both, but something on the quantum level would be). It is both heads and tails until someone looks into the bucket. The very act of observing the coin has the effect of making it either heads or tails. This is because when we measure things on the quantum level we affect them directly.
Some people think that as soon as you look into the metaphorical bucket, there is a branch and two universes are formed. In one universe the coin is heads, and in another, the coin is tails. This theory says that everything that can happen, does happen in some universe.
Please let me know if I got something wrong here or if you have any more questions.
This is incorrect, however, because of quantum mechanics. On the quantum level, things are not predetermined. In fact, until they are observed or measured in some way, they aren't determined at all. It is because of this that I think the whole 'free will is an illusion' argument is bullshit.
Consider the following as a metaphor for something on the quantum level.
Let's say there is an event with two possible outcomes, like a coin toss. You throw the coin in the air and it lands in a bucket. Without looking at the coin, is it heads or tails?
The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is saying that it is both (again, its a metaphor. It isn't actually both, but something on the quantum level would be). It is both heads and tails until someone looks into the bucket. The very act of observing the coin has the effect of making it either heads or tails. This is because when we measure things on the quantum level we affect them directly.
Some people think that as soon as you look into the metaphorical bucket, there is a branch and two universes are formed. In one universe the coin is heads, and in another, the coin is tails. This theory says that everything that can happen, does happen in some universe.
Please let me know if I got something wrong here or if you have any more questions.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Free Will
There's a lot of talk about the nature of free will as it pertains to quantum mechanics, etc.
If the universe is causally closed then there is no free will. Determinism reigns.
If quantum mechanics randomness is true, then indeterminism rules.
The thing is...so ...what is the thought process here? What does this have to do with our brains directly? Let me try to point out the timeline. So there's a bunch of tiny particles coming together either randomly or not and you have to take into account things happening on the quantum level. Then there's the particles that make up our brains. However, what do these particles have to do with our choices in the world? These particles don't have a mind of their own. It's kind of a sum is greater than the parts type of thing, isn't it?
What in the living fuck do these random particles coming together in a causally closed world have ANYTHING to do with me deciding to have cheese on my hamburger or not? I really do not get this whole free will discourse in the slightest. Do you think that I just have the illusion of free will? What does "causally closed universe" have anything to do with my personal preferences and tastes? Sure, I'm human and I prefer eating beef to eating coral and perhaps the universe "decided" that preference for me but other than that, what does all this talk of free will and its non-existence have to do with me choosing to do what I want? I often feel like I'm choosing to do what I want. Is the "what I want" part the thing that's "causally closed" ? Someone please explain this to me.
If you don't believe in free will but then all of a sudden got it what in the fuck would you do differently from now?
If the universe is causally closed then there is no free will. Determinism reigns.
If quantum mechanics randomness is true, then indeterminism rules.
The thing is...so ...what is the thought process here? What does this have to do with our brains directly? Let me try to point out the timeline. So there's a bunch of tiny particles coming together either randomly or not and you have to take into account things happening on the quantum level. Then there's the particles that make up our brains. However, what do these particles have to do with our choices in the world? These particles don't have a mind of their own. It's kind of a sum is greater than the parts type of thing, isn't it?
What in the living fuck do these random particles coming together in a causally closed world have ANYTHING to do with me deciding to have cheese on my hamburger or not? I really do not get this whole free will discourse in the slightest. Do you think that I just have the illusion of free will? What does "causally closed universe" have anything to do with my personal preferences and tastes? Sure, I'm human and I prefer eating beef to eating coral and perhaps the universe "decided" that preference for me but other than that, what does all this talk of free will and its non-existence have to do with me choosing to do what I want? I often feel like I'm choosing to do what I want. Is the "what I want" part the thing that's "causally closed" ? Someone please explain this to me.
If you don't believe in free will but then all of a sudden got it what in the fuck would you do differently from now?
Schroedinger's Cat
How do we go from not knowing something to a cat being in a state of quantum superposition?
Just because I haven't observed something doesn't make it alive or dead. It just makes me unaware of it. My observance on things isn't in and of itself a kind of god. I don't get this at all.
Just because I haven't observed something doesn't make it alive or dead. It just makes me unaware of it. My observance on things isn't in and of itself a kind of god. I don't get this at all.
Monday, November 9, 2009
My Questions
Somebody help me out.
1.) Why is going faster than light impossible? There's no work-around?
2.) How exactly could there be other universes? How does that work?
3.) When they explain M-Theory on documentaries, they also show these sheets rippling and these sheets represent different universes. I just want to know what is that space in between the sheets? Is that the intergalactic medium again? Some sort of hyperspace medium void thing? What is that supposed to be?
1.) Why is going faster than light impossible? There's no work-around?
2.) How exactly could there be other universes? How does that work?
3.) When they explain M-Theory on documentaries, they also show these sheets rippling and these sheets represent different universes. I just want to know what is that space in between the sheets? Is that the intergalactic medium again? Some sort of hyperspace medium void thing? What is that supposed to be?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Martian Landscapes
These are incredible.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/martian_landscapes.html
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/11/martian_landscapes.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)