[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How I Became Particle Physicists? Enemy #1

I didn?t plan on becoming particle physicists? enemy number one, but somehow I have. Here?s how it all happened.

A little conversation in the comment section.

here?s the thing, is she wrong on this point that a lot of investment is going into something that is already outdated and there?s a lack of progress etc? no, but the reason people get mad is this: she is carrying water for the anti-science people - the problem is not that too much is going into a failed collider it?s that way more investment should be going into science so that other avenues are also pursued, instead her argument will be used by bad faith actors to tear down and privatize research

Sorry, but the argument that something can be misused intentionally by other people doesn't hold any weight on what she does and should continue to do. The anti-science promoters will find someone or something else anyway with or without Sabine, this is what they do. By this logic we should not have gas stoves or even kitchen knives because they can be misused, intentionally or not.

I am an ex-particle physicist. I consider your criticism of particle physics and its direction to-point and well needed. After all - if you were wrong it should be easy for the community in question to come with their own, fact based arguments. This is an argument within a scientific community, not a political party.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Amateurs Solve a Famous Computer Science Problem On Discord

A team of amateurs recently came together in an online collaboration called the Busy Beaver Challenge to pin down the value of BB(5), the fifth "busy beaver" number ? a notoriously difficult problem in theoretical computer science. The busy beaver problem, or ?game,? involves finding the Turing machine with a given number of states that runs for the longest series of steps before halting. Using collaborative tools and the Coq proof assistant to verify their work, the team proved that BB(5) equals 47,176,870. The landmark result explores the limits of computation and the boundaries of what is knowable in mathematics.
--------
CHAPTERS
00:00 What is the Busy Beaver problem?
01:05 How does a Turing machine work?
02:35 Programs that halt versus getting stuck in endless loops: the Halting Problem
04:38 How to play the Busy Beaver game
05:26 BB(1), BB(2), BB(3), BB(4) solutions
06:38 The Busy Beaver Challenge tackles BB(5)
07:31 The history of the search for BB(5)
08:10 The Busy Beaver Challenge methodology
08:48 Coding 'deciders'' to shorten the list of contenders
09:49  Mysterious contributor confirms BB(5) solution
10:09 Coq proof of BB(5)
10:54 Is BB(6) solvable?

--------

[Wellwisher]

If one is trying to debunk established science, one needs to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. It is obvious that you do not have that necessary understanding. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour of attempts to falsify the status quo but to do so one has to be adept with the current understanding to challenge it.

Perhaps being involved too much in established science has prevented modern scientists from thinking clearly about explanations for the experimental results.

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla

They're already convinced by some assumptions used in their mathematical model, and unwilling to abandon them to get a better model. They seem to be caught up into sunk cost fallacy.

In my own experience, over the years, from High School and University forward into jobs and private exploration, I picked up all types of science data and observations, that do not fit the standard models and theories. Conceptually, these data, alone, are  reason enough for some changes, but often nothing changes with all change resisted.  Even in science, it may be safer to run with the herd, than take a detour, since science is a good job, that pays the bills, and the term crackpot, does into allow as many promotions, as just going along.

For example, is everyone aware that DNA, has a double helix of water, intertwined in the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix? The DNA is not bioactive, without this water, but this water is rarely, if ever, shown in textbooks.

I was to trying to post pics and links but neither appear to work. I will need to do it verbally.

What is presented in nearly all biology textbooks is not bioactive; old mythology of DNA. There are more hydrogen bonding sites on the base pairs of DNA, earmarked for water, than for the base pairs. Commonsense math shows the priority. Yet the misinformation version of DNA lingers and is indoctrinated in schools from a young age.

If textbooks presented this extra double helix of water, students would ask why is it there? Now if you attempt to explain why, it appears you are the one who is out of touch with reality. If it is not broke, which it is, do not try to fix it. 

However, seeing the eventual need for an update, this data did lead to a more water centric or co-partner model for life and evolution. But again, the old is still not seen as flawed, since empirical is good enough. Most of the breakthroughs in life science, are due to better technology seeing more details, which previously got fudged into averages, to be ignored, rather than predicted in advance by a better theory; bureaucracy of science.

As another example, since about the year 2000, or so, there has been lots of provocative science data of the inner earth, that does not fit nor was predicted by the standard models. These studies will get published, since it was good science, but the bigger pendulum did not swing, because of this new data. The new data remains at the margins as a specialty,

For example, the mantle contains as much water as the surface. However, this water is in an exotic phase of water called super ionic water, that is also part of a larger mantle mineral phase. Water has also been found all the way to the earth's core and appears to be reacting with the core.  We really are a water planet, but not just at the facade of the current theories. The current models are too shallow to use this state of the art data. But nothing changes and any attempt to present change is resisted.

The Bureaucracy of science is like a giant ship, that takes a long time to turn. Truth in science, which is like the rudder, is only part of the science ship. Science is also has the huge inertia of money, jobs and even politics. Science does not have it own money to do pure science,  but it still needs donations from Government and Private sector, who also have their own needs. University science research would be hard pressed without these donations. While even university company politics has an impact of who gets what. 

Climate Science, for example, broke down by political party, with the party in power having control over the means to collect which data to publish. With a change in the political landscape, now science will follow the money the other way; new truth. While politicians are not always scientists but have the power of the purse over science.

Innovative thinkers are often pushing the rudder of science, but there is too much inertia to divert the ship, in the needed direction in a reasonable amount of time. The ship is so heavy with others needs, besides the rudder, innovators fall by he wayside before the turn; smaller partial turn.

Understanding the nature of the ship of science, I decided to do conceptual modeling. This became a way to  use provocative data already available while looking at foundation premises of science on which all else depends.

What I found  is all area of science has a few fundamental assumptions on which all the rest is built upon. Like a house that was build in sand, it was designed only to get so tall and so heavy, but it was never optimized to get too tall and too heavy. When it was overbuilt, cracks will start to appear, as the foundation sinks under the weight of the bureaucracy. Today, we generate more data, than analyze the data to advance existing theory. We add more clutter and weight and the house sinks further under its own inertia.

I work to anticipate what is needed and also try to avoid being part of inertial bloat. I use a rudder of science with a light weight ship that can turn and maneuver.
 

 

[paul cotter]

Every up and coming scientist wants to make their name with some new discovery and this idea that science is resistant to change is nonsense. And Hamdani has so far failed to convince anyone.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Every up and coming scientist wants to make their name with some new discovery and this idea that science is resistant to change is nonsense. And Hamdani has so far failed to convince anyone.

Which of my ideas are you interested in?
What does it take to make you convinced?

[paul cotter]

None of your ideas interest me as you have not produced anything of value in your attacks on well established science.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Explain it to me like I'm five..." okie dokie

You?ve heard the phrase: ?If you can?t explain it to a 5-year-old, you don?t understand it.? But what if that idea is not only false but harmful? In this video, we dismantle one of the most repeated myths in science communication, explore why some truths resist simplification, and reveal what real understanding actually looks like. If you care about learning deeply, or teaching well, this is a must-watch.

[alancalverd]

To save me the bother of watching the entire video, please list a few truths that "resist simplification". And beware - simplification is not necessarily the key to explanation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

None of your ideas interest me as you have not produced anything of value in your attacks on well established science.

Interests and values are subjective. I don't try to force mine to others.
In my experiments I tried to present simple and easily reproduced facts. They can be interpreted in many different ways according to different frameworks and underlying assumptions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To save me the bother of watching the entire video, please list a few truths that "resist simplification". And beware - simplification is not necessarily the key to explanation.

You can't express a rank 2 tensor in a single number, except in very special cases.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Trump administration's plans to slash science funding could end up liberating researchers from the corrupting influence Dwight Eisenhower warned about.


In his iconic 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned Americans about the military-industrial complex?but that wasn?t all. He also cautioned against a growing "scientific, technological elite" dominating national policy through federal funding.

What happens when science becomes politicized? When peer review rewards conformity, not discovery? And when government grants replace private innovation?

This video dives into the hidden costs of federally funded science?and explores how private labs, bold inventors, and decentralized innovation have historically led to the biggest breakthroughs, from Edison and the Wright Brothers to Silicon Valley and AI labs today.

[alancalverd]

What happens when science becomes politicized?

Doom, but not as bad as when politics ignores science.

When peer review rewards conformity, not discovery?

Doom. And reams of useless papers.

And when government grants replace private innovation?

Massive profits and indefinitely delayed projects. Problem here is that you get political kudos from announcing a grant for the investigation of X, but by the time your contractor has proved that X = Y the public has lost interest in it, and the market has moved on to Z. Things were a bit different in the past, particularly in wartime, when government funding was for a required product, but the European Union insisted that governments should not fund "near-market research" (state aid being anathema to free trade on a level playing field) so there's no incentive to bring any project to completion, and the accountants who defend the country insist on buying a cheap foreign widget instead of making a good one at home.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When someone becomes part of the elites, either political, economic, scientific, or technological, they have the opportunity to misuse their power for personal benefits at the costs of the whole society. What we need are more effective evaluation methods and feedback mechanism to achieve long-term goals. Scientific integrity and critical thinking are necessary.

[alancalverd]

Who defines the long term goals?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Who defines the long term goals?

At first, they are generated randomly. Evolutionary process then select those who are more aligned with the universal terminal goal.
While pursuing their long term goals, they also need to react to current situation at hand so they can still survive long enough to achieve those goals, or relay the tasks to their successors.

[paul cotter]

It has been pointed out to you that there is no universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It has been pointed out to you that there is no universal terminal goal.

Maybe you you can't find one because you pointed at the wrong way.
The method to determine the universal terminal goal is straightforward. First, you define the word goal by making relationships with other defined concepts, and determine what makes it different from everything else. What are the necessary conditions for a goal to exist which makes goal impossible to exist without them. I've discussed it in my other thread about the universal terminal goal. You can discuss it in more detail there.

[paul cotter]

No need for my input as Alan has comprehensively debunked the concept of a "universal terminal goal". The only terminal outcome, as opposed to goal, is the heat death of the universe.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No need for my input as Alan has comprehensively debunked the concept of a "universal terminal goal". The only terminal outcome, as opposed to goal, is the heat death of the universe.

Outcome can be different from goal.
Before you can define goal, you can't meaningfully discuss about it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When I first approached the task of creating a research proposal, the sheer scale of it felt overwhelming. My initial thought, like many others, was, "How can I start my research proposal?" It?s a common question because the beginning stages can often be the most challenging. Understanding the fundamentals of how to write a research proposal is more than just an academic exercise; it?s about learning to articulate a vision and a plan with clarity and precision.