Friam

Why Neutrinos are important

Classic

List

Threaded

7 messages Options

Jochen Fromm-5

Why Neutrinos are important

I like the idea of "Quantum Evolution"
http://wiki.cas-group.net/index.php?title=Quantum_Evolution
Why has nobody tried to combine Darwin and Einstein?
I think this is a wonderful idea. If we treat particles -
esp. fermions - as an apdative unit, then a particle would
be a kind of evolutionary species, and a vertex becomes
a speciation event. Instead of a Feynman diagram we
would have a phylogenetic tree of particles.

I am not sure how bosons (the force carriers responsible
for interaction) and fermions (the matter carriers which
obey the Pauli exclusion principle) fit into this picture, but
maybe a boson would roughly correspond to a stem cell,
because it is a basic unit of replication which replicates
itself while moving through space-time, and a whole
organism or species to fermions, which cover a certain niche
in the ecology of cosmic evolution (the real reason for the
Pauli exclusion principle?).

If the universe is really evolutionary on the deepest
level, then there is an important lesson to learn from
the evolution of complex systems: the most abundant,
primitive and tiniest elements are often the oldest
and most fundamental ones. For example algae and bacteria
are countless, tiny and primitive, but they belong to
the most ancient life-forms on earth. Thus the smallest
particles, the insignificant neutrinos with their strange
inclination to oscillate, are perhaps more important than
we think, exactly because they interact only very weakly
with normal matter.

Therefore I think if there is something revolutionary
to discover, it is more likely the Neutrino than the
Higgs particle which will make the really big headlines,
even if this experiment turns out to be false.

-J.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: Why Neutrinos are important

Interesting ideas! I'm not sure what would have to be true for the evolution metaphor to make sense, however. Certainly the world is changing, but to say that particles are 'evolving' is a more narrow claim. As I understand the metaphor, at least two things would have to be true that I know next to nothing about (and would appreciate any insight the group could provide):

1) It would have to be the case that particles 'reproduce' themselves in some sense, so that a 'lineage' of some sort could be established.

2) Some particles would have to 'fit' the world better than others, by some externally verifiable criterion independent of their reproductive success.

Only then could we claim that the particles around today fit today's world better than the particles of long ago would have.

Again, this seems plausible to me, but I am not aware of any evidence.

Eric

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 01:49 PM, "Jochen Fromm" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I like the idea of "Quantum Evolution"
http://wiki.cas-group.net/index.php?title=Quantum_Evolution
Why has nobody tried to combine Darwin and Einstein?
I think this is a wonderful idea. If we treat particles - 
esp. fermions - as an apdative unit, then a particle would 
be a kind of evolutionary species, and a vertex becomes 
a speciation event. Instead of a Feynman diagram we 
would have a phylogenetic tree of particles.

I am not sure how bosons (the force carriers responsible 
for interaction) and fermions (the matter carriers which
obey the Pauli exclusion principle) fit into this picture, but 
maybe a boson would roughly correspond to a stem cell, 
because it is a basic unit of replication which replicates 
itself while moving through space-time, and a whole 
organism or species to fermions, which cover a certain niche 
in the ecology of cosmic evolution (the real reason for the 
Pauli exclusion principle?).

If the universe is really evolutionary on the deepest
level, then there is an important lesson to learn from 
the evolution of complex systems: the most abundant, 
primitive and tiniest elements are often the oldest 
and most fundamental ones. For example algae and bacteria 
are countless, tiny and primitive, but they belong to 
the most ancient life-forms on earth. Thus the smallest 
particles, the insignificant neutrinos with their strange 
inclination to oscillate, are perhaps more important than 
we think, exactly because they interact only very weakly 
with normal matter.    

Therefore I think if there is something revolutionary
to discover, it is more likely the Neutrino than the 
Higgs particle which will make the really big headlines, 
even if this experiment turns out to be false.

-J.




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Why Neutrinos are important

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

On 9/25/2011 11:49 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> Why has nobody tried to combine Darwin and Einstein?
The third link below is a monster of a review article.

http://public.lanl.gov/whz/articles.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5082
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0105/0105127v3.pdf

There are some videos here that may be easier to start with..

http://public.lanl.gov/whz/presentations.html

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Jochen Fromm-5

Re: Why Neutrinos are important

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

Hi Eric,

It is not just a metaphor, the idea is that the universe is evolutionary at the deepest level, let us say the Planck scale. Space would replicate itself at each timestep, and time would be linked to the replication rate of the universe. Particles somehow emerge from spacetime in this replication process. I have not read the papers Marcus mentioned, maybe they contain some interesting hints.

Jochen

Sent from Android

"ERIC P. CHARLES" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I like the idea of "Quantum Evolution"
http://wiki.cas-group.net/index.php?title=Quantum_Evolution
Why has nobody tried to combine Darwin and Einstein?
I think this is a wonderful idea. If we treat particles - 
esp. fermions - as an apdative unit, then a particle would 
be a kind of evolutionary species, and a vertex becomes 
a speciation event. Instead of a Feynman diagram we 
would have a phylogenetic tree of particles.

I am not sure how bosons (the force carriers responsible 
for interaction) and fermions (the matter carriers which
obey the Pauli exclusion principle) fit into this picture, but 
maybe a boson would roughly correspond to a stem cell, 
because it is a basic unit of replication which replicates 
itself while moving through space-time, and a whole 
organism or species to fermions, which cover a certain niche 
in the ecology of cosmic evolution (the real reason for the 
Pauli exclusion principle?).

If the universe is really evolutionary on the deepest
level, then there is an important lesson to learn from 
the evolution of complex systems: the most abundant, 
primitive and tiniest elements are often the oldest 
and most fundamental ones. For example algae and bacteria 
are countless, tiny and primitive, but they belong to 
the most ancient life-forms on earth. Thus the smallest 
particles, the insignificant neutrinos with their strange 
inclination to oscillate, are perhaps more important than 
we think, exactly because they interact only very weakly 
with normal matter.    

Therefore I think if there is something revolutionary
to discover, it is more likely the Neutrino than the 
Higgs particle which will make the really big headlines, 
even if this experiment turns out to be false.

-J.




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Eric Charles

Re: Why Neutrinos are important

Jochen,
By my account... well, maybe an account I usurped form Nick... which there is no reason you should particularly care about, all explanations are metaphors. I say that merely to note that my claim that you invoked a metaphor was not intended to make light of your claim in any way. I only meant to point out that the claim "the universe is evolving" must mean something like "the universe is like other things that I would characterize as 'evolving' ". Inquiry continuing from that point requires that we figure out how the claim "the universe is evolving" goes beyond the much less controversial claim "the universe is changing."

Nick,
Damn, I was afraid I was screwing that up. The claim that the world is evolving still seems problematic though. Do I have it right if I merely say that evolution is about fitting into the world better than the world has been fit in the past? If so, then maybe my problem is that evolution requires two things (the thing doing the fitting and the thing fit into), and so "the universe is evolving" lacks an obvious counterpoint?

It is something like the tiny awkwardness added to the organic evolution story if you take niche construction seriously, only much deeper.

Eric

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 04:14 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Eric,

It is not just a metaphor, the idea is that the universe is evolutionary at the deepest level, let us say the Planck scale. Space would replicate itself at each timestep, and time would be linked to the replication rate of the universe. Particles somehow emerge from spacetime in this replication process. I have not read the papers Marcus mentioned, maybe they contain some interesting hints.

Jochen

Sent from Android

"ERIC P. CHARLES" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting ideas! I'm not sure what would have to be true for the evolution metaphor to make sense, however. Certainly the world is changing, but to say that particles are 'evolving' is a more narrow claim. As I understand the metaphor, at least two things would have to be true that I know next to nothing about (and would appreciate any insight the group could provide):

1) It would have to be the case that particles 'reproduce' themselves in some sense, so that a 'lineage' of some sort could be established.

2) Some particles would have to 'fit' the world better than others, by some externally verifiable criterion independent of their reproductive success.

Only then could we claim that the particles around today fit today's world better than the particles of long ago would have.

Again, this seems plausible to me, but I am not aware of any evidence.

Eric

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 01:49 PM, "Jochen Fromm" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I like the idea of "Quantum Evolution" http://wiki.cas-group.net/index.php?title=Quantum_Evolution Why has nobody tried to combine Darwin and Einstein? I think this is a wonderful idea. If we treat particles - esp. fermions - as an apdative unit, then a particle would be a kind of evolutionary species, and a vertex becomes a speciation event. Instead of a Feynman diagram we would have a phylogenetic tree of particles. I am not sure how bosons (the force carriers responsible for interaction) and fermions (the matter carriers which obey the Pauli exclusion principle) fit into this picture, but maybe a boson would roughly correspond to a stem cell, because it is a basic unit of replication which replicates itself while moving through space-time, and a whole organism or species to fermions, which cover a certain niche in the ecology of cosmic evolution (the real reason for the Pauli exclusion principle?). If the universe is really evolutionary on the deepest level, then there is an important lesson to learn from the evolution of complex systems: the most abundant, primitive and tiniest elements are often the oldest and most fundamental ones. For example algae and bacteria are countless, tiny and primitive, but they belong to the most ancient life-forms on earth. Thus the smallest particles, the insignificant neutrinos with their strange inclination to oscillate, are perhaps more important than we think, exactly because they interact only very weakly with normal matter. Therefore I think if there is something revolutionary to discover, it is more likely the Neutrino than the Higgs particle which will make the really big headlines, even if this experiment turns out to be false. -J. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Nick Thompson

Re: Why Neutrinos are important

Eric, Jochen, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all,

Please note comments below .

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ERIC P. CHARLES
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 6:03 PM
To: Jochen Fromm
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why Neutrinos are important

Jochen,
By my account... well, maybe an account I usurped form Nick... which there is no reason you should particularly care about, all explanations are metaphors.

[NST ==>] Well, there are some pretty nifty philosophers of science who take the same position (eg, Mary Brenda Hesse). They might be a reason to care about it.

I say that merely to note that my claim that you invoked a metaphor was not intended to make light of your claim in any way. I only meant to point out that the claim "the universe is evolving" must mean something like "the universe is like other things that I would characterize as 'evolving' ". Inquiry continuing from that point requires that we figure out how the claim "the universe is evolving" goes beyond the much less controversial claim "the universe is changing."

[NST ==>] I like this.

Nick,
Damn, I was afraid I was screwing that up. The claim that the world is evolving still seems problematic though.

[NST ==>] Oh yes. On my account, attribute evolution to something one has already to have organized it into taxanomic categories, and to see that those taxonomic categories have changed as they have descended through time (fossils and strata are important here), and to have an understanding of the changing environments that have occurred through time, AND finally to show that the organisms in the categories have been bent through time as they adjusted to each period. Evolution is adapted phylogeny. Attribution that something like a particle has evolved carries a very heavy burden indeed, given this very restrictive definition.

Do I have it right if I merely say that evolution is about fitting into the world better than the world has been fit in the past?

[NST ==>] Well, not quite, because that implies that the world itself has remained stable. Even when the physical world doesn’t change the biotic world is constantly changing and undermining the fit between some species and their circumstances. As we humans are doing to many species right now.

If so, then maybe my problem is that evolution requires two things (the thing doing the fitting and the thing fit into), and so "the universe is evolving" lacks an obvious counterpoint?

[NST ==>] Nothing that I have learned from this discussion so far has led me to believe that particles evolve.

It is something like the tiny awkwardness added to the organic evolution story if you take niche construction seriously, only much deeper.

[NST ==>] Well exactly. In fact if one thinks about niche construction too hard the whole notion of adaptation may disintegrate.

Nick

Eric

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 04:14 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Eric,

Jochen

Sent from Android

"ERIC P. CHARLES" <[hidden email]> wrote:

I like the idea of "Quantum Evolution"

http://wiki.cas-group.net/index.php?title=Quantum_Evolution

Why has nobody tried to combine Darwin and Einstein?

I think this is a wonderful idea. If we treat particles -

esp. fermions - as an apdative unit, then a particle would

be a kind of evolutionary species, and a vertex becomes

a speciation event. Instead of a Feynman diagram we

would have a phylogenetic tree of particles.

I am not sure how bosons (the force carriers responsible

for interaction) and fermions (the matter carriers which

obey the Pauli exclusion principle) fit into this picture, but

maybe a boson would roughly correspond to a stem cell,

because it is a basic unit of replication which replicates

itself while moving through space-time, and a whole

organism or species to fermions, which cover a certain niche

in the ecology of cosmic evolution (the real reason for the

Pauli exclusion principle?).

If the universe is really evolutionary on the deepest

level, then there is an important lesson to learn from

the evolution of complex systems: the most abundant,

primitive and tiniest elements are often the oldest

and most fundamental ones. For example algae and bacteria

are countless, tiny and primitive, but they belong to

the most ancient life-forms on earth. Thus the smallest

particles, the insignificant neutrinos with their strange

inclination to oscillate, are perhaps more important than

we think, exactly because they interact only very weakly

with normal matter.

Therefore I think if there is something revolutionary

to discover, it is more likely the Neutrino than the

Higgs particle which will make the really big headlines,

even if this experiment turns out to be false.

-J.

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Jochen Fromm-5

Re: Why Neutrinos are important

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

Hi Eric,

Sorry, I have seen your mail was not meant for the whole
list, but I think it is interesting for all others as well?
Yes, you are right, for evolution we need three things: reproduction,
inheritance and variation (in form of mutation or recombination).
The answer to your two points would be the following simple
assumptions:

1) Reproduction <=> Existence

- The universe replicates itself in each time step,
like a Cellular Automaton, which replicates itself
in the next time step

- Particles can propagate through space maximally
at this replication rate, similar to a cellular automata,
where nothing can propagate faster than the replication
rate.

- Particles are self-replicating entities that
reproduce themselves as stable patterns at a certain
location. A glider in the Game of Life for instance
produces a copy of itself at a slighty different
location.

2) Fitness <=> Persistence

- Particles which 'fit' to their environment are persistent

- Particles which do not 'fit' to their environment are
temporary and decay

- A persistent particle which is able to interact with
others has some kind of internal, composite structure

Is this enough for a natural selection of elementary
particles? I don't know, but it is an interesting topic.
Variations may depend on the exact recombination
form of space-time structures, which may result in a slight
different mass, spin or charge.

Jochen

----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC P. CHARLES
To: Jochen Fromm
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why Neutrinos are important

Interesting ideas! I'm not sure what would have to be true for the evolution
metaphor to make sense, however. Certainly the world is changing, but to say
that particles are 'evolving' is a more narrow claim. As I understand the
metaphor, at least two things would have to be true that I know next to
nothing about (and would appreciate any insight the group could provide):

1) It would have to be the case that particles 'reproduce' themselves in
some sense, so that a 'lineage' of some sort could be established.

2) Some particles would have to 'fit' the world better than others, by some
externally verifiable criterion independent of their reproductive success.

Only then could we claim that the particles around today fit today's world
better than the particles of long ago would have.

Again, this seems plausible to me, but I am not aware of any evidence.

Eric

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org