Proof of Physical Theory provides Quantum reasoning for 2nd century Buddhist design

[villager]

Strange Physical Theory Proved After Nearly 40 Years


LiveScience.com

When physicist Vitaly Efimov heard his theory had finally been proven, he ran up to the younger scientist who had verified it and gave him a high five.

Efimov had predicted a quantum-mechanical version of Borromean rings, a symbol that first showed up in Afghan Buddhist art from around the second century. The symbol depicts three rings linked together; if any ring were removed, they would all come apart.

Efimov theorized an analog to the rings using particles: Three particles (such as atoms or protons or even quarks) could be bound together in a stable state, even though any two of them could not bind without the third. The physicist first proposed the idea, based on a mathematical proof, in 1970. Since then, no one has been able to demonstrate the phenomenon in the lab - until recently.

A team of physicists led by Randy Hulet of Rice University in Houston finally achieved the trio of particles, and published their findings in the online journal Science Express.
"It was very exciting, because after 40 years of this prediction being out there, it was finally verified," Hulet told LiveScience.

Hulet presented his work at a meeting in Rome in October that Efimov also attended.
"He gave me a high five after my talk," Hulet recounted. "He was so enthusiastic and so excited to see this prediction become true."

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091216/sc_livescience/strangephysicaltheoryprovedafternearly40years

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. So...

this 2nd century Buddhist thing is just your own woo editorializing?

[villager]

3. You don't read actual article texts much, do you?

n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. The article, while mentioning the Buddhist design...

doesn't actually claim what you did.

[qazplm]

6. he's right

it is your own editorializing, in the title no less.

[villager]

7. horsehit on both counts -- was simply synopsizing:

Efimov had predicted a quantum-mechanical version of Borromean rings, a symbol that first showed up in Afghan Buddhist art from around the second century. The symbol depicts three rings linked together; if any ring were removed, they would all come apart.

The proof simply replicates the symbol in quantum terms -- it was a 2nd century representation of a quantum phenomenon.

for whatever reason.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I guess in the same way the Bayeux tapestry represents string theory.

Sure.

[villager]

9. You're wrong, and tiresome, and overdue for the ignore list

Bye!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Spoken like the wooiest of woos.

[caraher]

15. This is backward

"The proof simply replicates the symbol in quantum terms -- it was a 2nd century representation of a quantum phenomenon."

Not at all. This is a quantum system with some characteristics evocative of an ancient symbol.

Efimov developed a theory of quantum systems such that 2 particles cannot bind but 3 can. The analogy with Borromean rings is pretty clear. But Borromean rings are basically a very clever bit of topology in a purely classical system. There is absolutely no need for quantum mechanics to explain them.

What Randy Hulet's experiments did was provide evidence for the theory of repeating bound triplets. This theory is far richer than just the Borromean ring analogy. In particular, Efimov's work predicts a whole repeating spectrum of energies for these bound states. Borromean rings do not remotely predict that.

Now its certainly true that scientific ideas and imagery from art and religion can cross-fertilize one another. But it would be a huge error to imagine that evocative ancient images and phrases that scientists might draw on for inspiration or use for their explanatory power in any way represent ancient scientific knowledge we're merely rediscovering.

One might with equal justification talk about the spherical symmetry of an s wavefunction in hydrogen and claim the creator of the first sphere made a "stone age representation of a quantum phenomenon."

[Orrex]

2. Was there "quantum reasoning" behind the design?

Or is that a post hoc attribution?

And what design are we talking about here?

[villager]

4. Nor you?

n/t

[Orrex]

11. Sure I did.

There's no mention whatsoever of "quantum reasoning" in the article. What you describe as "summarizing" is in fact the insertion of your own wishful thinking into what the article has to say.

Just because a design has a pleasing aesthetic quality, it doesn't imply that the designer had some anachronistic insight into quantum mechanics.

Any society that had done any work with linked metal rings (such as in chain armor or jewelry, for instance) would have all the knowledge needed to generate this design.

[TZ]

12. You ever hear about correlation not being causation?

The guy took inspiration for his theory from these images, yes. It does NOT at all imply that 2nd century Buddhists hit on quantum mechanics. Aye carumba. Talk about an illogical leap there.

[Orrex]

13. Schroedinger worked on the theory of quantum mechanics in his den

And den rhymes with Zen. Coincidence?

[semillama]

17. and "Tao" kind rhymes with "Meow!" n/t

[ThomThom]

21. I knew cats were special.

primeval

[PufPuf23]

14. Woo birthed science

We underestimate our ancestors. Models are maps that evolve and digress.

Some of the most useful contemporary science, mathematics and other fields of study have elements of "scientific" woo, most valuable to the applied science but hard to comprehend for end users.

[caraher]

16. But woo and science are distinguishable

The process of discovery is messy, nonlinear, and involves all sorts of nonrational processes. It's a creative process just like anything in the arts. But science doesn't stop at the stage of inspiration. Woo can.

There's science as well as art in Borromean rings. That science is mathematical and classical. It in no way represents special foreknowledge of quantum theory. But if I understand your point, you are absolutely correct to remind us that the path to discovery includes all sorts of processes so difficult to understand and impossible to predict that it does have an almost supernatural flavor.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. No it didn't;

Science was created despite woo, not because of it.

[Orrex]

19. +1

:thumbsup:

[PufPuf23]

20. The scientific method became successful despite faith

based religion and hid behind or was born of woo subcultures such as alchemy and the hermetic sciences in general. The Kaballah is a more useful metaphor for reality than Abrahamic religions. I am a highly educated and experienced scientist and seldom post. There is far too much politics inserted into the scientific community to our common loss and failure for some of our most creative minds.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. The scientific method is successful due to its own merits.

The scientific method was developed despite faith based religions, and faith based woo like alchemy.

"The Kaballah is a more useful metaphor for reality than Abrahamic religions."

First, Kaballah is Abrahamic. Second, it's not a useful metaphor for anything.

"I am a highly educated and experienced scientist"

Uh huh. Sure.

[Orsino]

23. Perhaps in the same way that a baby's crying for its bottle...

...birthed Julia Child, or that astrology birthed astronomy.

Our brain is indeed a belief-forming engine, but it takes a lot of discipline to believe in the well-founded rather than in the merely pleasing and simplistic.