Golden ratio discovered in a quantum world

[devogue]

viralmeme posted this on RDF:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 1&t=105788

Wow.

[Thinking Aloud]

If you don't want to click too many times...

Golden ratio discovered in a quantum world

.. In order to study these nanoscale quantum effects the researchers have focused on the magnetic material cobalt niobate .. By tuning the system and artificially introducing more quantum uncertainty the researchers observed that the chain of atoms acts like a nanoscale guitar string ..

"Here the tension comes from the interaction between spins causing them to magnetically resonate. For these interactions we found a series (scale) of resonant notes: The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other. Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618…, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture."

[JimC]

Somehow, it seems, there is a deep mathematical structure underlying everything...

Many other examples have occurred. Often, totally abstract mathematical relationships are described by pure logic, and later show up as a useful description of the way the Universe operates. Eistein's "god", but with absolutely none of the features of any theistic interpretation...

[lofuji]

I'm not the least bit surprised. The golden ratio is related mathematically to the Fibonacci series (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34...etc.), which can be observed in the opposing spirals of sunflower heads and other phenomena in nature. Don't ask me to explain now, because I'm going to have to get the dinner ready, but if nobody has beaten me to it I'll explain later.

lofuji

[M]

If someone can explain it in terms I could understand, I'll eat my hat.

[charlou]

[JimC]

If someone can explain it in terms I could understand, I'll eat my hat.

I recommend plenty of red wine and garlic, and possibly a pressure cooker...

[FBM]

If someone can explain it in terms I could understand, I'll eat my hat.

A lot of things in nature that look or sound better than other things have the same mathematical relationships among their parts that the less-good-looking/sounding things don't. Nobody knows why, really, but now it's been found in really small shit.

What kinda hat we talkin' 'bout here?

[Chinaski]

The basis for inductive reasoning, the assumption that nature has a structure waiting to be discovered.

I can't help but feel dread at the potential pro-theism arguments that might emerge...

[Feck]

The basis for inductive reasoning, the assumption that nature has a structure waiting to be discovered.

I can't help but feel dread at the potential pro-theism arguments that might emerge...

Just wait until the pyramid lovers get a hold of this "The Great pyramid a Quantomb engine ?"

[FBM]

The basis for inductive reasoning, the assumption that nature has a structure waiting to be discovered.

I can't help but feel dread at the potential pro-theism arguments that might emerge...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

I think this fundamental error in reasoning has a lot to do with why humanity has developed so many problems understanding and dealing with 'reality', whatever that is.

[Chinaski]

I always hear people tell me "science is inductive, so it can never really be sure of its conclusions" or "science is inductive, so it presupposes some sort of godlike structure."
Bah.

[JimC]

The basis for inductive reasoning, the assumption that nature has a structure waiting to be discovered.

I can't help but feel dread at the potential pro-theism arguments that might emerge...

I'm quite OK about a structure waiting, we simply have to give up the rather childlike practice of assuming the structure is conscious

[FBM]

I always hear people tell me "science is inductive, so it can never really be sure of its conclusions" or "science is inductive, so it presupposes some sort of godlike structure."
Bah.

Those people think like old people fuck.

The basis for inductive reasoning, the assumption that nature has a structure waiting to be discovered.

I can't help but feel dread at the potential pro-theism arguments that might emerge...

I'm quite OK about a structure waiting, we simply have to give up the rather childlike practice of assuming the structure is conscious

Positing an underlying structure or substance that is somehow 'behind' phenomena is a deep flaw, I think. Only phenomena can be demonstrated, not underlying substance. If there were a substance somehow 'behind' phenomena that possesses the phenomenal qualities we observe, that would mean that the qualities and the substance were somehow ontologically distinct. What is a substance without qualities? Nothing.

[JimC]

I always hear people tell me "science is inductive, so it can never really be sure of its conclusions" or "science is inductive, so it presupposes some sort of godlike structure."
Bah.

Those people think like old people fuck.

The basis for inductive reasoning, the assumption that nature has a structure waiting to be discovered.

I can't help but feel dread at the potential pro-theism arguments that might emerge...

I'm quite OK about a structure waiting, we simply have to give up the rather childlike practice of assuming the structure is conscious

Positing an underlying structure or substance that is somehow 'behind' phenomena is a deep flaw, I think. Only phenomena can be demonstrated, not underlying substance. If there were a substance somehow 'behind' phenomena that possesses the phenomenal qualities we observe, that would mean that the qualities and the substance were somehow ontologically distinct. What is a substance without qualities? Nothing.

Certainly not a substance, but possibly a set of constraints, deriving from mathematical logic. Such constraints may impose a limit on the potential structures of the material universe. The way in which physical laws are frequently found to closely mirror abstract mathematical relationships is suggestive of this, but certainly not proof...