CERN discovers FTL particle (possibly)

i'm more concerned with the slowest moving particle in the world

  On 9/24/2011 at 12:44 PM, viscosity said:

i'm more concerned with the slowest moving particle in the world

That will be Christian Poulsen.

LOL

(can a mod move my post before gary c's?)

24 is the highest number. and the fastest speed.

  On 9/24/2011 at 4:13 PM, BCM said:

  On 9/24/2011 at 2:56 AM, Super lurker ultra V12 said:

since CERN != LHC that's quite a pointless remark

 

sorry, but so wrong. CERN = European Centre for Nuclear Research (originally in French: Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) which was established in 1954. numerous experiments and discoveries have been carried out there since that time.

 

The LHC (Large Hadron Collider) is a very large particle accelerator located at CERN carrying out 6 different experiments looking into the nature of the Universe. Besides the LHC there are many other experiments and different kinds of research taking place.

he said that cern does not equal the LHC...

did he? oh.

you done fucked up, boy.

Holy shit indeed.

Some further discussion: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/neutrino-results-depend-on-exquisite-measurements-of-time-space.ars

Great second article! I wish the original was written that way. This party is mystifying:

  Quote

The other reason that many are voicing skepticism are past measurements of neutrino speeds obtained from supernovae. Since these are so incredibly distant, the small signal seen here would be huge—the neutrinos should arrive roughly four years ahead of the photons. Other experiments on Earth also suggested insignificant differences. One possible explanation for this is the energy of the neutrinos, since OPERA uses much higher energy than the other sources. But the paper indicates that's not likely to be the case, since the authors saw the same signal with both 10 and 40GeV neutrinos.

 

*forms opinion under blanket*

*falls asleep*

  On 9/24/2011 at 7:14 PM, essines said:

he said that cern does not equal the LHC...

  On 9/24/2011 at 7:35 PM, BCM said:

did he? oh.

programmer's syntax.

interesting.

  On 9/25/2011 at 1:58 AM, Braintree said:

*forms opinion under blanket*

 

*falls asleep*

lol

  On 9/24/2011 at 5:58 PM, Fred McGriff said:

24 is the highest number. and the fastest speed.

let's call twenty-five 0 from now on

OK!?

Something happened to me.

Remember when I was talking about that girl I knew ? Had seen her on a ghb flick on the web. Of course, it turned out I was misidentifying her. More surprinsingly

I felt bad.

All the more bad that i I have been having plenty of déjà-vu feelings throughout the summer. I was "recognizing" people sometimes several times a day. Cognitive science and chaos theory explain this kind of phenomenons.

I also worked on these strange attractors I found 2 years ago among linguistic data. Before i was a linguistic student. What's funny is that I made this choice because i had read a few books by H. Murakami. His philosophy is all about walking in the dark, following ropes, feeling them at the tip of your fingers, and finding knots to untie. He relates this to the the very way he chose what major he should pick when he entered university : he let the force of things choose for himself and never regretted his choice. I did the same. I paged through "that guide that is meant to help you find the right tracks" and picked linguistics in 10 mins.

Now the following is quite banal, so I'd recommend you skip this post.

I went back to school and met my math teacher.

He's also a math historian and told us a couple stuffs about the way scientists stole stuffs from other scientists in the past.

Then someone asked him about his researches. He's into strange attractors. The exact same kind of attractors i am into : I know it because he drew them on the blackboard.

I mean, here we've got two stuffs:

- first order universality (the stuff you discover is universal)

- second order universality (the discovery is universal)

- but we also have a case of third order universality : the universality of order : in other words i have been strangely attracted to strange attractors.

There is something individual ________________ and there is something collective.

There is something internal, ________________ and there is something external.

_______my discovery_______________________the synchronicity of our discovery

the study of strange attractors_______________being caught in the attractor itself

That's what got me started into quantum linguistics.

I had already seen that square configuration in my own drug experiences, when I decided to go in linguistics. I found it back there, and it's everywhere, from business plans to aristotle. It's even in these papers about so-called "quantum linguistics".

If you go check that link, you'll figure out it's all about NLP. Indeed, it changed me a lot. But they are not using enough tools. There is a hierarchy of concepts : there are more of them.

Of course, I didn't discovered anything. It just came to me. I'm just a kid of the Y generation with 120 IQ, who has invested a wide range of knowledge domains without really going in depth (wikipedia) and who has been given an opportunity to tie his whole life sequence together.

I haven't found anything. Someone gave me a method-sketch. I applied and refined. And started getting a better grasp at what strange attractors are. They are a mindfuck, a genuine mindfuck. Formal sciences are hopeless about it. Even more when you're trapped into one. We all are. But some of us are conscious of it. And that's where the matter lies. This life interpretation problem is a problem for semantics, not for maths. From then on, and within the course of one week, everything tied into something very coherent. I was having a satori and believe i'm still having it. I don't even understand how it happened, it seems so blurry from "now". This is insane. Something in me chose the right intuition and the right geometry.

That's like if I was walking on the sidewalk and God stopped by and said : "Hey buddy want a to get a ride into the Great Vehicle."

I started to dwell into things on the basis of european linguistics, that is the science which has given birth to the notion of structure that has spread through all branches of social sciences and came to an end with post-structuralism. The method i received, developed, and shall forward, is meant to be applied to itself and thus contains both approaches : it models both sides, it models science, by considering it as a dynamical system and it is disillusioned about formalism. That's what got me thinking the whole stuff needs some level of incertainty : I draw a schema, foreseen it was a quBit, then figured out it was indeed a quBit : continuous things should be modeled on continuous mediums and discrete thing should be modeled on discrete mediums : quBits are not meant to process maths, they are meant to process language. A few hours/days later, I understood what was the relation between the strange attractors I discovered three years ago among linguistic data and my theory of semantic emergence. There is none, this is one and the same thing. I figured out I was mis-observing it and that I needed some kind of algorithm that goes right into factorial shits. Calculus that need millions of years ahead. Something that needs quBits in order to be done in human time. Worse : I also figured out the interpretative theory I had been taught in semantics class was an atomic theory (an excellent one). When you build a new theoretical framework in linguistics and want to get it accepted you need to have a rock-solid argumentation, that must rely on a very limited set of points. I found it naturally : you cannot think and observe your thoughts at the same time or in other words you cannot hear/read and interpret at the same moment : and that's what this theory is( and now was) about.

Actually, "my" theory even goes beyond the limit of the aforementioned theory : to do this it builds itself : ideally, if I had to publish a paper, I would ideally make it emerge from chaos rather than build its complexity from formal bricks called words. It even goes as far as wanting to explain every linguistic level from phonemes to morphemes to words to sentences to texts. It's a theory of everything language can explain, including … language itself. Actually, that theory's main concept (so far) has been found in black holes, a water pool, neurons … what else ? Internet will tell. Now that I'm saying this … I remember having read a couple stuffs about DNA. I can definitively relate two of my "own" stuffs to it. DNA and language are one and the same thing.

It's the beginning of metaphysics, truely.

And to say the least: i've started considering things in term of flux and it helps me a lot achieving that stuff NLP(!!!!) is about : maintaining that equilibrium, that right ecosystem of conditions that allows my mind to be fecond by transforming myself though language. There is a muslim in my class, he's a scientific, enlightened muslim. He talked to our math professor (my alter ego, in this situation). He told him his name came from a Surat of the Quran : it means "the number, the one who is good at dealing with numbers". The guy did some research about it and found something very specific : he found the idea of the All-Mighty-Mother-Basis of my method, the very core concept that makes it so special : he found it in the Quran. And you want to know what my name means ? It means "hammer". I learnt that just 2 months ago. I mean the semantic conditions to the emergence of the theory of semantic emergence are present right now in my life, and I just figured out NLP, in this paragraph, means "Neuro-Linguistic Programming", but it also means "Natural Language Processing". And that's what I want to do with my life. That's all I want.

We thought god wasn't observing us but that we were observing god.

Now we shall construct god because god is constructing us and this is not what we, people from the science era, want. Seriously, do you want to dabble in traditional quantum physics and wonder if god exist, or do you prefer actually constructing it from the inside, that is, where he lies ?

Hopefully, "he gave" us the opportunity to dissolve meaning in order to explore him and ignore him in order to build creatures(wades through the same flux as creators) out of him.

All this god shit isn't important. What is important is that you decide what you want, you decide you want to change the world only after you've decided to change yourself. We ain't being confronted to an environmental crisis. We're in front of a knowledge crisis and hopefully it seems it's coming in time. However, this decision doesn't belong to you just as what will emerge inside you won't belong to you. It belongs to everyone and I believe I am, as of now, in possession of a great power, and that I should release it responsibly. I might be 2012, but, eventually, it's only up to me.

I missed you, Babar.

Yeah, you can miss.

I'm exhausted. You know, I've manually processed Le Bateau Ivre with my method (something that could be done automatically one day).

You know what this poem tells me ? It tells me I'm going to change science. Radically.

But does what I believe matter ? I'm only seeing only one end of the poem. The reworked version. What matters is how I interpret it because the field I'm working in is SEMANTICS. There is no truth. Only interpretation.

Unfortunately my brain is no quantic, so i have to apply my method.

You know, this is all very strange to me. All this story feels almost "mathematically strange". I don't know how you determine whether a system is strange or not (mathematically). I know my own limits. I don't believe in god. I believe in method. And what does my method says ? It says interpretation's form is a strange attractor.

That's what I say.

And I say this is all mixed up with my own life.

Now as a scientist and strictly as a scientist, not as a watmm member chatting randomly about his life, all I can tell is that you have no idea how simple it is (except that strange attractor bit). You have no idea how strongly words shape your mind. You could just think the opposite without even noticing you're thinking it, and that is explainable at the cognitive level only. Anyone noticed that when you're into a philosophical discussion there's almost always a moment where you can't say whether you're contradicting yourself or whether it's your opponent that does ? I can see various possibilities to explain this phenomenon. It's the science of the mind (just as any quantic theory) and it relies on a tiny piece of nothing that is so concise I could develop it within the span of ten lines.

As I said I didn't find it, it emerged in me.

"Without learning, studying or practising yoga Heisenberg, a famous nuclear physicist and formulator of the Law of Indeterminacy, unwittingly entered a state that is a high goal for yogis, Nirvikalpa Samadhi. This happened at times at the end of the deepest abstract thinking about his subject. Thoughts themselves ceased to be active. He found himself in the Stillness of the Void. He knew then, and knows today, his spiritual being".

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/04/science_and_spirituality_heise.html

I'm not experimenting this. My method is.

It's important to note that if you read their publication/dataset you will see that there's no conclusion or hypothesis, just the data and how it was collected. They did not have a "velocity" theory that they set out to test, they built the labs to detect neutrinos that oscillated from muon to tau - but then noticed the timing. So they changed the experiment and collected two datasets, one on the original setup which had a deviation of 100ns and therefore wasn't really suitable for timing experiments. And then they rebuilt the whole rig, both at CNGS and OPERA, optimizing it for timing tests.

To me the their current timing system seems really good and they take account for systematic deviations in their data - so I think it's possible that their data is correct. It will be cool to see what other labs are able to recreate in the future.

Babar, I think it's all those RC's you been taking are finally catching up.

that's because language is a weapon the master and the prison itself

  On 9/25/2011 at 7:09 AM, Babar said:

"Without learning, studying or practising yoga Heisenberg, a famous nuclear physicist and formulator of the Law of Indeterminacy, unwittingly entered a state that is a high goal for yogis, Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

  On 9/25/2011 at 8:50 AM, azatoth said:

Babar, I think it's all those RC's you been taking are finally catching up.

ahaha yeah, quite strangly, I have to agree with this. They brought me a good share of the concepts I'm using now. I haven't had strong trips in 5 years (natural substances). I did take a few RCs in a couple years ago, they were weak and anxiety-producing.

But what you guys don't seem to get is that I have a theory for explaining how language explains language. I don't explain how language relates to the world. I explain how language relates to itself, how language builds itself. Not from inside, but from the outside : language is a strange attractor and we're only sensing language through language.

So yeah Wittgenstein was right, there are no things, only facts ; there are no knots, only ropes.

Except that I think (i'm not sure) he doesn't explain how language evolves through time ; his theory only consider the synchronic fabric of reality : words are indivisible knots, and a word in a definition does not depend on words form another definition.

Yet, there is some kind of fractality to his concept. It happens through time : words are perpetually redefining words. The quantum side of things kicks in when you realize you cannot redefine a word, and understand that new definition at the same time. Language has two sides : interior and exterior. I am proposing that the way you craft interior ideas into words meant to the external word and the way you craft exterior ideas out of words from the external word rely on the same mechanism.

And that mechanism is a dynamic system, and the strange attractor it generates is what makes meaning meaningful.

Now forget everything about that god thing.

You know, I read somewhere Schopenhauer said a new idea is first laughed at, then considered, then fought, before being integrated.

"God", the word "God", was meant, in this context, to accelerate the first stage. I don't know if it has worked, I am a beginner and have a lot of things to learn.

Five minutes after the LSD injection he trumpeted, collapsed, fell heavily onto his right side, defecated, and posted on watmm.

Babar, have you read Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter?

Also, what do you mean by "language is a strange attractor"? Are you saying that language - in some mathematically describable way - never hits the same point twice, but hovers around particular 'stability' points..? Are you attempting to describe linguistics with phase-space equations? It seems to me that you have a great deal of work ahead of yourself if you wish to describe all language* in geometric terms.

*are you including things like 'body language' or 'the language of music' in your analysis? Or are you sticking solely to linguistics?