Intelligent life.

OK, in the spirit of going back to the thread's original question. I remembered this paper that was published a few years ago, that claimed to have discovered a 'Wow' signal (as per Seti) in human genetic code. Does anyone have any views on whether their paper has any merit?

""Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. ... Once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore, it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature"
....
"Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the
criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an en-
semble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and
systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial com-
puting rather than of stochastic processes..."
...
"The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the
symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries.."

 
blackbird9 said:
OK, in the spirit of going back to the thread's original question. I remembered this paper that was published a few years ago, that claimed to have discovered a 'Wow' signal (as per Seti) in human genetic code. Does anyone have any views on whether their paper has any merit?

""Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. ... Once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore, it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature"
....
"Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the
criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an en-
semble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and
systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial com-
puting rather than of stochastic processes..."
...
"The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the
symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries.."

Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that 2012 paper is bullshit.

Just trying to follow up on the quoted sources, I quickly realize that the author of our paper has either (misunderstood what those sources tried to communicate) or (intentionally mis-represented the content of the sources) or (ignored all kinds of caveats mentioned by the source) or (did not realize that the source is not that great in the first place, just seems to have a message that is convenient to quote).

After all, that was Math department... Can you seriously expect someone from Math department to correctly understand how genetics works, how chemistry works, and the fact that acids do decompose pretty quickly? Not really.

Whoever wrote that paper needs to re-take undergrad biology.

Unfortunately, you can't put it past some researchers to submit bullshit papers to research journals, just to see if the system will catch bullshit or not. Correct formatting, quoting of sources, designing of the study.... EVERYTHING is on the table to construct a paper that amounts to little more than bullshit. Jutst the basic physics of chemical bonds of acids - and that paper falls apart, no amount of external source quoting will save it.
 
I believe that we are not alone, an intelligent form came by long time ago probably and just flew away after seeing how our mindset is messy.
I don't think Humans are prepared for something like this to happen.

drhowarddrfine said:
If it took this long to get us to where we are, it's worth considering that it is taking this long to get any other life form to get this far. Then considering the possibility of us finding or communicating with these others is of equal difficulty and far more possible than considering space time or parallel universes.
Click to expand...
It reminds me this movie
en.wikipedia.org

Arrival (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
1. Sephen Gasiorowicz : Quantum Physics
2. Haken Wolf : Atomic and Quantum Physics
3. MIT A.P.French & E.F.Taylor : An Introduction to Quantum Physics
4. Amnon Yariv : An introduction to theory and applications of Quantum Mechanics
5. The Feynman lectures on physics : Volume III
6. Robert Eisberg & Robert Resnisck : Quantum Physics of atoms molecules solids nuclei and particles
7. John J Brehm , William J. Mullin : Introduction to the structure of matter
8. Kenneth Krane : Modern physics
 
hruodr said:
In any case it is not the result of 'publish or perish'. For the last, scientists build always higher. One gets dizzy. I prefer to dig on the ground, and discover it is not so firm, they build on sand.

Not even the logical principles are given. It is for example perfectly rational to reject 'tertium non datur', what leads to a different kind of mathematics. What happens then with all these physical theories based on classical math?
Click to expand...
Well, the physicists must be doing something right. Evidence of the success of their science is all around us in our technology and engineering, along with the chemists and biologists. Electronics, data comms, aerospace, drugs, medical science, agriculture... the list is vast. I can type a message into this thing in my hand and and someone on the other side of the planet will be able to read it immediately. All of of our technolgy and engineering is based on physics to a greater or lesser extent. So it can't all be wrong. :)
 
Answer is : there is no way to understand QM intuitively. what is your goal? just to get basics of it and be able to solve some problems? ( shut up and calculate approach )
or else? there are indeed maybe a hundred books about the subject. do you want physicist approach or gory mathematical side of it ( mind that most of simple books follow Dirac's invention ). true higher level of math is hard to find, was formulated by von Neumann. For myself, i stick to the symmetry view on subject. As symmetries are what basically rules the quantum world. a good introduction to group theory was the first step.then https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-64612-1
this books is treating QM from that point of view which is ok on how i look at subject
 
gotnull said:
I believe that we are not alone, an intelligent form came by long time ago probably and just flew away after seeing how our mindset is messy.
I don't think Humans are prepared for something like this to happen.
Click to expand...
I always thought this was interesting. The kids don't look like they are lying. Of course there is no way to know what really happened. We would have to conclude that if they did see something real, then there is a very much higher probability that it came from earth, than from another star system. Great kids. The lady interviewing them is lovely too. :)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8pymWSKAPQ
 
blackbird9 said:
Well, the physicists must be doing something right. Evidence of the success of their science is all around us in our technology and engineering, along with the chemists and biologists. Electronics, data comms, aerospace, drugs, medical science, agriculture... the list is vast. All our technolgy and engineering is based on physics to a greater or lesser degree. So it can't all be wrong. :)
Click to expand...
Indeed, doing something right, not all wrong.
When the wrong is perceived, they do something different.
Would you do the same again?
 
I think you have to have some hope for humanity. It can't all be completely bleak. Those kids in that ufo video give me some hope. :)
I'm not sure Elon will find the answer on Mars though!
 
Alain De Vos said:
To say it with the words of Nobel price winner Richard Feynmann, you do the math , you do the calculations, you have a result , a prediction.
But don't try to understand, nobody does.
Click to expand...
Feynman was one of the ones who understood much more than others. That's what made him into a great physicist: not the skill with tools (like math), but the way he knew about the connections between parts of the physics fabric.

angry_vincent said:
Answer is : there is no way to understand QM intuitively.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. People who have worked in it for long enough, and are very smart, can definitely have intuition. As an example, look at the standard textbook for relativistic quantum mechanics, Bjorken and Drell: I used to eat lunch with Bj roughly once a week for 5 years, and Sid was my piano+violin duo partner. They had that intuition. And were also really nice people.
 
3i-atlas. He says it's stranger than oumuamua. It's 4.5 AU from earth. Very unusually the tail points towards the sun instead of away from the sun, and the objects diameter is 11 km, much larger than normally seen. And it's on a trajectory to visit mars, venus and jupiter, he says the odds of that happening by chance are tens of thousands to 1 against. So soon after the recent visit by oumuamua too...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDD2FI9Thr0


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF7iobr_WXY
 
ralphbsz said:
Feynman was one of the ones who understood much more than others. That's what made him into a great physicist: not the skill with tools (like math), but the way he knew about the connections between parts of the physics fabric.


Yes there is. People who have worked in it for long enough, and are very smart, can definitely have intuition. As an example, look at the standard textbook for relativistic quantum mechanics, Bjorken and Drell: I used to eat lunch with Bj roughly once a week for 5 years, and Sid was my piano+violin duo partner. They had that intuition. And were also really nice people.
Click to expand...
I am certain they developed kind of their own perception of what QM is to themselves. What i meant is that majority of people have difficulties in accepting or dealing with probabilities. how QM emerges in reality and how people expect it to be as a phenomenon is highly non intuitive. For example, speaking of mathematical side - qm theory have to explain both discrete energy levels and continous ones ( bound operators and unbound operators ). This was a challenge century ago but resolved on mathematical side. yet why qm is that - it is an open question. i hardly disregard all this many worlds and entanglement ideas as mere speculations. Proponents of such ( while being bright heads ) just did not try harder or gave up. recent work of Neil Turok looks promising as he started just with what we have and nothing more, no extra dimensions no extra many worlds no supersymmetry no extra particles. like a blank paper. we have this -- how this could be in a simplest possible way? he seems on right track, but its my own impression.
 
angry_vincent said:
I am certain they developed kind of their own perception of what QM is to themselves. What i meant is that majority of people have difficulties in accepting or dealing with probabilities. how QM emerges in reality and how people expect it to be as a phenomenon is highly non intuitive. For example, speaking of mathematical side - qm theory have to explain both discrete energy levels and continous ones ( bound operators and unbound operators ). This was a challenge century ago but resolved on mathematical side. yet why qm is that - it is an open question. i hardly disregard all this many worlds and entanglement ideas as mere speculations. Proponents of such ( while being bright heads ) just did not try harder or gave up. recent work of Neil Turok looks promising as he started just with what we have and nothing more, no extra dimensions no extra many worlds no supersymmetry no extra particles. like a blank paper. we have this -- how this could be in a simplest possible way? he seems on right track, but its my own impression.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a simpler way to put it is that not understanding probability theory is what contributes to being reckless and doing stupid things. Probability theory is why we all pay so much for insurance.
 
Only people define themselves as INTELLIGENT ... And we are trying to find someone similar.

Maybe what we understand as our INTELLIGENCE is nothing special...
 
blackbird9 said:
"Is the Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS Alien Technology?"
Click to expand...
Heh, quite a fun paper (some parts highlighted from the conclusion).

We strongly emphasize that this paper is largely a pedagogical exercise, with interesting discoveries and strange
serendipities, worthy of a record in the scientific literature. By far the most likely outcome will be that 3I/ATLAS is
a completely natural interstellar object, probably a comet, and the authors await the astronomical data to support
this likely origin.
Nevertheless when viewed from an open-minded and unprejudiced perspective, these investigations have revealed
many compelling insights into the possibility that 3I/ATLAS is technological, and moreover the calculations presented
here are useful even if the interstellar object ends up being a comet like 2I/Borisov because they could be applied to
future detections of interstellar objects by the Vera C. Rubin observatory over the coming decade.
Click to expand...

At this point though I can't decide if being "open-minded and unprejudiced" means believing it might be aliens or not believing it might be aliens. Similar to believing in a God. Are religious people "open-minded" or "closed-minded" based on what they have been told growing up. Basically, I am not entirely sure that this "slease statement" belongs in a paper ;).

Being completely alone in this vast universe is a very hard idea to chew; so in many ways you would have to be very open-minded to believe that possibility!

Also, they should get rid of the "pedagogical" disclaimer. More exciting that way!
 
grooveskaler said:
Only people define themselves as INTELLIGENT ... And we are trying to find someone similar.

Maybe what we understand as our INTELLIGENCE is nothing special...
Click to expand...

When an animal, let us say a worm, falls in a hole, it makes random movements until it gets out.

People, and more intelligent animals, do these movements in the brain. But the principle is the same: try and err until satisfied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top