Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Supermancho 1904 days ago
> Actually, we do fully understand everything about the atomic structure of the hydrogen atom,

Not sure where that hubris comes from. There are physical phenomena we have not been able to test, so there will always be unknowns and assumptions based on (abstract) modeling. eg the metallic liquid hydrogen described here https://edu.rsc.org/soundbite/hydrogen-falls-apart-under-pre...
1 comments
Robotbeat 1904 days ago
It comes from the unreasonable effectiveness of quantum electrodynamics. That we predicted a metallic state of hydrogen (a sort of molecular, not atomic, structure) under an extreme corner case (extreme pressure) over 80 years ago (well before it could be experimentally verified) just highlights what I mean.

And I don’t mean to say that neuroscientists are doing shoddy work. Far from it! The brain is a far more complex entity than RNA or a hydrogen atom. The task is MUCH harder! But I am showing that high level of specific, concrete knowledge IS possible in the physical sciences. Memory in the Brain is a physical process as well, but we have only a relatively vague understanding of the specifics of it. We can sequence DNA or RNA accurately with relative ease. We cannot do the same with memories in the brain.

link
Supermancho 1904 days ago
> That we predicted a metallic state of hydrogen

You're missing the point. The idea that the predictions are the same as knowledge illustrates the misunderstanding. We do not know because we cannot prove it. I shouldn't need to get into the reason we produce experimental evidence eg https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/06/ask-... - via the LIGO and Virgo detectors

link
d110af5ccf 1904 days ago
@Robotbeat isn't the one missing the point here. The incredible accuracy of those predictions serves as a testament to just how well we do understand that particular phenomenon. Now compare to neuroscience, where we struggle to accurately make (by comparison) the most basic of predictions.
link
Supermancho 1904 days ago
> Now compare to neuroscience, where we struggle to accurately make (by comparison) the most basic of predictions.

I'm not addressing the hand wavy nature of the article, which is self-evident. This is irrelevant to the point being discussed.

link
d110af5ccf 1904 days ago
> This is irrelevant to the point being discussed.

You might want to reread the thread for context. You don't seem to be discussing the same point as the people you're replying to.

link