Wednesday, March 16, 2011

This and That

50 comments:

cody said...

I've never published anything, how does PRX compare to other PR & non-PR journals, do they all have fees?

Greg Sivco said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven Colyer said...

It's online-only, open access and accepted articles will be published upon payment of an article-processing charge of $1500. The website says the journal is "global." There's countries on this globe where $1500 makes an acceptable annual income. Just saying.

Yes, but in the West, money means nothing. When in debt, get debtorer, yes?

Why Bee, if If I didn't know better, I'd say you were implying anyone can publish a paper?

From PRX ... no not good enough ... deserves bold AND italics ... PRX !

PRX features
* Publication in a fully open access journal


It's on-line. For $1,500.

Broad subject coverage encouraging communication across related fields

Anything, from Mathematics + Physics to Carving wooden ducks + Copper corrosion

Validation through prompt and rigorous peer review

The editors? Which peers? The check not bouncing is a plus.

Retention of copyright by authors

Is this different than previously?

Liberal reuse rights through Creative Commons licensing

No clue. Sounds really "legalese" though.

Rapid dissemination via continuous online publication

The website will remain on-line.

Full integration with the Physical Review family of publications through APS's journal platform

The website will remain on-line.

Honestly? Welcome to America, where money talks and bullshit walks. Hello Canada, here I come (Wife must retire first).

To APS: Perhaps you could have done away with this and gotten added funding by re-naming The American McDonalds TD Bank Physical Society? Get the money up front, know what I mean?

Or do you feel threatened by viXra ?

Zephir said...

Do proffesional physicists have some personal reason, why not to consider microwave background noise as a gravitons, gravitational waves and/or holographic noise? If not, why do we sponsor the neverending search of these artifacts?

Robert L. Oldershaw said...

If the holometer ever measures anything, you can bet that it will be a "hol lot a' sh-t".

We live in a physics era where mediocre ideas thrive and really good ideas are thoroughly ignored.

Latest crap: Time travel at the LHC anyone!

Can spoon-bending be far off?

Well, it's good for a laugh anyway.

RLO

Rastus Odinga Odinga said...

Latest news is that they are starting a new journal, Physical Review ZZZZZ, where they pay *you* $1500 if you can stay awake while reading an entire issue.

Plato said...

The "F" in Fermi logo may be a inclination for,"Frisch, Fromm, Fröhlich, Fre" as to be "over empowering" from the German language point of view?

Plato said...

Here, use this one for your Post Bee.

Regarding,"Cause and effect: metaphysical insights fire top guns' imagination" I am sure Phil should weight in soon, as well as his new convert Steven:)

I know some gasp at the word "spooky" following that history one should know that "entanglement arose out of it" as a complex issue of the mysterious, yet it is simplified at it's basis?

Now cryptography, and a means to cipher communications that can not be broken? Just got to know how it's done:)

Best,

Plato said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Plato said...

Hmmmm... just thinking out loud here.


We regard quantum mechanics as a complete theory for which the fundamental physical and mathematical hypotheses are no longer susceptible of modification.

--Heisenberg and Max Born, paper delivered to Solvay Congress of 1927

Sir Roger Penrose was leading perspective here?

In a way I couldn't help but think of the vast distance from "an event" out in space, and the evidence from that event, "calorimized" as somehow "connecting the two" over that vast distance.....okay, or, how we look at the spectrum of gamma rays as we now look at things differently?

Again Kip Thorne would have shown a correlation here with all this including gravitational waves?

The event and Cerenkov? There is a "energy valuation" with which to calculate all this?

Bee said...

Hi Cody,

The first issue of PRX is supposed to appear in fall 2011, so hard to say how it compares to others. No, the PR journals don't all have fees. PRL has a fee, I believe it's $600 or so, but if your institution doesn't pay it, you can say "sorry no money" and they'll publish your paper anyway. (Provided it passed peer review of course.) In physics, there are only few journals that have fees. The Astrophysical Journal has a page fee for all I know. They can afford it because it's like THE journal to get published in in astrophysics. Best,

B.

Bee said...

Hi Steven,

"Why Bee, if If I didn't know better, I'd say you were implying anyone can publish a paper?"

Not sure what you mean with that. Anybody who has a good manuscript should be able to publish a paper. What I was saying is simply that $1500 is a lot of money for some institutions, and if a journal requires authors to pay such a high fee, some simply won't be able to afford it. I know that some OA journals with author fee have an option for researchers from less fortunate countries to circumvent the fee. It might be APS has something similar in mind, but I couldn't find it on the webpage. In any case, it doesn't really solve the problem. Author fees are a stupid idea. It just doesn't work out with the economics. See, even if people from developing countries or so don't have to pay the fee, it means the journal will only run as long as their percentage is small. Either way you put it, they ought to have an interest in getting authors who pay.

Best,

B.

Bee said...

Hi Zephir,

"Do proffesional physicists have some personal reason, why not to consider microwave background noise as a gravitons...

I explained it previously, but it seems you weren't listening then. Gravitational waves do have an effect on the CMB, it affects the polarization. There's experiments running to look for that. Best,

B.

Zephir said...

/*...Gravitational waves do have an effect on the CMB, it affects the polarization. There's experiments running to look for that...*/

So do they affect the polarization - or some theorists are hoping to prove it with experiments?

These two things aren't the very same. But my question was quite different. Why CMB cannot be formed with gravitational waves itself?

Bee said...

Hi Zephir,

"So do they affect the polarization - or some theorists are hoping to prove it with experiments?

Theory says they do affect the polarization. Experiments are hoping to detect it. This might be useful.

"Why CMB cannot be formed with gravitational waves itself?"

I don't even know what you mean with the question. What means "formed with"? Gravitational waves in the early universe do affect the CMB, it shows up in the polarization. Also, you previously spoke about CMB noise (which I interpreted as the temperature fluctuations) now you speak about the CMB. Best,

B.

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

It's true the PRX journal carries the disadvantage of having a publishing fee and yet does have the advantage of open access. I would agree fees are prohibitive and yet on the other hand it asks the author(s) to risk their money where their convictions are (one’s money where their mouth is).

With this in mind perhaps they should take a slightly different tact, where all submitters pay a free, yet those that get published have it refunded. To make it more fair the author’s identities should be hidden from the reviewers. In a way this could be considered a challenge journal and in the end serve to have the quality raised, and with it decrease the number of papers needing to be read. Anyway something needs to be done, as information in academia is increasingly becoming ever more indistinguishable from noise.

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

“I am sure Phil should weight in soon, as well as his new convert Steven:)”

I never knew I was in the business of soliciting converts and if I have I’d like to know what I’ve converted them to; as I surely don’t know. On the other hand I would say that the U.S. Airforces peeked interest in regards to philosophy respective of causality might have more to do with someone watching nonsense like“What the Bleep” too often :-) That is I’ve always felt bad for those like David Z. Albert when some Hollywood docufantasy types twist sound foundational questioning into some new age self-help hucksterism.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Hi Phil,

My apologies as to solicitations being implied and Steven(sorry Steven) as a convert....it just seemed the timing of Bee was impeccable with regard to her article in relation too,"The US Air Force invites a professor of metaphysics to learn about the philosophy behind the nature of causality.

I was lurking over at Steven's place and did not necessarily think to include you in the "meta physical side," but more toward the question of foundation. How it may be perceived historically and brought forward into today's world.

"These references to Born are not meant to diminish one of the towering figures of modern physics. They are meant to illustrate the difficulty of putting aside preconceptions and listening to what is actually being said. They are meant to encourage you, dear listener, to listen a little harder." John Stewart Bell

I think in this context one can delve into the notion that there is an evolution of thinking that while moving forward in time did not miss an beat as to providing for experimental avenues that were opened by the issues of entanglement.

It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.Murray Gellman

The start of Murray Gellman's Plectics is the idea of simplicity together with complexity which then serve in this case as to demonstrate the evolution of entanglement.

The relationship as to convert was to imply the need for recognition toward demonstrating a recognition of as "part and parcel of that evolution from spooky(metaphysical)" and if it were to be the sign of convert it would have been in that context.

A philosopher to me helps one prepare the road toward "posing the proper questions" as to lead one toward using the theoretic toward the final process of experimentation. This could be a summation historically written.

Best,

Plato said...

Phil,

I would say indeed that there is a side story to my position "as a layman" who believes something that is not seen, so in that sense I do belong to a certain class:)

Simply put, an emotive side demonstrated as to the weight of our being as to what we hold too in our "own world of colors."

You could call it "the weather" if you like:)

Best,

Plato said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bee said...

Hi Phil,

"it asks the author(s) to risk their money where their convictions are (one’s money where their mouth is)."

The problem is that this means those who have more money have more influence, either way you turn it. That's fine as long as you're talking about investment into business plans, but it's a capital DON'T in science. Where would we go if you could buy your way into high impact journals? Best,

B.

Steven Colyer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven Colyer said...

After my initial disgust I took a stress "pill" (attitude adjustment ... costs less than actual pharmacological products).

So why the high fee? To allow Rob and Zephir to put their money where their mouths are? Maybe not, but it will still be "peer" reviewed, so if there's a "peer" who believes in tachyons Zephir, you're good. Might have to list your real name, though. Willing to take that risk?

Anyway, I'm good. I'm chillin', jah (my new favorite word). I'm happy I now know there's a Physical Review E. I didn't know that, and that stuff is right up my alley. Maybe yours too, Oldershaw, check it out.

Uncle Al said...

1) Physical Review X (PRX): Like California's "privileged minority" commuter lanes, thinking may pass through a toll booth into fast travel (No "arxiv macht frei"!). A stiff fee constrains the most noisome academic inconveniences: crackpots and testable original thought.

2) Craig Hogan's "Holographic noise": Particle physics plays that game re SUSY, proton decay, Higgs mass, chiral neutrino divergent reaction channels then the see-saw mechanism... Embrace the turd.

3) Who is running the coincidence counter?

http://www.answers.com/topic/frisch-fromm-froh-frei
Perhaps it is holographic noise.
http://www.tv-wahlheim.de/images/ffff.gif
Frisch, Fromm, Fröhlich, Frei"
http://www.cteq-mcnet.org/mark_blue.gif
Fermilab

(Do a sum over all histories: "Frisch, Fromm, Fröhlich, Veröffentlicht!")

4) "create a theory of causation for the real world". German lacks the necessary colloquial phrase. We turn to religion to ennoble vulgarity,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/religion.htm

Zephir said...

/* now you speak about the CMB */

I'm talking about CMBR, which was revealed in 1964 or so.. Why this CMBR cannot be equivalent to the gravitational waves, holographic noise and gravitons at the same moment?

Robert L. Oldershaw said...

Steven,

Thanks for the hint about PRE, but I have known about PRE for about 20 years and have submitted several papers to them, since they deal with nonlinear phenomena and fractal phenomena.

However, I never had much luck with any PR venue, even PRE. They say my paradigm does not involve kosher fractals. I say: 'but Mandelbrot recognized this type of discrete fractal as valid'. No luck with that argument. So I say well the new paradigm is dominated by GR so its highly nonlinear. Alas, once they say "no", all further discussion is summarily dismissed.

Lesson: If you tamper with the assumed absoluteness of G, and here I mean something far more fundamental than a little "running", be prepared to be treated as a bete noire. One is not even allowed to question this assumption. This seems rather odd and unscientific to me, but then...

RLO

Bee said...

Hi Zephir,

Well, to begin with the CMB is photons not gravitational waves. You don't seriously believe a dozen or so experiments weren't able to tell the difference, do you? Best,

B.

Steven Colyer said...

Hi Rob,

Well your are a published author at a smaller journal and although you promote your Discrete Scale Relativity just about everywhere, (except here because Bee and Stefan have rules about that thing as well you know ... and Zephir will know one these years, we hope), I understand that Physical Review, being the publishing arm of the American Physical Society, is a very, very Political organization.

Indeed, that's its job, right? To lobby Congress for more money and more money and even more yet, for Physics? Considering the competition: Arms Suppliers, ExxonMobilHalliburton, and all the Socialist organizations, I'd say Science in general has an uphill fight; but then, when hasn't it?

If you could figure out a way to WEAPONIZE your theory on the other hand ...

No, let's not go there, you know what I'm talking about. Btw in this and all that follows, I in no way endorse nor condemn your theory, because I have not studied it in the detail any interesting theory deserves. I'd like to discuss your unique take on the fine structure constant, for example, but NOT HERE nor frankly in private e-mail, as again my efforts are being re-directed elsewhere e.g. Langlands and too many other places. Also, Cosmology ain't my thing. I find the field almost wholly speculative. Nothing wrong with that, but as Feynman said before one explores the unknown one must know the known first, even the known you disagree with.

The upshot is I don't think you're selling yourself well. You really should start a blog, which I know we've discussed and you've rejected, yeah yeah, OK fine, to each his own. Failing that, you absolutely have to hook up with a PhD in Math or Appl Math or Math Phys or Astronomy or Astrophysics or Cosmology or good old Physics, and have THAT person push for you.

We live in a Political world, that's the reality, and as disgusting as that is, one must move within the parameters or be labeled a crackpot or worse. Sorry man, that's "the system."

As a fellow independent researcher, I feel your pain, but I haven't found that one thing yet I wish to mathematically zero in on and pursue with reckless abandon. So of course I'm interested in your progress, as it gives me an idea of what I'll be up against down the road.

Stefan Scherer, you still work at Springer, publisher of Scientific papers, yes? How is the Scientific publishing world doing in your opinion? We know how "the new media" (Internet, weblogs, podcasts, Amazon/Kindle) has interfered with magazines, newspapers, books and bookstores, yes? I'm just curious how much the new paradigm shift in new technology is affecting the "product world" of Science, which is papers.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

No need to apologize as no offense taken. Actually I should apologize for having a little fun with you in realizing what you meant from the beginning:-) That is it being true the foundations having been a central interest of mine for quite a while, although one where my personal active inquiry has diminished in intensity over time.

Anyway now that you have broached the subject I would like to say that the question posed in the recent FQXi essay contest I thought would offer some much needed exposure to foundational issues. However after reading many of the essays I’ve found the question by most of the submitters has been nearly completely ignored and principally serves only as being a platform for the expounding of personal theories which do little to address the question.

In contrast I was hoping for, yet didn’t find, essays by those I thought more qualified to address such a question. Instead I find pieces written by many that by way of their offerings indicating they have considered the question at best only superficially. However one thing I did find reassuring is the FQXi community itself, by virtue of their combined low ranking of all submissions seem to hold a similar opinion. I for one would like to see them declare this a false start and repose the question at a later date tightening the guide lines a bit.

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

No need to apologize as no offense taken. Actually I should apologize for having a little fun with you in realizing what you meant from the beginning:-) That is it being true the foundations having been a central interest of mine for quite a while, although one where my personal active inquiry has diminished in intensity over time.

Anyway now that you have broached the subject I would like to say that the question posed in the recent FQXi essay contest I thought would offer some much needed exposure to foundational issues. However after reading many of the essays I’ve found the question by most of the submitters has been nearly completely ignored and principally serves only as being a platform for the expounding of personal theories which do little to address the question.

In contrast I was hoping for, yet didn’t find, essays by those I thought more qualified to address such a question. Instead I find pieces written by many that by way of their offerings indicating they have considered the question at best only superficially. However one thing I did find reassuring is the FQXi community itself, by virtue of their combined low ranking of all submissions seem to hold a similar opinion. I for one would like to see them declare this a false start and repose the question at a later date tightening the guide lines a bit.

Best,

Phil

P.S. Bee, I had submitted this comment earlier with a few links supplied yet it was swallowed up by the Blogger spam filter. Leaves to me wonder if they have something in for FXQi :-)

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

”The problem is that this means those who have more money have more influence, either way you turn it.”

Yes it could turn out this way. On the other hand if the reviews were fair and the ones accepted reimbursed or better still given a reward paid from the funds of those papers rejected it could have positive effect. That is if one really looks at the history of such things money has always played a role with the dawning of the first journals, such as the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions, whose founding members and contributors would have been better defined as principally gentlemen scientists. Besides I don’t suppose it would eliminate traditional journals or platforms like arXiv.

Anyway it would be interesting to run it as an experiment, as I don’t see how it could serve to further diminish quality and might even have it improved. Also for the poorer ones if they were to find sponsors who would share in the reward they too could still be included. Who knows this could provoke the creation of a new avenue for venture capitalists (speculators). Wouldn’t that be a interesting turn of events if they for once helped to actually create something, rather than for the most part simply driving the price up of what already exists:-)

Best,

Phil

Zephir said...

/*..to begin with the CMB is photons not gravitational waves..*/

:-) But what physically prohibits them to be the very same stuff?

BTW I know the current state of human understanding - this is exactly the reason, why I'm bothering with this stuff. If everyone would know, CMBR photons are gravitational waves or holographic noise, I wouldn't waste your time here with this question.

Bee said...

Hi Zephir,

Well, if you believe in a theory that unifies the standard model with gravity, then I suppose you could say photons and gravitons are fundamentally made of the same 'stuff,' e.g. strings. They are arguably not the same, for example because photons have spin 1 and gravitons spin two, and the one couples universally whereas the other one doesn't. If "everyone would know, CMBR photons are gravitational waves or holographic noise" I'd quit physics. But at least then you'd stop bothering me. I would further recommend you take your elaborations on the true nature of the CMB elsewhere, because it's got nothing to do with anything we're discussing here. Thanks,

B.

Bee said...

Hi Phil,

Yes, I would agree that it would be interesting and probably the best way to proceed to just try out different things. The question is however how we'll decide on the success of one or the other. You see, if "success" is defined internally, this can easily go wrong if you see what I mean. People have a tendency to like things they spend money on just because they have to justify it to themselves. Look at the iPhone/BlackBerry craze! Likewise few authors will say the journal they published in only publishes crap, esp if they spent money on it. In any case, the arXiv isn't going to make a difference there as long as researchers need to publish in a journal to get peer review. This is why I suggested to decouple peer review and journal publication, as there's no good reason why both should be provided by the same institution. Best,

B.

Zephir said...

/** ..photons and gravitons are fundamentally made of the same 'stuff,' e.g. strings.. */

Hi, (Maya the) Bee..

Fat strings, to be more specific (this concept was invented already). BTW I've nothing against your memo "Frisch, Fromm, Fröhlich, Frei" - on the contrary - I liked it very much...

I just wanted to introduce an idea, not only GEO 600 - Fermilab guys - but whole the community of physicists could be labelled so. Well, at least from certain perspective, which you're apparently not quite comfortable with - yet.

This was all from my side.

Georg said...

Hallo Bee,
du unterschlägst das Beste:

Frisch, fromm, fröhlich, frei
macht die edle Turnerei.
Lügerei Verrat und Mord,
bringt der Sport.

Das war noch stramme Haltung gegen die
Einflüsse aus dem perfiden Albion :=)

Steven Colyer said...

German to English translation via Google tools:

unterschlägst you the best:

Frisch, pious, happy, free
makes the noble acrobatics.
Lügerei treason and murder,
brings the sport.

That was the attitude stramme
Influences from the perfidious Albion: =)


We live to serve. (Every parent knows this)

Bee said...

Hi Steven,

The translation should be roughly:

"You're holding back the best

Fresh, pious, happy, free
is what noble acrobatics brings.
Lying, treason and murder,
is what sport brings."

It's a rhyme I actually hadn't heard before. To understand the context, the "Frisch, Fromm, Froehlich, Frei" I was referring to is a slogan going back to Turnvater Jahn, and it is still used by many sport clubs. Also the logo, consisting of four F's is still in use. Google image turns up eg this one. Now compare this to the Fermilab logo. See what I mean?

Best,

B.

Bee said...

Link missing: FFFF Logo is here http://www.tv-wahlheim.de/images/ffff.gif

Steven Colyer said...

Brooding upon what he saw as the humiliation of his native land by Napoleon, Jahn conceived the idea of restoring the spirits of his countrymen by the development of their physical and moral powers through the practice of gymnastics. Jahn popularized the motto "Frisch, Fromm, Fröhlich, Frei" ("Hardy, Pious, Cheerful, Free") in the early 19th century.

Thanks, Bee. Since I have your attention, what do your think of Universe Today's recent article on Double Special Relativity, here? Read the replies too. Thanks in advance.

Georg said...

Hello Bee,
this is a typical propaganda slogan of the second half of 19th century, when the traditional "turnen" (acrobatics) got competition of "sports" coming from England which was often professional then. "Turnen" was highly individualistic, one dealt with ones own shortcomings, tried to defeat ones weakness, either muscles or will. The free of aim and sense British "sport" (soccer and the like) was much disregarded of course. Soccer eg was apostrophied as "podoboötism" :=)

Bee said...

Hi Steven,

Well, the article is for all I can see correct, but then it doesn't say much. Regarding comments, the comment "LQG predicts that the Lorentz symmetry of spacetime is violated as one approaches this Planck scale. This means that a photon traveling through space is perturbed by little quantum fluctuations which give a dispersion," by somebody who calls himself Lawrence B. Crowell is plainly wrong. You can find some words on this in my recent summary paper, see eps. the section on DSR and that on minimal length. Best,

B.

Steven Colyer said...

Thank you Bee, those were my thoughts exactly. Nice to see I'm learning something, you're a good teacher.

Since I was reading your blog initially around Aug of 2009 when the results of Fermi (formally GLAST) came in, I remember you giving me Lee's response re same at the time. This also engendered Phil's now-famous "much ado about a single photon" remark. And the infamous weblog post by Lubos with the two-headed pic of Lee, that decried Loops dead. :-) :-(

Crowell, whomever he is, is clearly a dyed-in-the-wool String Theorist to the point that attacking other theories makes him feel best. My impish side wants to go there and debate him, but I have better things to do today. Probably a good thing too since I'd probably get cheeky and ask him how's that experimental proof of super-symmetric particles at the LHC going, old bean?

Neil Bates said...

Phil, you've got a point. I'm disappointed in the low Community Rating of my own FQXi essay (find via name link if interested) too. I must admit I went on a tangent (that I thought was important, however, and did end up addressing the call question. I also complain that none of those raters left critique or complaint saying why they give me (or others, that I've read) low scores. (They could hide behind handles.)

As for DSR, I had the impression that Bee laid it to rest - that it had an unresolvable flaw. I wouldn't know how to relate/resurrect it via QLG. However, the DSR idea is surely not the same as the dispersion by quantum foam - that recent gamma ray experiments apparently falsified (to sufficient accuracy?) I guess that leaves us wondering, why *wasn't* space-time quantized in that intuitively appealing manner. (I remember the drawings, at around 10^43 X or so, of the little mushroom-like protrusions, the half-rings, etc, in the supposed micro-structure of S-T from some books in the 80s or 90s etc.)

Steven Colyer said...

Careful, Neil: quantized space and quantized space-time are 2 different things. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying be careful. I find myself in an apples and oranges type of self-discussion/debate on this all the time, and am grateful when Bee points out my errant thoughts re same, on those occasions when I do err.

Regarding DSR, the debate is not finished, just on hold for the moment as one of the two takes a wee bit of the old time out for ... here it comes ... Twins!

Bee and Lee have been having this debate scientifically, through papers. They have been mature, that is to say a gentleman and a lady in discussing it. One of my dreams is to ramp up my knowledge quotient to the point that I can understand the Mathematical minutia of their papers and thus their arguments. Getting there, just not this year.

Neil Bates said...

OK Steve, I suppose those illustrations meant that space was grainy and textured, not necessarily time too (but how can they be set apart very much?) In any case, maybe "holographic noise" is a way to regain the foaminess that dispersion experiments seem to have cast aspersions on?

And I suppose some people just have an itch for DSR, like so many are attracted to the idea that decoherence explains why we don't see macroscopic superpositions (that I think I've shown a way to falsify by experiment FWIW.) See my reply to you, other readers may find it edifying too. In any case, if I had $1500 to spend it would be "fun" to see if PRX would take something that *should* be considered important, aside from whether my treatment would be rigorous enough.

Steven Colyer said...

Well, Neil, as I just posted at your blog:

It's a good thing I didn't submit to that essay contest, they wouldn't have liked it, because while it's a good question, my answer would have been too short, too sweet, too accurate, and to the point. It would have been:

"Is Reality Digital or Analog?"

Both. Neither. Maybe there's a 4th Dimension of Space which presents itself as the cosmological constant and/or "dark energy." And then again, maybe not.

In short: Nobody knows, because we lack the energy to explore at the smallest length and time scales, and will always lack the same, so the closest we can ever get is through speculative extrapolation of the Universe-imposed experimental limits, the only thing we can be sure of being we will never be sure, unless the aliens land and tell us, and I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening anytime soon, or, ever.

Have a nice day.

Love,
Steve the S'Colyer (my Klingon name ... the Klingons like me because just like the Ancient Romans, you don't need esoteric things like "zero" or "negative numbers" to take over the world ... just think positive)

P.S. Where do I pick up my winnings?

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee and Stefan,

I just noticed your inclusion of a facebook link to your posts which I think is an excellent idea. That being I’ve always thought this blog as quite deserving of a larger readership, as it not only bringing to the forefront matters at the cutting edge of scientific thought, yet also more general matters which have effect as to concern all.

Best,

Phil

Bee said...

Hi Phil,

Very attentive! I only just added this. I hope it works. Best,

B.