Sunday, November 12, 2017

Away Note

I am overseas the coming week, giving a seminar at Perimeter Institute on Tuesday, a colloq in Toronto on Wednesday, and on Thursday I am scheduled to “make sense of mind-blowing physics” with Natalie Wolchover in New York. The latter event, I am told, has a live webcast starting at 6:30 pm Eastern, so dial in if you fancy seeing my new haircut. (Short again.)

Please be warned that things on this blog will go very slowly while I am away. On this occasion I want to remind you that I have comment moderation turned on. This means comments will not appear until I manually approve them. I usually check the queue at least once per day.


(The above image is the announcement for the New York event. Find the seven layout blunders.)

10 comments:

Theophanes Raptis said...

New haircut? About time. Rhapsodize them!

David Schroeder said...

Welcome to our neck of the woods. Luckily the Arctic cold blast of the last few days has retreated, and you'll be greeted by more seasonal temperatures. Am especially looking forward to your live webcast with Natalie Wolchover from New York.

Nick M. said...

As they say in showbuisness, when you want to wish someone "good luck" with a performance, *break a leg*. ☺

naivetheorist said...

bee:
i watched the live webcast last night. you seemed to be almost as bored as i was, or were you just travel-weary? they must have expected someone would learn something from the 'conversation' but what? the moderator was absolutely useless. i hope they at least took you out for a good nyc meal afterwards.
richard

Sabine Hossenfelder said...

Richard,

No, I was not bored, I actually thought it was interesting, though I found the format a little strange. The panel discussions that I am used to are somewhat more freely floating. In any case, I was really tired. (Still am.)

Paul Hayes said...

What's it about? Is it you trying to save Quanta Magazine from its New Scientist-like and intellectually dishonest* addiction to "mind-blowing" (mostly by propagandizing psiontology rather than magic carpets)?

* To New Scientist's credit it never sank to deleting critical comments.

Sabine Hossenfelder said...

What's what about? Sorry, can't follow.

Jan Dybicz said...

A few days ago a friend of mines and I were discussing the LHC's failure to discover supersymmetric particles and the impact that it would have on string theory as a viable theory of everything. He claims that even though supersymmetry is discredited by the null results at the LHC, string theory is still sound, because it is still possible to have string theory without the supersymmetry. However, it seems to me that much of the foundations of modern day string theory (M-theory and the like) come from supersymmetry, and if supersymmetry is false, then it seems hard for string theory to not fall down like a house of cards. I don't know, what are your thoughts about this?

Uncle Al said...

@Jan Dybicz Mind-blowing geometry! Euclid excludes Great Circle geodesic paths upon Earth's surface. Parameterize! Elliptic geometry violates accepted theory (Euclid).

Mind-blowing physics! Dark matter, baryogenesis, Tully-Fisher relation, non-classical gravitation, Chern-Simons repair of Einstein-Hilbert action, SUSY (proton decay versus Super-K). Postulated exact vacuum mirror symmetry may deviate 10^(-10) relative (Einstein-Cartan). 50 years' million pages of rigorous, elegant, beautiful, natural theory versus 90 days inside existing bench top apparatus. Falsification violates (empirically sterile) accepted theory.

Defective postulates remain hidden when derivation excludes falsification.

David Schroeder said...

I attempted to watch the webcast live on Thursday, but my slow satellite connection caused the feed to be constantly interrupted with the spinning wheel as it attempted to load data. Early this Saturday morning I tried again, and was able to watch the first 38 minutes without interruption. I temporarily stopped watching, went out for a breakfast sandwich, and by the time I got home again the internet must have gotten busier, as the feed was once again sporadic. I'll finish watching tomorrow morning when the (regional) internet is slow, hopefully.

I did get to the part where Natalie brings up a 2013 article she wrote in Quanta magazine on the Amplituhedron; a geometric construct in higher dimensional space that greatly simplifies calculating particle interaction probabilities. That made me wonder if particle physicists are routinely using this device to expedite particle interaction analysis nowadays.