tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post116061168378593102..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Does String Theory explain Heavy Ion Physics?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2165827839964368252007-04-17T21:16:00.000-04:002007-04-17T21:16:00.000-04:00Hi Pioneer,the only thing that I can convince myse...Hi Pioneer,<BR/><BR/>the only thing that I can convince myself of doing for you is not to delete your comment. Good luck,<BR/><BR/>B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45734548630695854062007-04-17T20:45:00.000-04:002007-04-17T20:45:00.000-04:00Thanks for your reply. I made the wiki public, you...Thanks for your reply. I made the wiki public, you should be able to look at it now. http://stringbeans.pbwiki.com/Global%20Pioneering%20First%20Physics%20Awards<BR/><BR/>Of course, business part was not serious. It was an attempt to make a joke. But the Award is serious and I believe it may interest and help some students and even help change my bad attitude against physicists.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79291424857419428572007-04-16T20:18:00.000-04:002007-04-16T20:18:00.000-04:00Dear Pioneer,the link you provided above requires ...Dear Pioneer,<BR/><BR/>the link you provided above requires a log-in.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your question to advertise you 'doing some business', you can't possibly be serious with that?<BR/><BR/>Just to make sure, aren't you the guy writing this blog<BR/><BR/>http://globalpioneering.com/wp02/<BR/><BR/>In case you are: from what you write it is obvious that you don't know very much about natural Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20326064888063737902007-04-16T19:22:00.000-04:002007-04-16T19:22:00.000-04:00Thanks for the link. Yes, it was another Living Re...Thanks for the link. Yes, it was another Living Review article that I was studying, I remembered: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html<BR/><BR/>The subject is interesting but I will have to study General Relativity to understand these papers. And studying GR to me is like studying COBOL. I don't see why. So I thought about this clever scheme: I established the First Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39544652399494912352007-04-13T19:59:00.000-04:002007-04-13T19:59:00.000-04:00Hi Pioneer,You are welcome. I looked into the deta...Hi Pioneer,<BR/><BR/>You are welcome. I looked into the details of the experimental situation of GR for my thesis, but unfortunately, it is in German. You might find this living review helpful<BR/><BR/>http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/<BR/><BR/>which is also on the arxiv<BR/><BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072<BR/><BR/>see p. 12. Best,<BR/><BR/>B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74649284714463937892007-04-13T19:08:00.000-04:002007-04-13T19:08:00.000-04:00Thanks for the clarification. Since this was long ...Thanks for the clarification. Since this was long time ago I cannot claim to know the experiment as well as I should. <BR/><BR/>So I need to locate the paper and read it before I comment again. <BR/><BR/>To me most physics experiments are suspect unless they are duplicated by independent parties. Nowadays this does not happen in physics. So I have to check if those more precise experiments that Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-50810830587932951412007-04-13T13:14:00.000-04:002007-04-13T13:14:00.000-04:00Hi Pioneer,I did not know that physics can never b...Hi Pioneer,<BR/><BR/><I>I did not know that physics can never be wrong, it is the law.</I><BR/><BR/>The Pound-Rebka experiment has been repeated several times with increasing precision. If the original finds had turned out to be faulty, you'd have found an erratum on it. <BR/><BR/><I>My point is that, in GPS, or in any other astronomical computation of position, you subtract computed from Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28756138553524095832007-04-12T19:45:00.000-04:002007-04-12T19:45:00.000-04:00Yes. I know this is ridiculous. I have no faith in...Yes. I know this is ridiculous. I have no faith in physics experiments. But thanks, I remembered that was the Pound-Rebka experiment I was reading about and then it led to a more recent paper that now I have to find and read. At the time I was naive enough to believe that I could actually refute a physics experiment by duplicating it. I did not know that physics can never be wrong, it is the law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56717954719036316052007-04-12T10:26:00.000-04:002007-04-12T10:26:00.000-04:00Hi Pioneer,stop being ridiculous. Redshift of elec...Hi Pioneer,<BR/><BR/>stop being ridiculous. Redshift of electromagnetic radiation in the gravitational field is an established fact that has been repeatedly experimentally tested to great accuracy. If you open a textbook on General Relativity you will find the references - to start with try googling for Pound-Rebka. <BR/><BR/>The GPS is not the device to measure the effect, the point is you need Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91995598258691075152007-04-11T19:59:00.000-04:002007-04-11T19:59:00.000-04:00"And as a matter of fact, it is true: The systemat..."And as a matter of fact, it is true: The systematic effects on atomic clocks in orbit when observed from points on the surface of the earth as predicted by GR are incorporated into the system, and it all fits perfectly well!"<BR/><BR/>I believe this to be a myth. I once tried to track the origin of this myth years ago and all I found was some paper where the author made dubious claims about Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1161200094890691622006-10-18T15:34:00.000-04:002006-10-18T15:34:00.000-04:00Hi, I would like to point out two recent papers re...Hi, <BR/><BR/>I would like to point out two recent papers related to the "strongly coupled" QGP discussion and the viscosity bound. I have found them very interesting and readable:<BR/><BR/><I>The Letter "s" (and the sQGP)</I> by <A HREF="http://spot.colorado.edu/~naglej/" REL="nofollow">Jamie Nagle</A> (<A HREF="http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0608070" REL="nofollow">nucl-th/0608070</A>) gives a stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160889078560151532006-10-15T01:11:00.000-04:002006-10-15T01:11:00.000-04:00Hello Stefan,These are only my generalizations tha...Hello Stefan,<BR/><BR/>These are only my generalizations that were "lead by the physics."<BR/><BR/>I just wanted to share some of my <A HREF="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/10/lead-by-physics-faces-trouble-with.html" REL="nofollow">own research</A> in the direction you had been talking.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the encouragement to keep trying.:)PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160774255748584882006-10-13T17:17:00.000-04:002006-10-13T17:17:00.000-04:00Hi anonyomus,I'd say that that limit is a qualitat...Hi anonyomus,<BR/><BR/><I>I'd say that that limit is a qualitative caricature of QCD. Semiquantitative at best, when it does work it usually works at the 200% error level.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know actual numbers there. Can you give me a reference?stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160774062027655722006-10-13T17:14:00.000-04:002006-10-13T17:14:00.000-04:00Hi Arun,you shouldn't take that apparent discrepen...Hi Arun,<BR/><BR/>you shouldn't take that apparent discrepency too serious - there is probably just some gap of perception as to what you would call heavy-ion physics ;-)<BR/><BR/>I found it very revealing when I scanned the literature for dibaryons (I had used my simulation code to study the production of dibaryons at hadronization and was looking for experimentally known facts) and found a stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160774008193941712006-10-13T17:13:00.000-04:002006-10-13T17:13:00.000-04:00"but the limit "Number of Colours to infinity" is ..."but the limit "Number of Colours to infinity" is a very common tool for calulations in QCD, so this probably poses no problem." <BR/><BR/>I'd say that that limit is a qualitative caricature of QCD. Semiquantitative at best, when it does work it usually works at the 200% error level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160772816097473942006-10-13T16:53:00.001-04:002006-10-13T16:53:00.001-04:00Hi Plato,strange matter and strangelets are a very...Hi Plato,<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_matter" REL="nofollow">strange matter</A> and strangelets are a very interesting topic, but, unfortunately, there has been <A HREF="http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0412011" REL="nofollow">no experimental evidence for them</A> so far. They are not really connected to string theory either, besides the fact that it was an early <A HREF="stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160772788022676942006-10-13T16:53:00.000-04:002006-10-13T16:53:00.000-04:00"They claim that there is no experimental support ..."They claim that there is no experimental support (true) or hope for experimental support (how can they know that?) for string theory… but they ignore the fact -they intentionally don’t tell you, dear reader- about the interesting work going on by a huge percentage of the field to use string theory to study the structure of nuclear matter." by <A HREF="http://asymptotia.com/2006/10/05/Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160753293209416632006-10-13T11:28:00.000-04:002006-10-13T11:28:00.000-04:00Stefan:However, I would say that the statement "no...Stefan:<I>However, I would say that the statement "no experimental evidence" is very misleading: There are a lot of signals which are very hard or impossible to explain in purely hadronic terms: Strangeness production, heavy quark signals, jet quenching, flow signals, and so on.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes I cannot benefit in the ways that you all do( I try) but as far as being from the big picture this PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160744229495636832006-10-13T08:57:00.000-04:002006-10-13T08:57:00.000-04:00To summarize: Heavy Ion Physics does not equal str...<B>To summarize: Heavy Ion Physics does not equal strongly coupled QCD, and String Theory does not equal AdS/CFT. </B><BR/><BR/>Dear Stefan and Bee,<BR/><BR/>thank you very much for this clarifying and fair status report! I have really been puzzled how much there is about it and many of the refererences string theorists like to give do only increase my confusion. Now I do understand better why Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160741802484829452006-10-13T08:16:00.000-04:002006-10-13T08:16:00.000-04:00Anonymous,I strongly suggest that everybody intere...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/><I>I strongly suggest that everybody interested reads RHIC papers, or at least abstracts</I><BR/><BR/>good idea :-), and maybe also the introductions, which often are quite helpful to get the bigger picture.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>you will find that there are many model-dependent ways of interpreting data.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly! This is extremly important to keep in mind when stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160737585785046952006-10-13T07:06:00.000-04:002006-10-13T07:06:00.000-04:00"Ever tried to tell a friend nicely his new hair c..."Ever tried to tell a friend nicely his new hair cut is *humm* maybe a bit too short?"<BR/><BR/>LOL!, you say "it will look even better in a couple of weeks!"Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160712512427746992006-10-13T00:08:00.000-04:002006-10-13T00:08:00.000-04:00To echo Burton Richter, some of our distinguished ...To echo Burton Richter, some of our distinguished theorists not only fail to understand the difference between an observation and an explanation, but between the application of a theory and the application of (a part of) its mathematical formalism to a problem in a different domain.<BR/><BR/>No wonder string theory has become such a hopeless boondoogle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160709674053337362006-10-12T23:21:00.000-04:002006-10-12T23:21:00.000-04:00Hi anonymous,I mostly agree with you. But regardin...Hi anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I mostly agree with you. But regarding your remark: <I>There is no reason to believe that N=4 SYM is in any way related to non-perturbative QCD.</I> I have to say I am somewhat more pragmatic here. If it proves to predict observables to good accuracy, then it's a useful model to describe nature, and worth the investigation.<BR/><BR/>Dear Wolfgang,<BR/><BR/>I would really Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160708941588207202006-10-12T23:09:00.000-04:002006-10-12T23:09:00.000-04:00Hi Arun,*lol* very observant. The sentence from PW...Hi Arun,<BR/><BR/>*lol* very observant. The sentence from PW's blog actually rang in my ears when I wrote the above post. Let me put it this way: a) I am contradictory b) I find being nice very complicated. And it's unfortunately very often in conflict with being honest. I wasn't feeling particularly nice yesterday. Ever tried to tell a friend nicely his new hair cut is *humm* maybe a bit too Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1160707882759995262006-10-12T22:51:00.001-04:002006-10-12T22:51:00.001-04:00Experiment: I strongly suggest that everybody inte...Experiment: I strongly suggest that everybody interested reads RHIC papers, or at least abstracts, instead of over-hyped press releases: you will find that there are many model-dependent ways of interpreting data. There is no experimental evidence for QGP.<BR/><BR/>Theory: AdS/CFT relies on supersymmetry. QCD is not supersymmetric. There is no reason to believe that N=4 SYM is in any way related Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com