tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post1605663411291364397..comments2020-05-27T19:02:43.791-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Does the Scientific Method need Revision?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29283662129935061042015-01-25T11:50:24.532-05:002015-01-25T11:50:24.532-05:00John (johnduffield),
Unfortunately, I have only b...John (johnduffield),<br /><br />Unfortunately, I have only browsed through Lee Smolin's book and not read it. I have not browsed through other similar books... Just no time at hand...<br /><br />But yes, sometimes, I do wonder how <i>such</i> physicists (of the kind you mention) manage to get funding, and even manage to continue doing so... What makes <i>that</i> possible. And, a related Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91498068981712286062015-01-24T11:47:04.171-05:002015-01-24T11:47:04.171-05:00Ajit: IMHO the "trouble with physics" is...<b>Ajit</b>: IMHO the <i>"trouble with physics"</i> is that physicists believe in popscience myths. They don't study the fundamentals, and spend years wasting their time on something that's <i>"not even wrong"</i>. Then once they've dug themselves into a hole, they will not admit that they were wrong. So that's where they stay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53638829323153330712015-01-22T10:28:44.962-05:002015-01-22T10:28:44.962-05:00Regarding the subject of quantum gravity, I explai...Regarding the subject of quantum gravity, I explained many times here, that the subject of quantum gravity is just the everyday "classical" physics at the human observer scale with all its molecules, trees and bees (between others). This is because the quantum gravity is supposed to unify the quantum mechanics and general relativity theories at all dimensional scales - and the human Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36931698376238623762015-01-22T10:16:21.942-05:002015-01-22T10:16:21.942-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87656556943282604862015-01-22T07:01:16.347-05:002015-01-22T07:01:16.347-05:00@kashyap vasavada
Here is a beta version of the l...@kashyap vasavada<br /><br />Here is a beta version of the latest paper.<br />http://www.academia.edu/8604226/The_Schwarzschild_Solution_to_the_Nexus_Graviton_Field<br /> It is of course not as developed as the final paper since it does not include Black hole quantum phenomena and calculations of the baryonic mass content of the observable universe.Stuart https://www.blogger.com/profile/12767480095489975264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39581468970487923612015-01-22T02:58:14.951-05:002015-01-22T02:58:14.951-05:00Uncle AI, you know of course if you turn a soleno...Uncle AI, you know of course if you turn a solenoid around it does not change the direction of the chirality. L. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42420515244051595692015-01-21T20:26:24.256-05:002015-01-21T20:26:24.256-05:00I replied a comment on one of Bee's links yest...I replied a comment on one of Bee's links yesterday which occurs to me may be. Posted here as well before all our cross link sharing gets lost in the sheffling.<br /><br /> Vaibhav. What is equation 13?<br />Hocus Pocus could reduce to a deeper level of Helter Skelter "incompatiblity" on one hand and absolutely consistent magic on the other hand. The problem with the holographic L. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63424011258886414192015-01-21T20:20:27.487-05:002015-01-21T20:20:27.487-05:00Clifford is the closest to my own view but his is ...Clifford is the closest to my own view but his is not the deeper more finite groups in the picture. I think Einstein said that about algebra. I think arithmetic is deeper. What is the heart of algebra anyway but the distribution law? L. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42614713051807201302015-01-21T20:11:46.336-05:002015-01-21T20:11:46.336-05:00L. Edgar
Is algebra the hardest branch ?
I'm ...L. Edgar<br /> Is algebra the hardest branch ?<br />I'm a big fan of W.K. Clifford and he makes Clifford Algebra look like it could be taught in 4th grade. David Hestenes "SpaceTime Algebra" is a very interesting read on the subject. It includes the Reals, the Complex, and Quaternions and Complex Quaternions - the last being the same as Pauli Algebra. It includes Dirac algebra too.joel ricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06048310899055838262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27108288188584488422015-01-21T17:24:02.084-05:002015-01-21T17:24:02.084-05:00I agree with Sabine. But even simple and reasonabl...I agree with Sabine. But even simple and reasonable "new" ideas encounter a severe resistance from the mainstream; that's another reason for the crisis.Vladimir Kalitvianskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16310670038267361671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79945650944130501382015-01-21T15:20:00.009-05:002015-01-21T15:20:00.009-05:00Quantum ChromodynamicsQuantum ChromodynamicsPlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27669127759192888052015-01-21T15:18:50.375-05:002015-01-21T15:18:50.375-05:00Science has under gone a perversion regarding empi...Science has under gone a perversion regarding empiricism making this aspect of the induction dogmatic. They have lost sight of the ability to be able to use that mind to theoretical push boundaries of thought. That is called Rationalism.<br /><br />It does require a logical exploration of truth regarding the theory made. If the basics of this journey has been true to the inductions made, at it&#PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83184130329549005902015-01-21T15:17:40.249-05:002015-01-21T15:17:40.249-05:00L. Edgar:
you mention Gauss - evidently he discov...L. Edgar:<br /> you mention Gauss - evidently he discovered Quaternion rotations before Hamilton, but never published.<br /> Robert Hermann wrote a book on Spinors, Cayley numbers and Clifford Algebras,(MathSci Press) and had some very interesting remarks on the beauty of calculus and algebra together. That book is around here somewhere !<br />joel ricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06048310899055838262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1500468782453185602015-01-21T15:06:25.246-05:002015-01-21T15:06:25.246-05:00Hi Bee,
Your article to me is a philosophical pos...Hi Bee,<br /><br />Your article to me is a philosophical position that recognizes deduction to be used with induction. <br /><br />This distinction is important.<br /><br />To get too, any self evident position in the ascertainment of first principle, it is necessary to be able to make an intuitive leap with the mind. This is so that induction is used to keep to the very basics of the deductions PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-60276583366421806342015-01-21T14:33:43.707-05:002015-01-21T14:33:43.707-05:00Joel,
There is no doubt the ancient Aegyptians c...Joel,<br /> There is no doubt the ancient Aegyptians could have built Cadillacs if they had the technology and prototypes were not so expensive. Their kids played with wheels and axel cart toys when the adults rolled stones on logs. What toys today could advance technology? Algebra is said the hardest branch of mathematics but the trunk is the calculus and it seems most commenters do not know L. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4607728665926751192015-01-21T13:52:54.635-05:002015-01-21T13:52:54.635-05:00If internal consistency were sufficient then J. T....If internal consistency were sufficient then J. T. Graves would have been able, in principle, to derive the Standard Model in 1843. That was before anyone had electricity - or even sliced bread ! Clearly that is a kind of absurdity - like thinking that Hamilton could have derived the Pauli equation and predicted the Stern-Gerlach experimental results. He had the algebra, but knew nothing of joel ricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06048310899055838262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83478357681323803212015-01-21T12:49:15.718-05:002015-01-21T12:49:15.718-05:00http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01919
These are not par...http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01919<br /><br />These are not paradoxes. Theory is OK locally but off by 120 orders of magnitude globally. Theory is wrong. The pendulum equation is not nearly <br /><br />T = [2(pi)]sqrt(length/gravity)<br /><br />except locally. Mathematics is necessary but not sufficient. All the fun is in the carefully excluded footnotes.<br />Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61050475912279235512015-01-21T11:31:15.368-05:002015-01-21T11:31:15.368-05:00Stuart: Although I do not know much about your lin...Stuart: Although I do not know much about your line of approach, I am quite curious to look at your paper. Unfortunately it is in a journal which<br />may not be readily available. Is there an online source? If I am not mistaken, we had a little exchange on Matt Strassler's blog. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10732897306667764590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67569629558031813172015-01-21T11:17:17.869-05:002015-01-21T11:17:17.869-05:00Mathematics becomes theory through empirical testi...Mathematics becomes theory through empirical testing. Euclid, Earth's surface, fail. SUSY, dark matter, quantum gravitation say "more mathematics!" More Euclid does not fix Euclid.<br /><br />Vertical wormhole in a gravitational potential. Bottom entry falls out the top exit into the bottom entry. An entered mass accelerates forever. Give it a charge, have it fall through a Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39231821129266745012015-01-21T10:33:40.744-05:002015-01-21T10:33:40.744-05:00"The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematic..."The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences" has received a lot of attention (google it for references if any are needed) which I am skeptical about. This post has tangentially supported my skepticism, because it supports my belief that mathematics can model anything we are capable of understanding (since, as I believe, math and thinking are the same thing - JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56516843568570681232015-01-21T10:32:54.700-05:002015-01-21T10:32:54.700-05:00Imagine intrinsic linearity, that is
Imagine intrinsic linearity, that is<br />L. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6325676602760977182015-01-21T10:30:40.489-05:002015-01-21T10:30:40.489-05:00Pentcho,
If we can entertain intrinsic curvature ...Pentcho,<br /> If we can entertain intrinsic curvature we can imagine intrinsic curvature . It is absurd only insofar as time is asymmetric by this every other shift of count as a positive absolute value as a consequence of binary or ambiguity in arithmetic. Even three spaces over anticonsistency is evidently not necessarily anticompatible to our simplest extension into five space. The CC has L. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18112010923682902582015-01-21T08:30:31.921-05:002015-01-21T08:30:31.921-05:00Sabine:
Yes this is not a genuine inconsistency i...Sabine:<br /><br />Yes this is not a genuine inconsistency insofar as the different values for the acceleration of falling photons are taught by today's authors while Einstein's 1915 theory gives a single value: (-2g).<br /><br />I am not sure which evidence you mean when you say "incompatibility with evidence" so let me choose the most relevant one - the Pound-Rebka experiment.Pentcho Valevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17402794850276749822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24211718443433168632015-01-21T08:23:37.495-05:002015-01-21T08:23:37.495-05:00There is a new idea in physics which has led to th...There is a new idea in physics which has led to the creation of a plausible quantum theory of gravity. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219887815500425<br />It is the only quantum theory of gravity that predicts the correct value of the cosmological constant eliminates singularities in GR, predicts galaxy rotation curves, derives the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation and calculates Stuart https://www.blogger.com/profile/12767480095489975264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78679439159165718302015-01-21T07:16:49.196-05:002015-01-21T07:16:49.196-05:00Pentcho:
It is correct that a theory is inconsist...Pentcho:<br /><br />It is correct that a theory is inconsistent if it contains incompatible statement, but the example you use is not an inconsistency, it's an incompatibility with evidence. <br /><br />An inconsistency exists for example between the Hamiltionan H \sim p^2 + V and Lorentz-invariance. Besides, since it has been mentioned before, resolving this inconsistency does not Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com