tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post2814206948383650691..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Short-term thinkingSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10962251045751340462010-11-03T08:54:03.244-04:002010-11-03T08:54:03.244-04:00Foster fights to hold Seat
Stahr wrote:
"The...<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2838840,CST-NWS-cong27.article?plckCurrentPage=0&sid=sitelife.suntimes.com" rel="nofollow">Foster fights to hold Seat</a><br /><br />Stahr wrote:<br />"The article says that Mr. Foster, while at Fermilab, helped discover the top quark, then thought to be the heaviest known form of matter. Now that he has been an elected official, Mr. FosterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10633771249305652682010-10-30T13:11:05.386-04:002010-10-30T13:11:05.386-04:00Lee Smolin:No one knew better than Einstein that i...<b>Lee Smolin</b>:<i>No one knew better than Einstein that it requires not only intelligence and hard work but equal helpings of insight, stubbornness, patience and character.</i><br /><br />Yes on this point I would agree most certainly, and rest assure Lee's word should be taken more then my perspective as you point out by Lee's quote. <br /><br />Which means, that it did not make my PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34221699282847537972010-10-30T07:23:44.279-04:002010-10-30T07:23:44.279-04:00Hi Plato,
I find this not as relevant in being ab...Hi Plato,<br /><br />I find this not as relevant in being able to address the question regarding if there exists this dichotomy in thinking or not. As to the limits of Einstein’s vision, I would say he better than anyone at the time understood the nature and difficulties involved in the problem; a problem I might add that virtually none of his colleagues thought needing to be addressed as being Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65433359600434490062010-10-30T07:10:18.642-04:002010-10-30T07:10:18.642-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-44523526026376089422010-10-29T13:00:22.121-04:002010-10-29T13:00:22.121-04:00Thanks, Phil.
I liked both quotes.
RLOThanks, Phil.<br /><br />I liked both quotes.<br /><br />RLORobert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29422989109928609952010-10-29T11:04:28.842-04:002010-10-29T11:04:28.842-04:00Hi Phil,
Re:the selection of Einsteins last quote...Hi Phil,<br /><br />Re:the selection of Einsteins last quote.<br /><br />Einstein did learn from Grossman about a "new geometry" that helped to propel him forward in his efforts. A mathematical perspective.<br /><br />One would think, that having understood this, that propensities would also be established in "other ways" to help him look at nature and understand something PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82274445122770589432010-10-29T07:32:40.631-04:002010-10-29T07:32:40.631-04:00Hi Robert,
I would just like to add below the arg...Hi Robert,<br /><br />I would just like to add below the arguments regarding the two recipes, as stated by ones being large if not principle contributors to each. That being these statements for me still leaves the question to be answered as being, is there actually a dichotomy to be recognized respective to each in their thinking or not?<br /><br /><i><b>“One might still like to ask: “How does Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88681319482250010732010-10-29T06:51:29.060-04:002010-10-29T06:51:29.060-04:00Hi Robert,
I find the current situation in physic...Hi Robert,<br /><br />I find the current situation in physics to be like a Chef having the opposite problem regarding two of his favourite recipes, which have come to be appreciated by many; with GR being where the action of its two principle ingredients well understood and yet the nature of the ingredients themselves not. On the other hand with the standard model, you have a lot of ingredients Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63526007374315784072010-10-28T12:00:52.001-04:002010-10-28T12:00:52.001-04:00Bee,
-----------------------
"Robert: We'...Bee,<br /><br />-----------------------<br />"Robert: We're talking past each other."<br />--------------------<br /><br />Yes, that is true. We are now preaching to the "gallery".<br /><br />I think we have clearly stated our positions, our intrinsic philosophy of science, and our assessment of the current state of theoretical physics.<br /><br />There are many areas Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53118036767237684792010-10-28T00:34:20.459-04:002010-10-28T00:34:20.459-04:00Robert:
We're talking past each other. That t...Robert:<br /><br />We're talking past each other. That the microscopic origin of dark matter and dark energy is presently unknown is an open question. That doesn't prohibit you from using both (by their equation of state) in GR and Cosmology. Not sure what's your issue with galaxy formation. For all I know it works reasonably well, except for the cusps which is generally believed to Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46806693241284368472010-10-28T00:26:44.146-04:002010-10-28T00:26:44.146-04:00"All these theories work tremendously well. T..."All these theories work tremendously well. That some of them leave open question is a different matter."<br /><br />If everything works so "tremendously well", then how do you explain the following.<br /><br />1. Dark Matter - Unknown(24% of U)<br />2. Dark Energy - Unknown(73% of U)<br />3. Vacuum E Dens. - off by 10^120<br />4. No credible galaxy form. models<br />5. Fine Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62958285706431386692010-10-27T16:17:09.069-04:002010-10-27T16:17:09.069-04:00Let me add that my last comment only applies to th...Let me add that my last comment only applies to the first graph. The second graph, showing the dramatic increase in part-time faculty, is very worrying.Peter Shorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823970640202949073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38460599723097170802010-10-27T16:15:42.314-04:002010-10-27T16:15:42.314-04:00In interpreting this data, maybe you should also r...In interpreting this data, maybe you should also remember that not everybody who gets a PhD in S&E (especially the Engineering part) actually wants an academic job, and this is much more true now that it was in the 1970's. <br /><br />In many areas of computer science, and I presume other engineering areas, you can go into a better job if you have a PhD than if you just got a Masters. Peter Shorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823970640202949073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84410512234243161982010-10-27T15:03:15.448-04:002010-10-27T15:03:15.448-04:00Hi Bee,
You wrote:
Your depressing joke about the...Hi Bee,<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>Your depressing joke about the mathematician is far off reality.</i><br /><br />So, given in your opinion my depressing joke on this your depressing (but quite important) post, can we possibly conclude the two depressings cancel out and we get a "thumbs up" on our respective visions of Humanity's future?<br /><br />Hmm? No? Damn us, if not.<br /Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6500068587222499292010-10-27T12:56:40.462-04:002010-10-27T12:56:40.462-04:00GR: 10
EM: 10
QM: 10
QED: 10
QCD: 10
Cosmology is...GR: 10<br />EM: 10<br />QM: 10<br />QED: 10<br />QCD: 10<br /><br />Cosmology is part of GR. These are all extremely well established theories though all of them are known rspt expected to be applicable only in limited ranges (eg, you can drop EM if you have QED). You're mixing things up, Robert. All these theories work tremendously well. That some of them leave open question is a different Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2585166227296887232010-10-27T12:48:04.463-04:002010-10-27T12:48:04.463-04:00Bee,
Here is where we differ.
You say: "The...Bee,<br /><br />Here is where we differ.<br /><br />You say: "The problem is simply that it's very hard to throw out a very fundamental assumption and still reproduce the successes of all the models that have worked so tremendously well with that assumption."<br /><br />I say: What models 'succeed tremendously well'???<br /><br />I would rate (scale of 1-10) the successes ofRobert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4254896641523821842010-10-27T07:21:10.008-04:002010-10-27T07:21:10.008-04:00Hi Bee,
”To conclude from the personal story of o...Hi Bee,<br /><br /><i>”To conclude from the personal story of one exceptional individual that repeating some steps on his way will improve basic research in general seems to me quite far-fetched indeed.”</i><br /><br />I would certainly agree, that rather than suggest this be a way of nurturing promising people, it rather simply indicates how extraordinary they actually were. To think otherwise Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-71893342307485935352010-10-27T01:24:33.616-04:002010-10-27T01:24:33.616-04:00Hi Eric,
The first two questions have been discus...Hi Eric,<br /><br />The first two questions have been discussed in hundreds of papers, both theoretical and experimental. The last I don't know what you mean with "correlated." I don't know what it matters what I believe or not and in any case, this is entirely off-topic and I'm not interested in pursuing this discussion. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70640321283336909142010-10-27T01:17:14.762-04:002010-10-27T01:17:14.762-04:00Hi Robert,
Yes, I think our points of view are no...Hi Robert,<br /><br />Yes, I think our points of view are not so different after all. It's just that I keep reading your comments as addressed to me and a criticism of an opinion that I don't hold to begin with, so then I feel like I have to repeat what I've already said, which tends to put me in a bad mood. In any case, that we have to give up one or the other cherished assumption isSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10562606962020438442010-10-27T00:26:53.213-04:002010-10-27T00:26:53.213-04:00Bee,
Briefly, I think we would agree on a lot of ...Bee,<br /><br />Briefly, I think we would agree on a lot of things in physics.<br /><br />The books written by Smolin and Woit have done an excellent job of identifying a serious problem associated with string theory and related speculations.<br /><br />I am just saying that the problem may be broader, i.e., that it goes well beyond string theory. <br /><br />I am also expressing my opinion, Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64540216600286111992010-10-26T17:01:05.924-04:002010-10-26T17:01:05.924-04:00Hi Bee,
It's pretty obvious there is no meetin...Hi Bee,<br />It's pretty obvious there is no meeting of minds here. MY mind obviously works much differently from yours. A question: do you believe the average energy density of the vacuum is unchanged from the big bang? That is, do you believe the Planck Length derived energy density is the same now as then?<br /><br />Another question: if that "average" energy density did change Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08213251864943443334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47700672023691451272010-10-26T13:59:13.048-04:002010-10-26T13:59:13.048-04:00Hi Eric,
I have no clue what your issue is with t...Hi Eric,<br /><br />I have no clue what your issue is with the CMB temperature. There's of course the possibility that qg plays a role for dark energy and dark matter. I discussed that in <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2010/10/if-youre-interested-in-phenomenology-of.html" rel="nofollow">my recent paper</a>, see section about "postdictions." It is however typically Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16460691430438386382010-10-26T13:47:53.756-04:002010-10-26T13:47:53.756-04:00Hi Bee,
Although the comments have wondered far of...Hi Bee,<br />Although the comments have wondered far off topic from your original thread it seems important to get at the basis of this disagreement. You are talking about getting theory closer to experiment and coming up with new experiments to guide future theory. That is always the goal. The problem as I see it , and presumably Robert also, is that we already a wealth of cosmological evidence Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08213251864943443334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84103215089019707502010-10-26T13:03:23.243-04:002010-10-26T13:03:23.243-04:00Robert:
I wrote explicitly there's so far no ...Robert:<br /><br />I wrote explicitly there's so far no confirmed connection to experiment, and I think Thomas understood what I said without your echo, thanks. You're quite easily dismissing a lot of research as "no understanding." You realize that making a prediction is only worth something if there's a good theory underlying, do you? Examining the implications of an Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33812418537925931782010-10-26T12:38:27.307-04:002010-10-26T12:38:27.307-04:00Dr H: "But if you think about string theory, ...Dr H: "But if you think about string theory, lqg, causal sets, causal dynamical triangulation, a lot's been going on since 1990."<br />----------------------------<br /><br />With apologies for being a bit heavy-handed (although it may be quite necessary for the health of science), there has indeed been a lot of theoretical activity in the last 2 decades.<br /><br />But (1), have Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.com