tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post3946121689046262567..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Cosmic StringsSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-51496156232487026672010-10-15T03:59:32.388-04:002010-10-15T03:59:32.388-04:00Hi, Bee - I feel sorry for you're feeling wron...Hi, Bee - I feel sorry for you're feeling wrong. Anyway, I appreciate Your patiency...<br /><br />Bye, Z.Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20376238464139410372010-10-15T00:14:16.516-04:002010-10-15T00:14:16.516-04:00Zephir:
Why don't you first read the full tex...Zephir:<br /><br />Why don't you first read the full text from which Plato quoted a paragraph before you criticize me? Besides that, I recommend you check what CMB polarization is good for, and current measurements esp on the B-modes. Finally, yes, the presence of extra dimensions can, in some cases, be measured with the Casimir effect. You can constrain the ADD scenario with that, people Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90399297970386573822010-10-14T16:08:03.954-04:002010-10-14T16:08:03.954-04:00/* the best place to look for quantum gravitationa.../* the best place to look for quantum gravitational effects is in regions of strong curvature..*/<br />..or the regions of very weak curvature, low energy density or at large cosmological distances... <br /><br />For example the dispersion of photons at large distance is a nifty way, how to detect 1st or even 2nd order phenomena, i.e. not only the violation of Lorentz symmetry, but even the Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45785702760275972262010-10-14T15:56:11.369-04:002010-10-14T15:56:11.369-04:00/* Obviously, this is because you cannot be wrong..../* Obviously, this is because you cannot be wrong. Right? */<br /><br />Then we developed theory of everything. Such TOE would be unfalsifiable by its very definition, because it describes everything correctly - so it cannot be a theory in sense of Popper's falsification.<br /><br />Actually dense aether model can be falsified easily, because we didn't reveal everything already. For Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-40044752730664437102010-10-14T15:56:06.085-04:002010-10-14T15:56:06.085-04:00Right on Bee:)
The best place to look for quantum...Right on Bee:)<br /><br /><i>The best place to look for quantum gravitational effects is in regions of strong curvature, that would be towards the center of black holes or towards the first moments of the universe. Since black hole interiors are hidden from our observation by the horizon, this leaves the early universe as the best place to look. It is thus not surprising that the bulk of effort PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14079175047969354952010-10-14T13:43:01.866-04:002010-10-14T13:43:01.866-04:00I could probably not cite any empirical evidence t...I could probably not cite any empirical evidence that would incline you to think that you might be wrong. <br /><br />Obviously, this is because you cannot be wrong. Right?Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64008935543928080552010-10-14T04:30:43.747-04:002010-10-14T04:30:43.747-04:00/*..Nature has rendered ..an even harsher multiple.../*..Nature has rendered ..an even harsher multiple set of verdicts on any "dense aether"...*/<br /><br />Nature doesn't render, because it's not a rendering engine - this is just a pseudolanguage of postmodern metaphysical naturalism. Could you provide some evidence for your claim, providing we can substitue "Nature" by some author of scientific article - or you'reZephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33492288813216526382010-10-14T01:20:23.865-04:002010-10-14T01:20:23.865-04:00"Any solution proposals?"
Maybe we shou..."Any solution proposals?"<br /><br />Maybe we should have a bit less faith in what seems right to us and a bit more respect for what nature teaches us.<br /><br />Nature has rendered a very clear verdict against the classical static "aether", and an even harsher multiple set of verdicts on any "dense aether".Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1651025543513605862010-10-13T17:00:49.440-04:002010-10-13T17:00:49.440-04:00/* Are the days of radical paradigm shifts like th.../* Are the days of radical paradigm shifts like the one from the Aristotelean/Ptolemaic paradigm to the Democritean/Galilean paradigm a thing of the past? */<br /><br />Yes. Actually the problem is quite simple: before one hundred years Sir Oliver Lodge proposed an revolutionary idea, the luminiferous aether is not formed with sparse gas (as such gas cannot mediate the energy of gamma rays anywayZephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-72182376825972304162010-10-13T16:42:05.819-04:002010-10-13T16:42:05.819-04:00/*..unfortunately, there seem to be many people wh.../*..unfortunately, there seem to be many people who cease to search early because they have found truthiness..*/<br /><br />The seeking for truth must be in balance with finding of truth. Actually I can perceive, the theorists aren't very interested in mutual reconciliation of their theories, until they've their jobs, traveling and conferences and money from public taxis are going.. Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9397559131963094812010-10-13T15:53:18.856-04:002010-10-13T15:53:18.856-04:00Dr H: "In 30 years, QCD will still be a well-...Dr H: "In 30 years, QCD will still be a well-working model that describes inelastic scattering in the energy range from, say 10GeV to 10TeV, to excellent precision. I would hope though that in 3 decades from now we have a better understanding of space-time and matter and know a more complete theory that it is a limit of."<br /><br />I think that is a very reasonable answer and one that Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31848073820937539052010-10-13T14:38:38.919-04:002010-10-13T14:38:38.919-04:00Sometimes one forgets how they got to a particular...Sometimes one forgets how they got to a particular location in thought.<br /><br /><i>Kaluza-Klein theory is a model which unifies classical gravity and electromagnetism. It was discovered by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza that if general relativity is extended to a five-dimensional spacetime, the equations can be separated out into ordinary four-dimensional gravitation plus an extra set, whichPlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29382415001456416472010-10-13T14:02:59.138-04:002010-10-13T14:02:59.138-04:00Hi Steven
To help you with your limited time with...Hi Steven<br /><br />To help you with your limited time with <a href="http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/cs_interact.html" title="String Evolution" rel="nofollow">the information</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/images/cs_osc_rad.gif" title="Radiation fields from the oscillating shown above. A transverse cross-section of the fields has been made at PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13469042270474782702010-10-13T13:36:52.625-04:002010-10-13T13:36:52.625-04:00A Myth concerning time, can encompass some truth a...A Myth concerning time, can encompass some truth about the "froggy view?":)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-myth-of-the-beginning-2004-05&page=6" title="String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state<br />" rel="nofollow">Bashing Branes</a> by Gabriele Veneziano<br /><PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25006247029537231572010-10-13T13:16:32.894-04:002010-10-13T13:16:32.894-04:00For sure, one may call it cosmic string and think ...For sure, one may call it cosmic string and think society/scientist has this perspective found in trustworthiness about it as "all that," as being in opposition too, another view of equal too "in concreteness," but truthfully, it's how it encompasses a look at the cosmos that one might wonder about the cosmos in it's own nature. <br /><br />"A bird view or a frog PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78006567039424311172010-10-13T08:32:11.309-04:002010-10-13T08:32:11.309-04:00Space.com has an article about the recent work of ...Space.com has an article about the recent work of Robert Poltis at U. Buffalo, <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/cosmic-strings-universe-space-time-101013.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Mike Lucibella, in the article's conclusion, does a nice science journalist's Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54384025605539704632010-10-13T07:10:38.733-04:002010-10-13T07:10:38.733-04:00Hi Phil,
Nice quote, I hadn't know it. Unfort...Hi Phil,<br /><br />Nice quote, I hadn't know it. Unfortunately, there seem to be many people who cease to search early because they have found <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness" rel="nofollow">truthiness</a> ;-) Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33468502933933720022010-10-13T07:03:41.284-04:002010-10-13T07:03:41.284-04:00Hi Bee,
Not that my opinion on such matters shoul...Hi Bee,<br /><br />Not that my opinion on such matters should count for much, yet I would say in essence this clarification of your position coincides with what I would agree as being a truly scientific perspective. That is also to say that I find some practitioners of your discipline not to see things as such, yet rather it be more important who be science’s winners and losers, when in the endPhil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76193585490527519862010-10-13T05:25:36.427-04:002010-10-13T05:25:36.427-04:00Hi Phil,
Well, I wouldn't say I've come t...Hi Phil,<br /><br />Well, I wouldn't say I've come to be convinced of either cosmic strings or some particular proposal for quantum gravity or physics beyond the standard model. But my convictions or absence thereof are somewhat besides the point. What I do believe is that if we keep looking and we keep trying, sooner or later we'll find a hint to the underlying theory. And who knows,Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90219009616272492882010-10-13T05:20:14.775-04:002010-10-13T05:20:14.775-04:00Hi Bee,
First let me apologize for apparently giv...Hi Bee,<br /><br />First let me apologize for apparently given cause (rather than reason) for the axe grinders to chime in, as I can assure you I have no axe to grind or do I intend on ever fashioning one. What I am more curious about, as to be concerned with, being what I would call the more fundamental questions, with those pertaining to the ontological premise(s) of current theory(s), in Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-51187450186786143012010-10-13T05:14:02.444-04:002010-10-13T05:14:02.444-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84839410903720258242010-10-13T01:39:43.642-04:002010-10-13T01:39:43.642-04:00Robert,
In 30 years, QCD will still be a well-wor...Robert,<br /><br />In 30 years, QCD will still be a well-working model that describes inelastic scattering in the energy range from, say 10GeV to 10TeV, to excellent precision. I would hope though that in 3 decades from now we have a better understanding of space-time and matter and know a more complete theory that it is a limit of. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15608800084706121062010-10-13T01:31:08.693-04:002010-10-13T01:31:08.693-04:00Zephir:
My post tells the status very clearly. If...Zephir:<br /><br />My post tells the status very clearly. If somebody draws information from comment #37 or whatever of a blogpost he didn't read to begin with, I can't help them. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23283238313141521712010-10-13T00:39:06.809-04:002010-10-13T00:39:06.809-04:00Well, not to roil already troubled waters, but her...Well, not to roil already troubled waters, but here is a simple question for you.<br /><br />Can you imagine a paradigm change occuring within the next 30 years wherein QCD looks in retrospect as ad hoc and misguided as the Ptolemaic model of the "world" did in about 1750?<br /><br />Or is such a scenario unthinkable?<br /><br />Bear in mind when forming your answer that the Ptolemaic Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21652601616645488172010-10-12T21:39:34.694-04:002010-10-12T21:39:34.694-04:00/*..If you have a problem, please be assured my co.../*..If you have a problem, please be assured my comment was not addressed to you.*/<br /><br />I've problem with such approach, too. The statements of scientists should be independent to target, Bee. If Robert says, no conclusive evidence of cosmic strings has been given, it simply means, you cannot present them as a fact. There is too many steady-state universe models for some bold claims Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.com