tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post4537329732033016111..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Update on the ESQG 2010Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87487886606170210022010-06-07T02:15:41.543-04:002010-06-07T02:15:41.543-04:00Robert:
You have exhausted our patience. You hav...Robert: <br /><br />You have exhausted our patience. You have no clue how stereotypically dumb your final complaints about "censorship" and accusations of "cowardice" are. As has become clear from this comment section and from previous ones, it is evidently futile trying to get any knowledge inside your brain. You just clog our comment sections with demonstrations of your Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64337099816336691752010-06-06T16:51:19.649-04:002010-06-06T16:51:19.649-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28401505712196825352010-06-06T12:46:20.262-04:002010-06-06T12:46:20.262-04:00Robert: You forgot to compare yourself to Galileo....<i>Robert: You forgot to compare yourself to Galileo.</i><br /><br />Unless I'm misinformed Galileo was confined to his quarters because he did not acknowledge that his theory about the heliocentric universe wasn't an established truth at the time, and as a lecturer he should not tell his students otherwise. The church did not censor him, strictly speaking... <br /><br /><i><br />...nor Tim van Beekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00620855422265823494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16134784976135118752010-06-06T12:14:31.479-04:002010-06-06T12:14:31.479-04:00Robert: You forgot to compare yourself to Galileo....Robert: You forgot to compare yourself to Galileo. I have neither censored you nor have I "acted" as if I'm a "conduit of received wisdom," I have merely nicely pointed you into the direction of more than 3 decades of evidence that somehow seem to have passed you by. The other thing I've now tried to tell you several times, apparently unsuccessfully, is that this is Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57296460110596036682010-06-06T11:55:00.338-04:002010-06-06T11:55:00.338-04:00I do not think it is appropriate for any scientist...I do not think it is appropriate for any scientist, regardless of the sheepkins on the wall, or the lack of them, to act as if they are some kind of conduit for received wisdom.<br /><br />Saying that questioning the fundamentals of the substandard model is "pathetic" is a clear and candid demonstration of that arrogance.<br /><br />You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitledRobert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83090380652956448212010-06-06T10:32:03.957-04:002010-06-06T10:32:03.957-04:00Robert, you should write a Wikipedia article for &...Robert, you should write a Wikipedia article for "discrete scale relativity" - BTW almost all references on web are directly to you, so you can forgive me for not recognizing "DSR" in that usage since it almost always means the other. I recommend some other acronym, maybe RDS for relativity, discrete-scale etc. It may indeed have relevance to quantum gravity.<br /><br />BTW I&Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69773593918632894472010-06-06T08:03:41.881-04:002010-06-06T08:03:41.881-04:00Robert - I wouldn't confuse doubly special rel...Robert - I wouldn't confuse doubly special relativity with discrete scale relativity in themselves, but was thrown by use of abbr. DSR which I'm accustomed to seeing for the former. There could be a relation anyway since the point of DSR(1) is to handle relative mass-energies approaching PS level (eg. a photon blue-shifted to PE by relative frame.)<br /><br />As for quarks, they enable Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24785642606996432472010-06-06T04:21:10.867-04:002010-06-06T04:21:10.867-04:00Robert:
I have already told you above what there ...Robert:<br /><br />I have already told you above what there is to say about a "scale dependence of G." First, it doesn't matter if you want to call it a "running" or not, scale dependence is exactly what people mean with running. You probably know that in models with large extra dimensions the strength of the gravitational interaction effectively increases on the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57139242668382681012010-06-05T23:32:19.786-04:002010-06-05T23:32:19.786-04:00Greetings Neil B,
You said: "Robert, I think...Greetings Neil B,<br /><br />You said: "Robert, I think the story on quarks is the predictive power of the model, for understanding particle behavior. Sure we can't isolate quarks, so we rely on using it as conceptual tool - "the act like they're made of three ...." (or two, etc.) As for DSR, are you aware of Bee's thought-experiment against it?"<br />-------------Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15635954405723940772010-06-05T19:38:52.777-04:002010-06-05T19:38:52.777-04:00Robert, I think the story on quarks is the predict...Robert, I think the story on quarks is the predictive power of the model, for understanding particle behavior. Sure we can't isolate quarks, so we rely on using it as conceptual tool - "the act like they're made of three ...." (or two, etc.) As for DSR, are you aware of Bee's thought-experiment against it?Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7417664628968122362010-06-05T12:13:10.786-04:002010-06-05T12:13:10.786-04:00SC: "And therefore I, nor any rational person...SC: "And therefore I, nor any rational person..."<br /><br />I am very pleased that you are so candid about this distinction.Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8106086273211492752010-06-05T12:05:22.183-04:002010-06-05T12:05:22.183-04:00I would like to try to take this back on-topic. My...I would like to try to take this back on-topic. My initial post was on the specific topic of "What Should We Sacrifice".<br /><br />I suggested that we might have to sacrifice ABSOLUTE G, in favor of discrete Scale-dependent G. The latter is NOT a G that "runs". It is a G that differs discretely by a factor of ~10^38 when you change cosmological Scales: say, Atomic Scale to Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13822449494520266652010-06-05T08:58:24.127-04:002010-06-05T08:58:24.127-04:00Hi Phil,
Reading this blog, you might not get a v...Hi Phil,<br /><br />Reading this blog, you might not get a very good impression of what is going on in the physics community in general. I don't have the impression there is a lot of soul searching. The FQXi workshop I just attended is a very unusual workshop and that my workshop too features some general discussion dissecting the hopes and procedures we use is less an indication for the soulSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81164944977006710762010-06-05T03:37:31.227-04:002010-06-05T03:37:31.227-04:00Robert:
Thank you for finally managing to formula...Robert:<br /><br />Thank you for finally managing to formulate a comment in an almost reasonable tone. I am sure with some more practice you'll manage to get there faster. Unfortunately your comment is now is off-topic, so I'll only briefly reply and hope that you move this discussion elsewhere.<br /><br />1) That doesn't solve anything.<br /><br />2) This idea has not been ignored, Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67713864347534108052010-06-05T01:35:35.174-04:002010-06-05T01:35:35.174-04:00Robert, you wrote;
I have no need of "quarks&...Robert, you wrote;<br /><i>I have no need of "quarks"...</i><br /><br />And therefore I, nor any rational person, has need of you. <br /><br />I'm sorry you deep-sixed your reputation with such an ignorant comment, but you did.<br /><br />Quantum Chromodynamics is a real and experimentally verified theory, whether you like it or not. Get over yourself, man.Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88330732865110532462010-06-05T00:13:08.829-04:002010-06-05T00:13:08.829-04:00SC: "Yeah, come on Robert, your strength is i...SC: "Yeah, come on Robert, your strength is in understanding the fractility of the Universe (Alain Connes asks us to stand each time "the Universe' is mentioned ... thanks to Lee Smolin and TTwP for that), why did you go and send us back to the '60's and the utterly failed "nuclear democracy" (which was more of an American attitude than a European one)?"<br />Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31531366137468456742010-06-05T00:06:13.707-04:002010-06-05T00:06:13.707-04:00NB: "You know of quarks, so am I missing some...NB: "You know of quarks, so am I missing some way of defining "fundamental" (like, stand-alone)? And isn't DSR now highly discredited?<br />---------------------------<br /><br />I have no need of "quarks", which I believe were introduced numerologically and whose masses could not/cannot be predicted or retrodicted, and whose existence was empirically falsified untilRobert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82819014060281060492010-06-04T15:54:07.020-04:002010-06-04T15:54:07.020-04:00Not aware of the circularity test, sorry, I'll...Not aware of the circularity test, sorry, I'll read in the next few days, but I'm busy as hell atm trying to do a great job for my bosses at my temp job as I try to come up with the cha-ching change needed to send my 2 oldest kids of 4 to college.<br /><br />Not knowing anything about your new theory atm, please do us a favor by making it provable/falsifiable, like your last one, or at Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73099863473657552422010-06-04T15:25:47.868-04:002010-06-04T15:25:47.868-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76645091127781721902010-06-04T14:02:55.686-04:002010-06-04T14:02:55.686-04:00Steven, it would be wonderful for a DOE facility l...Steven, it would be wonderful for a DOE facility like J-Lab to run that sort of experiment on request for someone else's edification. (BTW I am not an employee, just know some of them, do things for them on the side etc.) But I guess it wouldn't hurt to try and ask around. Note also, I think the circularity test (newer thread) is more theoretically important (actual info, not just Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20743576972501416852010-06-04T13:43:51.536-04:002010-06-04T13:43:51.536-04:00Yeah, come on Robert, your strength is in understa...Yeah, come on Robert, your strength is in understanding the fractility of the Universe (Alain Connes asks us to stand each time "the Universe' is mentioned ... thanks to Lee Smolin and TTwP for that), why did you go and send us back to the '60's and the utterly failed "nuclear democracy" (which was more of an American attitude than a European one)?<br /><br />Nice Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-615561067414371312010-06-04T13:40:41.752-04:002010-06-04T13:40:41.752-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33775988447882593452010-06-04T13:05:43.130-04:002010-06-04T13:05:43.130-04:00...intimately related to the proton, which was con...<i>...intimately related to the proton, which was considered a fundamental particle the last time I looked.</i><br />You know of quarks, so am I missing some way of defining "fundamental" (like, stand-alone)? And isn't DSR now highly discredited?Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91514124437018604102010-06-04T12:41:45.414-04:002010-06-04T12:41:45.414-04:00SH: "My patience is finite, so drop the shit ...SH: "My patience is finite, so drop the shit if you're interested in having any exchange at all."<br /><br />I expected a certain amount of foot-stamping, but really! Such bluster. Please follow your own rules.<br /><br />If you want to stop the invective, stop broadcasting it at me at immoderate volume. <br />-------------------------------<br /><br />I now switch to objective Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52758117905680858322010-06-04T09:42:21.899-04:002010-06-04T09:42:21.899-04:00Is the fuzzball scenario relevant to this discussi...Is the fuzzball scenario relevant to this discussion, in light of Bee's last remarks re singularities:<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzball_(string_theory)" rel="nofollow">Fuzzball (string theory)</a><br />If the idea is right, then there aren't any true singularities. I could swear I heard some very recent claim of revising the black hole scenario due to QM, but not sure Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.com