tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post4803669081805810803..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Dear Dr. B: How come we never hear of a force that the Higgs boson carries?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82529935872920403102016-09-05T12:30:07.961-04:002016-09-05T12:30:07.961-04:00I don't think Susskind's lecture was meant...I don't think Susskind's lecture was meant to be very convincing. I think it was meant to be enticing.TheBigHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04917973198063733316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47592651284268703892016-09-05T10:18:50.369-04:002016-09-05T10:18:50.369-04:00Stipulated: ER=EPR wormhole-bound entangled parti...Stipulated: ER=EPR wormhole-bound entangled particles. Said wormhole has free energy of opening and closing. If not, absent spontaneous wormholes must suffer selection rules for transition, limiting entanglement. No energy or other anomaly is observed for entangled particles' creation or collapse (re Pauli and neutrinos).<br /><br />LIGO event GW150914 merged a 30 + 35 solar mass black Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88214387418213446132016-09-05T07:05:14.984-04:002016-09-05T07:05:14.984-04:00CGT,
I read that too... I can't say that I fo...CGT,<br /><br />I read that too... I can't say that I found it very convincing. Lots of words and pictures. I don't know of a good reference, sorry. I haven't really followed this. Maybe one of our readers has a suggestion? <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.00026" rel="nofollow">I have put this on my reading list</a>, but I'm not sure how closely it's connected to ER=EPR (Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65389062913351295162016-09-05T02:43:52.819-04:002016-09-05T02:43:52.819-04:00Dear Dr. B,
Change of subject. Would you be able...Dear Dr. B, <br /> Change of subject. Would you be able to provide some explanation of the developments going under the topic "ER=EPR"? Or if you don't have time, and know of a good exposition, would you post a link? I have read through Susskind's lecture here: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1604.02589, but I feel there must be something else available that would be more appropriate CGThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15768705052683427486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59180634880141110062016-09-04T14:37:52.794-04:002016-09-04T14:37:52.794-04:00Would one expect a similar phenomenon at the point...Would one expect a similar phenomenon at the point where the strong and electroweak separated, similar to the symmetry breaking of the electrowwak? Is there a separate mechanism, perhaps, since one doesn't wind up with a local symmetry in this case? I'd never thought of this until reading your post this morning. Thanks and cheers.noahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06916559468174679512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-60415545236398185472016-09-03T08:15:27.448-04:002016-09-03T08:15:27.448-04:00Ben,
As the inquisitor said, the charges belong t...Ben,<br /><br />As the inquisitor said, the charges belong to the symmetries. (Noether's theorem and all.) Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27040725463534627222016-09-03T06:05:53.080-04:002016-09-03T06:05:53.080-04:00Ben: Conserved charges corresponding to different ...Ben: Conserved charges corresponding to different symmetries.eternalinquisitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17763487950256258530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26977220808533428242016-09-02T18:39:16.671-04:002016-09-02T18:39:16.671-04:00Is it also true that the four fundamental forces a...Is it also true that the four fundamental forces are different because they are associated with conserved charges?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613123530453591240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61043092650067254442016-08-31T13:23:00.707-04:002016-08-31T13:23:00.707-04:00But Wes, I miss Loglan!But Wes, I miss Loglan!giraluahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10633091966509005486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35248076993277707772016-08-31T13:05:31.242-04:002016-08-31T13:05:31.242-04:00Nicely constructed (the initial answer), and aptly...Nicely constructed (the initial answer), and aptly left with enough loose ends to follow-up (unlike the most) :).<br />Regarding a comment in the same: "...to cancel the terms that came from the space-time derivative, the fields need to have the same transformation behavior as the derivative, which is that of a vector, hence spin 1. " <br />Linking space-time derivative to internal eternalinquisitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17763487950256258530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84232977524247143192016-08-30T17:37:35.808-04:002016-08-30T17:37:35.808-04:00Okay, since you have a well developed sense of hum...Okay, since you have a well developed sense of humor, this one is just too damn good to pass on:<br /><br />"I really liked his argument until he wrote that “Philosophers obsess over subtle ambiguities of language,” which pretty much sums up all that physicists hate about philosophy."<br /><br />Based on this comment thread I would swear you all are a bunch of philosophers! I think we PonderSeekDiscoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913503952284529871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-610107518099337512016-08-30T14:53:31.480-04:002016-08-30T14:53:31.480-04:00Thanks, Sabine for the comment about tetrads. I&#...Thanks, Sabine for the comment about tetrads. I've read through the tetrad formalism a few times over the years, but it has never transferred from "useful formalism" to "understanding what's going on geometrically". I suppose my not trying to actually calculate anything with tetrads or the connection representation is holding me back. For applications to quantum GR,Steve Brysonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08814784589747523294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4816806378622373322016-08-30T14:23:04.234-04:002016-08-30T14:23:04.234-04:00What is a "planet"? A new definition was...What is a "planet"? A new definition was contrived so that schoolchildren could name them all without threat of future revision. Sadly, they now would have much more difficulty explaining why something is or isn't a planet. (You can nitpick my analogy; it isn't meant as a criticism of physics.)Charliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04163738909524521887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20963024358157839092016-08-30T11:38:03.263-04:002016-08-30T11:38:03.263-04:00Hard sciences' nomenclature often begins befor...Hard sciences' nomenclature often begins before the target is fully characterized. "What is a force" is answerable in context. Context can be arbitrary. <br /><br />"I have the perfect description!" (Non-classical gravitation, SUSY; economics, psychology; religion) <br />"Of what?"<br />"It depends."<br /><br />Optical rotation arises from math plus Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35416603674187384822016-08-30T10:58:05.389-04:002016-08-30T10:58:05.389-04:00The last word. :-) http://www.worldwidewords.org...The last word. :-) http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1388534410659133302016-08-30T10:56:09.953-04:002016-08-30T10:56:09.953-04:00Yes, language changes. But that doesn't mean ...Yes, language changes. But that doesn't mean that every change is good. One needs a balance between no change at all (in which case we would still be speaking proto-Indo-European or whatever) and "anything goes", which would mean "nucular physics".<br /><br />I think Steven Pinker strikes a good balance in his <i>The Sense of Style</i>. His other books (on psychology Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14930250103245179952016-08-30T10:49:37.345-04:002016-08-30T10:49:37.345-04:00I tend to agree with Giralua (for what little my o...I tend to agree with Giralua (for what little my opinion is worth). <br /><br />1. While the first sentence in your reply is somewhat circular, it is not the conclusion of an argument, so it is not a fallacious argument, so it does not "beg the question" in the technical sense. <br /><br />2. For those who have never heard of the technical term "beg the question" it won't JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82029087886047631662016-08-30T08:40:00.523-04:002016-08-30T08:40:00.523-04:00@Sabine, @giralua, @Philip Helbig
I think the war...@Sabine, @giralua, @Philip Helbig<br /><br />I think the war about "begging the question" is essentially over. Sure, it means "circular reasoning," but for decades now, its primary use has been "begs for the question to be asked." Language, especially English (we don't have an Academy!), just works that way; it changes via mistakes and mishearing. "An Jim Shillidayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10544709134684735232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21536452709801430062016-08-30T07:18:42.880-04:002016-08-30T07:18:42.880-04:00Steve,
I'm not sure who is "they"? ...Steve,<br /><br />I'm not sure who is "they"? The metric is an awkward object because if you're dealing with spinors (what you want to do anyway) you'd rather have tetrads. So you can combine the connection with tetrads and I think this pretty much works, except that, of course nobody really agrees whether these are the right variables. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wikiSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62326011154999105872016-08-30T06:04:48.075-04:002016-08-30T06:04:48.075-04:00Thanks, Sabine - your explanation starting with &q...Thanks, Sabine - your explanation starting with "Yes, if you introduce 'gauge fields' in GR the same way..." helps a lot. I understand about the metric causing spin 2 (loosely speaking). What I'm vague about is: does the connection approach suggest a "graviton" with a different spin, or do they also end up using the metric at the end? I'm not sure how to Steve Brysonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08814784589747523294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27621105224065112462016-08-30T04:34:11.626-04:002016-08-30T04:34:11.626-04:00The Higgs boson is like a rolling stone. The forme...The Higgs boson is like a rolling stone. The former carries no force; the latter carries no moss.TheBigHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04917973198063733316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61921701590754639332016-08-30T03:12:52.674-04:002016-08-30T03:12:52.674-04:00Sabine,
You began your very interesting post by r...Sabine,<br /><br />You began your very interesting post by replying, "The short answer is that you never hear of a force that the Higgs boson carries because it doesn’t carry one." This subsequently lead to a debate about what is or isn't a proper definition of a "force".<br /><br />I submit that a short answer to Ramiro Rodriguez, which might have bypassed the "TheBigHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04917973198063733316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87869609618276342902016-08-30T02:14:24.238-04:002016-08-30T02:14:24.238-04:00Steve,
Yes, if you introduce 'gauge fields...Steve,<br /><br />Yes, if you introduce 'gauge fields' in GR the same way as in the SM it's the connection that plays the role of the gauge-boson, not the metric (the difference being that now the internal and external indices both refer to space-time). The reason the graviton is spin-2 is that it isn't introduced by the minimal coupling, but by taking the perturbative limit of Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47410447118059641102016-08-30T02:08:04.924-04:002016-08-30T02:08:04.924-04:00nicolas,
Well, the spin doesn't match. Maybe ...nicolas,<br /><br />Well, the spin doesn't match. Maybe if you extract the scalar mode. But I don't know, I'm not a big fan of massive gravity.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54208584790588253502016-08-30T01:59:02.813-04:002016-08-30T01:59:02.813-04:00A,
Well, that's what the above discussion wit...A,<br /><br />Well, that's what the above discussion with Orin was about. See, the current narrative that you'll read all over the internet and in every popular science book is that we have four fundamental forces: the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear force, and gravity. This refers, loosely speaking, to four symmetry principles that our current theories are based on. ISabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com