tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post3207456376258873456..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Division by ZeroSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4401606810152125792010-02-02T08:44:00.259-05:002010-02-02T08:44:00.259-05:00Yes Bee, this is not the place to discuss the subj...Yes Bee, this is not the place to discuss the subject of e.g. Unruh radiation per se. Yet it was my example of how critiques of (simplistically presented?) "advanced theories" might come up in the minds of non-specialists, however it turned out. Importantly, I had critiqued the ordinary popularization - popularizations are an issue in this thread since they can mislead interested Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48654708569139706412010-02-02T01:41:47.393-05:002010-02-02T01:41:47.393-05:00Ulrich/Robert: If you have nothing to say, shut up...Ulrich/Robert: If you have nothing to say, shut up.<br /><br />Neil: That's entirely off-topic. The RH does lead to particle creation, it's called the Unruh effect, you can find that in any decent textbook on the topic. You can indeed use it to explain the Hawking effect. (That's as far as the standard argument is concerned, call it the scientific consensus. I have some issues with Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9249731462093020482010-02-02T00:07:00.100-05:002010-02-02T00:07:00.100-05:00But Andrew,
What's the point arguing with peo...But Andrew,<br /><br />What's the point arguing with people who do not play by the official rules of rational scientific inquiry?<br /><br />You will not have any luck convincing them that they are wrong, or that your position is stronger and more sensible?<br /><br />What's the problem? Just ignore them.<br /><br />Of course, if they are some of the leaders of the theoretical physics Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24786026854974901942010-02-01T21:32:24.864-05:002010-02-01T21:32:24.864-05:00(writing previously as OMG )
Hi Neil,
My pointed...(writing previously as OMG )<br /><br />Hi Neil,<br /><br />My pointed example above was on topic but I am afraid comparing notes with you regarding the issues you raised ( Rindler, 'deeper' explanations for HawRad, etc) would be drifting off topic and risk Bee's ire.<br /><br />So, by way of clarification only, I will just say that my example/question does not question the occurence LastAncientGreekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09822989624088361291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4513227348198401062010-02-01T20:05:33.079-05:002010-02-01T20:05:33.079-05:00The comment about BH radiation reminds me of my ow...The comment about BH radiation reminds me of my own non-specialist take on the issue. It allows illustration of the method of looking for "loose ends" in descriptions we hear at least, even if not changing the theories. The usual pop description of Hawking BH radiation posits it as being like virtual photon and particle pairs being "split" by the event horizon. One of the pairNeil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81484417231890656632010-02-01T18:43:58.324-05:002010-02-01T18:43:58.324-05:00( writing previously as OMG )
Given how this thre...( writing previously as OMG )<br /><br />Given how this thread has evolved, I hope the following example or actual 'instance' of how conjectures can be put into question will be illustrative of what i've been trying to say. Is the simple oversight in this example reflecting institutional complacency ? Confirmation bias ( InfoLoss <-> Evaporation ) ? Who is 'wrong' ( LastAncientGreekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09822989624088361291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59408622477952641002010-02-01T15:23:34.213-05:002010-02-01T15:23:34.213-05:00"Basically, there is a correct way to go abou..."Basically, there is a correct way to go about proposing a radical new theory, and it involves hard work and reading, and if anyone does that they will be taken seriously. But random plunges on instinct in the bath with no convincing back-up and no background research have no value, and should quite rightly be ignored."<br /><br />Ok, thanks Andrew. I think I misunderstood what you Tumbledriedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16241184018261772902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42913452723890207012010-02-01T13:58:23.718-05:002010-02-01T13:58:23.718-05:00( Formerly OMG, since Comment login options chang...( Formerly OMG, since Comment login options changed)<br /><br />HI Bee, & everyone who has contributed thoughts to this thread which I am glad you found to be productive Bee.<br /><br />A good IDEA is like those spanish ships in plain sight offshore that the natives could not 'see' because such ships did not fit into the worldview of a canoe sailing culture.<br /><br />An IDEA is LastAncientGreekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09822989624088361291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16579136710521131822010-02-01T12:17:34.713-05:002010-02-01T12:17:34.713-05:00I recommend you read Michael Ende's "Neve...I recommend you read Michael Ende's "Neverending Story" (Don't watch the movie, it's awful.)Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-23324023599366017852010-02-01T12:15:11.258-05:002010-02-01T12:15:11.258-05:00Bee: Oh sh...! I was just about to send MY theory ...Bee: Oh sh...! I was just about to send MY theory to you. This is a theory which reveals anything about everything. It tells that if you speak a word, any word you want, the corresponding object appears in a symmetrical world, which is physically unlinked to ours. There is the fundamental principle of it. According to MY view, the fact that there is so many things to see on Earth is due to the Jérôme Chauvethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02545307794681614263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15492917489599213202010-02-01T09:39:47.230-05:002010-02-01T09:39:47.230-05:00Great. I expected the answer would be, you guys do...Great. I expected the answer would be, you guys do look and find some interesting "loose ends" and such. I still suspect not enough on average, but this means there are such loose ends still worth finding. It also means, you don't have to be Einstein or Hawking to find them. As for textbooks, it takes awhile for the finds to reach there, and such good catches likely didn't <i>Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10967700906559041682010-02-01T09:01:38.794-05:002010-02-01T09:01:38.794-05:00Yes, we guys do that. The interesting things end u...Yes, we guys do that. The interesting things end up being published. I agree though on your point with the "loose ends" though I suspect you find most of them in one or the other textbook.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-50536008533632591322010-02-01T08:57:30.547-05:002010-02-01T08:57:30.547-05:00I don't want to be repetitive, but again I hav...I don't want to be repetitive, but again I have to say: the possible contributions from various outsider-ish people (anyone, for that matter) do not have to be as bold as disproving theories or proposing new ones. They can be "loose ends" - like thought experiments that perplex, and make us reconsider stale habits. Pros actually put stuff like that into e.g. American Journal of Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14057890540693766062010-02-01T08:00:15.923-05:002010-02-01T08:00:15.923-05:00Of course, Phil. "chaotic" and "ran...Of course, Phil. "chaotic" and "random" are two totally different things, and your concerns are the first thing brought up in the replies section of that article I linked. I always read anything in Discover or New Scientist with the strongest grain of salt.<br /><br />Andrew wrote: "That Maharishi scientific approach to gravity is really something - I am so impressed by Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34563694533513615282010-02-01T07:59:19.558-05:002010-02-01T07:59:19.558-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19253700964684682802010-02-01T07:43:14.875-05:002010-02-01T07:43:14.875-05:00Just think how much money you would save on air fa...Just think how much money you would save on air fares. Fancy a holiday in Spain? Just yogic fly down to Malaga!<br /><br />(I suspect your knees might be very sore at the end, though ...)Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56843707171112100382010-02-01T07:42:19.959-05:002010-02-01T07:42:19.959-05:00Hi Steven,
Interesting as I’ve also been followin...Hi Steven,<br /><br />Interesting as I’ve also been following this research yet it should be noted that there is a difference from the mathematical perspective between random and chaos, as chaos precludes outcome from being known for certain and yet determined, while random suggests certainty is not simply unknowable yet without reason. If one considers that ideas are something one comes to know Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86638009976069783592010-02-01T07:32:00.642-05:002010-02-01T07:32:00.642-05:00That Maharishi scientific approach to gravity is r...That Maharishi scientific approach to gravity is really someting - I am so impressed by their <a href="http://www.escuelasinestres.org/en/yogic_flying.html" rel="nofollow">yogic flying</a>! People can really fly!!Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4588476888633839122010-02-01T07:15:13.653-05:002010-02-01T07:15:13.653-05:00Tumbledried: I am sorry to say, but you are totall...Tumbledried: I am sorry to say, but you are totally wrong. For somebody who is not an expert it is not obvious to tell the difference. It has happened more than once that I had to clarify misconceptions about physics that people (typically: remote family members or friends of a friends) had picked up on such websites. And that includes people with an academic degree (in other fields than physics,Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42618529603174082342010-02-01T07:07:01.014-05:002010-02-01T07:07:01.014-05:00Good points as usual, Andrew. For more on "wh...Good points as usual, Andrew. For more on "why" "Eureka" thoughts pop into our brains, read <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227141.200-disorderly-genius-how-chaos-drives-the-brain.html?full=true" rel="nofollow">this fascinating article</a> from New Scientist in June, 2009. Hopefully the first three paragraphs will entice you:<br /><br /><i>HAVE you ever Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77646430919553114442010-02-01T07:02:26.652-05:002010-02-01T07:02:26.652-05:00Just to repeat, if you are going to try to prove t...Just to repeat, if you are going to try to prove the existing scientific consensus is wrong then absolutely go ahead - it would be fantastic to be successful to achieve that. But it would be a huge amount of work as you would have to present a convincing case as to why Einstein and Hawking and Feynman and untold other geniuses were wrong because they failed to see the loophole which you have Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74966860764878442782010-02-01T06:45:45.450-05:002010-02-01T06:45:45.450-05:00Hi Tumbledried, yes, there's always room for w...Hi Tumbledried, yes, there's always room for wildly-original theories, and I think this Verlinde entropic gravity theory would come under the category you suggest. That theory proposes to completely turn existing theories on their head.<br /><br />But, you see, Verlinde did his background research. He knew his theory would have to comply with the well-established findings of Einstein's Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73563077999409501592010-02-01T06:35:10.216-05:002010-02-01T06:35:10.216-05:00Dear Andrew,
I believe that I am with Ulrich in t...Dear Andrew,<br /><br />I believe that I am with Ulrich in this instance.<br /><br />I think there is an underlying (and quite common) confusion here, between between "wrong" as opposed to "incomplete".<br /><br />Yes, there is a great deal of noise of the internet; but I believe that it is quite easy, usually, to tell the difference between fluff and serious stuff. Even Tumbledriedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16241184018261772902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83738282205588111202010-02-01T04:24:35.027-05:002010-02-01T04:24:35.027-05:00/*..We cannot explain the 120 orders-of-magnitude .../*..We cannot explain the 120 orders-of-magnitude discrepancy of the vacuum energy density estimates of cosmology and HEP...*/<br /><br />If one set of equations is saying "a = 0.000001" and the second set of equations is saying "a = 10e+95", every normal mathematician could expect, these equations simply have no common solution. <br /><br />But common theoretical physicist isZephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14741597462060753952010-02-01T04:10:22.151-05:002010-02-01T04:10:22.151-05:00Hi Ulrich, what we're concerned with here is w...Hi Ulrich, what we're concerned with here is when people attack existing well-established theories (like relativity). Sure, it's possible to concoct any theory you like about dark energy as there is no consensus on a correct theory, and you can create any interpretation of quantum mechanics you like (as long as it fits the experimental evidence) and it will be just as valid as Copenhagen Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.com