tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post5166255994543816561..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Multiversing aroundSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger132125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19255287426530504502011-04-17T11:31:25.628-04:002011-04-17T11:31:25.628-04:00I just wanted to say: very good writing. It made...I just wanted to say: very good writing. It made me laugh (where I was supposed to, I believe).JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65138872988228469562011-04-13T17:47:38.104-04:002011-04-13T17:47:38.104-04:00"One cannot escape the feeling," Hertz w...<i>"One cannot escape the feeling," Hertz would write of Maxwell's equations, "that these formulae have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers, that we get more out of them than was originally put into them." </i>Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56989059699372301132011-04-12T22:17:17.959-04:002011-04-12T22:17:17.959-04:00Allow me a bit of artistically-licensed topical le...Allow me a bit of artistically-licensed topical levity, and it's not self-promotion: I went to a poetry reading tonight at a coffee house (so hip.) They give us a "challenge" for each Month, a suggested theme. For next month the challenge is:<br />"Write a poem that begins with: We were angels, magicians, and gods from another universe."<br />Seriously, feed me some linesNeil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65996394437176333942011-04-12T20:36:04.708-04:002011-04-12T20:36:04.708-04:00Bee,
130+ comments and counting. You must have sai...Bee,<br />130+ comments and counting. You must have said something. Great post. Thank you. I don't hear enough the sentiment that maybe mathematics isn't "it". I don't have much math, but I've read the words in Penrose's "Road to Reality", the recent Yau book, Susskind's black hole basics book, and (bestly) Hofstadter's GEB. All of these left me Brendohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08329340409663217456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83417719000360210992011-04-12T09:23:47.473-04:002011-04-12T09:23:47.473-04:00No further self-advertisement. I mean it.No further self-advertisement. I mean it.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62123172241656701122011-04-12T09:15:24.396-04:002011-04-12T09:15:24.396-04:00Phil - it is a fact that Bohmian mechanics is a ve...Phil - it is a fact that Bohmian mechanics is a very minority view. That doesn't mean it has to be wrong, but it's proponents must accept they've got a tougher row to hoe, seemingly fair or not. Furthermore, I have my own reasons for doubting BM as I explained. I'm not just following the supposed leaders. As for my own ideas, in the case of the DI I am critiquing something that Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66545402879128265622011-04-12T09:08:23.185-04:002011-04-12T09:08:23.185-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25764773496043477662011-04-12T08:29:35.834-04:002011-04-12T08:29:35.834-04:00First Principles by Howard Burton?
Imagine a goal...First Principles by Howard Burton?<br /><br />Imagine a goal in mind, and what it took to get there? It's just not about what is "self evident" but about the geometry as well?<br /><br />As a youth the compass was inspiring for Einstein because of a mystery about the ability of the needle?<br /><br /> <i>Einstein and Schrödinger never fully accepted the highly abstract nature of PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16345677452124553552011-04-12T07:05:01.941-04:002011-04-12T07:05:01.941-04:00Hi Neil,
“..but I shouldn't be the one on the...Hi Neil,<br /><br />“..but I shouldn't be the one on the defensive if I'm on the side of the majority”<br /><br />Again you make sweeping statements such as the one above, claiming what the majority of opinion being. That is if the majority of theoretical physicists were questioned you’ll find most don’t have a considered opinion in respect to what we’re examining here, as thinking Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63366202473611690722011-04-12T01:38:32.865-04:002011-04-12T01:38:32.865-04:00Hi Joel,
But what may that be except mathematical...Hi Joel,<br /><br />But what may that be except mathematical consistency + the requirement to reproduce observation? Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36207850273502619902011-04-12T01:31:40.159-04:002011-04-12T01:31:40.159-04:00Robert: That's enough. You know this isn't...Robert: That's enough. You know this isn't the place to promote your "new paradigm."Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31940483507341657062011-04-12T00:48:26.120-04:002011-04-12T00:48:26.120-04:00While I am at it, I might offer a reason to consid...While I am at it, I might offer a reason to consider this radical new paradigm that would change our understanding of particles, atoms, stars, galaxies, etc.<br /><br />No theory produced on this planet has ever had much to say about why the unbound electron has the mass that it does.<br /><br />My webmaster promises that before the end of this month he will put an already completed addition on Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18198314946928630552011-04-12T00:21:21.387-04:002011-04-12T00:21:21.387-04:00Hello Steve,
I am not primarily interested in tel...Hello Steve,<br /><br />I am not primarily interested in telling people what they should not be studying. I think every idea should be given the ol' college try, and then some.<br /><br />I am much more interested in telling people that they are ignoring a really elegant conceptual paradigm for unifying our understanding of nature.<br /><br />Unfortunately they reject the new paradigm purely Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61722359943649503152011-04-11T21:54:13.305-04:002011-04-11T21:54:13.305-04:00GR conceptually elegant: so the urban legend has i...GR conceptually elegant: so the urban legend has it. In essence perhaps, but there are hidden ambiguities like how to get "field energy" into gravitational waves and the localization of energy even if granted, paradoxes of transport of vectors in curved space and subsequent challenges about conservation of angular momentum, some arbitrary picks that were just assumed (e.g. there is not Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5162969807390678222011-04-11T21:33:40.280-04:002011-04-11T21:33:40.280-04:00Neil Bates: "That goes to show, there is hidd...Neil Bates: "That goes to show, there is hidden complexity in simplicity which should be a "warning" to those trying to construct a simple theory of the universe"<br />----------------------------<br /><br />There is "simple". There is simplistic. And there is conceptually elegant.<br /><br />General Relativity is not simple, but it is conceptually elegant.<br /><br Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14372881091734616472011-04-11T20:12:19.371-04:002011-04-11T20:12:19.371-04:00Yes, I ♥ derivatives! Just to show off some irony:...Yes, I ♥ derivatives! Just to show off some irony: circular motion, supposedly the simplest and most basic action in the universe (according to old philosophers) actually is incredibly complex in that it contains the infinite series of derivatives w.r.t. time. So it displays position, velocity, acceleration, jerk, snap, ... ,<i>ad infinitum</i>. But something that looks very complicated, might Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78138885068143708912011-04-11T17:29:16.106-04:002011-04-11T17:29:16.106-04:00Hi Rob,
Yes, we're all aware of super-symmet...Hi Rob, <br /><br />Yes, we're all aware of super-symmetry's failure so far to show itself, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied, if at the very least to prove it wrong. It will be on the table all our lives, like it or ... not. Even if the VLHC is ever built, and fails to find it as well. <br /><br />Hi Eric,<br /><br />The derivative of the fourth derivative, <a href="Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79056715556604468442011-04-11T16:45:38.681-04:002011-04-11T16:45:38.681-04:00Speaking of "supersymmetry" there was ye...Speaking of "supersymmetry" there was yet another NO-SHOW for "supersymmetry" posted to arxiv.org today.<br /><br />The CMS Collaboration at the LHC reports a no-show for the predictions of the "minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model" regarding imaginary "Higgs doublets".<br /><br />Nature: "Nope, nope, nope, ... why don't you try aRobert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24475987512773234432011-04-11T15:07:37.687-04:002011-04-11T15:07:37.687-04:00Yeah, he is funny. At one point he notes that the ...Yeah, he is funny. At one point he notes that the formal term for the derivative of acceleration is the jerk. However he does not know the name for the derivative of the jerk is but It might be the putz.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08213251864943443334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84295826658835517672011-04-11T14:48:25.990-04:002011-04-11T14:48:25.990-04:00Hi Eric,
I completely share your views about Suss...Hi Eric,<br /><br />I completely share your views about Susskind as a teacher. And as a man! He may well be THE funniest man in all of Science. Those lectures you mention are fantastic. <br /><br />But you see, they are about that which is KNOWN. Lubos is also good as long as we restrict ourselves to the "known," to the experimentally proven. And Feynman was the best.<br /><br />On the Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47081319350294296272011-04-11T14:35:52.637-04:002011-04-11T14:35:52.637-04:00Hi Steven, I've recently changed my assessment...Hi Steven, I've recently changed my assessment of Leonard Susskind. But not on the things you've mentioned about the multiverse and string theory. I've been following several courses he has recorded for Stanford.edu that are on YouTube. I have to tell you that he is one great teacher. Wow, what a great thing the Internet is.<br /><br />The other thing that is so great about these Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08213251864943443334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-22644178002489951682011-04-11T13:24:01.893-04:002011-04-11T13:24:01.893-04:00Multibabies. Is that anything like Leelu's Mul...Multibabies. Is that anything like Leelu's Multipass in "The Fifth Element"? Sorry, bad joke.<br /><br />I'm surprised no one has brought up Leonard Susskind or Joe Polchinski regarding the Multiverse.<br /><br />Briefly, this is Susskind's "Big" contribution, after his initial notable achievement being one of the Big 3 of Supersymmetry as it relates to String Steven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11539763257924698692011-04-11T12:32:49.994-04:002011-04-11T12:32:49.994-04:00Bee: thanks for suggestions about German use. Chee...Bee: thanks for suggestions about German use. Cheers to you folks and your multibabies.<br /><br />Joel: There is actually a universal or "cosmic time" in a universe like ours. It is the proper-time duration readings at each location since time of the big bang. We can presume some features, such as that observers will note the same effective isotropically red-shifted CMB temperature at Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70983896227681460242011-04-11T12:09:20.699-04:002011-04-11T12:09:20.699-04:00Phil - sure, it's not good to be overconfident...Phil - sure, it's not good to be overconfident about how we should interpret the experimental results, and various interpretations are open (however, the cheesiest alleged result of decoherence is indeed falsifiable, as I have argued at FQXi. Yeah, that's the "hobby horse" I like to ride!) However, most physicists think that the locality/realism issues are genuine and that BM Neil Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77997446784520249422011-04-11T11:07:34.584-04:002011-04-11T11:07:34.584-04:00It would be nice if one could formulate "phys...It would be nice if one could formulate "physical consistency" instead of trying to rely on mathematical consistency, which seems to encourage rampant Platonism.joel ricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06048310899055838262noreply@blogger.com