tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post8372021168666917503..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: What if... #17Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-12160650603073320682008-12-24T08:12:00.000-05:002008-12-24T08:12:00.000-05:00Hi John,Thanks for responding to my query in regar...Hi John,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding to my query in regards to what distinguishes numerology from theory. It’s clear that to find a number that appears to hold significance in relation to reality is not what the physical sciences are meant to primarily address. Like at times when I talk with friends in regards to physics they sometimes ask why we find so many things are squared, with me Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64040163495015353442008-12-23T22:48:00.000-05:002008-12-23T22:48:00.000-05:00John wrote:If the calculation looked like interest...John wrote:<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If the calculation looked like interesting physics instead of numerology, I'd throw a huge party!<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Phil wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>An interesting statement and yet I would ask what would allow one to differentiate a distinction, other then physical testing and confirmed agreement.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Anybody can fiddle with numbers to fit the known particle John Baezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11573268162105600948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77777612865415779812008-12-20T10:27:00.000-05:002008-12-20T10:27:00.000-05:00Hi John Baez,“If the calculation looked like inter...Hi John Baez,<BR/><BR/>“If the calculation looked like interesting physics instead of numerology, I'd throw a huge party!”<BR/><BR/>An interesting statement and yet I would ask what would allow one to differentiate a distinction, other then physical testing and confirmed agreement. As for example, would you consider Phi as being a number indicative of physical reality or simply one of many Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59788223489428605912008-12-19T17:06:00.000-05:002008-12-19T17:06:00.000-05:00If the calculation looked like interesting physics...If the calculation looked like interesting physics instead of numerology, I'd throw a huge party! <BR/><BR/>Then I'd try to explain the calculation on This Week's Finds.John Baezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11573268162105600948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-304205609687338852008-12-18T04:13:00.000-05:002008-12-18T04:13:00.000-05:00There's only a few hundred bits of information the...There's only a few hundred bits of information there, for the current accuracy of the mass measurements.<BR/><BR/>Unless the calculation is incredibly short, or the calculation is believable for other reasons [e.g., it's part of larger theory], it would unfortunately be indistinguishable from numerology - even if it was perfect.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, correctly predicting one more bit on Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-17817099982965000282008-12-18T03:42:00.000-05:002008-12-18T03:42:00.000-05:00The author would be unable to submit the paper to ...The author would be unable to submit the paper to the arXiv and it would be rejected by peer review. The idea would be ignored until a little later when the student of a well known physicist rediscovered the same idea using different terminology based on category theory. The original discoverer would not be cited in the new work because such horizontal citations were not "necessary to its Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77823269119052720092008-12-17T19:43:00.000-05:002008-12-17T19:43:00.000-05:00I was wondering if one could crowdsource the probl...I was wondering if one could crowdsource the problem and what would happen if somebody who doesn't know anything about elementary particle physics in the first place came up with a solution. Like, just given them the masses of the particles and their quantum numbers and see if anybody can come up with a cooking recipe. Maybe somebody can? Now that would really shake things up. And it would bury Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10046116111840329662008-12-17T19:41:00.000-05:002008-12-17T19:41:00.000-05:00Who, what? Another numerologic game?Who, what? Another numerologic game?Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29145088391281343422008-12-17T19:37:00.000-05:002008-12-17T19:37:00.000-05:00Oh, please, no mentioning of Burkhard Heim! That&#...Oh, please, no mentioning of Burkhard Heim! That's as sure a recipe for blasting a comment thread as briging up the editor of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals ;-)<BR/><BR/>Cheers, Stefanstefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09495628046446378453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38300501731268338092008-12-17T19:03:00.000-05:002008-12-17T19:03:00.000-05:00Hi Millka,I have nothing to do with LQG, and I dou...Hi Millka,<BR/><BR/>I have nothing to do with LQG, and I doubt I have a few hours to look at it, but if you like, leave a reference (no link please). Best,<BR/><BR/>B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91317819079870769352008-12-17T17:51:00.000-05:002008-12-17T17:51:00.000-05:00Recently I have read about a "theory" that claims ...Recently I have read about a "theory" that claims to be able to calculate not only the ratios but the absolute values of the elementary particle masses. Its mass formula comes remarkably close to the real values. That theory starts with not much else than uniform 2-dimensional spacetime quanta. The author was a student of Weizsäcker.<BR/><BR/>Today this theory is almost unknown, and most of the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32701919188695689312008-12-17T17:03:00.000-05:002008-12-17T17:03:00.000-05:00A new idea never comes alone. I think that I would...A new idea never comes alone. I think that I would study his other ideas because there would be still more to discover.Arjen Dijksmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09450431291713605237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-89855365735855048592008-12-17T13:31:00.000-05:002008-12-17T13:31:00.000-05:00If the Standard Model is correct and complete, arr...If the Standard Model is correct and complete, arriving massless it cannot do that. Euclid cannot navigate a sphere, the Shroud of Turin is a trivial fraud (Fifth Postulate violations).<BR/><BR/>A Standard Model extension generating all fundamental <A HREF="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html" REL="nofollow">masses</A> would be called numerology unless it had testable new predictions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15883281334246602402008-12-17T11:08:00.000-05:002008-12-17T11:08:00.000-05:00Andy S., maybe they soak them in salt water and th...Andy S., maybe they soak them in salt water and then roast them? I don't know. Just guessing. :-) <BR/><BR/>I've always been too intellectually lazy to memorize formulas, ratios, and so on. Maybe this isn't something to confess on a physics blog! LOL<BR/><BR/>funny word verification: symbletrRae Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10239791074376508016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-50117865120574919682008-12-17T10:33:00.000-05:002008-12-17T10:33:00.000-05:00Pssshhtt!! That's easy: I did that just last week...Pssshhtt!! That's easy: I did that just last weekend. <BR/><BR/>I have a truly marvellous proof of this which this comment section is too narrow to contain.<BR/><BR/>Since then, I've been trying to figure out a much harder problem: how Planter's manages to salt the peanut <I>inside</I> the shell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1866845063269734912008-12-17T09:05:00.000-05:002008-12-17T09:05:00.000-05:00If it's a simple calculation, people from academia...If it's a simple calculation, people from academia would look at it, for fun, and if it turns out to be true then I think the academic circle would give him the credit he deserve.<BR/><BR/>But if his calculation is very complex, most likely nobody would take the time to understand it, he would be called a crackpot and be quickly forgotten.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57141335384447879172008-12-17T08:42:00.000-05:002008-12-17T08:42:00.000-05:00Hello Bee, the most "interesting" situation were i...Hello Bee, <BR/>the most "interesting" situation were if that<BR/>"somebody" was from outside theoretical <BR/>physics academies and if that calculation <BR/>would deliver the mass ratios without <BR/>any or only little significant new knowledge beyond <BR/>standard model. <BR/>The reception would show how much academies <BR/>are composed by humans. :=)<BR/>Regards<BR/>GeorgGeorghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02538391164351204407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6955601958778759182008-12-17T08:09:00.000-05:002008-12-17T08:09:00.000-05:00Assuming it was legit, this would be the third in ...Assuming it was legit, this would be the third in the series - Newton, Einstein, ....<BR/><BR/>The reason I think so is because presumably the calculation would be the fruit of a physical insight missed by an entire generation of physicists.<BR/><BR/>As to where such an insight would lead, beyond the standard model, it is not knowable. E.g., if the result came from string theory, then that wouldArunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73073939124232105832008-12-17T06:47:00.000-05:002008-12-17T06:47:00.000-05:00If unheard of at first they would be most likely c...If unheard of at first they would be most likely considered as being crack pot. Yet if science plays its role as it’s supposed to, where all was after examined and found consistent, it would have to be accepted regardless of source. If your question however is to ask if this be the end of science, I would say no for it would only represent a new place to continue from.Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.com