tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post932764773873558367..comments2023-03-28T15:27:45.192+01:00Comments on Physics Satire About the Theory of Everything: What remains?Clara, once known as Nemohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-23118439866573767952010-12-29T09:27:30.920+00:002010-12-29T09:27:30.920+00:00vn, that is a nice image! I will come back to it i...vn, that is a nice image! I will come back to it in a few days. I have updated the prejudice list as a reminder to myself.Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-13040605836270025542010-12-29T01:46:26.503+00:002010-12-29T01:46:26.503+00:00Nemo, '.. to breathe in vacuum' is a loose...Nemo, '.. to breathe in vacuum' is a loose citation (or reminiscence of it) of Einstein: (something like) 'to reject continuum is like an attempt to breathe in vacuum'Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11769333708766460628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-63244250821497722062010-12-28T08:37:57.847+00:002010-12-28T08:37:57.847+00:00Bill K, I answered your comment in the next post.Bill K, I answered your comment in the next post.Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-10472422872412125752010-12-28T08:37:27.031+00:002010-12-28T08:37:27.031+00:00Vladimir, maybe you are right. I have to read in m...Vladimir, maybe you are right. I have to read in more detail what you are doing.Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-22126302344287701442010-12-28T08:29:09.482+00:002010-12-28T08:29:09.482+00:00vn, what do you mean by "breath in vacuum&quo...vn, what do you mean by "breath in vacuum"?Clara, once known as Nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931393389874902234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-5027405941171814032010-12-27T19:18:57.104+00:002010-12-27T19:18:57.104+00:00Well, I am agree with you about Woit (he has delet...Well, I am agree with you about Woit (he has deleted my comment(s) too !-); maybe he is a bit pride with his heroism (I mean I've read 'Pride and prejudice', all chapters; I've also have looked at some, quite few, hep-th preprints; frankly, I prefer gr-gc).<br /> Still your list at the right, at least some its items, has a taste of some prejudice.<br /> What do you mean under (it's prejudice, is not it?) 'Space is [not] made of points'?<br /> (That is, are you able to breath in vacuum?)<br /> You mean that 'space is emergent'? than,<br /> emergent from what? (and it is unclear how this follows from experiments).<br /> We should imagine that some objects somehow<br /> communicate (at a distance? ok, there is 'no<br /> space', yet), through a kind of telepathy,<br /> and all this 'magic activity', full of high<br /> Hollywood standards, is described by 'beautiful<br /> and natural' equations, is it so?<br /><br /> Interestingly, your posts have no comments, what's the matter?<br /> Oops! two comments have appeared!<br /><br /> One could think that a `struggle for attention' is an important feature of blogosphere.<br /> Perhaps in some future, say, all good software will be free of charge: paying attention is just sufficient payment, because there will be a lot of people who are able to do the same good<br /> things.<br /><br /> So, this my comments is a kind of support of your writings.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11769333708766460628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-85963580108999972052010-12-27T18:44:58.516+00:002010-12-27T18:44:58.516+00:00Dear Bill K, you wrote: "No, but 99% of them ...Dear Bill K, you wrote: "No, but 99% of them work on ideas that are unsupported by experiment. Which is exactly as it should be. There is no great virtue in predicting something that has already been seen."<br /><br />Probably you meant "are not inspired, imposed by experiment".<br /><br />It is not what should be. Of course, mathematical physics exercises are always welcome but it is not physics, let us not forget it.<br /><br />Yes, there is a great virtue in describing something without problems what has already been observed. Actually, the most probable phenomenon in charge scattering - the soft radiation - is not predicted in the first Born approximation. That means too poor physically and too distant mathematically initial approximation from the exact solution. Normally any iterative scheme, analytical or numerical, diverges in that case.Vladimir Kalitvianskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16310670038267361671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-92055125754766795602010-12-27T16:02:21.394+00:002010-12-27T16:02:21.394+00:00This is all true.
However I personally think that...This is all true.<br /><br />However I personally think that there is another, more physical approach where a part of interaction is taken into account exactly - by physical construction, so the perturbative series are better mathematically (without divergences) and physically (the initial approximation catches the essentials better). I think, after a good development, such a quasi-particle approach, will be capable of describing the experimental data without appealing to Higgs, super-symmetries, and other stuff to patch the fallacious constructions.<br /><br />http://vladimirkalitvianski.wordpress.com/Vladimir Kalitvianskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16310670038267361671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5237654928835551390.post-53025434981307054322010-12-27T14:23:00.709+00:002010-12-27T14:23:00.709+00:00"99% of all researchers in fundamental physic..."99% of all researchers in fundamental physics in 2010 work on ideas that contradict experiment."<br /><br />No, but 99% of them work on ideas that are unsupported by experiment. Which is exactly as it should be. There is no great virtue in predicting something that has already been seen.<br /><br />For each one of your prejudices, attempts have been made to find workable alternatives. Higgs? Google 'Higgsless' and you'll come up with almost 10,000 hits. You think space is not made up of points? Great, tell us what it is made of instead, and how physics can be described in such a framework.<br /><br />The trouble is, every alternative to the Standard Model that has been proposed starts off looking simple and appealing, but then upon further investigation requires more and more complexity to avoid contradictions.<br /><br />While there are some people who religiously cling to one or more of your prejudices, mostly they are accepted out of necessity. We'd love to be told how to make progress without using them.Bill Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11601682920819648726noreply@blogger.com