Comments on: More Science Fiction http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:18:29 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: plato http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1984 plato Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1984 If one had to sum up Gr, how would you do it? Never mind about the lesser degrees of intelligences and references to angels and all kinds of things. You follow the history, it leads you where?:) As a laymen, I would have had to think about this very hard and assume it was about gravity, but of course once you meet this idea, all of a sudden you wonder what is being emitted? Taylor and Hulse have graduated the ideas for us in those elliptical paths that Mercury orbited to the discoveries of .....?:) So you move from this point to learn, what the historical forbears have revealled in their journies and come to meet Wheeler and Kip Thorne. Webber, and his alumininum bars and you understand that detection systems, are now being developed and have been employed. If you do not keep abreast of this continuing developement then of course one would become dismayed, about the new direction GR has gone?:)Numerical Relativity? So in weak field manifestations, you had to know that early cosmolgical consideration would have already included the standard model, and look to incorporate gravity into a whole view of the cosmo from planck epoch to now. Yes, the early uinverse and the symmetries involved of course in question:) Rest assured that we are talking about the cosmological discernation of the geometry thats leads us to consider, other things(topological considerations), and how quickly this is dimissed? I have heard Peter speak about the ideas of Reimann and the fruitless direction this has gone and am equally dismayed at how this could not have been estimated from a geometical standpoint not to have questioned the quantum mechanical discription of the small world[quantum geometry](it's incapatibilty GR) with the quantum world becoming very large? So again, it is a easy enough assumption to realize that the model in question changes what we view of the spacetime fabric, and becomes it? It then asks about light and if this is included, how would you ever get to what Smolin would have wanted in the Glast determinations as the final deal? This is what I have surmised, and I could be wrong:) This is a easy enough assumption about energy sources(gamma ray bursts) and the information that is release? Some would be very happy with the ideas of the compton scattering(glast determinations) that has gone on, to help us determine this information, as well as what will be revealled to LIGO and the SETI computers users, being utilized? This goes to Gerard Hooft's question of how much information could ever be assembled at such levels, that strings would have implied, that he would have been quite happy I am sure, with the way in which the SETI user screens are being utilized. I hope my asseessment has been correct and am open to any corrections. If one had to sum up Gr, how would you do it?

Never mind about the lesser degrees of intelligences and references to angels and all kinds of things. You follow the history, it leads you where?:)

As a laymen, I would have had to think about this very hard and assume it was about gravity, but of course once you meet this idea, all of a sudden you wonder what is being emitted? Taylor and Hulse have graduated the ideas for us in those elliptical paths that Mercury orbited to the discoveries of …..?:)

So you move from this point to learn, what the historical forbears have revealled in their journies and come to meet Wheeler and Kip Thorne. Webber, and his alumininum bars and you understand that detection systems, are now being developed and have been employed.

If you do not keep abreast of this continuing developement then of course one would become dismayed, about the new direction GR has gone?:)Numerical Relativity?

So in weak field manifestations, you had to know that early cosmolgical consideration would have already included the standard model, and look to incorporate gravity into a whole view of the cosmo from planck epoch to now.

Yes, the early uinverse and the symmetries involved of course in question:)

Rest assured that we are talking about the cosmological discernation of the geometry thats leads us to consider, other things(topological considerations), and how quickly this is dimissed?

I have heard Peter speak about the ideas of Reimann and the fruitless direction this has gone and am equally dismayed at how this could not have been estimated from a geometical standpoint not to have questioned the quantum mechanical discription of the small world[quantum geometry](it’s incapatibilty GR) with the quantum world becoming very large?

So again, it is a easy enough assumption to realize that the model in question changes what we view of the spacetime fabric, and becomes it? It then asks about light and if this is included, how would you ever get to what Smolin would have wanted in the Glast determinations as the final deal?

This is what I have surmised, and I could be wrong:)

This is a easy enough assumption about energy sources(gamma ray bursts) and the information that is release? Some would be very happy with the ideas of the compton scattering(glast determinations) that has gone on, to help us determine this information, as well as what will be revealled to LIGO and the SETI computers users, being utilized?

This goes to Gerard Hooft’s question of how much information could ever be assembled at such levels, that strings would have implied, that he would have been quite happy I am sure, with the way in which the SETI user screens are being utilized.

I hope my asseessment has been correct and am open to any corrections.

]]> By: serenus zeitblom http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1985 serenus zeitblom Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1985 Were you referring to the s.p.r thread on whether Special Relativity is diffeomorphism invariant? Indeed I was. The thread title was "symmetries of GR" or something like that. One of the many things I found amusing at that time was LM's insistence that Carlip and I "wanted" general covariance to become meaningless. I guess we two are just a pair of terrorists who should be dealt with by the US army. I think Bertrand Russell's ABC of Relativity is a prime example of a bad popular book. Well, it's a very old book that probably reflects the majority view of the subject at that time. Nowadays we think about relativity very differently, but most popularizers, together with those who depend on them for an education, are stuck in 1920. In many cases this is just laziness --- people writing books about string theory aren't really interested in telling you about the foundations of GR, so they just copy all the old junk about angels pulling up elevators etc, so that they can quickly get on to what really interests them. Were you referring to the s.p.r thread on whether Special Relativity is diffeomorphism invariant?

Indeed I was. The thread title was “symmetries of GR” or something like that. One of the many things I found amusing at that time was LM’s insistence that Carlip and I “wanted” general covariance to become meaningless. I guess we two are just a pair of terrorists who should be dealt with by the US army.

I think Bertrand Russell’s ABC of Relativity is a prime example of a bad popular book.

Well, it’s a very old book that probably reflects the majority view of the subject at that time. Nowadays we think about relativity very differently, but most popularizers, together with those who depend on them for an education, are stuck in 1920. In many cases this is just laziness — people writing books about string theory aren’t really interested in telling you about the foundations of GR, so they just copy all the old junk about angels pulling up elevators etc, so that they can quickly get on to what really interests them.

]]> By: plato http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1986 plato Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1986 After consideration, I think I am <a href="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/01/gr-reduced-from-higher-dimensions.html" rel="nofollow">in need of a exorcism</a>?:) New post should turn up later, in real time:) Cynicism can run from higher dimensional existance, to manifest as real emotive qualities called, human action, or words? So if I attack cynicism from the right angle, I should be able to convince?:)Good thing, we have standards from which to proceed. After consideration, I think I am in need of a exorcism?:)

New post should turn up later, in real time:)

Cynicism can run from higher dimensional existance, to manifest as real emotive qualities called, human action, or words?

So if I attack cynicism from the right angle, I should be able to convince?:)Good thing, we have standards from which to proceed.

]]> By: D R Lunsford http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1987 D R Lunsford Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1987 All the text below was Anderson, not I, notwithstanding software post mangling. -drl All the text below was Anderson, not I, notwithstanding software post mangling.

-drl

]]> By: D R Lunsford http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1988 D R Lunsford Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1988 PW Anderson writes this morning in the Times, in response to the question "What do you believe but cannot prove?" - <i> Is string theory a futile exercise as physics, as I believe it to be? It is an interesting mathematical specialty and has produced and will produce mathematics useful in other contexts, but it seems no more vital as mathematics than other areas of very abstract or specialized math, and doesn't on that basis justify the incredible amount of effort expended on it. My belief is based on the fact that string theory is the first science in hundreds of years to be pursued in pre-Baconian fashion, without any adequate experimental guidance. It proposes that Nature is the way we would like it to be rather than the way we see it to be; and it is improbable that Nature thinks the same way we do. The sad thing is that, as several young would-be theorists have explained to me, it is so highly developed that it is a full-time job just to keep up with it. That means that other avenues are not being explored by the bright, imaginative young people, and that alternative career paths are blocked. </i> PW Anderson writes this morning in the Times, in response to the question “What do you believe but cannot prove?” -

Is string theory a futile exercise as physics, as I believe it to be? It is an interesting mathematical specialty and has produced and will produce mathematics useful in other contexts, but it seems no more vital as mathematics than other areas of very abstract or specialized math, and doesn’t on that basis justify the incredible amount of effort expended on it.

My belief is based on the fact that string theory is the first science in hundreds of years to be pursued in pre-Baconian fashion, without any adequate experimental guidance. It proposes that Nature is the way we would like it to be rather than the way we see it to be; and it is improbable that Nature thinks the same way we do.

The sad thing is that, as several young would-be theorists have explained to me, it is so highly developed that it is a full-time job just to keep up with it. That means that other avenues are not being explored by the bright, imaginative young people, and that alternative career paths are blocked.

]]> By: Arun http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1989 Arun Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1989 S.Z., Were you referring to the s.p.r thread on whether Special Relativity is diffeomorphism invariant? ---- I think Bertrand Russell's ABC of Relativity is a prime example of a bad popular book. -Arun S.Z.,

Were you referring to the s.p.r thread on whether Special Relativity is diffeomorphism invariant?

—-

I think Bertrand Russell’s ABC of Relativity is a prime example of a bad popular book.

-Arun

]]> By: Dolomite http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1990 Dolomite Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1990 I've never seen any of his popular books, but I once made the mistake of buying one of Kaku's graduate level textbooks on String theory. The table of contents looked quite impressive, but the body of the book turned out to be a smorgasborg of equations from the various original papers, but with the symbols changed around in a failed attempt at making the different chapters look consistent, in the process removing much of the logical connective tissue and adding in typos. All in all negative value added. I've regarded him as a charlatan ever since. I’ve never seen any of his popular books, but I once made the mistake of buying one of Kaku’s graduate level textbooks on String theory. The table of contents looked quite impressive, but the body of the book turned out to be a smorgasborg of equations from the various original papers, but with the symbols changed around in a failed attempt at making the different chapters look consistent, in the process removing much of the logical connective tissue and adding in typos. All in all negative value added. I’ve regarded him as a charlatan ever since.

]]> By: serenus zeitblom http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1991 serenus zeitblom Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1991 The usual response to criticisms of popular books is: what harm do they do? The answer was provided to me back in October 2003 when Lubos Motl very unwisely got into an argument with -- of all people -- Steve Carlip about the foundations of general relativity. It soon became painfully clear that LM had never taken a formal course in GR and had, in fact, derived all he knew about GR from reading popular books. The whole fiasco ended with Steve Carlip having to remind LM that it is actually quite Ok to use polar coordinates in special relativity! The problem of course is that popularizers tend to hand down basic misunderstandings from one generation to the next, so the account of GR you get in most of these books corresponds to Einstein's understanding circa 1912 when he was professor in Prague.... The usual response to criticisms of popular books is: what harm do they do? The answer was provided to me back in October 2003 when Lubos Motl very unwisely got into an argument with — of all people — Steve Carlip about the foundations of general relativity. It soon became painfully clear that LM had never taken a formal course in GR and had, in fact, derived all he knew about GR from reading popular books. The whole fiasco ended with Steve Carlip having to remind LM that it is actually quite Ok to use polar coordinates in special relativity! The problem of course is that popularizers tend to hand down basic misunderstandings from one generation to the next, so the account of GR you get in most of these books corresponds to Einstein’s understanding circa 1912 when he was professor in Prague….

]]> By: Dave Bacon http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1992 Dave Bacon Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1992 I saw Michio Kaku on Tech-TV (before it merged with G4) a few years ago. He talked about quantum computers. He said that the beauty of quantum computers was that they could efficiently multiply numbers. I almost went and burned his field theory book on the spot. I saw Michio Kaku on Tech-TV (before it merged with G4) a few years ago. He talked about quantum computers. He said that the beauty of quantum computers was that they could efficiently multiply numbers. I almost went and burned his field theory book on the spot.

]]> By: D R Lunsford http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129&cpage=1#comment-1993 D R Lunsford Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=129#comment-1993 I like Kaku's field theory book, and he seems like a normal, straigtforward person in interviews (that is, not another carnival barker). Maybe he writes these books just to make money. Maybe his grad students write them for him for a cut. Certainly his "real" book is not full of hyperbole and sensationalism. -drl I like Kaku’s field theory book, and he seems like a normal, straigtforward person in interviews (that is, not another carnival barker). Maybe he writes these books just to make money. Maybe his grad students write them for him for a cut. Certainly his “real” book is not full of hyperbole and sensationalism.

-drl

]]>