Friday, May 11, 2012

A Squantum Packet for Lubos

The above illustration modified for purposes of scale is from the illusions section of New Scientist which showed up there again recently.
A Squantum Packet for Lubos
L. Edgar Otto  May 11, 2012

After reading the comments to Gibbs post tonight, I have a challenge to Lubos for Debate on the Fringes of Science but it is a little long perhaps for comment posting so beyond this abstract I will post it on my blog- I would like him to critique my last post : Lessons from the Windmill Diagonal Illusion of May 10th.


I don't think what you are saying is nonsense, but certainly it is not sensed.  Now media have always been promoted as a new tool of shared learning but it never really turns out that way- we have high ideals for the internet as we did say with radio as an educational tool.  Of course in that money moves the world the right at least in my country have pretty well played out how valuable negative advertizing is- it gains money and votes.  And the left has discovered just how much more one to win elections you can have by the social networks and the internet.  Who will really counts on the polls?  Yes, at least in a multi party system we can show voting is illogical where not voting gives your choice a better chance- in the Monte Hall idea we can reasonably say that what is under a shell is empty but in a sense a win.  All this white or pink noise, entropy increaces, decreases who cares what the entropy does says Mr Tompkins by Gamow- well it is about information and meaning as a unity is it not and the messages filled in with error codes where the initial sounds convey the bulk of the information.  We know sometimes to lose a battle makes it more likely to win a war or a batle win makes loss more likely.  We all should know statistics have some still unsolved mysteries your citing names and chapter and verse of some formulas are not well known or easy to learn, but if you can reduce things to all or nothing then Pascal will make the bet for Heaven would he not?  Infinity can seem a strange thing in this respect as if your position is going back even before the Greeks to say all motion is circular as is all assumptions and definitions- that seems to me to contradict the idea in the quantum world space is not empty but it is probably just a paradox in a more general physics.

I see no point in discouraging new learners, surely you but teach them what is a matter of trust to consider as all such interpretations that seems to show quantum parameters also a psychic space.  This sort of mirror psychology glorifies evil by the glorification of our superheros- a lot of that came out of the fanzines of new york on the left while seduction of the innocent with the idea of hidden messages came from the moral rearmament on the right.  Now you have the right to insult people if you have the right not to hear as well as to speak.  So I give you a challenge here and will take a response from you as if a shell with nothing under it as a win on my part and as the victor I will feel justified and wonder if in the lies, darn lies, and statistics that your slight of hand you think faster than my eye can see has raise the debate to a new level of pseudoscience, Our Andrew, baited and defensive on issues of needed trust and honesty needs to study a little more to see that in the problem you represent the Monty Python Canadian once cent half of the problem with opinions on what is to be our holy grail.

Now I had five boys, and was going to have another child- what was the chances, all things being equal that it would be a girl?

But I am willing to stand full Monte before you for you to argue with me in a matter that shows the world you can decisively show me more than the average crackpot, worse than that you casually replied and to which I let flow off me like a water on a ducks back in the struggle to learn what certainty there is in science.  So, what is the probability one of us is wrong when you have already computed that I am greater than a hundred percent? Is it not reasonable to infer that in some serious matters you have also made judgements on other things as well, we too rigid to adapt? Or is it as leftist as my right wing fundamentals upbringing we all should grow past that you start an argument and then find the synthesis of the conclusion, playing both sides by the way.  Or is there just one side after all?  You have an edifice of what to me is self fulfilling prophesy and shaky assumptions with a relativist justification of them like the buffoon Feynman who says we do not understand the ultimate things but only the mechanism.  I suppose string theory is worse than that for it is so abstract and contains nothing of which to show intrinsically how we put matter into the equations let alone gravity.  But I can make that leap for it is a beautiful theory and I agree with you it is not  the dead end and end of careers it seemed to be for awhile.  Why in fact should such a particle as the Higgs exist and why are we surprised, super-symmetry and higher dimensions being to me a fact, if we do not find it in its higher nature- we will not find it by the science sounding principles of what will look in retrospect as a sort of quantum mysticism.

Well, ranting aside as part of the internet, the struggle between researchers and institutions until as some seem to agree (if it is not some sort of mass hypnosis), and bullying we all praise those who finally makes a dramatic breakthrough- the truth is the leader then of all the people.  But if someone does not do the great debates and correspondences such as of Bohr and Einstein then we are much like the mindset of the comic characters in the Big Bang (which is a lot of hot air nonsense by the way if that is the only cosmic model and I said it to Hoyle himself back when that debate seemed resolved.  Let us not continue to fight the cold wars of our fathers, it seems this medium has put such bullying on steroids- and I know despite my long winded-ness that it comes of mediocre to point out it is- but you see, in this real world I hope things get better and I care.

Through it all, despite the 90% probability you discourage future progress and talk about issues like global warming that is almost a religious one and not if we are honest not one of science yet, there are jewels of high order in your posts which do show you could be an inspiring teacher,.  But I  am a little tired of canned laughter as a cue reading a different variation on the Book of Seinfeld.

I think someone has taught you wrong- then again the best business men seem to have dropped out sooner from Harvard business school where one cannot make less than a B these days anyway. Your best days are to come and I am sure in person I would like to drink a Pilsner beer with you and in real life find you quite personable behind all these masks.  But pull no punches for there is a world to gain and nothing to lose in the specters that haunt us second hand as they now haunt Europe.  I defy you to intelligibly deny the directions of my own candidate for an original and fundamental theory of everything born as if in those moments you yourself mention of insights and influences that makes it special as you.  But man, you really should stop dissing my friends.

ThePeSla: who imagined Einstein pushing a pram along the Zurich Zee and noticing the lamp posts along the way in their fearful spine tingling symmetry and asking himself as they seem to grow as he came closer or shrink as he pulled away- that in a higher views some things really do shrink like that.

And Mr (Prof? I make that mistake sometimes) Gibbs that remark as a method that things are reduced to two space is precisely what I and others are trying to say if we really thought about these things in even natural four space- even in QM that matters after all- as a way to know where and when we find particles and our SUSY darling.  I say it analytically, not just synthetically.

* * * * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment