Can We Not Discern the Sky

Can We Not Discern the Sky

So, what good is a Nobel Prize if it is gotten for an idea that soon becomes very obsolete- would not a better theory be worth the wait of the first to announce? and what is first anyway in a relativistic time frame? Of course, to enhance the prize the popular Einstein added to its social value- but he did not get the prize himself for relativity. (this issue raised in the comments). All you bull riders, real and artificial, all you sweethearts of the rodeo, our constellation is attracted to us like flies our halos of stars as we ride Easy Moses, not yet tamed and corralled that bucking bronco still on the Western frontiers of science when politics and states were noble and important, as well equality and democracy, and learning.

I repeat from the comment on the last posting: @ http://matpitka.blogspot.com/


http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1978/brout_englert_gunzig.pdf

http://motls.blogspot.com/



Ulla,

Are you sure the issue is not just one of our stance to the physical facts of science... In particular Lubos links to this historic and interesting article today:

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1978/brout_englert_gunzig.pdf Of which it is clear enough and I think you should read. I just found it but it does touch upon things I posted and you commented upon. Mainly, "science abhors a singularity" of which I am immersed but make different conclusions.

On this high level of abstraction I know there is something to be said for Pitkanen's take on the prime such as 89. His post today does contain similar ideas to where we find some sort of higher balance in nature - I am not a fan of inflation theory, an interlude to much more fundamental physics at best.

So, Matti, can these sorts of wormholes link between a possible multiverse?

The PeSla

* * *

Not much for me to say today--- I thought about my line yesterday- about radiating decoherence- in a sense a rather far out thought but what can it mean in the sense of a physics without something a little beyond it? But if the article cited by Lubos above is physics, and Nobel prize worthy at that- then what we are doing here at the dawn of a new physics and the evening of the old as our eyes look so closely at the belt of Venus and we bask in the Zodiacal light, fight some sort of wars of the environment or accept the next wave of defective reactors of not as worthy? Are the prizes in a way awarded for theory in that it takes stance on a philosophy- and that is very theoretical but is it physics?

Of course, from this mountaintop one may wonder if my greater universe is in some ways the same as Pitkanen's- of which his the more scientific- if science abhors a singularity (not just a simple concept of nothing btw Ulla)? We are at least as imperceptibly complicated above the pack.

Then, if we ground the old gray mare (who rides her anymore? who strings her along? who calls out to her a former lovers name, Susy? Where does she go in the storm of chaos and electric field theory, her lucky horse shoes full of Higgsy briers that will not be removed easily as they turn into glue and romantic dreams of windmills).

* * *