tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post5792971654950316193..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Are Things Improving?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86079305138981679832007-10-27T21:03:00.000-07:002007-10-27T21:03:00.000-07:00Dr. Brin, with the greatest respect I have to say ...Dr. Brin, with the greatest respect I have to say that I do <I><B>not</B></I> find string "theory" to have even the slightest mathematically elegance or prettiness.<BR/><BR/>On the contrary -- current string "theory" is notable for its remarkable mathematical <B>ugliness</B>.<BR/><BR/>String "theory" <I>started out</I> as something mathematically pretty. Early on, in the late 70s and early 80s, it had quite a bit of mathematical elegance. The problem, as everyone knows, is that pretty soon string "theory" ran into big problems. <BR/><BR/>If you doubt this, Dr. Brin, I would urge you to try just quantizing a (supposedly) "simple" relativistic string.<BR/><BR/>Quantization is not some one-size-fits-all algorithm; there are some big mathematical stumbling blocks right at the start:<BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/dg-ga/9605001<BR/><BR/>Full quantization maps typically exist only on very tiny subalgebras of the full Poisson algebra -- even then, many of 'em aren't unique, which multiplies your difficulties in finding a unique subalgebra. <BR/>But okay, assuming you <B>do</B> find a unique subalgebra, now you have to represent your subalgebras as operators on a suitable Hilbert space. But that's another big stumbling block too, because now you discover you must do it on a Fock-Krein space, which means that the standard spectral methods are suddenly off limits. <BR/><BR/>Fine, so let's say you make it over this mathematical hump and now you've integrated your symmetry generators (a process that is, shall we say, "decidedly non-trivial" -- see Comm. Math. Phys. Volume 156, No. 3 (1993), 435), well, then you've leapt out of the frying pan into the fire. Because now you've gotta encode your unbounded operators into an algebra of bounded operators, meaning a C*-algebra, so you can use different representations. Fortunately this additional mathematical mountain, while tall, can also be climbed -- see Comm. Math. Phys. Volume 156, No. 3 (1993), 435). Remember that you need other representations because your particles (strings) have to interact. Not much good to have a string "theory" if you don't allow interactions twixt particles (strings), is it?<BR/><BR/>Right, fine, so now that we've rappalled up all those mathematical mountains, we're still not even close to being done. Now we have to enforce our constraints, and immediately we get the shock of a lifetime, 'cause in our initial representation there is no solution<BR/>except in 26 dimensions. Yow.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately, we can climb this addiitional mathematical Himalayan peak by using the incredibly ugly kludge of trading off 26 bosonic string dimensions for 10 fermionic string dimensions. And now we've got representations (interactions of particles, i.e. strings) in 10-D with 6 of those dimension curled up on Calabi-Yau manifolds. <BR/>However, we're <B>still</B> not done! Now, as Witten points out, in order to wriggle out of the 5-different-string-models dilemmma we now have to add yet another dimension to collapse them into a single string "theory," so now we're back up to 11 dimensions and we've now got wiggling branes instead of vibrating strings.<BR/><BR/>I dunno...does this sound <I><B>elegant</B></I> to you, Dr. Brin? Sounds like a Mexican fire drill to me. It's a giant mess of ad hoc "let's do this to wriggle out of that dilemma" mathematical card tricks. The Fock-Krein space scam, the let's-trade-bosonic-for-fermionic-dimensions scam... Man, this is just a great big ad hoc game of mathematical three card monte.<BR/><BR/>Schroedinger's equation, this ain't. Looks more like Enron accounting from where I stand.<BR/><BR/>IMHO String "theory" got a rep for mathematical elegance because of its early formulations. As problem after problem arose with those early schemes, more and more craptacular mathematical complexity got added to force-fit it with the real world, until we've now got something far more hideous and grotesquely cumbersome and non-elegant than the Ptolemaic system of epicycles. <BR/><BR/> When this kind of ever-increasing kludgification uglifies an initially elegant amthematical scheme, it's a sign that something is fundamentally wrong with the basic idea. You need to dump the entire scheme and start over fresh. <BR/><BR/>Copernicus did that with the Ptolemaic epicycles, Robert Boyle did it with the circulation of blood in the body, Boltzmann did it with the statistical action of large numbers of particles. Previous schemes had become hypercomplex and unworkable in each of these cases, and it was recognized that the previous overly complicated model of nature had to be thrown out because it was no longer falsifiable.<BR/><BR/>We've reached the same stage with string "theory." The proof is that so many new paremeters and extra dimensions have been jerry-rigged onto string "theory" (now called "M-theory" by Witten in its 11-D form) that the so-called "theory" can't even be falsified anymore! <BR/><BR/>This is no coincidence. It's a direct result of tacking on so many ugly mathematical encumbrances (c.f., J. Math. Phys., Vol. 26, No. 6 p1280, 1985 and even worse, Lett. Math. Phys. 15, 205 (1988)) that you've now got enough craplicious free parameters to back-predict <I><B>anything</B></I> you can possibly observe. That makes the string "theory" non-falsifiable and consequently worthless as a scientific model. It also makes it mathematically ugly as hell, as I think you'll agree from the previous examples. <BR/><BR/>The argument that the math of string "theory" will probably bear useful fruit in some other field seems necessary but <I><B>not</B></I> sufficient. That argument weakens even more when it's used as justification for concetrating essentially all the attention in HEP theory on string "theory." This boils down to a very weak advocacy (in effect) of <B><I>any </I></B>line of resarch, inasmuch as <I>any</I> direction of research no matter how misguided is likely to yield <I>incidental</I> benefits in unrelated fields. <BR/><BR/>For example, if we were to build supercomputers to test astrological charts, the supercomputers could undoubtedly prove useful for other productive research. I think we both agree that this would not justify building supercomputers to do research on astrological predictions, however.<BR/><BR/>A much more powerful argument than the nonexistent "elegance" of string math would be to point out the extraordinarily kludgy chewing-gum-and-tinfoil ad hoc character of the Standard Model. The SM is just a dog's breakfast. It's got well over 100 free parameters, and we don't know where the basic stuff like the Higgs field comes from in the SM -- it's just there. Poof! Presto! Let's posit this thing, then we can get gauge coupling and do our calculations. <BR/>However, the SM has one radiant feature that mkes it worthwhile to put up with all that godawful mathematical mess...<B>the Standard Model predicts observations. </B><BR/><BR/>In fact, it's <I>so good</I> at predicting observations that right now we can't find any accelerator data that the SM <I><B>hasn't</B></I> successfully predicted. It's true that the SM doesn't prediction neutrino oscillations, but that's a minor tweak -- the really big stuff that the SM doesn't predict is dark energy, and we don't even know what dark energy is yet. By the way, string "theory" says nothing about dark energy either.<BR/><BR/>So the 3 big experimental findings in HEP or cosmology of the last 20 years, dark energy, dark matter and neutrino oscillation, were <B>not</B> predicted by string "theory." <BR/><BR/>That's bad news. If you've got a candidate for the theory of everything, it should predict observations before you make 'em.<BR/><BR/>Probably one of the most insightful comments about string "theory" I've seen is this:<BR/><I>The fact that it requires 6/7 extra space dimensions that are not observed, and that time seems to be emergent, implying that physics must somehow be done without time, is enough to give serious thinkers pause. Not about string theory per se, which is only the symptom of the trouble, but about our understanding of the true nature of space and time.</I><BR/><BR/>To me, the extra dimensions are the kicker. Every single experiment ever done in the history of physics shows we've got 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. Einstein unified 'em back in 1905, and now we know space-time is a 4-D manifold. Great. But where do we go from there? <BR/><BR/>There is not a single experiment anywhere in the history of physics showing even a <I><B>hint</B></I> of <B>one</B> extra dimension, let along 6 or 7! yet we're supposed to throw out all that experimental data and assume the hypothetical existence of 6 (or 7) extra space-time dimensions on the basis of...what? Nothing. No physical evidence at all. For a string "theory" of surpassing mathematical <B>ugliness</B>. <BR/><BR/>Peter Woit has made the most devastating criticism of string "theory," AFAICT:<BR/><BR/><I>1. Our experimental techniques are reaching fundamental technological limits: it’s harder and harder to get to higher energy.</I><BR/><I>2. The standard model is too good: the absence of experimental anomalies that could tell us which direction to look for progress is a huge handicap.</I><BR/><I>3. A huge amount of time and effort has gone into the pursuit of a very speculative idea (string-based unification) which does not work. People who have put in this time and effort are loathe to admit failure, and to make the effort to retool and try other speculative ideas.</I><BR/><BR/>The Standard Model's grotesque inelegance doesn't change the fact that <I><B>it works</B></I>. It works so spectacularly well at calculating every particle interaction we can produce in any accelerator we seem able to build that there's a real question why we even <B>need</B> string "theory." (Yeah, yeah, QM and GR prove incompatible -- but since time is emergent in string "theory," that doesn't solve our problem.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, the LHC <I>might</I> someday, somewhere, over the rainbow, show evidence of some new gauge couplings that go beyond the Standard Model. The most convincing theoretical calculations I've seen place the minimum energy to get beyond the SM at 1 TeV:<BR/>http://www.jlab.org/div_dept/theory/highlight/beyondSM.html<BR/><BR/>That's well within the range of the LHC with its 4-7 TeV estimated average beam energy. At present the hadron calorimeters top out at 7 TeV:<BR/>arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0504021<BR/><BR/>So we <I><B>should</B></I> be able to see something beyond the 1 TeV range and test whether get particle interactions beyond the Standard Model. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I'm betting on the SM at the LHC but more weird unexpected findings from cosmological sources. IMHO the era of the acclerator is over -- future "Huh?" moments in HEP will come from cosmological events, not earth-based accelerators. <BR/><BR/>But as far as any alleged mathematical "elegance" of current string (or M-) "theory" is concerned -- sorry, but that dog won't hunt.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46083882538390782742007-10-26T21:32:00.000-07:002007-10-26T21:32:00.000-07:00Oh yeah . . . what CNN's conservative blowhard Gle...Oh yeah . . . what CNN's conservative blowhard Glenn Beck had to say about the fires in Southern California:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/23/glenn-beck-people-wh.html" REL="nofollow">"I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today."</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81550488560172627552007-10-26T21:15:00.000-07:002007-10-26T21:15:00.000-07:00There was an NPR story today in which the reporter...There was an NPR story today in which the reporter interviewed himself to see what felt about the FEMA phony news conference.<BR/><BR/>Very funny and pointed.<BR/><BR/>And, um, God-Damnit, why the HELL are we putting up with this crap? Phony news conferences from a United States government agency?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2901856168326584622007-10-26T18:11:00.000-07:002007-10-26T18:11:00.000-07:00Why does the only dem who "gets it" also have the ...Why does the only dem who "gets it" also have the charisma of a wart hog?<BR/><BR/>Tell you who I have my eye on. Eliot Spitzer. Look him up. He's the dem the neocons fear the most.<BR/><BR/>Here's another: <BR/><BR/>http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3782176&page=1 What if Bill Clinton's FEMA, after a major regional disaster, held a "news conference" at which the administrator welcomed "the press"... but none were present? Only employees who asked scripted "questions"?<BR/><BR/>http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3782176&page=1David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38390980242604001812007-10-26T17:55:00.000-07:002007-10-26T17:55:00.000-07:00An interesting snippet from that pesky lamp that w...An interesting snippet from that pesky lamp that won't go out:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/democrat-watchdog-closes-in-on-bush/2007/10/26/1192941338286.html?page=2" REL="nofollow">Keeping watch on Bush</A><BR/><BR/>Waxman appears to be on the case. Good!Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71120372964838068872007-10-26T10:17:00.000-07:002007-10-26T10:17:00.000-07:00I liked exploits of the teen-aged Young Indiana Jo...I liked exploits of the teen-aged Young Indiana Jones. And the framing device, in which a eighty-something, eye-patched, decrepit Indy buttonholes people to tell them his stories is wonderful.<BR/><BR/>DB, you should <BR/><BR/>a) Write a plug for the DVD on Amazon,<BR/><BR/>b) Create a link to the Amazon page for the discs, with your web page Amazon associate ID in the URL. Your webmaster can help you with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32972458131771176472007-10-26T08:23:00.000-07:002007-10-26T08:23:00.000-07:00Zorgon: I'm torn between just letting this thread ...Zorgon: I'm torn between just letting this thread lie (in which case you might think I was conceding the point) and giving it one more try (in which case I look like I can't let go of trivia and Have I Stopped Beating My Dead Horse Yet). I'm settling for looking bad.<BR/><BR/>The discussion of Shatner's acting abilities is getting off-topic; <B>you implied</B>, strongly, that he did a very good impersonation of a competent lawyer on TV; it was on that basis that I suggested he was displaying competence in acting.<BR/><BR/>I stand by my original suggestion, i.e. (a) we shouldn't just <I>assume</I> that a fraction-of-a-second's-glance at someone's photo doesn't have a significant correlation with their true level of competence, and (b) the way to settle the question is through scientific inquiry.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81912758509071867672007-10-25T21:28:00.000-07:002007-10-25T21:28:00.000-07:00Zorgon, it isn’t necessary to get overwrought. Or...Zorgon, it isn’t necessary to get overwrought. Or to repeat Blake’s full name in tones of didgeon. In fact, string theory has the justification of mathematical prettiness (as does numerology). Plus the fact that if ST is CONSISTENT with observations, it has going for it the historical fact that <I>no mathematical system that ever ran consistent with known facts ever proved later to be useless.</I><BR/><BR/>As for CA depopulating, I feel 50% + solar energy should do wonders. The problem is not SoCal, it is the automobile lifestyle.<BR/><BR/>Folks I just saw the Fantastic Four sequel (having never seen the original). Shoot me if I ever watch another film by that wwiter or director. Ugh! Ptooie!<BR/><BR/>Re PSI… I think my article on it convers some useful ground.<BR/>http://www.davidbrin.com/parapsychology.html<BR/><BR/>POLITICAL PARAGRAPH! Today, Dana Parino, the Bush press secretary, said in definding the removal from the CDC director's testimony any mention of public health threats resulting from global warming, that people needed to remember the "health benefits of global warming." When asked what those were, she said, well, lots of people freeze to death, and that will not happen in the future, and we should all remember that will be a good thing. This is a true story, not a daily show skit.<BR/>(I still need links for "What if Bill Clinton...")<BR/><BR/>Tony I LOVE the “Smeagol jumped” gambit! Like my own “Inner Darth Gambit” that would instantly explain almost HALF of the immoral inconsistencies of the Lucasian universe and half of the driveling-stupid coincidences.<BR/><BR/>Hey! THE YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES IS OUT ON DVD!<BR/><BR/>That series – plus EMPIRE STRIKES BACK proves that the current George Lucas is a pod person replacement. TYIJC had its (big) flaws. But it was a love song to civilization in every episode. <BR/><BR/>Using filthy pool water to wash away soot from everything...David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63787573031111186442007-10-25T18:31:00.000-07:002007-10-25T18:31:00.000-07:00Bacerial transmogrification revealed...it's Avery,...Bacerial transmogrification revealed...it's Avery, MacLeod and McCarty for a new era!<BR/><BR/>Science. 2007 Aug 3;317(5838):632-8. Epub 2007 Jun 28.<BR/><BR/>Genome transplantation in bacteria: changing one species to another.<BR/><BR/>Lartigue C, Glass JI, Alperovich N, Pieper R, Parmar PP, Hutchison CA 3rd, Smith HO, Venter JC.<BR/>J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.<BR/><BR/>As a step toward propagation of synthetic genomes, we completely replaced the genome of a bacterial cell with one from another species by transplanting a whole genome as naked DNA. Intact genomic DNA from Mycoplasma mycoides large colony (LC), virtually free of protein, was transplanted into Mycoplasma capricolum cells by polyethylene glycol-mediated transformation. Cells selected for tetracycline resistance, carried by the M. mycoides LC chromosome, contain the complete donor genome and are free of detectable recipient genomic sequences. These cells that result from genome transplantation are phenotypically identical to the M. mycoides LC donor strain as judged by several criteria.Enterikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758515647778280562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80118441491156562892007-10-25T17:45:00.000-07:002007-10-25T17:45:00.000-07:00Woozle remareked:Shatner's appearance of competenc...Woozle remareked:<BR/><I>Shatner's appearance of competence on a TV show is competence is in the area of acting, not lawyering.</I><BR/><BR/>LOL! You haven't seen William Shatner act in his post-1975 period, have you?<BR/><BR/>Southern California will have to depopulate, ditto AZ, NV, NM and southern TX. These are parched deserts. The water supply can't sustain the current population with global warming. For more details, see the excellent book "Cadillac Desert" by Marc Reisner.<BR/><BR/>These states can depopulate to the Pacific Northwest (much of which is startlingly underpopulated), the mountain states, and the Eastern seaboard. Also the areas along the Mississippi river, which are not likely to completely run out of water anytime soon. America is a huge country and even today mostly empty. If you've driven across it you're shocked at just how empty most of it is. <BR/><BR/>Submitting the question of whether someone's physical appearance correlates with their professional competency should be put to the test with double-blind experiments, just as dowsing has been, but any person with a lick of common sense already knows the answer. A doube-blind experiment is just dotting the i's and crossing the t's.<BR/><BR/>Viz., see the Munich experiments on dowsing published in the 1999 issue of the <I>Skeptical Inquirer.</I>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42791513068837271762007-10-25T11:51:00.000-07:002007-10-25T11:51:00.000-07:00Zorgon:Yes, yes, you desire proof. I've got proof ...Zorgon:<BR/>Yes, yes, you desire proof. I've got proof of psychic abilities -- you have to meet the guy, of course. But the proof is there.<BR/><BR/>Still sticking to Niven's assertion that 'if psychic powers exist, they must be utterly useless, else we would have done something with them.'<BR/><BR/>Psychic powers do not need to be Useful (nor even reliable).<BR/><BR/>Will you trust someone else's recollection of something (ghost, ufo, etc)? Probably not, and you've got good reason to. Memory in humans is generally a tricksy thing. But what if someone with photographic memory saw a ghost? His memory is far more reliable than yours, and that fact can be proven with ease.<BR/><BR/>Does someone have to stuff the facts before your eyes for you to believe? (I've never seen a glueball, but there's evidence that they exist)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52447884851216448372007-10-25T11:07:00.000-07:002007-10-25T11:07:00.000-07:00Crap, if the Californians have to depopulate, so d...Crap, if the Californians have to depopulate, so do we Idahoans. This area would be a scrub desert, were it not for the irrigation. Plus Yellowstone is set to explode soon, so most of the intermountain west needs to evacuate.<BR/><BR/>When you get down to it, it isn't California that needs to depopulate, it's Earth.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83319625027392987992007-10-25T10:36:00.000-07:002007-10-25T10:36:00.000-07:00What I find more interesting, even still, is that ...<EM>What I find more interesting, even still, is that this is about the time that many changes occurred in the Middle East</EM><BR/><BR/>Ah ha! WMDs! I KNEW it!Jeff Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04619334976438544593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-92097958474375739982007-10-25T08:41:00.000-07:002007-10-25T08:41:00.000-07:00David,Glad to read you and family are OK…David,<BR/><BR/>Glad to read you and family are OK…Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25259691136726794192007-10-25T04:27:00.000-07:002007-10-25T04:27:00.000-07:00Zorgon, those actors "look" competent because you ...Zorgon, those actors "look" competent because you get to see them in "action", where they play the parts of competent people. Would you judge Shatner competent if you saw him for the first time in a static view lasting a split second (as was done in the study)? {Judging someone's character from watching a TV show} (especially multiple episodes) is hardly {judgment solely on the basis of facial appearance}, which is what the study was about.<BR/><BR/>Even if the two methods of judgment (watching a static photo of someone for a split second vs. watching them for several hours of scripted drama) were equivalent, your question is the wrong one. Some alternatives:<BR/><BR/>(1) I haven't watched the show, so I can't say for sure, but I suspect that I would be happy to have Shatner's <I>character</I> as my attorney.<BR/><BR/>(2) Shatner's appearance of competence on a TV show is competence is in the area of <I>acting</I>, not lawyering. The correct question is not "would you have Shatner as your lawyer?" but "would you hire Shatner as an actor?".<BR/><BR/>(For that matter, who's to say that a good actor couldn't take on "competent" facial attributes under the right circumstances, e.g. the right role?)<BR/><BR/>I'm having difficulty believing that anyone who goes on extensively about how irrational people are would object to applying a little science to settle a question of fact.<BR/><BR/>I'm pretty sure there is extensive data on human nutritional needs. "You cannot possibly be serious" in claiming there isn't any data showing how long humans can go without food.<BR/><BR/>I'm suspicious of any "fact" which "everyone knows" but for which nobody can produce substantiating evidence.<BR/><BR/>Aren't you?<BR/><BR/><I>[resists temptation to conclude with some sort of dismissive zinger]</I>Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32246890859174218902007-10-25T00:14:00.000-07:002007-10-25T00:14:00.000-07:00Zorgon, where do you propose that Californians dep...Zorgon, where do you propose that Californians depopulate to?Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24002477003176938812007-10-24T23:36:00.000-07:002007-10-24T23:36:00.000-07:00Glad to hear Dr. Brin dodged the bullet -- this ti...Glad to hear Dr. Brin dodged the bullet -- <I>this</I> time. There <I>will</I> be a next time <I><B>if</I></B> you're foolish enough to stay in LoCal. The entire American Southwest is going to have to depopulate. It's unsustainable in the face of Peak Oil and global warming. But, like ostriches with their heads in the sand, Californians keep denying, denying, denying.<BR/><BR/>They're all like Jews who continue to stay in Germany after 1933. They keep saying, "Oh, the problems aren't <I>that</I> bad" and "Yes, there are some things to worry about, but they'll never happen to <I><B>me</I></B>." Yeah. Right.<BR/>That drought won't happen to them. The 70% reduction in Sierra snowpack won't happen to them. The water riots won't happen<BR/>to them. The $20 a gallon gasoline prices won't happen to them.<BR/>Dream on, Californians.<BR/><BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html?em&ex=1193284800&e<BR/>n=adc25155e153a757&ei=5087%0A<BR/><BR/>Woozle cannot possibly be serious in claiming that we need a scientific "study" to determine whether a person who looks competent is in fact competent. C'mon! Look at any TV show, watch any movie. You see actors who play superbly competent-looking judges and lawyers and scientists and engineers. William Shatner plays a magnificently competent-seeming lawyer on <I>The Practice</I> -- would you like the actor William Shatner to represent you if you were arraigned on murder charges, Woozle?<BR/><BR/>Let's have a little common sense, people. Some facts are so blatantly obvious you're not going to find them documented in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. For example, show me a journal article showing that humans require food to eat. Can't find it? Whoops -- looks like humans don't need to eat, eh?<BR/><BR/>Please. This complete lack of common sense is one of the abiding stains of the internet. Be serious. <BR/><BR/>Appearances are deceptive, as we know from the theater and TV and the movies. We don't need a scientific study to realize a fact that blazingly obvious.<BR/><BR/>As far as population trends & social movements go, I have to wonder if the current ultramacho flame-out of the death cult formerly known as the Republican Party might not be the last hurrah of patriarchy. At least, if these societal trends continue:<BR/>http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=286628<BR/><BR/>Blake Stacey is correct in pointing out that "popular reporting on quantum phsyics is horribly broken." It's worse than that, though -- popular reporting on any kind of serious science is horribly broken, as the recent bizarrely overblown frenzy over James Watson's (probably incorrect) surmise about alleged evolutionary differences twixt races shows. <BR/>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,2195980,00.html<BR/>Reporters always look for the most sensational possible spin on any science story, so every new run of a particle accelerator is misreported as "a test of string theory" even though string has not yet produced a single testable falsifiable prediction in any peer-reviewed HEP journal. <BR/>http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=574<BR/><BR/>Every new discovery about the human genome gets misreported as "a breakthrough in the stride toward rewriting the stuff of human heredity" even though we're so far from that we'll be lucky if it's only a few centuries before we're able to meaningfully modify the human genome to affect any kind of higher polygenic traits, such as shyness, or an alleged "gay" gene, or intelligence.<BR/>http://www.johnhorgan.org/work14.htm <BR/><BR/>Blake Stacey's claim that <I>"The kerfluffle over string theory is, perhaps, dying down. Smolin and Woit shot their bolt, misrepresented the state and history of research, and now have nothing new to say"</I> is provably false, of course.<BR/><BR/>Woit continues to ask for a single falsifiable scientifically testable prediction from string "theory" and the numerologists who misname themselves string "theorists" continue to refuse to provide any. <BR/><BR/>As Woit notes, in the latest issue of <I>Scientific American</I>, in the article "The Great Cosmic Roller Coaster," <BR/><BR/><I>the authors note that “String theory has received some unfavorable press of late”, and characterize criticism of the theory as due to the fact that it “has yet to be tested experimentally”, ignoring the fact that much of the criticism is about string theory’s inherent untestability. Not only has it not been tested yet, but no one has any idea how to test it ever. They admit as much when it comes to predictions about particle physics:<BR/><BR/> <B> string theory has disappointed because it has not yet been possible to test it experimentally, despite more than 20 years of continued investigation. It has proved hard to find a smoking gun - a prediction that, when tested, would decisively tell us whether or not the world is made of strings. Even the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) - which is now nearing completion near CERN , the European laboratory for particle physics near Geneva - may not be powerful enough.</I></B><BR/><BR/>Of course Blake Stacey can quickly and easily prove that I'm an ignorant fool. All he has to do is provide some hard testable falsifiable predictions from string theory, and walk us through the math leading to his results.<BR/><BR/>Let's be specific: give us a precise Calabi-Yau compactification radius, Blake Stacey, to within a factor of two. And, if it's anywhere near the Planck Length, show us plans for the particle accelerator capable of revealing spatial curvature on a scale of 1.6 x 10^-35 m. (For those of you not familiar with this stuff, any particle accelerator able to probe anywhere near the Planck length would have to be many times the size of our galaxy.)<BR/><BR/>Okay, so maybe that's too tough, Blake Stacey. How about an easy one? Calculate the mass of the Higgs for us from first principles, using string theory. We require a single testable falsifiable value, not a range 10^500 values. Gives us a single testable falsifiable value for the Higgs mass, show us how you calculated it from string theory, and prove mathematically that it's the <I>only</I> answer given by string theory, not some fudge factor cooked up by twiddling and diddling 130-odd free parameters.<BR/><BR/>Still too tough for you? Okay, fine. Calculate the value of the fine structure constant for us from string theory and show mathematically why it's the value we observe, and not some other value. Your answer must not involve a host of "free parameters," AKA fudge factors. Show all calculations. Then point us to the peer-reviewed HEP journal where your result is published.<BR/><BR/>Every time I ask some proponent of string "theory" to provide us with a simple calculation like this, they go ape. They spew venom, spout gibberish, start blowing smoke up everyone's ass in a frenzy of pseudoscientific defensiveness. What no string "theorist" has ever done, however, is to point to a single peer-reviewed published prediction ever made by string theory which can be tested and falsified by a scientific experiment.<BR/><BR/>Hey, Blake Stacey...when we have people running around making mathematical claims that can't be tested by any possible scientific experiment, we have a name for that -- but it's not "physics."<BR/><BR/>It's called <I><B>numerology.</I></B> <BR/><BR/>Alas, your attempted smear job on Woit and Smolin falls flat, inasmuch as they're <B>bound</B> to "provide nothing new" -- since people who debunk numerology tend to keep on saying the same thing over and over again. It's a <I>highly repetitive process.</I> When you debunk pseudoscience, you keep asking <I>the same questions over and over and over again:</I> "Show us the evidence..how do we test this? If you can't test it scientifically, it's not science, it's numerology." The process of debunking mindless superstition and vacuous numerology is <I><B>inherently</I></B> repetitive. It's boring. It's dull. It's tedious. It's drudge work, as anyone familiar with The Amazing Randi knows. Randi, like Woit and Smolin, keeps battering away at the same old questions -- show us the evidence, submit to a double-blind experiment, let us compare the predictions with the results of the experiment. There's "nothing new" there because the basic principles of science are always the same. We need evidence for claims. If the claims can't be tested, they're not science. It doesn't matter how elaborate or how mathematically sophisticated the <I><B>reasons</I></B> why the claims can be tested -- if you can't test 'em experimentally in such a way as to disconfirm the claim once and for all, then it's not science, it's bullshit and self delusion and superstition. <BR/><BR/>Blake Stacey's complaint about Woit and Smolin's debunking of string "theory" is the same twaddle we hear from ufologists and big foot "researchers" and bogus psychics who claim to be able to bend spoons by the power of their minds. The crystal healers and dowsers and ufologists always wail and whine about the "skepticism" of hard=headed scientists who demand hard evidence. The ufologists and big foot lovers always whimper about how "these scientists add nothing new" and "their minds are closed to the greater universe of psychic phenomena!" Yadda yadda yadda. The claims of the ufologists and psychic surgeons and dowsers and string "theorists" are always conveniently untestable, the assertions are always so vague that they can never be nailed down ("We have a landscape of 10^500 vacua!"), and when asked to submit to an experiment which will once and for all falsify their wildly expansive claims, they always weasel out.<BR/><BR/>Want to convince me UFOs are real? No problem. Drag in the corpse of a dead alien. Right here, right now. In my living room. I'll phone the CDC and we'll do a DNA test. Can't do it? Then you're spouting bullshit, get out of my face.<BR/><BR/>Want to convince me bigfoot is real? Easy. Haul in a corpse of one of the critters. Right here, right now. On my doorstep. I'll phone the local university zoology department and we'll do a DNA workup and a forensic anatomy study with X rays and MRI scans. Can't do it? You're spouting bullshit, get out.<BR/><BR/>Want me to believe string "theory"? Fine. Give me the journal, volume number, issue number, page numbers, article title and authors of the pooer-reviewed HEP journal article providing a testable falsifiable prediction made by string theory -- then point me to the volume number, issue number, pages numbers, article title and authors of the peer-reviewed HEP journal article showing the results of the experiment which confirms those previously published predictions. Can't do it? You're spouting bullshit, get out.<BR/><BR/>Ah, the delicate bouquet of 3-Methylindole...it smells like -- <I>pseudoscience!</I>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42258448329670362162007-10-24T23:12:00.000-07:002007-10-24T23:12:00.000-07:00Some of the elves in the Silmarillion left a littl...Some of the elves in the Silmarillion left a little to be desired , as well. (Feanor, in particular, plus some dodgy cove whose name I forget who abducted elf maidens)<BR/><BR/>Actually, since you've got me thinking this way, I've come to the conclusion that Tolkien's biggest 'romantic cheat' was applied, not to the backdrop of 'have not' orcs, but poor, old 'thou art fallen from grace and don't you forget it' Smeagol.<BR/><BR/>Here we have one humble (and admittedly dodgy) hobbit who gets ensnared by the most potent artefact in Middle Earth. After centuries of possession, he's fumbling for some understanding but, one quick rebuff, and 'the moment passed, never to return'. It is felt he has a part to play in this saga, and what is it? To grab the ring off Frodo, do a victory dance on the edge of an abyss... and TRIP??<BR/><BR/>(Ah, but did he fall, or was he pushed by a zephyr set off by a strategic flap of the wing of that bloody Bogong/Valar moth?)<BR/><BR/>A third option would have given the poor sod some credit at least: unable to part with the ring, and realising that he wasn't going to have it for much longer, he jumped.<BR/><BR/>Oh, well. It's still a rollicking good yarn.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-299662946055441072007-10-24T22:53:00.000-07:002007-10-24T22:53:00.000-07:00And for those fanatic enough to have read "The Sil...And for those fanatic enough to have read "The Silmarillion," we learn that Sauron and Morgorth had a "fair appearance" early on, useful for fooling people.<BR/><BR/>But, yes, it seemed to be Tolkein's intent to induce an heart-breaking longing for a lost age. The farther you get from those damn elves, the more corrupt and sad things are. <I>Bleh!</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31096565252238729482007-10-24T20:11:00.000-07:002007-10-24T20:11:00.000-07:00Good point. Tolkien did try. He was about as hon...Good point. Tolkien did try. He was about as honest a romantic as I am... tho he still sided with past over future.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90160019688590040042007-10-24T18:11:00.000-07:002007-10-24T18:11:00.000-07:00(Shades of the Western winds beating back the mirk...(Shades of the Western winds beating back the mirk from Mordor)<BR/><BR/>Glad to hear you're all OK, but I'm afraid the smell is going to linger for a week or two.<BR/><BR/>To be fair to Tolkien, there is a passage in Fellowship when the hobbits are belatedly reading Gandalf's misplaced warning note: 'All that is gold does not glitter'<BR/><BR/>Sam: 'I think that servants of the dark lord would look fair and feel foul...'<BR/><BR/>Strider: '...whereas I look foul and feel fair, Sam?'<BR/><BR/>Aah! Glamour! Check out Pratchett's 'Lords and Ladies' (for the Morris dancing, if nothing else!)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22206392076648200702007-10-24T17:09:00.000-07:002007-10-24T17:09:00.000-07:00Everybody's home now. Soot everywhere and the air...Everybody's home now. Soot everywhere and the air isn't great. But the fires veered a mile or two awayas an ocean breeze fought back against the sub-hurricane level Santa Ana winds. Bless the Pacific Ocean. <BR/><BR/>As for associating good with pretty and evil with ugly, it's hardly new. I can't even blame it on Tolkien and Lucas... though certainly they were among the top practitioners of this venerable romantic cheat.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41989682164167848942007-10-24T15:49:00.000-07:002007-10-24T15:49:00.000-07:00OK, in the sputtering-political-lamp department, t...OK, in the sputtering-political-lamp department, <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2007/10/white_house_eviscerates_cdc_te.php" REL="nofollow">the White House cut 10 pages from a 14 page document</A> on the health impacts of climate change. So much for the Administration catching up with the science. (Roundup of relevant links <A HREF="http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/?p=4548" REL="nofollow">here</A>.)Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84390855317754716832007-10-24T15:36:00.000-07:002007-10-24T15:36:00.000-07:00Popular reporting on quantum physics is horribly b...Popular reporting on quantum physics is horribly broken. From that "parallel universes" story, one can't tell <I>what new has been done</I> (Everett's many-worlds interpretation is, honestly, old hat).<BR/><BR/>The kerfluffle over string theory is, perhaps, dying down. <A HREF="http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/12/07/guest-blogger-joe-polchinski-on-the-string-debates/" REL="nofollow">Smolin and Woit</A> shot their bolt, <A HREF="http://asymptotia.com/2006/10/05/more-scenes-from-the-storm-in-a-teacup-iv" REL="nofollow">misrepresented </A> the state and history of research, and now have nothing new to say. Today, therefore, we just have the humdrum variety of incompetence to witness.<BR/><BR/>Not too long ago, <A HREF="http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=296" REL="nofollow"><I>New Scientist</I> published a letter from a reader</A> giving a <I>thoroughly wrong</I> explanation of quantum entanglement with a note from the editor saying, "That's exactly right." Asking an actual physicist about physics questions is apparently not in the job description for the Letters editor.<BR/><BR/>This is just the most recent example of a trend which has <A HREF="http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/09/the_virtues_of_american_scient.html" REL="nofollow">basically ruined physicists' respect</A> for popular science magazines. The only exceptions are, to my knowledge, <I>American Scientist</I> and possibly <I>Seed.</I><BR/><BR/>Anyway, enough of this depressing stuff. Did you hear about the <A HREF="http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=304" REL="nofollow">Australian printer company which plagiarized a quantum-physics lecture for a TV commercial</A>?Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54116339266837755042007-10-24T05:54:00.000-07:002007-10-24T05:54:00.000-07:00The study did not address the question of how aest...The study did not address the question of how aesthetically pleasing the participants found each face, but rather how "competent" they judged each face to be. I could suggest some mechanisms whereby this judgment might have a good correlation with reality.<BR/><BR/>I would like to see a follow-up study correlating the results of this study with the performance in-office of the winning candidates. Only if that study shows no (or negative) correlation can we declare the fallaciousness of {snap judgments of competence based on facial appearance alone}; until then, it's just an assumption. (...unless there have been other studies along these lines which have already demonstrated said fallaciousness.)Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.com