Peter Woit reports on more Sean Carroll "Unscrambling Egg"pop-sci crackpottery
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Re-investigate 9-11 says Washington Times
Next: Tomorrow they are ready to start the LHC collider. The Earthcan be exploded in a 1000 seconds!
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 24 Feb 2010 05:29 shakespeare physis wrote on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:06:02 -0800: Sean Carroll ideas about the origin of the arrow of time are invalid. And his speculations about multiverses without any empirical basis. Some of my comments about this are in spr http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/548a57aeb865bcee Selecting an initial universe with small entropy does not introduce an arrow of time into cosmology. Carroll argumentation is a modern pop-sci version of what Nico van Kampen (a celebrated statistical mechanics expert) named "mathematical funambulism": the fact that irreversible behavior cannot be derived from reversible equations by "any amounf of mathematical funambulism". Boltzmann ideas about the origin of irreversibility were showed to be wrong, but people as Carroll or Motl (none of both expert in arrow of time) still believe that Boltzmann explanation is valid. I recommend the next best-seller book by an Nobel laureate (winner for his sistematic work in irreversibility and arrow of time) http://www.amazon.com/End-Certainty-Ilya-Prigogine/dp/0684837056/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1 A better model for the arrow of time is built but without the techhnical difficulties and objections to Prigogine theory http://www.canonicalscience.org/research/time.html > Peter Woit reports on more Sean Carroll "Unscrambling Egg" pop-sci > crackpottery > > Peter Woit writes at: > > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=2483#comments > > "Also in the business of defending string theory is Sean Carroll, who > has a video and transcript up on the Edge web-site on the topic of "Why > does the Universe look the way it does?". It's unclear to me what this > has to do with the topic, but for some reason much of the talk is taken > up with a defense of string theory. It's the usual misleading hype, at > great length, leading up to a peculiar defense of the idea that even > once you have shown that a speculative theoretical idea is vacuous and > can give you anything that you want, you should keep studying it anyway: > > How do you show that a theory is not right if you can get anything from > it? My answer to that is we just don't know yet. But that does not imply > that we will never know. > > From here it's on to the multiverse and his idea that it explains why > you can't unscramble an egg, and that one is doing observational > cosmology over breakfast: > > The reason we find a direction in time here in this room or in the > kitchen when you scramble an egg or mix milk into coffee is not because > we live in the physical vicinity of some important object, but because > we live in the aftermath of some influential event, and that event is > the Big Bang. The Big Bang set all of the clocks in the world. When we > go down to how we evolve, why we are born and then die, and never in the > opposite order, why we remember what happened yesterday and we don't > remember what is going to happen tomorrow, all of these manifestations > of the difference between the past and the future are all coming from > the same source. That source is the low entropy of the Big Bang... > > I like to say that observational cosmology is the cheapest possible > science to go into. Every time you put milk into your coffee and watch > it mix and realize that you can't unmix that milk from your coffee, you > are learning something profound about the Big Bang, about conditions in > the very, very early universe. This is just a giant clue that the real > universe has given to us to how the fundamental laws of physics work. We > don't yet know how to put that clue to work. We don't know the answer to > the who done it, who is the guilty party, why the universe is like that. > But taking this question seriously is a huge step forward in trying to > understand how the universe that we see around us directly fits into a > much bigger picture." > > Update: Carroll this week will be on a lecture tour in Australia giving > talks on the Big Bang/egg unscrambling business. The first will be in > Sydney where the "internationally-renowned theoretical physicist" will > give the 2009 Templeton Lecture. > > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=2483#comments > > > Peter Woit reports on more Sean Carroll "Unscrambling Egg" pop-sci > crackpottery > > " ManyMe says: > October 15, 2009 at 4:45 am > > I am not surprised that Sean Carroll defends the Nielsen-Ninomiya paper. > He is the expert on the arrow of time problem and the one who can proof > the existence of the multiverse by making an omelette. And he has a book > to sell..." > > --http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=2384#comments > > from: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ Update: Sean Carroll > has a long defense of the Nielsen-Ninomiya papers as not crackpot at > all, but crazy in a positive way: > > There's no real reason to believe in an imaginary component to the > action with dramatic apparently-nonlocal effects, and even if there > were, the specific choice of action contemplated by NN seems rather > contrived. But I'm happy to argue that it's the good kind of crazy. The > authors start with a speculative but well-defined idea, and carry it > through to its logical conclusions. > > As for the argument that prominently-placed New York Times stories > promoting crazy ideas about physics might be problematic, Sean is having > none of it. He argues that the public is able to differentiate between > speculative ideas and solidly tested science, so it's not a problem > that: > > My own anecdotal observations are pretty unambiguous - the public loves > far-out speculations like this, and happily eats them up." > > --http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ > > What's everyone's take on this behavior? > > Anonymous ad hominem attacks seem to have replaced science, logic, > reason, truth, and empirical reality in modern science. > > Please keep this discussion civil. > > here's an interesting study on sean carroll et al. and the art of the > anonymous ad hominem attack used to exalt psuedoscientific antitheories > such as string theory & multiverse mania: > > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=702 > > " Peter Woit says: > June 21, 2008 at 11:47 pm > > "buffon", > > As to whether no one takes the kinds of arguments I'm making seriously, > you might want to consider whether string theorists from UCSB such as > yourself posting stupid anonymous comments on blogs encourages your > colleagues to take string theory seriously or not. Are you tenured and > thus not worried about this? If not, have you noticed that physics > departments have stopped hiring string theorists and asked yourself why > this might be?" > > "You've completely misunderstood my point. The fact that US physics > departments have pretty much stopped hiring string theorists has little > to do with me, and a lot to do with string theorists like you. Many of > your non-string theory colleagues do read blogs, and haven't failed to > notice that string theorists feature prominently, often engaging in > anonymous insult of anyone who disagrees with them. Would you want > someone like that as a colleague? And since the anonymity means you > can't tell who is who, wouldn't you be tempted to just not hire any > string theorist to be safe? It's not like the field is having great > successes these days anyway..." --Peter Woit --http:// > www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=702 > > --http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=681 > > Peter Woit also reports: > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=683 > > "Over at Cosmic Variance, Sean Carroll and various of his anonymous > commenters are upset that Lee Smolin made it onto a list of Top 100 > Public Intellectuals, with some suggesting that Kaku deserves to be > there instead." > > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=683 > > "Anonymity at Cosmic Variance" > > Over at Cosmic Variance, anonymous comments personally attacking me have > been posted recently by someone who identifies themselves only as > "string theorist". I've complained to Sean Carroll and his colleagues > about their policy of allowing the comment section of their blog to be > used for anonymous ad hominem attacks by physicists who are unhappy with > Lee Smolin and me because of our criticism of string theory. If someone > wants to argue not about science, but to complain about my behavior, I'm > perfectly willing to engage in such a discussion, as long as it's with > someone who is willing to take responsibility for their own behavior. > > Sean Carroll writes back to Peter Woit: > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=683 "Here's the response > I received from Sean: > > Personally, I could not care less whether a comment is anonymous or > signed. It just makes no difference to me. I understand that you feel > otherwise, as you have said so over and over and over again. I will > delete comments if they are vulgar or overly obnoxious, but anonymity is > completely beside the point. If my co-bloggers feel differently, they > are welcome to overrule me." > > Perer Woit concludes: > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=683 > > "So, I guess if you want to anonymously attack, insult or slander people > you disagree with about a scientific issue, Cosmic Variance is open for > business." > --http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=683 > > This is how the multiverse maniacs/physics-free fanboyz play. With > Caltech's billion-dollar endowment backing them, and with Dutton > Publishing corporation's millions, they get down and dirty, seeking to > anonymously destroy the names of any of those who question their > physics-free religion of string-a-lings and multiverses by any means > necessary. And the physics-free/anonymous/phdless fanboyz and sock > puppets obey their multiverse masters, hoping to some day climb the > corporate-state antitheory ladder, where they might gain tenure for > connecting omlettes to the big bang via pure handwaving in sean > carroll's church of carroll: > > http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2543741 > > and yet, the fourth dimension continues right on in its expansion: > > http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511 > > " Author Dr. Elliot McGucken wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 14:14 GMT Essay > Abstract > > Over the past few decades prominent physicists have noted that physics > has diverged away from its heroic journey defined by boldly describing, > fathoming, and characterizing foundational truths of physical reality > via simple, elegant, logically-consistent postulates and equations > humbling themselves before empirical reality. Herein the spirit of > physics is again exalted by the heroic words of the Greats- by Galileo, > Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, and Schrodinger-the > Founding Fathers upon whose shoulders physics stands. And from that > pinnacle, a novel physical theory is proposed, complete with a novel > physical model celebrating a hitherto unsung universal invariant and an > equation reflecting the foundational physical reality of a fourth > dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate > of c, or dx4/dt=ic, providing both the "elementary foundations" for > relativity and QM's "characteristic trait"-entanglement, and its > nonlocal, probabilistic nature. From MDT's experimentally-verified > equation relativity is derived while time is unfrozen and free will > exalted, while a physical model accounting for quantum nonlocality is > presented. Entropy, Huygens' Principle; the wave/particle, energy/mass, > space/time, and E/B dualities; and time and all its arrows and > asymmetries emerge from a common, foundational physical model. MDT > exalts Einstein's "empirical facts," "naturalness," and "logical > simplicity." For the first time in the history of relativity, change is > woven into the fabric of space- time, and the timeless, ageless, > nonlocal photon of Galileo's/ Einstein's "empirical world" is explained > via a foundational physical model, alongside the fact that c is both > constant and the maximum velocity in the universe. The empirical GPS > clocks' time dilation/ twins paradox is resolved by proposing a frame of > absolute rest-the three spatial dimensions, and a frame of absolute > motion-the fourth expanding dimension upon which ageless photons of zero > rest mass surf; which underlie and give rise to Einstein's Principle of > Relativity. > > Author Bio > > "Dr. E" received a B.A. in physics from Princeton University and a Ph.D. > in physics from UNC Chapel Hill, where his research on an artificial > retina, which is now helping the blind see, appeared in NSF's Frontiers > and Popular Science and was awarded a Merrill Lynch Innovations Grant. > While at Princeton, McGucken worked on projects concerning quantum > mechanics and general relativity with the late John A. Wheeler, and the > projects combined to form an appendix treating time as an emergent > phenomenon in his dissertation. McGucken is writing a book > artsentrepreneurship.com curriculum he created: The Gold 45 Revolver: > The Hero's Journey." > > Your reply to Dr. Ranger McCoy's post: > To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product- > title]] (What's this?) > > You are already tracking this discussion. > Receive e-mail when new posts are made > Guidelines > Report abuse > 0 of 1 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you? > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Posted on Feb. 8, 2010 7:49 AM PST > Dr. Ranger McCoy says: > Thanks! Yes! They want to get rid of Galileo & Einstein! > --http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238 > --http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511 > > Essay Abstract > > In his 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, Einstein never stated that time is > the fourth dimension, but rather he wrote x4 = ict. The fourth dimension > is not time, but ict. Despite this, prominent physicists have oft > equated time and the fourth dimension, leading to un- resolvable > paradoxes and confusion regarding time's physical nature, as physicists > mistakenly projected properties of the three spatial dimensions onto a > time dimension, resulting in curious concepts including frozen time and > block universes in which the past and future are omni-present, thusly > denying free will, while implying the possibility of time travel into > the past, which visitors from the future have yet to verify. Beginning > with the postulate that time is an emergent phenomenon resulting from a > fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at > the rate of c, diverse phenomena from relativity, quantum mechanics, and > statistical mechanics are accounted for. Time dilation, the equivalence > of mass and energy, nonlocality, wave-particle duality, and entropy are > shown to arise from a common, deeper physical reality expressed with > dx4/ dt=ic. This postulate and equation, from which Einstein's > relativity is derived, presents a fundamental model accounting for the > emergence of time, the constant velocity of light, the fact that the > maximum velocity is c, and the fact that c is independent of the > velocity of the source, as photons are but matter surfing a fourth > expanding dimension. In general relativity, Einstein showed that the > dimensions themselves could bend, curve, and move. The present theory > extends this principle, postulating that the fourth dimension is moving > independently of the three spatial dimensions, distributing locality and > fathering time. This physical model underlies and accounts for time in > quantum mechanics, relativity, and statistical mechanics, as well as > entropy, the universe's expansion, and time's arrows. > > Author Bio > > "Dr. E" received a B.A. in physics from Princeton University and a Ph.D. > in physics from UNC Chapel Hill, where his research on an artificial > retina, which is now helping the blind see, appeared in Business Week > and Popular Science and was awarded a Merrill Lynch Innovations Grant. > While at Princeton, McGucken worked on projects concerning quantum > mechanics and general relativity with the late John Wheeler, and the > projects combined to form an appendix treating time as an emergent > phenomenon in his dissertation. McGucken is writing a book for the > Artistic Entrepreneurship & Technology (artsentrepreneurship.com) > curriculum he created. > > --http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238 > --http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/511 -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |