3,500 reputation
1629
bio website taufunctionsquared.blogspot.c…
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 9 months
seen 3 hours ago

Physics Stack Exchange users whose comments are worth studying include Lubos Motl and Ron Maimon (now at http://www.quora.com/Ron-Maimon and http://www.physicsoverflow.org/user/Ron+Maimon). Also see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0207124 for a review of physics since the standard model.


Oct
19
comment Philosophical Interpretation of String Theory
What happened to the bounty on this question? It still had days to run.
Oct
17
comment Is it possible to make superpartner of Standard Model live in Mirror World?
My own idea was physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27421/… ... which could be analyzed using modification of Polonsky's framework perhaps.
Oct
17
comment Is it possible to make superpartner of Standard Model live in Mirror World?
There is some recent work on the possibility that N=2 superpartners of gauge bosons could be detectable motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/could-nature-lhc-prefer-n2.html ... also see arxiv.org/abs/1403.5951
Oct
17
comment Is it possible to make superpartner of Standard Model live in Mirror World?
Most phenomenologists would say that N=2 susy is ruled out because so-called en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_correction to SM prediction (see the paper I linked in my answer) is not observed.
Oct
17
comment Is it possible to make superpartner of Standard Model live in Mirror World?
For references: physicsforums.com/threads/…
Oct
14
comment Is it possible to make superpartner of Standard Model live in Mirror World?
Both models have mirror particles but the details are different, e.g. Polonsky has susy and Berezhiani doesn't; and, in Berezhiani the visible sector and the mirror sector only interact via gravitation, whereas Polonsky has a general framework allowing for a variety of inter-sector interactions.
Oct
14
comment Is it possible to make superpartner of Standard Model live in Mirror World?
btw mirror symmetry here refers to a kind of parity symmetry, and not en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_symmetry_%28string_theory%29 which is far more elaborate.
Oct
14
comment Is it possible to make superpartner of Standard Model live in Mirror World?
This is a refinement of the question physics.stackexchange.com/questions/141072/… ... if one is to be closed as a duplicate, it might be better to close the old one, since this new version makes the intent of the question clearer.
Sep
16
comment Was Max Born the first to notice a connection between quantum mechanics and randomness?
@CuriousOne - orthodox QM for more than 80 years has been, the wavefunction evolves deterministically according to Schrodinger's equation, until an observation is made, at which point the wavefunction jumps RANDOMLY to some eigenstate of the observable, with a probability equal to ... blah blah, I'm sure you know this.
Sep
16
comment Was Max Born the first to notice a connection between quantum mechanics and randomness?
@CuriousOne: Suppose I'm going to measure some observable and I start with a superposition of eigenstates, |x>+|y>. According to QM, the system can start in the state |x>+|y>, and then end up in the state |x> or the state |y>. If it was completely deterministic, there would only be one possible end state.
Sep
16
comment Was Max Born the first to notice a connection between quantum mechanics and randomness?
@CuriousOne: you write "[quantum systems] are perfectly causal...", but then "the outcome of an individual measurement... is not fully determined". The last part is where randomness enters, according to quantum theory.
Sep
11
comment Was Max Born the first to notice a connection between quantum mechanics and randomness?
As for the remarks about i and the existence of the universe, I can only guess at what you have in mind.
Sep
11
comment Was Max Born the first to notice a connection between quantum mechanics and randomness?
@CuriousOne - what are you talking about? In quantum mechanics, the value of a measured quantity does not have a cause, it's a random variable distributed according to the Born rule. If your physical theory has a causal explanation for the actual outcome of the measurement, then your theory is something other than quantum mechanics.
Sep
10
comment Are double-slit patterns really due to wave-like interference?
+1 for the link to the QFT calculations.
Sep
7
comment Quantum Yang-Mills Theory and AdS/CFT
How is that paper related to the Millennium problem?
Sep
2
comment Quantum Yang-Mills Theory and AdS/CFT
Mapping the problem to string theory (if that could be done) would not in itself be an increase in rigor, since string theory uses the same QFT concepts that lack rigorous mathematical formulation. (btw apparently the work of Fields Medalist Hairer will help with the latter.) But mapping it to string theory might be a source of ideas or intuitions which could then be inspiration for a proof.
Aug
16
comment M-Theory and computer simulation
Equations in advanced theoretical physics are often very hard to solve or approximately solve. The form of M-theory that is easiest to simulate might be the BFSS matrix model, but that's M-theory with 10 of the space dimensions large, rather than just 3.
May
30
comment How come gravity is $\mathcal{N}=8$? Why is graviton spin 2
Actually they are related - it takes 8 supersymmetry transformations to go from the spin=+2 graviton to the spin=-2 graviton.
May
15
comment are sub-atomic particles really particles or mere concepts in our minds?
Quantum mechanics is an unusual theory because it gives probabilities for going from one event to a later event, without providing a definite picture of what happens in between. But there are many ideas out there regarding what happens in between (see: "interpretations of quantum mechanics"). Henry's instrumentalist idealism is one of the least sensible options.
May
15
comment are sub-atomic particles really particles or mere concepts in our minds?
Anyway, the specific quote by R.C. Henry should not be used as a guide to anything. There is no sense in which quantum mechanics has shown the nature of the universe to be mental or that "nothing exists but observations"...