60,824 reputation
485206
bio website
location New York City
age 41
visits member for 3 years, 8 months
seen 20 hours ago

I do not participate on this site any longer, except to respond to comments regarding my own text, if that text is unavailable in another form. I do not accept the political moderation atmosphere here, it is not compatible with open science. Unfortunately, this seems to be a recurring pattern on such sites--- they grow with promises of open participation, and then shut down in a phase transition of censorious moderatorship. Hopefully physicsoverflow.org will be the first exception to this rule, as the policies there were crafted specifically to avoid this phenomenon.


Mar
6
comment How can it be that the beginning universe had a high temperature and a low entropy at the same time?
@IvanLerner: Not all theoretical questions are a "matter of faith", I don't even know what that means. I know what YOU mean, however--- you mean "if people disagree with you, then it's not settled." Sorry, people can disagree long after a matter is settled, even settled experimentally. You can't use social mechanisms to decide whether something is settled or not.
Mar
6
comment How can it be that the beginning universe had a high temperature and a low entropy at the same time?
@IvanLerner: It's not exactly an experimental question, that's the problem--- it's a pure theoretical question: "why does the early universe have low entropy?" All experiment can answer is "The early universe had low entropy" and "the thermal fluctuations are such and so". When you are answering a theoretical question, you need a larger framework of theory to understand inside, and this is built up by a process of steps of theory. Scientific theories are definitely absolute, they rule out nonsense. The sun does not in any way go around the Earth (the center of rotation is inside the sun).
Mar
5
comment How can it be that the beginning universe had a high temperature and a low entropy at the same time?
@IvanLerner: What you are saying is the awful popular misunderstanding of science: confusing social consensus (which is worthless) with evaluating ideas by critical review (which is valuable). The ideas stay correct even when the majority of idiots say otherwise. The Earth still went around the sun even when a majority of people said it didn't. The social process only converges to the truth in the long term, after all the mocking and heckling is said and done. In this case, I don't need to wait, because there is no cogent counterargument, just as in the case of the Earth going around the sun.
Mar
5
comment How can it be that the beginning universe had a high temperature and a low entropy at the same time?
@IvanLerner: No, no, no! What I have is understanding. What the other idiots have is social consensus, they are going by authority. They are objectively wrong, and Davies is objectively right, and when you start mocking them, that's when consensus changes. The reason it wasn't appreciated earlier is that the holographic viewpoint implicit in Davies argument (the entropy is of a single causal patch) is incompatible with common earlier pictures of global cosmology and global solutions to GR, but the holographic picture won in the 1990s, and is now folklore, allowing Davies to get recognition.
Mar
4
comment Why do rockets accelerate fastest horizontally?
@Taemyr: No, no, no! This is both completely intuitively obvious, and not what they were talking about. They were asking about acceleration relative to the gravity pull, which way is best to accelerate, and the idiotic intuition they were exploiting is that the Earth's rotation is helping you in some way. Pay attention to the actual question, don't make up nonsense to make authority look less stupid than it always is.
Mar
3
comment Why do rockets accelerate fastest horizontally?
@Taemyr: That was not the question, it's your personal nonsense stretched interpretation to make sense of the answer. One must never be charitable toward idiots. The assumption that the orbit is circular was never made here, and I am sure it was never made in the program. It is possible that your correct statement is what the idiots at the TV station misinterpreted to make their stupid question, but there is next to no chance that QI got it right, because, from experience, TV never gets anything scientific right, because they don't have this kind of open review, and TV is written by stoners.
Mar
3
comment How can it be that the beginning universe had a high temperature and a low entropy at the same time?
@asmaier: Yes, thanks for the proper reference. I guess Journal of Theoretical Physics cares more about its profit margin than science.
Mar
2
awarded  Necromancer
Mar
1
awarded  Necromancer
Feb
20
comment Why you need a graviton when you have the higgs boson?
@StanShunpike: Classical gravitational waves are, in quantum mechanics, just a bazillion gravitons all propagating together. I don't know what you are asking.
Feb
18
comment Why you need a graviton when you have the higgs boson?
@StanShunpike: The "classical graviton" is just gravitational wave emission, it isn't quantized into particles classically, it can't be in a superposition of configurations, and it doesn't make full sense when you try to make it interact with quantum mechanical atoms.
Feb
1
comment Is spacetime moving in general relativity?
@dcgeorge: That statement means something different to a person who studied General Relativity than it does to you. To a relativist, it means that the frames are tilted around the rotating object. To you, it means that space is a fluid ether which is pulled around the object. It's just because the implicit ether model is wrong, and no relativist has it in mind when they talk about 'dragging spacetime'.
Jan
31
awarded  Nice Answer
Jan
29
awarded  Revival
Jan
29
comment Is spacetime moving in general relativity?
@dcgeorge: "frame dragging" is where the inertial frame near a body is partly rotating with the body. Spacetime is not a material ether, it's a collection of vectors that define orthonormality. The popular pictures are misleading and your intuition is false.
Jan
20
comment Deterministic quantum mechanics
@annav: Thanks.
Jan
15
comment Do neutron stars reflect light?
@RobJeffries: The model is a neutron ball with a proton gradient, I don't know about the theoretical status of the nuclear pasta models, they are high-temperature models as far as I can see, relevant only during collapse, not low temperature models. The other answer explained the crust, I just explained the general phenomenon of reflectivity in a free conducting surface. A neutron ball has a proton gradient with a free conductive surface, regardless of what other people say. As I understand it, this is the right model for a cold neutron star, with a sharp phase transition at the crust.
Jan
15
comment Do neutron stars reflect light?
@RobJeffries: True, but the question was asking about what you would see if you could bounce light off the neutron star surface, not off the ordinary matter crust. The protons are the charged reflectors capable of motion, and these free charges is what is dominating the reflection properties of the surface. Sure, the crust would be different, but the question was about the nuclear material inside. It might be possible to ask this properly by imagining blasting off the normal matter and looking fast, before it has a chance to reform, or by using a gamma that can penetrate the outer layers.
Jan
14
comment Do neutron stars reflect light?
@RobJeffries: Their is an equilibrium density of protons among the neutrons, because neutron purification by gravitational instability is never perfect. The extra protons collect on the surface. The ordinary matter is a separate thing, forming what is called an "atmosphere" over the neutron star surface. The nuclear ball contains a proton fraction in thermodynamic equilibrium through beta decay.
Jan
8
comment What future technologies does particle physics and string theory promise?
@LarryHarson: I'm not 100% sure about the dates, but I was under the impression that tensor analysis was around in Riemann's time in 1860s or 1870s, since Riemann was discussing tensors. It easier than the stupid vector algebra, includes it as a (not interesting) special case, and the mystical significance of "dot" and "cross" product is definitely derived from their role in quanternions, which is a complete red-herring. Vector calculus for sure post-dates Maxwell, because Maxwell used quaternions. The quaternions are a poor fit for physics, as is vector calculus. Only tensor calculus works.