57,708 reputation
481196
bio website
location New York City
age 41
visits member for 3 years, 2 months
seen 14 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. I participate at physicsoverflow.org.


Aug
22
comment Relative to the speed of light
This answer is wrong, the main effect is the failure of simultaneity at a distance, this makes the speed of light the same in the backward and forward direction in the moving frame.
Aug
22
comment Is normalization consistent with Schrodinger's Equation?
This answer is kind of pointless, it isn't helpful, you can just say "The SE is linear".
Aug
22
comment Is there a maximum number of types of elementary particles?
This is true, but the "particles" we see in accelerators are just the massless particles, and there are a finite number of these. This is probably the best interpretation of the question.
Aug
22
comment Do the laws of physics evolve?
You should know that the large-numbers coincidence is now called the "Hierarchy problem", together with the fact that there are three scales--- the neutrino/cosmological-constant scale at .1 eV, the Higgs scale at 1TeV, and the Planck scale at 10^19 GeV. These are equally spaced in log, hence the large-numbers, and the cc-scale is comparable to the age of the universe, probably as Weinberg suggested, because it's anthropic.
Aug
22
comment Explanation for $E~$ not falling off at $1/r^2$ for infinite line and sheet charges?
Your argument is correct, but the intuition is from field line spreading, so the better way to say it (in such a way that someone else can also understand) is to use Gauss's law, this is the field line counting made clear.
Aug
22
comment What happens to the wave function after applying the D'Alembert operator?
It's true what you say, but it is too formal--- you can just say it without the trivial manipulations, let the reader figure it out.
Aug
22
comment Why is there a deep mysterious relation between string theory and number theory, elliptic curves, $E_8$ and the Monster group?
There is another point, that E(8) is E6xSU(3), and on a Calabi Yau, the SU(3) is the holonomy, so you can easily and naturally break the E8 to E6. This idea appears in Candelas Horowitz Strominger Witten in 1985, right after Heterotic strings and it is still the easiest way to get the MSSM. The biggest obstacle is to get rid of the MS part--- you need a SUSY breaking at high energy that won't wreck the CC or produce a runaway Higgs mass, since it seems right now there is no low-energy SUSY.
Aug
22
comment The General Relativity from String Theory Point of View
This is correct, but the main detail missing is the Ward identity--- this is derived in chapter 2 of Green Schwarz Witten--- a variation in the metric is equal to a graviton insertion, and diffeomorphisms don't count, so you get a Ward identity.
Aug
22
comment Is there any reproducible tested evidence for Ni-H cold fusion?
I should add that the detection method for tritium in heavy water is a blue flash of Cherenkov radiation from the emitted beta electron, and the half-life is short enough to get good counts even at the trace concentrations of ordinary heavy water, and the amount of tritium in cold-fusion heavy water was hundreds of times background.
Aug
22
comment Is there any reproducible tested evidence for Ni-H cold fusion?
Also, there is a nice twist here--- I also explained the phenomenon completely with a "personal, unpublished, pseudoscientific theory" on this website, which is personal, is unpublished, but which has the sole advantage of being correct technically (I checked it, you can do so too). So that the mechanism is now known. So all your comments about theoretical impossibility are certainly unjustified, since I explained how it works theoretically. Regarding the claims of DGT, I agree, they look fraudulent, all the corporate work does, which is why I am asking for reliable experiments on this.
Aug
22
comment Conservation of quantum Noether current
@EdwardHughes: This is entirely accurate. I am not exactly talking about the Ehrenfest theorem, rather the Heisenberg equation of motion (they are actually equivalent). The classical equations of motion are satisfied as operator equations, meaning that the quantum mechanical operators in the Heisenberg representation obey the classical equations of motion. The contact terms are there, but they only modify this at coinciding insertions, it doesn't change the result very much. I have shown this on a recent answer regarding supergravity.
Aug
22
comment Is there any reproducible tested evidence for Ni-H cold fusion?
Palladium Deuterium cold-fusion certainly exists, as tritium was detected by Pons & Fleischmann at Utah, at Bhabha, at Texas A&M by two independent groups (Wolf and Bocris) and also at Los Alamos (but the fellow was not allowed to publish). That settles the question of nuclear effects for good, and there is nothing you can say, unless you can show that all these people were deliberately committing coordinated fraud. You can't mismeasure tritium, it is radioactive with a clear signature, the detection method is 100% reliable at any concentrations, nor can you make tritium chemically.
Aug
21
awarded  Revival
Aug
21
awarded  Nice Answer
Aug
21
comment A quantitative explanation of EM coherence domains in liquid with DNA
@Hector: When I read the paper, I don't remember any of this at all, I remember it pretty clearly as being completely different, it was talking about electromagnetic signals coming from an equilibrated RNA solution, and it was clearly bunk, as the signal was coming in with no source of energy. The old signal was clearly thermal noise, and this is what I said. This new paper is still probably bunk, the 7hz thing is at ridiculously low frequencies fora molecule, but it is not inconsistent with thermodynamics, just with reasonable response frequencies in molecular scale charge-systems.
Aug
21
comment The Role of Rigor
The philosophy article is a bit of a problem--- the issue with rigor is the social structure around it, there are people who will tell you that you aren't rigorous when you are, for example, with a path integral, which can be defined very well, but mathematicians won't accept the definition, because they don't like constructions based on probability. One issue here is that the formal development of measure theory is screwed up completely in mathematics, and you can't expect physicists to change. but this is Davey's point. Davey is also misrepresenting Dirac's view on delta-distributions.
Aug
21
comment The Role of Rigor
@UrsSchreiber: Maybe Dimension10 has seen clarity in some cases. The main issue with rigor is that it is subject to a ton of human arbitrariness, where a certain development path is chosen from the infinite number of possible development paths and declared "the rigorous path", and the benefits of time saved from the standardization means that all mathematicians go down this road, and anyone going down another road is "unrigorous". This introduces human social annoyances into the evaluation of ideas, when the structure you are defining is actually much more universal. You don't want sociology.
Aug
20
comment In what subfields and how far can the naive limit $c\rightarrow\infty$ of special relativity be carried?
@BenCrowell: I agree, I was using it to argue that hbar to zero is similarly not problematic.
Aug
19
comment Are non-supersymmetric GUTs ruled out due to lack of precise gauge coupling unification?
The GUT scale is close enough to the Planck scale that you can fix the running with non-renormalizable corrections to the Lagrangian which are ignored in standard analyses, the mismatch is not too far off to fix. It's not so natural to fix the matching in SU(5) gut, the natural term doesn't push the couplings in the right direction, there's an answer of mine looking at that, but it might be good in SO(10) or a flipped SU(5).
Aug
19
awarded  Nice Answer