58,773 reputation
482200
bio website
location New York City
age 41
visits member for 3 years, 4 months
seen yesterday

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
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
Aug
15
awarded  Nice Answer
Aug
14
awarded  Nice Answer
Aug
14
awarded  Necromancer
Aug
9
revised Readable books on advanced topics
rephrase for clarity
Aug
9
revised what co-operates with a Super Symmetry Transform
added 1308 characters in body
Aug
9
awarded  Yearling
Aug
9
comment Does the Banach-Tarski paradox contradict our understanding of nature?
@WetSavannaAnimalakaRodVance: This is basically everyone's motivation. But to learn it, all you need is to understand the Skolem theorem (which is very simple and intuitive) and the Godel completeness theorem (which is important for other reasons, it's the deduction theorem in logic, it's also the essence of the first Turing complete computer ever defined, in hindsight). The demonstration that the uncountable ordinals are not absolute is simply from noting that all the models of an axiom system can be countable. It means that you don't need to take the uncountable ordinals seriously.
Aug
2
comment What is currently incomplete in M-theory?
@MitchellPorter: Yes, it's a little string theory in type II analogs, but how does it reproduce the M-theory in holographic detail? This is the open question. It's because these theories are so ill understood, they are not like N=4 gauge theory, you don't know how the holography works here.
Aug
1
awarded  Good Question
Aug
1
awarded  Necromancer
Jul
28
comment Why regularization?
The approximations for symbolic differentiation are no different--- you can represent a function as a sum of wavelets, and differentiate "symbolically", it's no different. The analytic representation is a text string, and doesn't represent it any less discretely than a bunch of doubles on a grid, except it may be a more efficient countable structure. You don't prefer different approximation scheme, you define the derivative as the thing they have in common--- that's the limit. Same in field theory, the field theory is that universal limiting thing different approximations have in common.
Jul
28
comment What is currently incomplete in M-theory?
There's a lot more to do, but it seems people are pretty stuck at the moment. The last major breakthrough was the M2 brane CFT by Schwartz and co, and I haven't followed the last few years. The Lagrangian is not exactly what you are after, you want to know the scattering amplitudes--- it's not from a local Lagrangian density in string theory. The scattering amplitudes are only well defined in certain backgrounds, where there is a known CFT dual. The general formulation is lacking, and it probably requires a major new idea.
Jul
27
comment What is currently incomplete in M-theory?
@dimension10: Not completely, because it's defined around a flat background. All the solutions are in a fixed background, either AdS or flat, or some other supersymmetric background. You can't describe deSitter spaces, or backgrounds that interpolate between different finite-energy-density states, like Simeon Hellerman's 26 dimensional bosonic string cosmology, going to a standard string theory. Is it completely consistent non-perturbatively? That's what a non-perturbative formulation should answer. The Matrix theory and AdS/CFT are only valid as finite-number-of-particles over solvable vacuum