Friday, December 21, 2007

Tone

Sean correctly closes the comments in a car-wreck of a physics discussion...a horrible mess which is nevertheless difficult not to look at:

Okay, children. Essentially everyone in this comment thread has managed to be some combination of whiny, obnoxious, incorrect, disingenuous, unhelpful, and plain old embarrassing.


Trying to crystallize my own feelings on it, I happened, funnily enough, to catch this quote from Professor Frink on The Simpsons this morning

It should be obvious to even the most dimwitted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology that Homer Simpson has stumbled into the third dimension.

To find the precise wording, I found this article which, to introduce the above quote, states

The Simpsons writers often play on mathematical cultural stereotypes, extracting humor by exaggerating both the mathematical illiteracy of the U.S. public and the nerdiness and self-aggrandizement of the mathematically gifted.

4 comments:

Full Infinity said...

Don't you know that by talking about tone and not devoting your life to the mathematics of string theory you're being 1-corner word god evil?

Anonymous said...

In her book Warped Passages, Harvard Physicist Lisa Randall quotes Eminem.

Do Lee smolin and Peter woit think that perhaps quoting eminem has lead to the decline in physics?

I would be happy to supply some lyrics from eminem.

Peter & lee could spend a couple million hiring some postdocs to analyze the lyrics.

Do you guys want to see some eminem lyrics?

Is thtis what tenured harvard faculty should be supporting to advance physics?

Anonymous said...

DUDE! Speaking of tine, is Garrett stoned?

Checkout this HILARIOUS thread which yet completely ignores Distler et al's demonstration that Garrett's theory is a hoax.

It is sad that Smolin's LQG machine had to get rid of physics, group theory, and representation theory, and truth and honesty to promote Garrett's non-theory, which Lee Smolin called "fabulous" despite the fact that the theory makes no predictions and cannot even generate first-generation fermions, as shown by Distler et al.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=202439&page=8


http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=202439&page=8
"Rade


Rade is Offline:
Posts: 1,063 Dear Garrett,

Have you contacted CERN directly to be sure they include the predictions of your E8 model in the particle collision data they will capture when they start the LHC experiments soon in 2008 ? As I understand the situation, only a small fraction of the LHC collision data will be captured and stored, the rest is lost forever (CERN does not have enough computer memory storage). What data they do capture is what is predicted by current Standard Model, perhaps some new physics stuff--but, are you 100 % sure they will capture data that can be used to test (e.g., falsify) the predictions of your E8 model ?


Rade
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Rade

12.21.07, 22:47 #107
garrett


garrett is Offline:
Posts: 284 Hello Rade,
This E8 theory isn't developed well enough to produce such predictions with sufficient confidence. There are pretty clearly twenty or so new particles predicted, but until the problems with the theory are worked out, their properties are kind of up in the air. But, there are plenty of LHC observations which wouldn't be compatible with this theory, so it does have some predictive power in that sense. In any case, the theory needs to be developed further before specific predictions can be made with any confidence. There's a long way to go.


garrett
View Public Profile
Visit garrett's homepage!
Find More Posts by garrett

Y, 00:21 #108
Rade


Rade is Offline:
Posts: 1,063 Quote:
Originally Posted by garrett
Hello Rade, This E8 theory isn't developed well enough to produce such predictions with sufficient confidence. There are pretty clearly twenty or so new particles predicted, but until the problems with the theory are worked out, their properties are kind of up in the air. But, there are plenty of LHC observations which wouldn't be compatible with this theory, so it does have some predictive power in that sense. In any case, the theory needs to be developed further before specific predictions can be made with any confidence. There's a long way to go.

Thank you very much for your clarification. It just seems that it would be a such a great lost to science if the "properties" (by this I mean the LHC collision patterns) of these 20 new particles predicted by your version of E8 are the types of patterns that CERN will never capture and store. Could you please provide some input on nature of the:

plenty of LHC observations which wouldn't be compatible with this [E8] theory


Rade
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Rade

Y, 01:48 #109
garrett


garrett is Offline:
Posts: 284 Ha! Umm, no, I don't think this is worth worrying about. I'll do my best to work on this theory and get some precise predictions. But keep in mind that this theory is still developing, and it's a long shot. What isn't a long shot is that the folks at CERN will do an excellent job of ferreting out every bit of new physics they can from their new data, regardless of any predictions I might make. "

And yet Garrett does claim predictions made by his theory:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=LHC+sings+Garrett+
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311952,00.html

"This is an all-or-nothing kind of theory — it's either going to be exactly right, or spectacularly wrong," Lisi tells New Scientist. "I'm the first to admit this is a long shot. But it ain't over till the LHC sings." --FOX NEWS

Lisi basically lies to The New Scientist, as a theory which makes no exact predictions cannot be exactly right or wrong.

Lee Smolin and Garrett Lisi have yet to write a letter to Fox News and The New Scientist and the rest of the media to set the record straight.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=LHC+Garrett+fabulous
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Garrett+lisi

I hope Smolin has time to update Garrett's wikipedia pages, or hire a postdoc to do it.

Kea said...

ROFLOL! These quotes are great: that's it exactly. Boy am I glad I didn't make a brief remark at the top of that thread. Happy holidays.