Comments on: Model Building and Naturalness http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:31:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Rapped on the Head by Creationists | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12491 Rapped on the Head by Creationists | Cosmic Variance Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:19:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12491 [...] Right now, trying to understand hierarchies in particle physics and the arrow of time has led people to seriously contemplate a vast multiverse beyond what we can see, perhaps populated by regions occupying different phases in the string theory landscape. Wildly speculative, of course, but that's to be expected of, you know, speculations. Ideas are always speculative when they are new and untested; either they will ultimately be tested one way or another, or they'll fade into obscurity, as I made perfectly clear. The ultimate goal is undoubtedly ambitious: to construct a theory that has definite consequences for the structure of the multiverse, such that this structure provides an explanation for how the observed features of our local domain can arise naturally, and that the same theory makes predictions that can be directly tested through laboratory experiments and astrophysical observations. To claim success in this programme, we will need to extend our theoretical understanding of cosmology and quantum gravity considerably, both to make testable predictions and to verify that some sort of multiverse picture really is a necessary consequence of these ideas. Only further investigation will allow us to tell whether such a programme represents laudable aspiration or misguided hubris. [...] […] Right now, trying to understand hierarchies in particle physics and the arrow of time has led people to seriously contemplate a vast multiverse beyond what we can see, perhaps populated by regions occupying different phases in the string theory landscape. Wildly speculative, of course, but that’s to be expected of, you know, speculations. Ideas are always speculative when they are new and untested; either they will ultimately be tested one way or another, or they’ll fade into obscurity, as I made perfectly clear. The ultimate goal is undoubtedly ambitious: to construct a theory that has definite consequences for the structure of the multiverse, such that this structure provides an explanation for how the observed features of our local domain can arise naturally, and that the same theory makes predictions that can be directly tested through laboratory experiments and astrophysical observations. To claim success in this programme, we will need to extend our theoretical understanding of cosmology and quantum gravity considerably, both to make testable predictions and to verify that some sort of multiverse picture really is a necessary consequence of these ideas. Only further investigation will allow us to tell whether such a programme represents laudable aspiration or misguided hubris. […]

]]> By: Plato http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12490 Plato Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:41:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12490 <blockquote>all these particles may be part of the some alternate form of the same thing</blockquote> That was in 1950 and in concert with Gellman's thinking? This statement above, was the third choice. As to Plato and Aristotle, we would like to think them dead, but they are "resurrected" time and time again. Whether by Hooft, or Heisenberg or maybe even Krauss, they began and then ended with...now? Working Euclid's postulates and coming to the fifth, Giralamo Sachheri help to expand our thinking some. So did Grossman, in helping Einstein's writer/mathematical block. :) Could we have disassociated our parents from within? While you may not known the exact time, you will have voiced their very words. Harmony within the two halves of the brain make for some interesting possibilites. While we could have said maybe that we are distinctive of one or the other together the possibilites are endless? :) I would have thought, <i>tertium non datur</i> adding the cosmological bend?

all these particles may be part of the some alternate form of the same thing

That was in 1950 and in concert with Gellman’s thinking? This statement above, was the third choice.

As to Plato and Aristotle, we would like to think them dead, but they are “resurrected” time and time again. Whether by Hooft, or Heisenberg or maybe even Krauss, they began and then ended with…now?

Working Euclid’s postulates and coming to the fifth, Giralamo Sachheri help to expand our thinking some. So did Grossman, in helping Einstein’s writer/mathematical block. :)
Could we have disassociated our parents from within?

While you may not known the exact time, you will have voiced their very words.

Harmony within the two halves of the brain make for some interesting possibilites. While we could have said maybe that we are distinctive of one or the other together the possibilites are endless? :)
I would have thought, tertium non datur adding the cosmological bend?

]]> By: Alejandro Rivero http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12489 Alejandro Rivero Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:36:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12489 #37 AFAIK, while Theaetetus rigorised the building of the Platonic solids, it was Euclid who gave us them, in the sense he shows the proof on uniqueness. I can not imagine Plato working out the whole proof (ah, I remember to play with the proof, other student and myself, at the last row during a lecture in a winter course at Karpatz, in Silesia / Poland). Neither Plato nor Aristotle gave any of value to science, except the preservation of some concepts in the same way that inquisitors attacking heresy preserved the information about heresies themselves. Form my friends philosphers I have heard that the dichotomy "are you a Plato or an Aristotle?" is very common, and yep perhaps the trap is mounted in some way that it always drive you up to the sky of cosmology. So let me cry "Tertium Datur!". #37 AFAIK, while Theaetetus rigorised the building of the Platonic solids, it was Euclid who gave us them, in the sense he shows the proof on uniqueness. I can not imagine Plato working out the whole proof (ah, I remember to play with the proof, other student and myself, at the last row during a lecture in a winter course at Karpatz, in Silesia / Poland). Neither Plato nor Aristotle gave any of value to science, except the preservation of some concepts in the same way that inquisitors attacking heresy preserved the information about heresies themselves.

Form my friends philosphers I have heard that the dichotomy “are you a Plato or an Aristotle?” is very common, and yep perhaps the trap is mounted in some way that it always drive you up to the sky of cosmology. So let me cry “Tertium Datur!”.

]]> By: Shantanu http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12488 Shantanu Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:14:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12488 Thanks Mark, Yes I was referring to http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca:81/mediasite/viewer/FrontEnd/Front.aspx?&shouldResize=False Thanks to you and James for the comments. Elliot, I think but not 100 % sure that the quote about "universe being is the poor man's particle accelerator" was I think first made by Zeldovich. Thanks Mark, Yes I was referring to
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca:81/mediasite/viewer/FrontEnd/Front.aspx?&shouldResize=False
Thanks to you and James for the comments.
Elliot, I think but not 100 % sure that the quote about
“universe being is the poor man’s particle accelerator” was I think first made by Zeldovich.

]]> By: Jim Graber http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12487 Jim Graber Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:19:24 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12487 Re Mannheim's theory: Here is a link to the original 1998 McGaugh-deBlok paper where they found that MOND fit the rotation curves well, and other theories including CDM and Mannheim-Kazanas(M-K) did not. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9801102 (I love their ArXiv comment, "This result surprised the bejeepers out of us, too." ) A link to a paper which criticizes MOND, (but not M-K as far as I can tell) on Nucleosynthesis grounds is http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0101413 I don't know if Phil Mannheim has significantly changed his theory since 1998, but I think not. Best, Jim Graber Re Mannheim’s theory: Here is a link to the original 1998 McGaugh-deBlok paper where they found that MOND fit the rotation curves well, and other theories including CDM and Mannheim-Kazanas(M-K) did not. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9801102
(I love their ArXiv comment, “This result surprised the bejeepers out of us, too.” )

A link to a paper which criticizes MOND, (but not M-K as far as I can tell) on Nucleosynthesis grounds is http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0101413

I don’t know if Phil Mannheim has significantly changed his theory since 1998, but I think not.

Best,

Jim Graber

]]> By: Plato http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12450 Plato Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:23:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12450 Alejandro, I'll look, but I have to ask you,"Are you a <a href="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/02/plato-and-aristotle.html" rel="nofollow">Platonian, or a Aristolean</a>? This should answer your question about the "philosophical adventure" in science. Some of us are really quite imaginative, aren't we?:)After all it was Plato who gave us the Platonic forms wasn't it? We can't all be a Feynman. Alejandro,

I’ll look, but I have to ask you,”Are you a Platonian, or a Aristolean?

This should answer your question about the “philosophical adventure” in science. Some of us are really quite imaginative, aren’t we?:)After all it was Plato who gave us the Platonic forms wasn’t it? We can’t all be a Feynman.

]]> By: Alejandro Rivero http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12451 Alejandro Rivero Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:52:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12451 I agree with Schramm but only in the sense that a bit of film tape makes a good fly-catcher for muons pions and whoknowsons. On the other hand, I have the conjecture that a lot of people starts physics (as opossed, as instance, to engineering or to mathematics) because they love astronomy, and then cosmology is an opportunity to meet this first lover. Plato, it could be useful to find some of the early drawings of Alvaro de Rujula when the hunt of the fundamental string did start, in the eighties. I remember a representation/caricature of some physics working "on the ground" and some others "on the sky", kind of trying a bridge or a tunnel across the clouds. Still, someone should tell the ones in the sky the direction they should to drill towards: down. I agree with Schramm but only in the sense that a bit of film tape makes a good fly-catcher for muons pions and whoknowsons.

On the other hand, I have the conjecture that a lot of people starts physics (as opossed, as instance, to engineering or to mathematics) because they love astronomy, and then cosmology is an opportunity to meet this first lover.

Plato, it could be useful to find some of the early drawings of Alvaro de Rujula when the hunt of the fundamental string did start, in the eighties. I remember a representation/caricature of some physics working “on the ground” and some others “on the sky”, kind of trying a bridge or a tunnel across the clouds. Still, someone should tell the ones in the sky the direction they should to drill towards: down.

]]> By: Plato http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12486 Plato Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:02:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12486 amen Elliot, ....and why high energy particle collisions are very interesting from cosmological events(GRBs?). That by changing perspective a bit, it still deals with reductionistic scenarios, but from a "natural" higher energy consideration. An <a href="http://img289.echo.cx/img289/8872/enlightenment8hi.jpg" rel="nofollow">enlightenment</a> of sorts? <b>Plato</b><a href="http://www.iscap.columbia.edu/" rel="nofollow"><blockquote>This plate image is a powerful one for me becuase it represents something Greene understood well. His link on the right hand side of this blog is the admission of "cosmological and quantum mechanical readiness," to tackle the cosmological frontier.</blockquote></a> I think Alejandro understands this well already though. amen Elliot,

….and why high energy particle collisions are very interesting from cosmological events(GRBs?).

That by changing perspective a bit, it still deals with reductionistic scenarios, but from a “natural” higher energy consideration. An enlightenment of sorts?

Plato

This plate image is a powerful one for me becuase it represents something Greene understood well. His link on the right hand side of this blog is the admission of “cosmological and quantum mechanical readiness,” to tackle the cosmological frontier.

I think Alejandro understands this well already though.

]]> By: Elliot http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12485 Elliot Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:40:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12485 Alejandro, Famous quote from David Schramm "The universe is the poor man's particle accelerator" quoted on other threads here but the idea is that the only way to probe higher energy scales is by looking back towards the big bang since we cannot "build" terrestrial accelerators powerful enough to reach those scales. The second reason is that to unify gravity with the other forces (exhibited by elementary particles) pushes the physics towards cosmological evidence due to the inherent weakness of gravity. Alejandro,

Famous quote from David Schramm

“The universe is the poor man’s particle accelerator”

quoted on other threads here but the idea is that the only way to probe higher energy scales is by looking back towards the big bang since we cannot “build” terrestrial accelerators powerful enough to reach those scales.

The second reason is that to unify gravity with the other forces (exhibited by elementary particles) pushes the physics towards cosmological evidence due to the inherent weakness of gravity.

]]> By: Mark http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12484 Mark Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:32:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/02/20/model-building-and-naturalness/#comment-12484 Shantenu, I think this idea runs into serious problems with primordial nucleosynthesis, if we're talking about the same idea. Shantenu, I think this idea runs into serious problems with primordial nucleosynthesis, if we’re talking about the same idea.

]]>