Time Magazine Article

10 Responses to Time Magazine Article

1. plato says:

   November 29, 2004 at 4:56 pm

   raj,

   Maybe from the outside perspective us commoners wonder whether the strategies to defining the physics has fallen short of the continued attempt to define it’s geometry?

   Having attained certain perspectives, leading developement to the abstractness of the math used, has some way divorced itself, from what Peter demands, and yet all engage, in this strange language?

   Sometimes the fictional stories are better suited to the constrants applied these mathematicians, that everyone wants to know, what the heck they are seeing?

   Alice(Malice to some) presents all kinds of possibilties, and in the heart of Glast valuations, a good understanding of our universe?

   But truly, it goes much deeper then the Glast perspective? They have to agree that they all have a piece of that elephant and that spectrum continues to be much greater involved??
2. raj says:

   November 29, 2004 at 10:16 am

   >Physics is hard. Do it or shut up.

   Um, no. Or, well, maybe. Why should physics be hard? At base, physics relates to the interaction among things. Why should that be hard?

   The problem is that professional physicists apparently want to make physics appear to be hard. Hard to do. Hard to understand. So, when they publish an interesting result, they start in a way that basically causes most people to tune out.

   Professional physicists should seriously consider trying to figure out how to explain their discoveries to the “common”–or, let’s say, educated–person.
3. plato says:

   November 25, 2004 at 11:41 am

   So which end of the elephant are working from DRL?:)
4. D R Lunsford says:

   November 24, 2004 at 2:12 pm

   Well I can’t get all depressed about the state of physics. This attitude is so self-indulgent – it’s as stale as the denial-laden homilies of the stringer crowd.

   Physics is hard. Do it or shut up. This kind of whining is embarrassing.

   -drl
5. plato says:

   November 24, 2004 at 11:14 am

   http://www.simulation-argument.com/

   There are fundamental problems with this idea of computer simulation and Gerard t’ Hooft expounds on this?

   Although the tendencies are well used in cosmological considerations. Example here are Andrey Kravtsov, and Max Tegmark’s work. New post I constructed, but takes time to materialize, will come out later today.

   Fo one moment I speculate that qubit reformation would have to undergo non discrete photosynthesis examples, in information transfer? Glast indications, although sound from this perspective views, are troubling to me, if considered in computerization methodology.

   Quantum Entanglement?

   The basics of two-party entanglement

   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9511030
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9511027
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9604024
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9707035
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709029
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9801069
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9811053
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905071

   Basics of multiparty entanglement
   —-
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907047
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908073
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9912039
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0005115

   Basics of secret sharing
   —
   http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9806063

   I entertain other options and ways of seeing early cosmological events. Trying to think outside the box:)
6. Fabien Besnard says:

   November 24, 2004 at 10:28 am

   Thank you Urs. I tried it but I should have made a mistake somewhere.

   So the URL are :

   simulation argument

   and

   my answer
7. Urs says:

   November 24, 2004 at 5:54 am

   Fabien Besnard wrote:

   sorry but I don’t know how to make the link appear as they should.

   Use html tags as usual, i.e. write
   <a href=”[URL goes here]”>[Text goes here]</a>

   Similarly, to make quoted text appear as quoted text enclose it in <blockquote> and </blockquote>.

   For more details see the How-To page of the String Coffee Table.
8. Fabien Besnard says:

   November 24, 2004 at 3:45 am

   Distinguished philosophers think we are maybe in the Matrix :

   http://www.simulation-argument.com/

   Distinguished astrophysicists don’t think so, but their refutation is even more funny. (See Brandon Carter’s paper on this same page)

   Others think the argument is self-contradictory :

   http://perso.wanadoo.fr/fabien.besnard/refutation.html

   PS : sorry but I don’t know how to make the link appear as they should.
9. Chris Oakley says:

   November 23, 2004 at 5:46 pm

   Anonymous –

   That’s the funniest comment I’ve seen yet on this blog. Or maybe it’s not so funny. Either way, you should identify yourself, even with a nom de plume.
10. Anonymous says:

    November 23, 2004 at 4:10 pm

    Physicists need some sort of validation. Since it no longer comes from experimentation, seeing their names in the paper alongside prominent cranks will have to do.

Comments are closed.