One very hard lesson that I've learned since I discovered my *middle-ground* interpretation of the anthropic physics is that people are ideologically warped beyond belief. If you are a republican, or if you are a near-centrist, like me, then I can safely assume that you are reacting honestly to the antics of Mr. Gonzales, but if you are a liberal who harbors most of the liberal "positions", then I cannot trust that your opinion isn't unrealistically biased, regardless of the fact that you might be quite right.
Brandon Carter called it "anticentrist dogma", as it applies to the physics... the anthropic principle is actually an ideological statement against the subconsciously harbored counter-fanatical extremism that leads scientists to eqally absurd ideas about the world, like the "perfect cosmological principle".
I've noticed that this affects the arguments that people accept and reject, for and against the AP, that can be characterized by their relevant theoretical ideology, rather than anything vaguely related to the science that they're either abusing or denying, depending on which side they take.
Like Carter said.
Without the physics that I can't seem to draw attention to, *yet*, I am completely wasting my time telling anyone anything about the anthropic physics, simply because they don't want to hear it. I say, "yet" because it'll be a whole new ballgame if the Large Hadron Collider doesn't find the higgs boson. Watch em squirm then... ;)
The whole mess has really killed my hero worship of many important scientists, and I feel that science has been betrayed, while Einstein gets screwed.
Sorry for the rant, but those are my honest feelings, and I feel like I got them the way that you're supposed to form an opinion, not by way of some pre-warped world-view that, on its best day, can still only reflect half of the reality.
As for Gonzales, I'm with you, and he's only the "croney", who works for rampant fanatics on a runaway course.
I am to the left of Gonzales, whatever that means. I had more radical ideas in 1968. I believed that Cuba would be the right place for me to live, until Cuban mathematicians and physicists started to come to Mexico because they did not have enough paper to write on. Now I am attracted to the US where I brought my family, and they seem to be reasonably happy,in a Goldilok kind of way. Ideology does play a role in accepting or rejecting theoretical constructs.
Anthropic ideas attract me now, but I do expect a Higgs effect to show up at Fermilab, or at the LHC.
I do not like Gonzales because he tried to find loopholes to the Geneva Convention. I am not a lawyer, I can see that he is required to do things like that, but since then, I have not felt comfortable with him, even though I fully sympathize with his efforts and success in getting a Law Degree with little help from his parents.
I think Mr. Bush is not going to keep him there until he leaves office in 2008. Like he did before with Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, he will get rid of him as soon as it is convenient for him.
I believe that you are right about that. It's funny, but I see a parallel here to my disappointment in the honesty and integrity of scientists, and your equally understandable disappointment with Gonzales' personal ethics.
For example, I can face a theorist with the point that it is perfectly correct in context to note that a true anthropic cosmological principle will ***necessarily*** include reciprocal connection between the forces and the human evolutionary process.
This is as ***self-evident*** a prediction as Darwins theory is.
While theorists aren't stupid enough to argue this point, they also won't willingly recognize it, nor will they give it the scientific credence that its mere existence demands.
Willful ignorance, open denial, and silent denial, are the most common froms of non-scientific prejudice that I get from theorists, (and just about everybody else), to any and all evidence for a strong anthropic constraint on the forces.
This includes the WMAP anomalies and I'm not the only one to notice this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462
As to the higgs boson, I don't know for sure if I am interpreting the physics correctly, but I have been closely following the events, and do know that there is already some expectation that they will not find one, since they recalculated the expected energy scale, lower, to within reach of the already-active colliders, which have not found anything.
The general theory of relativity teaches that the inertia of a given body is greater as there are more ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very natural to reduce the total effect of inertia of a body to action and reaction between it and the other bodies in the universe... From the general theory of relativity it can be deduced that this total reduction of inertia to reciprocal action between masses - as required by E. Mach, for example - is possible only if the universe is spatially finite. On many physicists and astronomers this argument makes no impression... -Albert Einstein
I'm sure that he did not fully understand the potential of his finite vacuum solution, but I think that there is a higgs field but no higgs boson with this model.
That's what I believe will be found, and nothing more nor less than the planck scale permits, because science has gone off the deep-end when it comes to runaway theoretical speculations that just carry the flaw that they missed concerning the negative energy solutions and matter generation in Einstein's finite model.
With respect to the Higgs phenomenon. There are equations connecting top quark mass, and the Higgs scale. There may be something there. The fact that Fermilab experimenters have not claimed any signal, only tells me that they are cautious. I worked there, and they seemed strange to me at first. They seemed to be fanatical on proving that they had not found anything. The moment somebody started to say that they had seen anything, everybody seemed to be against them.
I guess after several false signals when they were young, the elders learn to be very, very cautious.
The rumor of a Higgs like signal came from a blog. This new method of communication is also affecting particle physics, as it seems to be affecting journalism.
Yes, I frequent Tommaso Dorigo's blog, and was there when he and John Conway simultaneously broke the news, and then got into trouble for it. They've been pretty much stifled now about the *statisitical anomalies*, (bumps), that they find, (by their higher-ups), and only make statements about the new limits that they've set.
They are, however, adament about the fact that these were indeed just statistical flukes, and that they have not yet found a higgs boson, so they are doing a good job of covering it up if this is not true.
Considering the fact that they continue to set new limits, rather than to isolate thier searches in one area, tells me that they are telling the truth.
Posts
5 comments:
Mark Twain called it "insanity".
One very hard lesson that I've learned since I discovered my *middle-ground* interpretation of the anthropic physics is that people are ideologically warped beyond belief. If you are a republican, or if you are a near-centrist, like me, then I can safely assume that you are reacting honestly to the antics of Mr. Gonzales, but if you are a liberal who harbors most of the liberal "positions", then I cannot trust that your opinion isn't unrealistically biased, regardless of the fact that you might be quite right.
Brandon Carter called it "anticentrist dogma", as it applies to the physics... the anthropic principle is actually an ideological statement against the subconsciously harbored counter-fanatical extremism that leads scientists to eqally absurd ideas about the world, like the "perfect cosmological principle".
I've noticed that this affects the arguments that people accept and reject, for and against the AP, that can be characterized by their relevant theoretical ideology, rather than anything vaguely related to the science that they're either abusing or denying, depending on which side they take.
Like Carter said.
Without the physics that I can't seem to draw attention to, *yet*, I am completely wasting my time telling anyone anything about the anthropic physics, simply because they don't want to hear it. I say, "yet" because it'll be a whole new ballgame if the Large Hadron Collider doesn't find the higgs boson. Watch em squirm then... ;)
The whole mess has really killed my hero worship of many important scientists, and I feel that science has been betrayed, while Einstein gets screwed.
Sorry for the rant, but those are my honest feelings, and I feel like I got them the way that you're supposed to form an opinion, not by way of some pre-warped world-view that, on its best day, can still only reflect half of the reality.
As for Gonzales, I'm with you, and he's only the "croney", who works for rampant fanatics on a runaway course.
I am to the left of Gonzales, whatever that means. I had more radical ideas in 1968. I believed that Cuba would be the right place for me to live, until Cuban mathematicians and physicists started to come to Mexico because they did not have enough paper to write on. Now I am attracted to the US where I brought my family, and they seem to be reasonably happy,in a Goldilok kind of way.
Ideology does play a role in accepting or rejecting theoretical constructs.
Anthropic ideas attract me now, but I do expect a Higgs effect to show up at Fermilab, or at the LHC.
I do not like Gonzales because he tried to find loopholes to the Geneva Convention. I am not a lawyer, I can see that he is required to do things like that, but since then, I have not felt comfortable with him, even though I fully sympathize with his efforts and success in getting a Law Degree with little help from his parents.
I think Mr. Bush is not going to keep him there until he leaves office in 2008. Like he did before with Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, he will get rid of him as soon as it is convenient for him.
I believe that you are right about that. It's funny, but I see a parallel here to my disappointment in the honesty and integrity of scientists, and your equally understandable disappointment with Gonzales' personal ethics.
For example, I can face a theorist with the point that it is perfectly correct in context to note that a true anthropic cosmological principle will ***necessarily*** include reciprocal connection between the forces and the human evolutionary process.
This is as ***self-evident*** a prediction as Darwins theory is.
While theorists aren't stupid enough to argue this point, they also won't willingly recognize it, nor will they give it the scientific credence that its mere existence demands.
Willful ignorance, open denial, and silent denial, are the most common froms of non-scientific prejudice that I get from theorists, (and just about everybody else), to any and all evidence for a strong anthropic constraint on the forces.
This includes the WMAP anomalies and I'm not the only one to notice this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462
As to the higgs boson, I don't know for sure if I am interpreting the physics correctly, but I have been closely following the events, and do know that there is already some expectation that they will not find one, since they recalculated the expected energy scale, lower, to within reach of the already-active colliders, which have not found anything.
The general theory of relativity teaches that the inertia of a given body is greater as there are more ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very natural to reduce the total effect of inertia of a body to action and reaction between it and the other bodies in the universe... From the general theory of relativity it can be deduced that this total reduction of inertia to reciprocal action between masses - as required by E. Mach, for example - is possible only if the universe is spatially finite. On many physicists and astronomers this argument makes no impression...
-Albert Einstein
I'm sure that he did not fully understand the potential of his finite vacuum solution, but I think that there is a higgs field but no higgs boson with this model.
That's what I believe will be found, and nothing more nor less than the planck scale permits, because science has gone off the deep-end when it comes to runaway theoretical speculations that just carry the flaw that they missed concerning the negative energy solutions and matter generation in Einstein's finite model.
With respect to the Higgs phenomenon. There are equations connecting top quark mass, and the Higgs scale. There may be something there. The fact that Fermilab experimenters have not claimed any signal, only tells me that they are cautious. I worked there, and they seemed strange to me at first. They seemed to be fanatical on proving that they had not found anything. The moment somebody started to say that they had seen anything, everybody seemed to be against them.
I guess after several false signals when they were young, the elders learn to be very, very cautious.
The rumor of a Higgs like signal came from a blog. This new method of communication is also affecting particle physics, as it seems to be affecting journalism.
Yes, I frequent Tommaso Dorigo's blog, and was there when he and John Conway simultaneously broke the news, and then got into trouble for it. They've been pretty much stifled now about the *statisitical anomalies*, (bumps), that they find, (by their higher-ups), and only make statements about the new limits that they've set.
They are, however, adament about the fact that these were indeed just statistical flukes, and that they have not yet found a higgs boson, so they are doing a good job of covering it up if this is not true.
Considering the fact that they continue to set new limits, rather than to isolate thier searches in one area, tells me that they are telling the truth.
Post a Comment