The Quantum Playstation

This, sir, is hilarious.

No wonder we all quote you as we can't make this stuff up!

Lawrence B. Crowell: "Physics is not about writing down equations."

Lawrence B. Crowell: "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?"

Mr. Crowell has no time to write down equations as he is too busy playing childish games, counting words, sneering, and snarking, while coming up with fabulous new definitions of physics: "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?"

Newsflash for Mr. Crowell: Physics is defined by equations!!

No equation = no physics = ST & LQG. :)

Sincerely, JH

I wrote 58 words, you wrote 102.

LC

So here is the summary of what happens when people ask for the equations of loop quantum gravity.

1) Lawrence B. Crowell, in defending LQG's (supposed) "quantization" of gravity, writes: "In this way, a bit of a long story may be told, while something else may provide how it all should look which is not all that hard to do and not much different from quantizing Maxwell's equations, if this is done on the proper level."

2) When reminded that that is not really an equation, Lawrence B. Crowell writes the Wheeler-Dewitt equation which came long before LQG & ST.

3) When told this, Lawrence B. Crowell redefines physics with, "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?"

4) He also waves his hands repeatedly, says "you do the math," and states that he has not the time to write down the simple equations (but only count words and play little boy games).

5) He then comes up with bizarre conspiracy theories and launches into ad hominem attacks, accusing others of being insulting for questioning his thesis that, "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?"

6) Finally, he resorts to childish games of counting words while sneering and jeering from behind his funding for physics-free physics.

Could someone please help Mr. Crowell out? Could someone--anyone--please provide the basic equations of ST & LQG?

That would rock!

JH :)

Cool, you wrote 235 words, I wrote 8. If this keeps up these ratios will be like a stereographic projection of a sphere. Oops, too many words!

LC

yes indeed please would someone post the equations for string theory or lqg?

from LC's childish, puerile antics it seems that there aren't any.

thanks!

kelly

Maybe I can Help. The gravitons you are looking for can be found using punnett squares. Often overlooked - this simple tool used to determine genetic probabilities can also verify a space-condensed wavefunction. Of course, with gravity it is admittedly a little different because other force carriers exist in space while the graviton is a manifestation of space itself.

could someone please provide the lqg equations the playstations are simulating?

without equations, what exactly are the playstations simulating?

lawrence crowell writes, "Physics is not about writing down equations. For what anyway?" but without equations, what does the networked playstation computer do?

please, as this is a community, could someone please educated us as to the equations it is simulating? do not academics have to share their research?

The lqg and the strings are a joke.

They imply any foundamentals.

Never a string has been found, never a lqg will be found.The extradimensions and the pub of E1..3...8...x are strategy of "business sciences"(curses given in specialized universities where the capitals are so olds,it's important indeed to keep the capital of families.Well,the sciences aren't that, the sciences are the universality and the respect of all things, objectives and reals.

Let's Consider What this "business sciences" is an under sciences where the monney is the main driving force.But be sure they are competents and even machiavelics.

I pray for them,indeed They fear to loose their jobs, thus they are ready to invent stupidities and even ready to continue stupidities even when they know it's false.

Incredible NO???? It's the Earth and its ironies.

Soon dear Scientists, dear friends, we shall pay our Oxygen, yes we shall pay the air,after all we pay already the water and the fire.Incredible this Earth planet,Oh my God ,it's serious there.

What arethese systems behind that.

It's time to begin rational there.The sciences must implant solutions,I regret but never these strings extradimensionally stupids in the multiverses shall be a reality.

I beleive frankly what some universities and strategists of marketing confound a little the research for the humanity.

They search their monney yes,and their vanity, that's all.

It's sad to see that simply at the planetary vue and global.

Scientists of all over the world......we are in a circus where the truth is forgotten for the pleazsure of opulences.

Regards

Steve

Wow. I haven't visited this forum, because I am a pencil and paper guy with not much direct interest in experimentation.

It's a bit jarring, though, to see the vitriol from anonymous posters (or poster) on everything from a few dollars spent on computers to irrational criticism of a leading edge theory. It is unimportant whether loop quantum gravity is right or wrong -- it is a serious attempt to wed general relativity with quantum rules without need for extra dimensions. Can it be done?

In fact, there is an irony here. Neither Lawrence nor I believe that it can be done without extra dimensions. LQG does, however, have at least two important foundational properties:

1. Background independence and

2. Nonperturbative results

Anyone who doesn't know this would have to be completely ignorant of Lee Smoiln's work, and the previous literature, in which case one wonders why they would hold forth in a public forum on the subject of LQG. (OTOH, anonymous posters don't actually risk anything, do they?)

In any case, if we are to have a nonperturbative, background independent theory, we have to rule out some models to make way for others.

Personally, I hold for string theory, which Smolin criticizes for not being background independent. I think the criticism is not valid (string theory is background independent) as -- I believe -- does leading string theorist Joseph Polchinski, IIRC.

And BTW, physics really _isn't_ about writing down equations. Even mathematics is not about writing down equations.

Tom

thanks tom,

yes, i was also jarred and dismayed, like you, to see lawrence crowell's handwaving, namecalling, and ad hominem attacks. :( so sad.

i note that you say that you say "physics really _isn't_ about writing down equations. Even mathematics is not about writing down equations."

what, in your estimate are physics and mathematics about?

could have newton, bohr, einstein, dirac, pauli, feynman, heisenberg, or maxwell been physicists without having written down equations? perhaps they could have been lqgers or sting theorists, but probably not physics.

E = mc^2 and F = ma are cool equatsions of Einstein and Newton.

What are the equations of st and lqg?

Please do share.

i agree that physics is more than just writing down equations, but without equations, it isn't really physics.

and thanks for intervening and asking mr. crowell to tone down the childish games, vitriol, namecalling, and ad hominem attacks.

now that'd be great to see some physcial lqg/st theory equations and hear what they represent!

let's get this forum back on track after mr. crowell's childish antics and red herrings.

:)

Hello Tom,

do not the fqxi judges retain their anonimity? are you asking them to reveal themeselves? i hope so!

you write, "So far as I know, Michael Faraday did physics without equations, and Richard Feynman despised formalism, inventing diagrams to describe results of particle experiments. Perhaps a similar method would suit LQG, I don't know."

this is simply laughable. feynman was one of the best mathematical physicists, and most formal, of all time! sure his formalisms were different and creative, but they were entirely formal! have you ever read his disseration? 100% formal, as well as all his research! so what are you talking about, pray tell?

indeed bohr and faraday used lots of words, thoughts, and ideas reflecting physical reality, but lqg and string theory also lack these, as they do not look towards physical reality. for instance there is no experimental evidence of strings nor loops, nor quantum gravity. both bohr and farady were very loyal to physical reality and experiemnt, as was feynman. and at the end of the day, they all used math to express the final forms of their research.

but today both lqg and string theory reject experimental evidence and physical reality as there is no evidence for quantum gravity whatsoever. both lqg and string theory also reject maths, as there exist no equations for either "hunch."

it is hilarious, and quite telling, that you write, "Perhaps a similar method would suit LQG, I don't know." so all they need to do now is draw smolin diagrams? if they mimic faraday, they will have to turn themselves towards sketching physical reality and experiments, which the playstations won't help with.

:)

Oh, so you're an FQXi judge, are you?

And path integral pictures are formalisms. Okay.

And string theory and loop quantum gravity lack "words, thoughts, and ideas reflecting physical reality"

I don't have time for this nonsense.

Tom

hello tom,

well, please do share what words, ideas, and thoughts lqg and string theory have refelcting *physical* reality. bear in mind that there is no empirical nor physical evidence whatsoever for tiny, vibrating strings or little loops. please do share though!

you already admitted that st & lqg lack postualtes and equations, and without words, ideas, and thoughts representing physical reality, one has to ask "where's the physics?"

please do enlighten us all.

thanks. :)

Tom,

I thought I'd check to see what transpired here since Monday. Who ever this person is they are not worth trying to reason with. For some reason all he wants is some list of LaTex'd up equations or something, and releases has all these barbed comments. This is not DiMeglio at least. Though I notice he and his sock puppets are filling up the "recent blog comment" sidebar. I suppose he wants to give the impression that in talking to himself he is at the hub of a serious conversation.

Cheers LC

Lawrence,

Yeah. Small though annoying price for an open society, I guess.

Tom

"Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." --R.P, Feynman

why all these bizarre accusations of being a sock puppet? it is quite obvious that numerous peopke are posting in this thread. why all this evasion of simply posting either the simeple thoughts, ideas, and physical realities that string theory and lqg represent, and/or their simple mathematical equations?

why are you guys ganging up in your butter vinidictiveness?

i'm not demanding any laytex. even a simple link to he page containing the equations of lqg and/or st would be great! certainly that would take a second or two.

the great feynman stated that in science one must always question the experts. and as you guys are experts in lqg and string theory, i am asking you...

i do hope that the greater community does not find your bizarre, dismissive, ad hominem-attacking, namecalling behavior representitive. and yet it must concern everyone.

"Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."

-- Richard P. Feynman

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

-- Richard P. Feynman

please do not castigate, impugn, and try to shut down my curiosity:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity." Albert Einstein

...which may or may not be my real name. I will say this: I am not a physicist, but I have a bilogy background as you might have guessed from my previous post. In any event, I have been trying to play catch-up the past 2 or 3 years with aspects of physics, string theory being one of them. I personally think string theory is junk science. Although many noted physicists share this sentiment, they are still apparently in the minority.

I can't "prove" string theory is wrong but an important point is that the community's enthusiasm for it - is extremely disproportioniate with its likelihood of ever being falsified or verified. Time to move on guys!

In evolution and genetics, we have been dealing with a similar enthusiasm for alternative, outlandish theories. They are called creation science and intelligent design.

I can't speak much about LQG, but with regard to string theory, I can confidently say that you have got nothing! Never did, never will.

If you have anything other than the endorsement of your heroes - then why don't you put that kelly blogger out of his misery and prove him wrong???

If it is easy as you stringers claim - then that will also be a "small annoying price" for communicating with an open society.

i find some exceellent sensical postings at dr. peter woit's blog about the tragedy of string theory and lqg and how it has destoryed opportunity for young honorable physics whiel creating opportunity for political lapdog useful imbecile pseudo-physicist student of elite failed guard of elders who seek to please not truth and passion and curiosity and honorable quest for truthful physics, but politics and polemicals of elder moneys regiments:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3077#comments

#

Bruno Galileo says:

August 3, 2010 at 11:12 pm

In the history of all of science, has a hunch such as string theory ever received so much attention and funding?

Truly, string theory and its handwaving ethos shped physics over the past twenty-thirty years. Even LQG adopted some of its tenor and tone, often stating in its own defense, "hey if string theory can be not even wrong then we have every right to be not even wrong too!"

One must wonder about all the lost opportunities. What physicists were shut out from the academy and funding? How many bright young minds were lead down a seemingly dead-end street? How many gained tenure not by science, but by politics?

As Witten was an undergraduate history/politics major, it would have been interesting to hear his take on how string theory politicized and polemicized science.

Best,

Bruno Galileo

#

CNX says:

August 5, 2010 at 7:00 am

As Thomas Kuhn stated in his book about Scientific Revolutions, in many cases new ideas/theories do not just replace the old ones by being more successful, but they simply outlive them: they only get established when the older generation of supporters for the one theory gradually die out and the younger generation prefers the new theory. I think this is the most likely scenario how String theory will fade out, if it does at all, and this can take a very long time(Too long for middle-aged people to witness?). However, if the theory continues to win the souls of the younger physics students, whether by its rosy prospects(?), virility(?) or career pressure from its established, influential practitioners, then it may still be able to survive many more generations. In that case, even during the entire lifetime of a younger person such as me fundamental theoretical physics may continue in its current shape, monopolized by one seemingly promising theory which does not live up to its huge expectations.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3077#comments

please you all reads and this speaks like truth, no?

courage i wish upon you all to stand for goodness,

gregor

thanks gregor and bobby,

yes it it quite amazing the lengths that lc crowell and tom th ray will go to defend non-theories -- lacking postulates, equations, and physically meaningul models -- the very opposite of physics.

bu i sense a paradigm shift, as both tom th ray and lb crowell are looking foolish, engaging in little word counting games and going so far as to say that physics is not about equations, nor anything really. this is the party line that gets one funding it seems.

but it seems their gig is almost up, as how many young physicsts are going to follow third-generation, meaninghless handwaving consisting of neither equations nore ideas nor anything else. it is just not sexy to follow blind, politicized and polemicized regimes whcih are physics-free. what does it offer the soul and ruggged physicist whose highest payment is not money, but truth?

both tom and crowell are making quite a display, lamenting the fact that we live in an open and free society, which they would want to change, to keep out those who question the experts of failed regimes.

keep up the good work all!

time is on science's and freedom's side!

kelly