Readers' Choice: The Holographic Universe

HAHAHA IF the string theory is the candidate...me I am the future president of USA .HIHIHHI

Once upon a time.....

Steve

In the 1970s, Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein showed that the information stored in a black hole is proportional to its surface area rather than its volume.

That it's relevant....but normally the two are proportionals .....3D TOWARDS 2D I can understand but if the rotations aroundf the universal center is not inserted, that will be not possible to see the real hologram of evolution.

The cause of mass is the rotating spheres.....the hologram are just a human invention.Don't forget that.

On the other side, if these holograms are well synchronized on the line time with the rotations of these said spheres.All cn be perceived with a good sorting and a good synchronization...it's interesting to know where we are in our UNIVERSAL SPHERE.

PS a BH is a sphere and has a rule of balance for smallest spheres as stars, planets and moons...after theses bh are taken in a rotation by more important spheres(volumes)

Regards

Steve

No, I don't acknowledge that theory backed by evidence defines science, even when it's written in all caps. I do acknowledge that theory is the only scientific means of interpreting evidence. In that regard, string theory is already supported in the low energy limit of classical physics and by principles of quantum field theory in the high energy domain. That string theory has to make novel predictions will probably fall to thought experiment and indirect evidence, IMO.

Best to you too, Elliott.

Tom

Hello Tom,

You write, "No, I don't acknowledge that theory backed by evidence defines science, even when it's written in all caps. I do acknowledge that theory is the only scientific means of interpreting evidence. In that regard, string theory is already supported in the low energy limit of classical physics and by principles of quantum field theory in the high energy domain. That string theory has to make novel predictions will probably fall to thought experiment and indirect evidence, IMO."

No. String Theory is not "already supported in the low energy limit of classical physics and by principles of quantum field theory in the high energy domain."

String Theory has no meaningful, consistent equations and cannot be tested, so your statement is entirely 100% false. The problem with string theory is not that it doesn't make any novel predictions, but that it makes NO predictions whatsoever, as it has no equations.

Unlike physics, string theory proposes an entirely fictional construct--tiny, vibrating strings--and then after beginning by failing physical reality, it also epic fails on a mathematical level, as there are no equations for string theory.

"Holography right now

is the most powerful

tool to understand

precise formulations of

quantum gravity.

- Alex Maloney"

Well, since there is absolutely no phsyical evidence for quantum gravity, nor accepted mathematical equations predicting it, it sounds as if Holography is as useless as ST & LQG in the realm of physics, but only useful in projecting holograms of Princess Leah from R2D2.

:)

Dear Steve,

Were you born in Belgium or Hawaii? It makes a difference if you want to run for President of the USA.

Just as Holograms make no sense without BOTH PARTICLES (spheres/ data film) AND WAVES (strings - membranes/ em radiation), a TOE likewise makes no sense without BOTH PARTICLES AND WAVES. Scale Invariance solves this problem by introducing both on an equal footing, and holograms are consistent with this fundamental dual nature of reality. But which is more fundamental? Scale Invariance or the Hologram?

Did FQXi recycle this article and post? It sounds very familiar...

Have Fun!

Okay, so your knowledge of string theory is zero. Sorry that I wasted my time.

Tom

Thanks Tom,

Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to String Theory's equations?

Perhaps you could link to the page with its equations which predict gravitons or quantum gravity? Or anything else for that matter?

Rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks and placing String Theory's epic failures on anyone who asks to please see the equations, perhaps you could share String Theory's equations?

Thanks Tom. As String Theory master you have a vast opportunity here to enlighten and exalt us all with ST's beauty.

Please do not keep it a secret. Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, Schwinger, Glasshow, Planck, Maxwell, and Newton never kept their equations a secret from the world, so it is strange that you do.

Instead of ad hominem atacks and namecalling, please share ST's equations, if there are any.

Thanks & Best,

Jeff :)

I was sure I had pulled a twenty out of my pocket and put it on the dresser, but in the morning it was nowhere to be found.

Three weeks later, it turns up in the dryer! Only thing I can think of is that it folded in on itself in the 11th dimension until the heat of the drier straightened it back out into classical reality.

That's evidence enough for me! :)

ahahaha Interesting Dr Cosùmic Ray....but if strings are inserted thus I lost my time....because the strings are for pseudo scientists that's all .

It's just a job and a business for the pseudo scientists simply.

It exists any proof for strings....on the other side the sSPHERES AND THE SPHERICAL WAVES......are a reality, objective, rational,pragmatic, logic and evident.....where are the strings ....even for oscillations and vibrations it's a joke because the only oscillatioin is the rotations of these spheres, spinals and orbitals.

The strings as M theory are just copy of the real model.

Ray I consider you as a real searcher thus don't loose your time with these stupidities of business and vanity of these systems.

The sciences aren't a play but a real quest of truth....

The spheres and their rotations EXPLAIN BOTH PARTICLES AND WAVES it's evident.

Regards

Steve

Wow! That's odd. Three weeks ago, I found a blue sock on my dresser. It isn't one of mine. I was wondering how it got there!

No Steve,

I'm not wasting time - I think I gained 3 extra (4 total) kinds of time...

IMHO, your model fails in the limits of spherical radius -> zero, infinity

AND in the limit of rotation -> infinity. Scale Invariance solves these problems, but effectively introduces twice the degrees-of-freedom by introducing the equivalent of a Brilloin Zone (and/or Supersymmetry - depending on your perspective). You admit four degrees-of-freedom: 3-D space plus 'spin'. If you add Scale Invariance, then you are up to 8 degrees-of-freedom. You are up to the equivalent of 8-dimensions, but you haven't even introduced interactions yet!

Have Fun!

hello all!

i am glad that all of your washing machine experiences are going well!

but i, and the nobel laureate physicists & galilean giants, must tell you that it is probably not string theory that is responsible as string theory lacks physcial models, postulates, and meaningful equations. also, string theory, unlike physics, as pointed out above, begins with completely non-physical entities such as lotsa dimensions like 11 or 27, as well as tiny, vibrating strings--spurious entities for which there is absolutely no proof for whatsoever. and then the math even fails to come up with any consistent equations. so ST fails both physically and mathematically, while succeeding financially for those who exalt in failure for politized $$$$$.

all of this grates on the nerves of nobel laureate physicists, while sycophaantic, snarky groupthinkers make off with hundreds of millions of dollars for an epic fail non-theory and their politics, as well as their personal destruction of those who ask basic questions. the ruling elders seem to enjoy their moneys more than physics, as they are quite happy to see their loyal fanboys snarking and fighting and attacking and belittling those who question the groupthink regimes on the front lines of their exile and destruction of physics.

but nonetheless, as their fiat theories fade alongside the fiat dollar, i am going to have to side with the nobel laureates and epic heroic physicists.

how about you?

do you want to waddle in snarky politics and mean-spirited, cruel, and malicious handwaving, or man up and exalt some epic physics like the Greats such as Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, and Feynman?

Perhaps if we focus on the common philosophy of the great physicists as to what physics is and ought be, expressed in their simple words reflecting infinite wisdom, we will be better prepared to advance physics beyond the standard model.

Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the

present, but an equation is something for eternity. -Albert Einstein

It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the

greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And

therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must

endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must

it be in seeking to understand these visions. Truth is ever to be

found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of

things. . . -Sir Isaac Newton

When the solution is simple, God is answering. -Einstein

The only real valuable thing is intuition. -Einstein

A person starts to live when he can live outside himself. -Einstein

The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education. -Einstein

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by

understanding. -Einstein

No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess. -Newton

For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope. - Einstein

If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the

shoulders of giants. -Newton

In questions of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the

humble reasoning of one individual. -Galileo

Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But

thought and ideas (the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the

three spatial dimensions at c), not formulae, are the beginning of

every physical theory. --Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics

But before mankind could be ripe for a science which takes in the

whole of reality, a second fundamental truth was needed, which only

became common property among philosophers with the advent of Kepler

and Galileo. Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of

the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience

and ends in it. Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are

completely empty as regards reality. Because Galileo saw this, and

particularly because he drummed it into the scientific world, he is

the father of modern physics--indeed, of modern science altogether.

-Einstein , Ideas and Opinions

.. my dear Kepler, what do you think of the foremost philosophers of

this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations,

they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at

the planets or Moon or my telescope. -Galileo

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents

and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents

eventually die, and a new generation grows up with it. -Planck

Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It

forces us to change our thinking in order to find it. -Niels Bohr

...my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning

preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which,

either because of its being their own or because of their having

received it from some person who has their entire confidence,

impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it

out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea ...

gain their instant acceptance ... whatever is brought forward against

it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or

with hot rage ... Beside themselves with passion, some of them would not

be backward even about scheming to suppress and silence their

adversaries.... No good can come of dealing with such people . . . their

company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous. -Galileo

We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both

true and sufficient to explain their appearances. -Newton

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -Einstein

A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are

composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is

ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical

thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as

probability. -Einstein

When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective

representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to

known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence

the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in

the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a

representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the

characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its

entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction

the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled.

-Schrodinger

Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we

grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium--we will all say to

each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been

so stupid? -Wheeler

Three Rules of Work: Out of clutter find simplicity; From discord find

harmony; In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity. -Einstein

A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder

would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long. -Einstein

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more

violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in

the opposite direction. -Einstein

Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas

which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make

the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid

of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under

a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find

themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be

doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite

found their way out of the equations into their minds. -Maxwell

I don't believe in mathematics. -Einstein

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that

mine are greater. -Einstein

Geometry is not true, it is advantageous. -Poincare

A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers. -Plato

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can

be counted counts. -Einstein

Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by

the nose. -Einstein

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is

the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is

a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe,

is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Einstein

The important thing is not to stop questioning. -Einstein

Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of

physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be

said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible

to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is

obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The

second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the

material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself,

with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the

"naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic

concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a

basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with

great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and

evaluation of theories since time immemorial. -Einstein

String Theory has been the leading candidate ... for a theory that

consistently unifies all the fundamental forces of nature, including

gravity. It gained popularity because it provides a theory that is UV

finite.(1) . . . The footnote (1) reads: "Although there is no

rigorous proof to all orders that the theory is UV finite..." -STRING

THEORY IN A NUTSHELL

We don't know what we are talking about . -Nobel Laureate David Gross

on string theory

It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a

five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one

of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does

not manifest itself. -Einstein to Ehrenfest (Imagine doing this for

10-30+ dimensions!)

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses . -

Feynman, Nobel Laureate

String theory is like a 50 year old woman wearing too much lipstick.

-Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate

Actually, I would not even be prepared to call string theory a

"theory" rather a "model" or not even that: just a hunch. After all, a

theory should come together with instructions on how to deal with it

to identify the things one wishes to describe, in our case the

elementary particles, and one should, at least in principle, be able

to formulate the rules for calculating the properties of these

particles, and how to make new predictions for them. Imagine that I

give you a chair, while explaining that the legs are still missing,

and that the seat, back and armrest will perhaps be delivered soon;

whatever I did give you, can I still call it a chair? -'t Hooft, Nobel

Laureate

It is tragic, but now, we have the string theorists, thousands of

them, that also dream of explaining all the features of nature. They

just celebrated the 20th anniversary of superstring theory. So when

one person spends 30 years, it's a waste, but when thousands waste 20

years in modern day, they celebrate with champagne. I find that

curious. -Glashow, Nobel Laureate

I don't like that they're not calculating anything. I don't like that

they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that

disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation-a fix-up to

say, "Well, it might be true." For example, the theory requires ten

dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the

dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not

seven? . . . So the fact that it might disagree with experience is

very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most

of the time. It doesn't look right. -Feynman

But superstring physicists have not yet shown that theory really

works. They cannot demonstrate that the standard theory is a logical

outcome of string theory. They cannot even be sure that their

formalism includes a description of such things as protons and

electrons. And they have not yet made even one teeny-tiny experimental

prediction. Worst of all, superstring theory does not follow as a

logical consequence of some appealing set of hypotheses about nature.

--Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow

The great irony of string theory, however, is that the theory itself

is not unified. . . For a theory that makes the claim of providing a

unifying framework for all physical laws, it is the supreme irony that

the theory itself appears so disunited!! Introduction to Superstrings

& M-Theory -Kaku

If Einstein were alive today, he would be horrified at this state of

affairs. He would upbraid the profession for allowing this mess to

develop and fly into a blind rage over the transformation of his

beautiful creations into ideologies and the resulting proliferation of

logical inconsistencies. Einstein was an artist and a scholar but

above all he was a revolutionary. His approach to physics might be

summarized as hypothesizing minimally. Never arguing with experiment,

demanding total logical consistency, and mistrusting unsubstantiated

beliefs. The unsubstantial belief of his day was ether, or more

precisely the naïve version of ether that preceded relativity. The

unsubstantiated belief of our day is relativity itself. It would be

perfectly in character for him to reexamine the facts, toss them over

in his mind, and conclude that his beloved principle of relativity was

not fundamental at all but emergent (emergent from MDT!) . . . It

would mean that the fabric of space-time was not simply the stage on

which life played out but an organizational phenomenon, and that there

might be something beyond. (MDT!) -A Different Universe, Laughlin,

Nobel Laureate

[String Theory] has no practical utility, however, other than to

sustain the myth of the ultimate theory. There is no experimental

evidence for the existence of strings in nature, nor does the special

mathematics of string theory enable known experimental behavior to be

calculated or predicted more easily. . . String theory is, in fact, a

textbook case of Deceitful Turkey, a beautiful set of ideas that will

always remain just barely out of reach. Far from a wonderful

technological hope for a greater tomorrow, it is instead the tragic

consequence of an obsolete belief system-in which emergence plays no

role and dark law does not exist. --A Different Universe, Laughlin

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the

easiest person to fool. ... You just have to be honest in a conventional

way after that. . . I would like to add something that's not essential

to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you

should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. . . I'm

talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying,

but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you

ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our

responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I

think to laymen. . . If you're representing yourself as a scientist,

then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they

don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their

decision. -Nobel Laureate Feynman, Cargo Cult Science

To me there has never been a higher source of earthly honor or

distinction than that connected with advances in science. -Newton

Errors are not in the art but in the artificers. -Newton

I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin

not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations .

-Galileo

By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox . -Galileo

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand

things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of

them is not understanding . -Isaac Newton

Gradually the conviction gained recognition that all knowledge about

things is exclusively a working-over of the raw material furnished by

the senses. ... Galileo and Hume first upheld this principle with full

clarity and decisiveness . -Einstein

LET US EMBRACE THESE PHILOSOPHIES AS WE FORGE AHEAD!!!

ahahah yes and after we shall go make surf with an E x pseudo theory hihihihi

No but I dream Ray ,Not you ,no it's not possible,I speak with you in private, no it's not possible you are on this team.hihihi

Snif I am sad and now I am crying ,alone in my small garden in my small house in my small city in my small country.

Hihihi humor humor and revolution !!!

To be serious....I analyze Ray ,I analyze all that....and really all is a pure joke of fun for the sciences of second zone.

Here is the list simple and evident .....Multiverses, strings, superstrings, M theory or Z or X...,the reversibility of time, the higgs and their external cause of mass,the the extradimensions....all that is just for the second zone Ray,really and you know it I hope.If not it's an other problem.

The sciences are rationals Ray and Objectives....we see spheres but we don't see what you say .I respect you and you know I am frank, and I like when you are frank also,it's a rare quality Dr Cosmic Ray my friend.

Steve

Dear Kelly,

Whether we are motivated by money, politics, or a search for the truth (I'm a businessman with a Doctorate in HEP Physics that considers myself closer to the latter category), we know that reality has a dual wave-particle nature, and should thus expect strings-membranes (wave behavior) and kissing spheres-CDT (particle behavior) to both be important.

Large collaborations have the advantage of being able to work constantly, having lots of cheap & intelligent grad student labor, and having political power to block potentially competitive ideas. However, most large collaborations that I have known work by committee, and cannot respond or react to a new perspective as quickly as a smaller collaboration. I don't mind being called a maverick - the worst that can happen to me is that people DON'T hear my ideas.

Have Fun!

Hello Ray,

You write, "Whether we are motivated by money, politics, or a search for the truth (I'm a businessman with a Doctorate in HEP Physics that considers myself closer to the latter category), we know that reality has a dual wave-particle nature, and should thus expect strings-membranes (wave behavior) and kissing spheres-CDT (particle behavior) to both be important."

Dear Ray--did you reead any of Feynman's or Einstein's or Glashows or Laughlin's words above in the post made by kelly?

In no way does wave-particle duality imply strings-membranes (wave behavior) nor kissing spheres-CDT (particle behavior).

Please remember that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for strings nor for membranes, and certainly not for kissing spheres. From Galileo on down, as Einstein noted, the center and circumference of physics has always been found in physical reality. What are your business interests in making it otherwise? PErhaps you profit by peddling non-physical entities which have killed physics?

You writes, "Large collaborations have the advantage of being able to work constantly, having lots of cheap & intelligent grad student labor, and having political power to block potentially competitive ideas. However, most large collaborations that I have known work by committee, and cannot respond or react to a new perspective as quickly as a smaller collaboration. I don't mind being called a maverick - the worst that can happen to me is that people DON'T hear my ideas.

Have Fun! "

If you study the history of physics, all great advances came from indivdiuals, not "large pools of cheap labor" organized by marxist professors more interested in serving their private bottom line as opposed to the higher ideals, even at the expense of physics. In fact, physics has been brought to a standstill by politicians posing as physicists while funding large pools of cheap labor with questionable intelligence, as what grad student with one iota of intelligence would want to be a faceless, proletariat gear of "cheap & intelligent grad student labor" in a regime based on lies, hype, and solinsky tactics? Surely any grad student capable of independent thought would prefer pondering physical reality on their own, rather than spending life's precious time parroting and promoting the groupthink lies and hype of the senior citizen trotskyite professors, who have never had a useful idea--not even back in the seventies when they were young, passionate, and full of the best intentions.

You write, "I don't mind being called a maverick - the worst that can happen to me is that people DON'T hear my ideas."

What is this supposed to mean? That the groupthink regime was right in burning Bruno at the stake and persecuting Galileo? That is is right for non-physicists and snarky handwavers to pocket millions of fiat dollars for non-theories as physics dies?

Best,

Jeff :)

How physics works these days:

1. Come up with a completely non-physical concept such as tiny little strings or little loops.

2. Make surf that not only that these entities have never been seen, but make sure that it is impossible to even look for them.

3. Falsely claim that you are doing what Einstein did.

4. Raise hundreds of millions in funding and recruit the "best and brightest" political manipulators across the land while exiling physicists.

5. Embrace and celebrate decades of failure as justifications for millions of more dollars.

6. Reward regimists with cash and prizes.

7. Wash, rinse, and repeat as true physicists and physics equations and physics are exiled from the academy and official discussions on the physics-free physics.

Dear Jeff,

I understand your pessimism. I dropped out of grad school (after I had qualified for a Doctorate in Solid State Physics) once because I didn't like being a faceless, proletariat gear. I once swore off physics and higher education. Years later, I chose to go back to grad school. My perspective was completely different - I didn't want to "simply survive" grad school - I wanted to be one of the best.

I enjoy living, thinking, and spending time with my wife and daughter, and I'm not yet ready to be burned at the stake. But at least we remember Bruno's name. Is it better to be a faceless, proletariat gear that no one remembers, or to be the guy that everyone remembers for being burnt at the stake?

Modern physics is at a standstill because experiment has not advanced as quickly as potential theories in recent decades. Not only are the experiments technologically difficult, but we have fewer monetary resorces in this difficult economy. To my knowledge, there is insufficient experimental confirmation of strings, CDT, and holographic gravity. But we know that reality has a dual wave and particle nature, and that holograms require BOTH concepts to work.

Have Fun!

hello ray,

saying "But we know that reality has a dual wave and particle nature, and that holograms require BOTH concepts to work." is really saying nothing new.

you do realize that holograms are standard three-hour labs in undergraduate physics?

please do not put the blame of string theory's epic failures on expiremental physics, as string theory makes no predictions. this is not he fault of expiremental physics.

you ask, "Is it better to be a faceless, proletariat gear that no one remembers, or to be the guy that everyone remembers for being burnt at the stake?"

is this how modern physics works? our string/lqg overlords of failure think they are doing physics a favor by lining their private pockets with millions upon millions for failed inquisition physics, while letting physics and young physicists starve and burn? is this your view of modern physics, ray? are you ok with this?

Ray writes, "Dear Jeff,

I understand your pessimism. I dropped out of grad school (after I had qualified for a Doctorate in Solid State Physics) once because I didn't like being a faceless, proletariat gear. I once swore off physics and higher education. Years later, I chose to go back to grad school. My perspective was completely different - I didn't want to "simply survive" grad school - I wanted to be one of the best."

I don't think Jeff is being pessimistic.

Rather it seems he is being quite optimistic as he exalts truth and beauty over the handwaving physics regimes of failure, denial, lies, hype, deceit, and subterfuge.

I think, Ray, that the pessimistic ones are the ones who have so little hope for truth and beauty and independent thought that they join snarky groupthink regimes and speak not for truth but for politics and profit.

They are the true pessimists, as they have given up.

It seems that Jeff, and certainly I, am optimists.

Whereas you seem a pessimist to so gleefully state that Bruno must always be burned while hype, lies, and conformal groupthink rewarded.

best,

kelly