The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Surfing gravity's waves still tough after decades of trying > Comments

Surfing gravity's waves still tough after decades of trying : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 5/6/2015

Ever since Einstein theorised that gravity waves existed, scientists have been trying to detect them. That century long quest may soon be over.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
‘morning Mark,

An interesting article but I know little about LISA/LIGO other than the NASA web site and their FAQ’s.

I have been following the research from CERN in general and Prof. Nicholas Mee in particular. I don’t know if the LISA/LIGO projects in their search for waves, run parallel with or are part of the particle physics being examined at CERN?

On the face of they seem to be two different approaches. One is looking for detection of the (gravitational) waves, the other is looking for the point of convergence between the unified theory of (Quantum Electro Dynamics) QED and General and Special Relativity, which at this stage can’t be seen to converge as a GUT.

I do know that CERN has restarted after a long upgrade to their LHC and can now probe particles well beyond their previous limit of 14 TeV. (10-12).

It seems energies beyond QED are needed to reach the point of convergence between Gravity and QED to produce the GUT. This point is thought to be somewhere within the QUANTUM JELLY below QED Particle Physics.

Should be interesting to see who gets there first?
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 5 June 2015 10:51:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good, but then given the symbiosis in much of scientific discovery, we may advance quicker towards anti gravity and or warp drives that take us to the stars; or even beam me up Scotty teleportation?

When we just junk the big bang theory and or something from nothing, in favor of a vastly more rational projection/ejaculation of dark matter as the source of the universe and everything in it, including gravity, which is vastly weaker than magnetism!

Interestingly, a spinning top with magnets placed around the entire circumference, seems to be able to beat/defy gravity or hover!

Perhaps when we understand that phenomena, we will understand the nature of gravity? And or, how to create it artificially? Or somehow surf on its waves?

And hasn't the wave theory been replaced by the string theory?

The thing I find most perplexing in all of this postulation, is just how long is a piece of string anyway?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 5 June 2015 12:49:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning Rhrosty,

<< Interestingly, a spinning top with magnets placed around the entire circumference, seems to be able to beat/defy gravity or hover! >>

No Rhrosty, long ago debunked! It’s the base plate that creates the magnetic field to support the magnetism of the spinning Top.

Pure Quantum Electro Dynamics, not magic!

<< And hasn't the wave theory been replaced by the string theory? >> No Rhrosty!

Group symmetry holds that each type of particle is a vibration of a corresponding field throughout space. Symmetries can be broken by such as the Higgs Force and energy is thus converted into matter. Thus Particles have Wave like properties and Waves have Particle like properties.

The Grand Unified Theory (GUT, the unification of quantum mechanics, the laws of physics and those of the laws of general/special relativity) will be resolved at a point somewhere between the current QED/QCD quantum’s energy (14 TeV. (10:12) and Planck Energy (10:19 GeV). A point at which Gravity interacts with Particles.

So somewhere within the plank distance (Planck length is Planck time, which is 10-43 seconds) beyond the now complete QED/QCD theory of quantum mechanics, there is a theoretical point at which the entirely separate (at this stage) laws of gravity are unified with the quantum laws of physics.

This region below QED/QCD unification is referred to as “quantum jelly” and whilst wave/particle theory is incomplete at these energy levels, the variations of existing wave/particle theory are being considered in the form of “M theory” and “string theory”.

Why would scientists replace a theory that has just completed the unification of quantum physics with the discovery of the Higgs Particle?

Hope this helps (:
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 5 June 2015 1:54:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"This region below QED/QCD unification is referred to as “quantum jelly”"

Oh dear, I must have missed that paper, spindoc. Would you mind putting up a link to an authoritative source?
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 5 June 2015 2:33:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goggling 'quantum jelly' reveals a couple of interesting explanations:

1) Quantum Jelly

Jelly which is both on the knife, in the jar and on the toast. You can't tell which by looking, because you'll change the outcome.

2) Quantum Jelly is simply a collection of percussive beeps — an incremental series of glitches in the experimental and noise scenes... the building blocks of rave laid bare.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Friday, 5 June 2015 3:49:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning Craig,

<< Oh dear, I must have missed that paper, spindoc. Would you mind putting up a link to an authoritative source? >>

Graig, why is it that an entire post with wide ranging explanations to another poster is disgarded in your pursuit of an expression you have missed?

Of course you may have a link however, I would just like to understand your focus as either constructive or destructive. So how about you comment on the physics I presented in the post first, then I will help you with an explanation and link referencing the expression "quantum jelly".
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 5 June 2015 3:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's not a lot to comment on, spindoc. None of it made a lot of sense.

For example, "the laws of physics and those of the laws of general/special relativity" is a little confusing, since relativity, either in its special form based on Lorentz's transformations or its more general form based on Riemannian geometry is a fundamental aspect of physics.

The discussion of group symmetry is also somewhat void of meaning, since the point of symmetry is that it allows for the postulation of the existence of certain types of particles/behavioural phenomena based on what has already been observed and the assumption that symmetry is to be preserved. You are somewhat on the right track, in that if string theory is shown to have validity, then it implies the existence of a new class of symmetry, the so-called "supersymmetry", which may have some potential for unifying QM and GR.

The Planck length is not the same as Planck time, although there is a correlation in that the Planck length represents the minimum theoretical length at which it is possible, using Heisenberg's model, to define a particle in classical terms. Below that length, at the speed of light in a vacuum, indeterminacy is the rule. Of course, Heisenberg wasn't quite right, as has been shown by the use of so-called "weak" measurements, but it'll do.

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chronodynamics(QCD) are not "complete", they are both approaches to understanding the behaviour of quantum systems and both of them manage to unify 3 of the 4 fundamental forces. Quantum gravity is still elusive.

The Higgs business has not "unified" anything, it has merely confirmed the predicted existence of a particle at approximately the energy predicted for the Higgs. That is exciting, because it opens the possibility that there is something else going on that causes the energy to disagree with theory.

Now, about that link...
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 5 June 2015 4:15:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning Craig,

Just wondering why you decided to challenge the expression "Quantum Jelly" when all the time you actually disagree with all the scientists at CERN? Why didn't you post that in the first place? Yeh, OK, I did bait you but hey, who took the bait?

What was it I said about doing a " Minns"?

I'm so impressed that you are willing to put your rhetoric and pseudo-science up against the thousands in the global scientific community who's nations spent $10bn on CERN. Now all you have to do is your own research to find the "Quantum Jelly" reference, in the process you will of course, have to read all the research that contradicts you.

Let me guess, you believe in CAGW right?

Enjoy.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 5 June 2015 5:04:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Lawson here
thanks for all the reaction guys.. off the grid for most of today and now in a rush so I won't join in this learned discussion but, wow, for once no-one is hostile.. anyway, tnks
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 5 June 2015 5:17:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc, if the people at CERN were to tell me the guff that you have put up here then yes, I would disagree with them. However, as they most certainly would not do any such thing, then I see no reason that we might do anything other than agree.

However, I’m still willing to learn from your groundbreaking paper on “quantum jelly”, which doesn’t appear to be carried by any academic library source that I have been able to locate. CERN appears to be similarly mystified.

I’m sure a person with your dedication to the truth and accuracy of public information wouldn’t simply make such a thing up. Surely it must, like the garbled nonsense in your earlier comments on this thread and the one on Indian grain cropping, have been inserted under your name by some unscrupulous and cunning ne’er-do-well seeking to discredit you by associating your name with the sort of commentary normally made by other brainless nincompoops.

No doubt you’ll want to set the record straight. A link would clarify the issue nicely.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 5 June 2015 5:43:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Craig,

I think Spindoc is trying to be just a little too clever, try this, I think it is what he is on about!

"We sometimes think of fundamental particles as though they were tiny billiard balls moving around and bouncing off each other. But in the quantum field theories that describe the world at subatomic distances, this picture does not apply. Such theories associate each species of fundamental particle with a quantum field which permeates the whole of space. At each point in space the field fluctuates like a spring or simple harmonic oscillator. What we interpret as particles are excitations in the field.

You can think of this field as a sort of quantum jelly that extends through space. Where there is no particle the jelly just wobbles in a regular fashion. A particle corresponds to a ripple in the jelly, a disturbance of the regular wobble, at a particular point. So a particle travelling along corresponds to a ripple travelling through the jelly, and two particles interacting correspond to two ripples meeting.

Mathematically such a quantum field is represented by something called a scalar field: a number associated to every point in space. The number captures the effect the field would have on a particle interacting with it at that point."

You can read more here - https://plus.maths.org/content/secret-symmetry-and-higgs-boson-part-i
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Saturday, 6 June 2015 2:42:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Geoff,
Nicely described and to date the most elegant model put forward, but it still begs some important questions that may be answered in the next few years with further work on the LHC. I'm not sure though, since there are several competing models that all seem to work quite well at producing reasonable congruence with current observations, while being largely mutually exclusive.

I'm not really comfortable with the scalar field approach, although it does nicely overcome the problem with an action mechanism that would be required of vector fields and hence allows the use of a Lagrangian rather than a more complex Eulerian.

The idea that our observed world is the product of emergent behaviours down to the finest degree of granularity is one I think is vitally important to grasp, nonetheless. It's by no means an easy or comfortable one though.

Have you come across the work Hameroff and Penrose have been doing on quantum consciousness?
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 6 June 2015 8:34:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc, very appropriate nomenclature mate.

Not all that long ago one could have bought said magnet laden spinning top at any branch of big Whatsit?

And then (speaking as an interested observing eye witness) placed it on a non magnetic plastic ruler, given it a big spin then removed the PLASTIC ruler, to see it spin in front of an astounded science class; hovering in mid air and at whatever level you or anyone decided to leave it!

Magic being ruled out by completing enclosing said hovering magnetic top inside two glasses that made one complete fully encasing container!

I'm sure thousands were sold and the described phenomena reproduced again and again the length and breadth of this wide brown land?

Is that what you mean by completely debunked?

I'm sure enough enquirers would see the Item restocked and again available, if not already?

I hope so, as I can think of no better B'day gift for a Granddaughter with an OPEN inquiring mind.

By the way, proving a particle exists does no more than prove a particle exists, and not every co-converging/competing theory; although it may have allowed a different way to arrive at a new or practical/theoretically feasible warp drive, that doesn't need the power of an entire universe to work!?

Or that a whirlwind has more chance of whipping through a junk and and assembling a fully functioning 747, than serendipity and chance assembling a fully functioning and vastly more complex human being?

And an application of said inertia beating spinning magnetic top(s) may allow something to be launched into outer space getting all the required acceleration up the side of a nicely shaped mountain; say like Queensland's Mount Bartle Fare? Say several times a day?

Via an electric rail gun, that could conceivably hurl 1,000+ ton payloads into orbit, perhaps utilizing solar thermal energy? And wouldn't there be a huge and lucrative commercial market for that?

A nuclear powered ion drive, space tug, able to take over from there?

An electric rail gun has I'm informed, optimal/maximum speeds near that of light?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:45:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And somewhat off topic Spinner, I've heard that magnetron trains have a current top speed of around 900 klms PH?

I wonder how much faster they'd be able to go, if you added a central rail gun and operated them inside vacuum locked tunnels i.e.?

Sydney to London, New York or Paris in half an hour?

And given a county sized solar thermal project as the power source; a lot faster than air travel and no carbon footprint?

And even if coffee tea or milk were served, would you be able to overcome the inherent belly button hugging spine inertia, to be able to drink it?

Or would it just be a case of asking the forward leaning straining compression suited hostess with the mostess, the front of her Anatomy doing its best to join/stretch round to her back, to simply hurl it in the vomit bag, just to save time?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 6 June 2015 11:18:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' morning Craig,

Ran out of posts yesterday, sorry about the wait.

My next post provides some of the references I offered, one of them is the basis for my original post that you were so critical of, yet now you agree with it?

Craig, the link from Geoff of Perth is a chapter from the very same publication by Nicholas Mee, “Gravity: Cracking the Cosmic Code” and a source of both my synopsis and many references to Quantum Jelly?

https://plus.maths.org/content/secret-symmetry-and-higgs-boson-part-i

First you say “None of it made a lot of sense”, “group symmetry is also somewhat void of meaning”, “The Higgs business has not "unified" anything”, but then say of the QED/QCD quantum systems, “both of them manage “to unify 3” of the 4 fundamental forces”? Do they unify or not? (except for gravity of course).

Now you say of the same source and it’s conclusions that it is “Nicely described and to date the most elegant model put forward” ? Since you now seem to think it offers the most elegant model, I’ve added a link to the original publication at Amazon. It is also available from Quantum Wave Publishing. (Hardback and Kindle).

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Cracking-Cosmic-Nicholas-Mee/dp/1901579484
Author of "Gravity. Cracking the Cosmic Code" makes many references to "quantum jelly"

Nicholas Mee is also very responsive to questions, you might like to put some of your points to him directly at the following email address? Particularly some of the more in depth issues that concern you.

quantumwave@virtualimage.co.uk

Enjoy your dollops of Quantum Jelly.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 6 June 2015 2:23:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning Craig,

I don’t understand your difficulty in sourcing publications? You say my references don’t “appear to be carried by any academic library source that I have been able to locate. CERN appears to be similarly mystified”.

How odd? Anyway a few here to get you started which include both the CERN and Quantum Jelly references you are so keen to acquire.

arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1405.pdf;
by K Svozil - &#8206;2014 - &#8206;Related articles
Presently the consensus among quantum physicists and philosophers of ..... quantum jelly ….

https://plus.maths.org/content/hooray-higgs-edit-0
Allanach talks after a webcast from CERN, which held physicists at the ... Allanach describes the Higgs field as a weird sort of quantum jelly that..

www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/162/files/.../assignment-03-jan-26-2015.pdf
Jan 31, 2015 - (c) Finally, show that you understand the meaning of Eq. (2) by drawing ... quantum)“jelly” theory of a helium atom ….

www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/cpc/2011/dana.pdf
Particle physics and the LHC. B.C. Allanach – p. 1 .... quantum jelly. Particle physics and the LHC ... that there is no description of gravity….

http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/
Oct 15, 2012 - ..... In the absence of any Einstein reference frames? ...... I know the whole subject is like a wobbly jelly which refuses to set. ..... The boson discovered this summer at CERN at about 125 GeV is very likely at least one ...

phys.org › Physics › General Physics
Jul 16, 2012 - At CERN they have just provided the first experimental evidence .... defines an absolute reference frame (wrong) with a favorite direction ... It is interesting that some of the pre-quantum relativistic concepts comes back in altered manner. .... direction like block of jelly….

http://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Cracking-Cosmic-Nicholas-Mee/dp/1901579484
Author of "Gravity. Cracking the Cosmic Code" makes many references to "quantum jelly"

https://plus.maths.org/content/secret-symmetry-and-higgs-boson-part-i

Thanks to Geoff of Perth for this link to an extract from "Gravity. Cracking the Cosmic Code" from which many references to “Quantum Jelly” are found.

The expression “Quantum Jelly” is simply a means of trying to describe aspects of Physics for which there is currently no other descriptor, I think the focus on this seems a distraction. Try “Particle Porridge” or “String Soup” if it comforts you.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 6 June 2015 2:26:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc, what was “void of meaning” was your guff, as was clearly pointed out. I clearly did not suggest that group symmetry or QCD/QED were in that category.
You see, if Dr Mee says something and then you screw up transliterating his words, then your words are in fact, rubbish, which was precisely my point. His knowledge does not make you knowledgeable or correct.
With respect to QED/QCD, they are not, as you suggested, a “GUT” (Grand Unified Theory) and do not purport to be. They did (both) predict the existence of the Higgs, but there is a long way to go yet to unify gravity with the other forces.
That was the nub of my comment to Geoff of Perth. I didn’t read his reference, because I already actually know quite a lot about the subject. I think that if Dr Mee used the term “quantum jelly” in his popular science book, it is a poor metaphor, as I have already (briefly) explained to Geoff of Perth.

I don't think I'll be bothering to have any of your quantum jelly, but thanks anyway. It sounds like the sort of thing Hameroff and Penrose might find when looking into the quantum consciousness of some posters here.
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 6 June 2015 2:40:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning Craig,

I thought you might have started with thanks for all those links spindoc, or how about you address some of the questions asked, or how about all that content you could address?

But no, you just want to distract and resort to verbaling?

You say << with respect to QED/QCD, they are not, as you suggested, a “GUT” (Grand Unified Theory) >>

Really, did I say that? Shall we just check that Craig?

What I actually said was << The Grand Unified Theory (GUT, the unification of quantum mechanics, the laws of physics and those of the laws of general/special relativity) >>

Posted by spindoc, Friday, 5 June 2015 1:54:56 PM

Don’t suppose you’d be up for an apology, or even a “correction” or how about one of your best excuses?

I’m beginning to suspect you don’t actually “read” posts, you “feel” them, very sloppy.

You also said in reference to Quantum Jelly, << Oh dear, I must have missed that paper, spindoc. Would you mind putting up a link to an authoritative source? >>

and that << “quantum jelly”, which doesn’t appear to be carried by any academic library source that I have been able to locate. CERN appears to be similarly mystified >>.

Really Craig, you didn’t miss just “that” paper, you actually missed “dozens” of them published since at least 2011, and since I was able to give you many more links to them from many sources, including CERN, one has to wonder where you have been and how you conduct your research?

As for your << I didn’t read his reference (Geoff of Perth) , because I already actually know quite a lot about the subject>> Did you just say that? Wow!

“Actually” Craig, you need to take a deep breath and relax, you’re squeezing it too hard buddy.

I’m afraid we are going to have to take away your Quantum Jelly Craig, I know Craig, I did promise to give you some, but you can have it back for dessert when you have finished eating all your Humble Pie :)
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 6 June 2015 4:26:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, I see the problem now, spindoc. You haven't the faintest idea what any of the things you're quoting actually mean and you certainly haven't read any of them.

I'll simply give you one example, from your cited link http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/162/files/homeworks/assignment-03-jan-26-2015.pdf

"In this problem, you use Gauss's law several times to develop a crude but insightful classical (non-quantum)"jelly" theory of a helium atom"

Which compares to your claim: " Finally, show that you understand the meaning of Eq. (2) by drawing ... quantum)“jelly” theory of a helium atom …."

I won't call you wilfully dishonest, spindoc. The reader can draw their own conclusions.
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 6 June 2015 5:48:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In case you were a bit stuck with the problem, Gauss's Law states that the electric flux through any closed surface is directionally proportionate to the total charge contained within.

Good luck :)
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 6 June 2015 8:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' morning Mark,

Just received this press release from CERN this morning announcing the restart of the LHC this month.

The 27 month upgrade has taken energy levels from 6 TeV to 13 TeV with which they hope to probe particles at higher energy levels than those detected in current QED/QCD physics.

For anyone interested there are some stunning images of proton collisions.

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/06/lhc-experiments-back-business-record-energy
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 8 June 2015 7:32:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi spindoc, it's nice of CERN to take the trouble to send you press releases.

I hope the boys at Zoo got theirs, they're all high energy physics buffs over there.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 8 June 2015 7:49:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning Craig,

I don't think it's too much trouble for CERN to email updates to subscribers? If you wish to get your own updates you can use the links I've already provided and the service is free. Since it is a topic you are so passionate about you might enjoy the information.

Craig, I don' t quite know how to say this so I'll start with an apology. I've done my share of abuse on OLO and even received a one week ban from GY. I do apologise for baiting you and I mean that.

Having recognised your predicament much earlier I had no right to continue to provoke you and I'm so sorry for that.

My guilt on this issue has much to do with the movie The Rain Maker, starring Dustin Hoffman. I do understand, I do apologise and will in future restrain myself accordingly. Sorry mate, hope you can find forgiveness.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 8 June 2015 9:31:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,
you're quite right, CERN do a great job at informing the public of their work. It's actually part of their role as a publicly funded science organisation. I'm an enthusiastic supporter!

I'm happy to accept your apology, in the spirit of John Nash (A Beautiful Mind), who claimed to have managed the feat of unifying QM and gravity shortly before his death, according to the great French mathematician Cedric Villani. It will be interesting to see if Villani publishes on the subject. It is quite believable that Nash did so, given his groundbreaking work on embedded geometry
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 8 June 2015 11:40:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' morning Craig,

You have been gracious in your acceptance of my apology, that apology, whilst unconditional, is intended to be a foundation for mutual reform on both our parts. Your reference to John Nash ( A Beautiful Mind) is tacit confirmation that we do indeed have an understanding. Thank you.

That aside, this is a two way street and it is hoped we can both live with our respective commitments.

I genuinely respect your intellect and I truly wish you good outcomes. At least two of us understand why.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 8 June 2015 1:40:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc, I don't think we do have an understanding, tacit or otherwise. I'm neither autistic, as Dustin Hoffman's character in Rainman was, nor schizophrenic, as John Nash was claimed to be (but wasn't).

I cited John Nash because he was a truly inspirational man. He essentially invented two completely different fields, one of which, the role of subjective probability in game theory, was responsible for his "schizophrenia", I believe. His other great contribution, relating to the embedding of discontinuous geometries finitely within continuous manifolds, is still being explored.

He also managed to overcome the debilitating effects of observing a reality that he could not properly explain and having his colleagues and his devoted wife think he was mad. I suspect that it was his ruminations on that experience which were influential in his later work, including the work that he discussed with Villani.

One of my life ambitions was lost when Nash and his wonderful wife lost their lives recently, since it meant there was no possibility of ever having the opportunity to meet him.

A beautiful mind indeed.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 8 June 2015 2:12:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning Craig,

:)

Regards.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 8 June 2015 2:58:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc, having reexamined the initial posts, it looks like I owe you an apology first.

"Sorry about that", as Max Smart might have said.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 9 June 2015 11:37:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy