Comments on: Democratic Vote Squashes Anthropic Principle

By: Heresiarch

Heresiarch — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:29:57 +0000

Sorry if I missed something, but I don’t see any reference to Lee Smolin’s notion of Comological Natural Selection as a nonteleological alternative to Intelligent Design when accounting for anthropic coincidences. Basically, he taps Darwinian logic to come up with a model of the evolution of universes in which physical constants that skew universes toward black hole production give those universes an adaptive advantage in the ensemble of universes. More at http://www.starlarvae.org/Star_Larvae_Cosmological_Natural_Selection.htm

By: Gordon Chalmers

Gordon Chalmers — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:53:15 +0000

Anonynmous

I was referring to the apparent mass formula listed in the “Anthropic…” comments, and why somebody should check with a narrow microscope its possible values for unusual phenomena in data.

The recursion theory work is actually quite useful, I believe. In order to demonstrate it, I am writing a computer program doing exactly what my papers spelled out in simple details; I will probably set surprisingly good benchmarks for laptop computing in quantum field computing. Furthermore, I am kind of optimistic to get somewhat closed form solutions to the coupling dependence of any scattering process and in most field theories, including those containing bare interactions which have higher dimensions.

I cant explain why people dont use these arguably not new techniques, but perhaps as usual people dont always like to put in a lot of time that either they are unwilling or unable to spend on projects that seem relatively unknown. I really believe that the standards of computing will change in general, and that once the first computer program is finished this will be obvious. It is important enough that somebody should carry this line of work to its end.

By: Alejandro Rivero

Alejandro Rivero — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 08:44:21 +0000

There are some “tipo guadiana” running projects to put some order in loops using computational techniques. Check for instance Kreimer, who uses sometimes knot theory, sometimes Hopf algebras.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:29:35 +0000

Against my better judgement, out of late-night curiosity, I’ll bite: what are you talking about, Gordon? You seem to have a lot of papers on the arXiv suggesting that recursion relations and considerations of unitarity and analyticity allow perturbation series to be computed. Of course I’m willing to believe that, based on the work of Bern, Dixon, Kosower, and the others who’ve recently jumped on the twistor-inspired bandwagon. But it’s still hard work to figure out how to use these things, and if you really have a general algorithm, why hasn’t e.g. Bern (your old advisor, apparently?) started using it? Apologies to the owners of this blog — maybe Gordon should start his own blog to evangelize — but I’m somewhat curious about whether in the tens of papers he’s posted there might be some actually useful stuff.

By: Gordon Chalmers

Gordon Chalmers — Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:41:16 +0000

I suppose if one could solve the theory to a 1000 loops or more then a better test could be made.

By: Gordon Chalmers

Gordon Chalmers — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:09:45 +0000

Two anomalous bumps in data would probably be significant. Almost all publicly known particles fit that formula, with a similar uniform prediction at the next sub-leading order.

By: Gordon Chalmers

Gordon Chalmers — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:43:26 +0000

Question to the experts: How much time would it take exisiting techniques to check the current public data for the existence of a potentially background smeared massive particle at 270 masses (give or take a hundred values)?

By: Gordon Chalmers

Gordon Chalmers — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 18:42:30 +0000

Perhaps one should check the experimental
data again on the values of the mass

formula, i.e. for apparent information on
particles. Because they could be specified,

this check might be time and cost effective.

By: Alejandro Rivero

Alejandro Rivero — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:43:00 +0000

Thanks for the hint, Joanne. I haven’t heard of the “Altarelli Cocktail”. I was aware of the preannouncement, in Nature, of a Top Quark because Tony Smith keeps track of every top-related problem in his website. The article was title “CERN again on top”, or something so.

From your explanation I see that my small joke (that the tau can be perfectly a SUSY particle, if one wants to see the muon as susy to the charged pion) is unrelated to the UA* tales.

By: Moshe Rozali

Moshe Rozali — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:17:44 +0000

Clifford,

What I find cute in this particular idea is not that SUSY is hidden, but that the optimistic scenario of finding lots of superpartners is in effect, though they are not superpartners really.

best,

Moshe