Comments on: Explaining Time, the Universe, and All That

By: Determinism and Choice « Meng Bomin

Determinism and Choice « Meng Bomin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:25:28 +0000

[...] Festival 2009 called Time Since Einstein that Sean Carroll, a participant in the discussion, pointed to. However, during the discussion (in segment 2 of 5), the moderator, who was not a physicist [...]

By: Bruce

Bruce — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:58:50 +0000

I watched all 5 videos. Interesting. Good job on the panel, Sean.

Today I read a summary of some of Huw Price’s thoughts on time, and was a bit surprised that his views didn’t get mentioned in the panel, particularly as regards his views on quantum mechanics. I know his book on the subject is a bit dated (1996, I think), and I have yet to read it fully (only the summary), but I would have thought his ideas might have gained some traction. Did they get shot down somewhere along the way. I did a google of him, but nothing came up except a few references to his works.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:16:38 +0000

Gag me. Supported by the Templeton Foundation with a Catholic priest on the panel. Sean should avoid these events.

By: joel rice

joel rice — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:30:02 +0000

Ah – you said the magic phrase – victim of its own success.
I do not buy this at all. The Standard Model can not make any
sense of generations of fermions – it does accomodate, which is
fantastic, but generations are a huge mystery. And of course
nobody has made sense of how gravitation fits. It might well
be due to the SM being right for the wrong reasons. Perhaps
Dirac is both the strength and the weakness ? Algebraically
speaking it is not entirely clear that we even have spacetime
nailed down as well as one might hope. Clifford Algebra does not
appear to answer all the questions – and raises others.
It brings up another common phrase like ‘an idea seems likely
to survive in the future correct theory’. But if the neat idea is
right for the wrong reasons and the future correct theory gets it
right for the right reasons – the neat idea will be seen as a
dreadful mistake.

By: Baby Bones

Baby Bones — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:53:12 +0000

Just had an idea.

Have you ever considered how hard it is to actually go back to the same piece of space? Our daily experience would make it seem easy, but this is an illusion. We are on a moving planet circling a sun circling a galaxy that is expanding away from most everything else; in all of human history, no one has ever revisited the same piece of space. There is no point of return. We always spiral.

But coordinate systems can be centered on ourselves. In that case, we are always in the same place and everything else spirals around us.

Is there a middle sort of view? I suppose it is possible or easier to return to the patch of space, it may get ahead of me, but I might catch up.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:27:49 +0000

Sean,
Linus Pauling would remind U to scientifically maintain your health, particularly while flying, by MEGADOSES (grams) of Vit-C, post-meals. If will still aid in expunging the bugger post-infection, if U start now.
Bon Chance, Mon Ami

By: Timon of Athens

Timon of Athens — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:49:02 +0000

“Now if only my immune system would finish off the little viral buggers”

By the way, in Australian English to be “buggered” means that you are tired or not well. So don’t be alarmed if someone says to you, “You look buggered!” It’s an expression of concern, not a comment on the way you walk.

By: Sili

Sili — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:01:47 +0000

At least it’s just a cold. I missed the first two days of the Durham Summer school on crystallography due to some sorta infection in my balance organs/nerves/whatnot.

Couldn’t stand up. Now, I’m not one for declining an opportunity to sleep, but I prefer to have the choice to stay in bed.