Science > Physics > Quantum Gravity 23 (abbreviated from Quantum Gravity...): Baez vs Doctorow
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2006 01:16:50 AM |
| Object: |
Quantum Gravity 23 (abbreviated from Quantum Gravity...): Baez vs Doctorow |
From Osher Doctorow
I have pointed out in earlier sections of this thread that there are
two competing schools: the algebraic topology/algebraic geometry school
of quantum gravity (containing both Superstring/brane and Loop Quantum
Gravity (LQG) theories) and the functional analysis school which is my
school (with Probable Influence/Causation (PI)) and with variations is
arguably almost everybody else's school.
John Baez from his sci.physics.research threads seems to believe that
LQG is superior to Superstring/brane theory because the former is
"background independent", meaning roughly that it doesn't assume a
fixed geometric background or structure but makes geometry part of the
dynamics or physics. This is undoubtedly Einstein's interpretation if
he were using modern terminology, but I pointed out that Steven
Weinberg doesn't think that GR is basically geometric in reality
although it might be topological (I'm not sure that he would even
accept topology "really" when he was at his prime, around 1972,
though).
Curiously enough, there seems to be a way to go from functional
analysis to Baez' U_h(sl(2)) Hopf algebra "quantum group", but like
computer programming flow charts there seem to be many alternative
routes to or around Baez' quantum group depending on whether we use
spheres or not and what types of spheres (Podles 2-spheres spheres,
Heegaard quantum 3-spheres, mirror spheres, etc.), whether one uses
Drinfeld or Compact Matrix quantum groups (the latter developed by
Woronowicz and apparently Podles), etc.
Take a look at Wikipedia's "Quantum group", and then "The Chern
character and Fredholm index for principal extensions of noncommutative
algebras" by Tomasz Brzezinski et al. (2004) accessible in the
preliminary version at Dr. Piotr M. Hajac's Homepage under Papers and
Co-Authors or www.fuw.edu.pl.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity 23 (abbreviated from Quantum Gravity...): Baez vs Doctorow |
17 Mar 2006 01:38:39 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
John Baez discusses the Woronowicz (Polish) school vs the Faddeev
(Russian) school in "Re: Hopf algebras, quantum groups," Mon. 1 Jan
2001 05:43:29 GMT, sci.physics.research, available also at
www.1ns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-01/msg0030352.html. However, he doesn't
give many details.
Take a look at Istvan Heckenberger and Stefan Kolb (U. Leipzig,
Germany) "Podles' quantum sphere: dual coalgebra and classification of
covariant first order differential calculus," math.QA/0204264 v1 22 Apr
2002 (Podles' first name is Piotr).
If you still wonder whether functional analysis has anything to do with
all this, take a look at William Arveson (U. C. Berkeley)
"Non-commutative spheres and numerical quantum mechanics,"
funct-an/9211014 v1 30 Nov 1992. He claims not to be related to
Podles' work more or less, but rather with the non-commutative spheres
of Bratteli, Elliott, Evans, and Kishimoto.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity 23 (abbreviated from Quantum Gravity...): Baez vs Doctorow |
17 Mar 2006 07:15:13 AM |
|
|
"OsherD" <> wrote in message
news:1142581119.691158.159210@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| >From Osher Doctorow
|
| John Baez discusses the Woronowicz (Polish) school vs the Faddeev
| (Russian) school in "Re: Hopf algebras, quantum groups," Mon. 1 Jan
| 2001 05:43:29 GMT, sci.physics.research, available also at
| www.1ns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-01/msg0030352.html. However, he doesn't
| give many details.
John Baez is an arrogant lying tord without a clue, here is the proof:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
Androcles.
|
| Take a look at Istvan Heckenberger and Stefan Kolb (U. Leipzig,
| Germany) "Podles' quantum sphere: dual coalgebra and classification of
| covariant first order differential calculus," math.QA/0204264 v1 22 Apr
| 2002 (Podles' first name is Piotr).
|
| If you still wonder whether functional analysis has anything to do with
| all this, take a look at William Arveson (U. C. Berkeley)
| "Non-commutative spheres and numerical quantum mechanics,"
| funct-an/9211014 v1 30 Nov 1992. He claims not to be related to
| Podles' work more or less, but rather with the non-commutative spheres
| of Bratteli, Elliott, Evans, and Kishimoto.
|
| Osher Doctorow
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity 23 (abbreviated from Quantum Gravity...): Baez vs Doctorow |
18 Mar 2006 01:24:09 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Hexenmeister typed:
John Baez is an arrogant lying tord without a clue, here is the proof:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
Androcles
I don't know Baez, but after reading his and his friends' crackpot
lists and/or similar types of exclusionary lists, I'd say that he
definitely doesn't qualify for the Nonconformist List, which to me is a
very strong criticism of any person. He does know an awful lot of
physics and mathematics - almost an encyclopedic amount (present
company excepted). I think that he does mean well (very well in fact)
not only for physics but for physics students and faculty and even for
mathematics and mathematicians. And he has contributed a lot of very
good stuff on the internet and in publications.
Of course, there are some exceptions to Baez' contributions other than
the first sentence above. I notice that in his 2001
sci.physics.research posting (which I think I cited earlier in this
thread), he made some snide remarks about people who criticize Category
Theory (one of his pet mathematical theories). Basically, the
University of California and most State Universities and Community
Colleges (other than U. Texas Austin and U. Florida Gainesville to my
knowledge, though there may be other exceptions) together with most USA
Private Universities except Princeton, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, and one
or two others, arguably should be put on a Conformist List (U. Chicago
is another exception).
We need Conformists. They do a lot of drudgery work as Ingenious
Imitators. My experiences indicate that each Ingenious Imitator has
one Creative Genius discovery/invention in his/her lifetime unless
he/she is fortunate enough to abandon Conformity. I think that at that
rate of discoveries, Shakespeare's Typing Monkeys would probably have a
good contest with Conformists for who could reproduce Shakespeare or
perhaps Einstein/Heisenberg and go a little bit beyond too in a few
billion years or so. But the Creative Geniuses in my opinion do come
from the pool of Ingenious Imitators, usually very Rarely and after
extremely stressful lives in which they abandon Conformity.
I hope that there are better species around somewhere in the Universe.
In fact, even non-human earthbound animals seem to have less Conformity
in some respects than humans and more control over their psychic
abilities. Perhaps we should send a neutered cat or even a neutered
dog as the next astronaut into space. Clifford Simak of science
fiction, himself a Creative Genius, thought that someday dogs capable
of changing dimensions would take over from human beings when the
latter ran out of "steam". It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity 23 (abbreviated from Quantum Gravity...): Baez vs Doctorow |
18 Mar 2006 06:19:58 AM |
|
|
"OsherD" <> wrote in message
news:1142666649.702621.159280@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
| >From Osher Doctorow
|
| Hexenmeister typed:
|
| >John Baez is an arrogant lying tord without a clue, here is the proof:
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
| >Androcles
|
|
| I don't know Baez, but after reading his and his friends' crackpot
| lists and/or similar types of exclusionary lists, I'd say that he
| definitely doesn't qualify for the Nonconformist List, which to me is a
| very strong criticism of any person. He does know an awful lot of
| physics and mathematics - almost an encyclopedic amount (present
| company excepted).
A parrot can speak but the words mean nothing to the listener and
less to the parrot. I know of one bird that barks like a dog.
The resemblance is striking.
I think that he does mean well (very well in fact)
| not only for physics but for physics students and faculty and even for
| mathematics and mathematicians.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
| And he has contributed a lot of very
| good stuff on the internet and in publications.
"Stuff" is the correct name of a mixture of pulped fibrous material
and water, the final product after processing being known as "paper".
Possibly Baez's stuff could be converted to useful toilet tissue.
| Of course, there are some exceptions to Baez' contributions other than
| the first sentence above. I notice that in his 2001
| sci.physics.research posting (which I think I cited earlier in this
| thread), he made some snide remarks about people who criticize Category
| Theory (one of his pet mathematical theories). Basically, the
| University of California and most State Universities and Community
| Colleges (other than U. Texas Austin and U. Florida Gainesville to my
| knowledge, though there may be other exceptions) together with most USA
| Private Universities except Princeton, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, and one
| or two others, arguably should be put on a Conformist List (U. Chicago
| is another exception).
|
| We need Conformists. They do a lot of drudgery work as Ingenious
| Imitators. My experiences indicate that each Ingenious Imitator has
| one Creative Genius discovery/invention in his/her lifetime unless
| he/she is fortunate enough to abandon Conformity. I think that at that
| rate of discoveries, Shakespeare's Typing Monkeys would probably have a
| good contest with Conformists for who could reproduce Shakespeare or
| perhaps Einstein/Heisenberg and go a little bit beyond too in a few
| billion years or so. But the Creative Geniuses in my opinion do come
| from the pool of Ingenious Imitators, usually very Rarely and after
| extremely stressful lives in which they abandon Conformity.
Science is discovery, not invention; it has little place for the creative.
The creative have their place in the arts and engineering, not the discovery
of the works of Nature. The scientist is given means to make discoveries
and may be creative in his methods, but he is not given carte blanche
authority to dictate rules to Nature.
Einstein (considered genius by many) certainly was creative when he
stated
quote:
We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot
be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time''
required
by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel
from
B to A.
unquote.
The imitators ignore this lie, "cannot", and proceed on to the drivel that
results from it. Einstein was not a genius, he was a huckster and a liar.
Newton had given a prior definition of time.
Today we have so-called "educated" people searching for black holes
that do not exist as a consequence.
| I hope that there are better species around somewhere in the Universe.
Wishful thinking (aka hope) is a form of creativity in its own right, but
it is not the same animal as curiousity. I want to know what is there,
not what you hope is there.
"Jurassic Park" was a masterpiece in creativity, but nobody of intelligence
seriously considers it to be science. The ideas it produces may promote
research, but it is not research intrinsically. People such as Baez, the
creative
imitators, are actually doing us a disservice by encouraging research into
the impossible and are honoured for it. In the words of Juvenal,
"Honesty is praised -- and starves"
Dishonesty is food on the table.
I have no object to research into the implausible, but the impossible is
another matter.
| In fact, even non-human earthbound animals seem to have less Conformity
| in some respects than humans and more control over their psychic
| abilities. Perhaps we should send a neutered cat or even a neutered
| dog as the next astronaut into space. Clifford Simak of science
| fiction, himself a Creative Genius, thought that someday dogs capable
| of changing dimensions would take over from human beings when the
| latter ran out of "steam". It wouldn't surprise me at all.
|
| Osher Doctorow
Change dimension?
No comment necessary, I'll send for the men in white coats.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity 23 (abbreviated from Quantum Gravity...): Baez vs Doctorow |
17 Mar 2006 01:49:59 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
For those who want to forget the whole thing about quantum groups but
still are interested in quantum gravity, you can basically get the
Probable Influence/Causation (PI) school of Quantum Gravity by taking
the unit ball or its subsets in functional analysis to be a model of
the whole (arguably open, though it could conceivably be closed)
Universe or the whole function space and forgetting its outside or
treating its outside "effectively" in the Weinberg sense of Effective
Gauge QFT (see also my threads on alternative types of null sets).
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zodness" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum Gravity 23 (abbreviated from Quantum Gravity...): Baez vs Doctorow |
17 Mar 2006 10:30:43 AM |
|
|
"OsherD" <> wrote in message
news:1142581799.267379.113780@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
From Osher Doctorow
For those who want to forget the whole thing about quantum groups but
still are interested in quantum gravity, you can basically get the
Probable Influence/Causation (PI) school of Quantum Gravity
the PIS on QG ?
by taking
the unit ball
"unit ball"
or its subsets in functional analysis to be a model of
the whole (arguably
arguably every one of your posts Kosher has "arguably" in it.
It means "BS ahead"
open, though it could conceivably be closed)
open......... or....... closed.............
(amazing)..............................
Universe or the whole function space and forgetting its outside or
treating its outside "effectively" in the Weinberg sense of Effective
Gauge QFT (see also my threads on alternative types of null sets).
Osher Doctorow
I agree with you, that you are completly inside the null set.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
