Recent content by Gort

It's just amazing to me that pseudo-science is appearing (at least to me) to be so semi-legit. Can anyone present at the "28th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics", for instance? But I just found out that the "International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics" is a scam publication...

Let me preface my question with the observation that I'm not an expert in either GR or QFT. But I do know enough to realize how much I don't know. I'm merely an aging Ph.D. physicist. That said, I viewed a ResearchGate preprint and was invited to comment on it. While I don't believe I'm...

Although I agree that can be done, was that actually done during initial tests of GR? I seem to recall that the stellar light deflection measuring by Eddington during the 1919 eclipse was "precisely" what GR predicted. No mention of refraction through the solar atmosphere that I recall. Did I...

I'd like to call attention to this paper: https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf I'm not trying to question the validity of GR in bending of light near a star (such as the sun), as this paper apparently does. But surely Newtonian refraction of light passing through the sun's upper...

Although possible, I think that would be difficult. They would have to try and measure "apparent magnitude bias" by comparing the expected apparent magnitude from distances measured by other means (such as Cepheids). Not sure the Cepheid accuracy is sufficient to bring out the bias. My feeling...

This question was triggered by the fact that Adam Riess is making his lecture rounds at a local University. So, wanting to be prepared, I pulled out his old Nobel lecture, which nicely described the techniques used for the high-z s/n measurements. I was particularly interested in how they...

Thank you for pointing out the existing thread. Consider it closed.

I think the "uncomfortable with math" hypothesis was thrown out there simply to generate alternative hypotheses. They're all testable, though - I'm not a statistician, but I'm sure it would require a much more extensive study to develop any real conclusions. Disclaimer - I don't have any...

I think the "citations outside the paper's subfield" is an interesting and valid argument. I'm less inclined to accept the brevity argument (if it's a good source, it's still a good source). But maybe that's just me.

Not sure I follow. By analogy, a short story is higher quality than a novel because it has fewer words. Surely the number of equations can't be the metric by which quality is judged - can it?

Most physicists would agree, I believe, that mathematics is the language of physics. Mathematical models are used to describe the physical world. I therefore found it somewhat amusing but disconcerting that a recent paper found a statistically significant negative correlation between...

I think that theoretical models are what we're talking about. The Standard Model says point (zero dimensional) particles. The string model says the Planck length. Experiments have not reached the level where either extent can be measured.

Perhaps I could frame the question a bit differently. From my (naive) understanding, String Theory postulates that "elementary" particles are comprised of one-dimensional strings, vibrating in 11 (or more) dimensions. If that one dimension is spatial, strings are of the order of the Planck...

Certainly agree with that. But the question is - can it (ever) be done? Can we ever know "everything about the physical world" (which implies an objective reality), or, as Hawking (apparently) said "it doesn't matter what is actually real and what isn't, all that matters is what we experience...

Thanks! So much for the Forum's search function (or my inability to use it). I think this was only resurrected because Hawking apparently argued (in 2010) that there would never be a ToE (this point was argumentative by several contributors - whether Hawking really said that, and if he did...