What is Not Even Wrong, THE BOOK!?

[marcus]

not only gratuitous but in my view profoundly inaccurate.
It misrepresented the paper by distorted emphasis: the main thesis, which Smolin italicized both in the introduction and at the end, in the conclusion section, was effectively lost...

hi Kea, I would be so happy if Motl's name never came up. Maybe you and I could cooperate and not participate in talking about him. We have plenty of other topics to discuss, that colorful contentious mediapersonalities distract us from.

But in another thread I do think it would be interesting to talk about standards of civility. In the US, in broadcast media, they seem to be changing. In New Zealand you may not get so much of this. You may find exhibitions of hate-talk stimulate you, especially if done with unrestrained verve and finesse. But we have Right Wing Hate-the-Librals Radio, and it gets old if you listen to it much. I think some of the breakdown in courtesy in broadcast media has gotten into academic discourse as well, perhaps by way of internet.

So great, let's not mention offenders' names. But in some other thread, where it is not off-topic, we should explore this question and see to what extent we want to abandon earlier standards of respectful debate.

If I can tolerate him (and I'm a green voting buxom blonde theoretical anti-String theorist) then why can't the rest of you?

yes I have always known you to be blond and buxom, and now am gratified to learn that you are green-voting. don't fancy third parties myself, but might if we had a system of parliamentary democracy or some different method of nominating and voting. voting green here doesn't seem to help the environment! but being blond and buxom helps anywhere,
have to go help fix supper.

 

[Sam Owen]

post piccie Kea :!)

i like 3+1b

blonde buxom brainy and beautiful ?

 

[Kea]

voting green here doesn't seem to help the environment...

Marcus, we have a deal.

Our elections are next month, and it looks quite likely that the government (which is actually a nice liberal government) will have to form a coalition with the green party which now has over 5% of the vote (and we have a sort of proportional representation). Not like the US, obviously.

Kea

 

[marcus]

Marcus, we have a deal.

Our elections are next month, and it looks quite likely that the government (which is actually a nice liberal government) will have to form a coalition with the green party which now has over 5% of the vote (and we have a sort of proportional representation). Not like the US, obviously.

Kea

you have no idea how much I long for a parl. type system so I could vote what i believe (or some more mathematical type of voting)
the Rudimentary BiCentral system is...cant think of the word

In fantasy, i will vote the "nice liberal" ticket, and you vote the splinter green, and we make a coalition, fine, that works.

ADDENDUM: Anyone who feels a need for more discussion of the roles of fanaticism and insult in scientific discussion can check out the excellent blog of CAPITALIST IMPERIALIST PIG!

http://capitalistimperialistpig.blogspot.com/2005/08/bad-vibrations.html

I thought he got some thoughtful comments. No need for us to go over the same ground.

 

[Locrian]

What a bunch of wimps! Must we keep talking about Lubos? He's just a sweet and slightly too opinionated guy. If I can tolerate him (and I'm a green voting buxom blonde theoretical anti-String theorist) then why can't the rest of you?

I'm editing to be nicer; I'll repost the original post if requested.

In short, I don't care if you think he's a sweet guy, because that isn't how he's acting in the blog post this thread is about. I also don't care if you think we're wimps for pointing out his insanity. I don't care if you don't think we should discuss him, because he is a major player in the subject this thread is about - namely the blog post concerning a new book.

You are wrong suggesting we don't tolerate him. Holding someone's feet to the fire for acting childish is not the same as not tolerating them; it's almost the exact opposite.

 

[Kea]

...in the subject this thread is about...

I thought this thread was about the book Peter Woit is about to publish, and what we think of it ... not what we think other people think of it.

 

[Sam Owen]

^^^hardly anything in this froum is what "we" think of it, it's more about what we think other people think about it and being too ignorant or fearful of saying what we really think.

That smolin letter to string believer thread is a classic example.

BTW what's the point in saying you're blond and buxom if you're not going to prove it ?

I could say I am dreadlocked, tattooed and vote green would you believe me ?

As for the book I'm keen to read it on the understanding that it won't take much to prove string theory in the future and that it doesn't take much to disprove it in the present.

If it happens that extra dimensions are found and a background dependent theory of gravity and time is proven, Woit will be the one with egg on his face and Lubos will rightfully hound him for it

who knows whether that will happen in our lifetime though, maybe the aliens will have to show us :)

 

[Kea]

Quoting Woit, who won't say much about the content of the book,

The book contains material on several related topics, including a history of the standard model from a mathematically-informed perspective, a description of the history, current status and prospects of high energy accelerators and particle physics experiments, some of the history of recent interactions between mathematics and physics, a history of supersymmetry and string theory and attempts to use them to get beyond the standard model, comments on the notion of beauty in theoretical physics and on the sociology of how particle physics is pursued and supported, especially in the US. There’s also a section explaining exactly what the problems with supersymmetry and string theory are, making the case that these are ideas that have failed conclusively, together with an explanation of what the whole landscape controversy is about.

This sounds like exactly what you would expect in such a book, nothing really new, but if the final argument is as careful as Peter is claiming then I look forward to seeing it. I'm hoping also that he has really gone to some effort to understand the current status of HEP experiments - it's hard to keep up with all this stuff. Sounds like he's packing too much into 250 pages, though. Guess we just have to wait and see.

Cheers
Kea

 

[CarlB]

Sounds like he's packing too much into 250 pages, though. Guess we just have to wait and see.

It does seem thin. It's barely enough to give a rough introduction to the standard model. Of the skinny books on the standard model I own, one of my favorite books is Kerson Huang's "Quarks, Leptons and Gauge Fields":


I think of it as a thin book; the latest edition is 333 pages long. I have the first edition from 1982 which must be around 250 pages or so. And it's also a rather small book. Maybe Woit's book has big pages.

I'll probably buy a copy of Not Even Wrong when it becomes available.

Carl

 

[arivero]

It does seem thin. It's barely enough to give a rough introduction to the standard model. Of the skinny books on the standard model I own, one of my favorite books is Kerson Huang's "Quarks, Leptons and Gauge Fields":


I think of it as a thin book; the latest edition is 333 pages long. I have the first edition from 1982 which must be around 250 pages or so. And it's also a rather small book. Maybe Woit's book has big pages.

Well it is thin because the pre heating chapters on QFT have been stored in other book (a set of lecture notes, if you wish). But it is true it is the single most informative book on Particle Theory.