The newly re-elected Prime Minister promises that Israel will persist. See Jerusalem Post for details (vids are in Hebrew): Israel’s Beresheet spacecraft fails to land safely on the moon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was at hand to watch the landing, said that Israel will continue to try landing on the moon. By JERUSALEM POST […]
As far as I can tell, Smolin sees this as a Darwinian solution to The Multiverse Problem. I think I’d call it “The Multiphysics Solution”. I suppose this falls under the dictum, “Fight fire with fire.” My own estimation is “garbage in, garbage out.”
A long-awaited development, thanks to an array of radio telescopes: BBC reports: Astronomers have taken the first ever image of a black hole, which is located in a distant galaxy. It measures 40 billion km across – three million times the size of the Earth – and has been described by scientists as “a monster”. […]
Actually, Darwin and his followers simply imposed a vision on the natural world: In their vision, masses of complex, specified information simply arise naturally in the struggle among life forms, though we have yet to identify a single example.
It’s actually a good thing if theses in physics don’t gain currency just because they make good TED talks. That could be part of theirproblem.
If reality truly is constructed of disparate natures, maybe no theory from inside would explain it all.
What if the true state of things is something one is not supposed to discuss? That situation is very common and leads to similar conundrums.
Recently, theoretical physicist Ethan Siegel crossed our screen while making clear why, in his view, a multiverse MUST exist. If we know so little about the actual universe that we can’t answer the title question, what sense does it make to insist that there must be an infinity of universes?
Is it theoretically possible that the axion is so small that it is not individually measurable by any foreseeable technique but the mass of axions has an enormous effect?
“ infinitely far from having any connection to conventional science”? Wow.
Sheldon: It suggests that 30 years of string theorists have been searching in the wrong part of phase space. That promising solutions are not in the “weak interaction” swampland, but in the “strong interaction” wasteland. By limiting their search, they claim they have eliminated many previous solutions, and are closing in on “the solution” as one-in-a-quadrillion. Their track record would say otherwise.
Question emerges: ““There is some beautiful structure that somehow coexists with a totally random environment,” Papić said. “What kind of physics allows this to happen?”
Marcelo Gleiser sounds as though he thinks that the great mysteries of physics are about this universe, not space aliens, computer sim universes, cyborgs, and so forth (on that score, see 2011 Templeton winner Sir Martin Rees).
You know particle physics is in serious trouble when the idea of just putting the money into climate change instead gets serious face time.
He examines the possibilities and decides that photons probably do not really have mass. But even if they did, that wouldn’t help much with the puzzle that we need dark matter but can’t find it.