Is it really true that the Physic community believes in the stability of symmetric spaces due to Linear analysis? The following might have been missed by the readers due to it having been posted a couple of days ago, but here it is (to humble ST people) Not that this is necessarily what Pensrose means when he talks about collapse, though it is hard to tell precisely what he does mean. I was just reporting what Penrose says, and I’m not interested enough in this issue to spend my time on the details of this. In any case I don’t think Penrose has an air-tight argument against extra dimensions, because you can always claim that quantization solves the problem. Thesis: Bullshit is worse than outright lies, because lying presumes a truth, while bullshitting is an end in itself that disposes of truth altogether.

The Road to Reality - Wikipedia

Meaning Penrose is untrustworthy. But surely Emperor’s New Mind has already proven that. Interested in why the Lunsfords, Voits haven’t lumped him in with the celebrity stringies they so detest. So much for objectivity I guess. Penrose’s point of view is that of a relativist, so his treatment of geometry, general relativity and classical field equations is the deepest and most detailed part of the book. But he also discusses quantum theory extensively as well as the various attempts to quantize gravity. Compared to the general relativity parts, his treatment of particle physics and quantum field theory is rather sketchy, but quite original. I have a gedanken experiment for you, which anyone with any familiarity with Penrose’s work or indeed any real understanding of spinors will be able to immediately answer. The Portal Book Club - We have a weekly group that meets to talk about this book. Come join us in Discord!Penrose’s comments about higher dimensional theories were made in the context of a criticism of string theory, so I don’t think it is unreasonable for me to discuss them in that context. If you have another context in which you want to discuss these issues, you’ll have to make it explicit. I really think you could understand everything I say if you actually read complete sentences instead of just look for points for to draw the obvious conclusion, Wilczek seems willing to entertain reservations about current attempts to join quantum mechanics and general relativity and to go out on his own looking for new ones, as in the case of this paper. Pitkanen, M. (1994). p-Adic description of Higgs mechanism I: p-Adic square root and p-adic light cone. [hep-th/9410058] …”. However, the USA edition omits the laudatory reference to Paul Ginsparg that is found in the UK edition.

The Road to Reality : Roger Penrose : Free Download, Borrow The Road to Reality : Roger Penrose : Free Download, Borrow

Just before a total eclipse of the Sun, the Moon is given a large velocity tangential to its orbit at mid-eclipse. Do the effects of relativity prevent the eclipse? Explain. Finally, I’ll draw these threads together more tightly by citing the following paper by Dowker, Henson, and Sorkin: I too would like to read an elaboration of this instability issue. Does he mean N space + 1 time or N space + M time, or both? Does he mean the same thing that originally did in Einstein’s cosmology (thought of as say deSitter space)?

Now, (my addition I apologise) recent research has confirmed this in admitted a low dimension setting. 3 dim constrained water waves have been show to have UNIVERSAL chaotic motions.