Reply to Baez on what's important.
Jack Sarfatti
"Whaddymean it can't be that way?" Feynman
Reply to Baez. I think you mostly post good stuff - with some slips like
crackpot index. Where's your sense of humor about titles? No need for that
"sinking feeling". It's called art John - art. I was conditioned at
Cornell in the 50's by Phil Morrison, C.P. Snow, Vladimir Nabokov - I mix
some satire, literature and poetry with my physics - it called culture.
But I do not understand how you can be so cavelier about the unitarity
issue - you are not seeing the forest but the trees. Yes, loop transforms
ans supermanifolds are interesting but they are pretty far removed from the
really burning issues of physics. You sluff it off as if it is a matter of
little consequence for physics.
If it is really true that standard quantum mechanics allows communication
on the connection - it will be one of the most profound physics discoveries
in the history of the subject - comparable to Newton's mechanics, Maxwell's
equations, second law of thermodynamics, relativity and discovery of the
quantum of action - because it will totally change our idea of the nature
of time and causality.
Now I am not saying that my theory is correct - that's for experiment to
decide (to decide if its false in Popper's sense. But I am making a
definite prediction - control of polarization of light from a distance
including from the future. The math is much more elementary than loop
transforms and supermanifolds. In fact is trigonometry and simple matrix
algebra. Therefore I am at a loss when you say that you cnnot tell if a
matrix whose elements are (11) = 0 , (12) = 1, (21) = 1, (22) = 0 is
unitary or not - that is the matrix for the half-wave plate.
I fail to understand how you could not be interested in this problem since
it is simple and profound and easily tested. I think it shows a real lack
of judgement - and I don't mean to attack you personally - you are not
alone in this. It is a lack of judgement conditioned by the fear of
questioning prejudices and a petty academic arrogance borne of fear and
insecurity that I detested as a graduate student and as a professor of
physics at San Diego State. Men like Einstein, Wheeler, Feynman certainly
do not have that attitude.
The obsession with the "crack pot index" dominating so many postings in
this conference is a kind of creeping censorship- an intolerance for
deviant ideas - form of Mc Carthyism. Many of you use "crackpot" the way
Mc Carthy used "Communist" - and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Cameron Randale Bass
>
>The obsession with the "crack pot index" dominating so many postings in
>this conference is a kind of creeping censorship- an intolerance for
>deviant ideas - form of Mc Carthyism. Many of you use "crackpot" the way
>Mc Carthy used "Communist" - and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
It was a joke, son, a joke. Is our persecution complex showing?
By the way, there is *always* a certain intolerance for deviant ideas.
It is not 'McCarthyism', but simply a natural and sensible conservatism
about switching conceptual bases willy-nilly.
Your job, should you choose to assume it, is to show why deviant
ideas should be adopted by all of us rather stodgy and conservative
human types. Insofar as you have failed to make a compelling
case, it is your failure, not ours.
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926
SCOTT I CHASE
>
>I fail to understand how you could not be interested in this problem since
>it is simple and profound and easily tested. I think it shows a real lack
>of judgement - and I don't mean to attack you personally - you are not
>alone in this. It is a lack of judgement conditioned by the fear of
>questioning prejudices and a petty academic arrogance borne of fear and
>insecurity that I detested as a graduate student and as a professor of
>physics at San Diego State. Men like Einstein, Wheeler, Feynman certainly
>do not have that attitude.
>
>The obsession with the "crack pot index" dominating so many postings in
>this conference is a kind of creeping censorship- an intolerance for
>deviant ideas - form of Mc Carthyism. Many of you use "crackpot" the way
>Mc Carthy used "Communist" - and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
I have enough things to be ashamed about without you adding to the list. :-)
You know, it is certainly true in principle that you may be right out FTL
communications. However I think that it is entirely unfair of you to hold
the rest of us up to judgement for not taking you seriously enough, or being
"conditioned by the fear of questioning prejudices." etc. Any one of us
would love to gain fame and tenure by verifying some exotic or otherwise
unexpected physics. If you are having a hard time convincing people that
what you have to say is interesting, consider this -
Who is the only person who is always in the room whenever someone refuses to
listen to what you have to say? Surely, *he* is the man to blame.
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV although I have no right to say so, having
been a single cell so long ago myself that I
have no memory at all of that stage of my
life." - Lewis Thomas
John C. Baez
>
>Reply to Baez. I think you mostly post good stuff - with some slips like
>crackpot index. Where's your sense of humor about titles? No need for that
>"sinking feeling". It's called art John - art. I was conditioned at
>Cornell in the 50's by Phil Morrison, C.P. Snow, Vladimir Nabokov - I mix
>some satire, literature and poetry with my physics - it called culture.
Here in LA if we want some culture we buy a yogurt.
(Sarfatti also emailed me this letter and I emailed him a response, which
I will not bother to repeat here. Let me simply note that my
"crackpot index" posts and my reported "sinking feeling" upon
encountering the title "EXORCIZING THE BAEZ DEMON" were intended to
amuse, more than edify. It's called comedy, folks - comedy. If you
don't like it, well, sorry.)
Alison Chaiken
>However I think that it is entirely unfair of you to hold the rest of
>us up to judgement for not taking you seriously enough, or being
>"conditioned by the fear of questioning prejudices." etc. Any one of
>us would love to gain fame and tenure by verifying some exotic or
>otherwise unexpected physics.
I understand what you mean, Scott, but I do think that there can be a
tendency for insecure physicists to dismiss new theories out of hand
for fear of looking stupid, whereas the Great Ones will think new
ideas through and decide for themselves. Hey, there is a real "fear
of questioning prejudices," especially among graduate students! Lazy
physicists also tend to assume the dogma is true because it's easier
than considering each new proposal separately. I always want to smack
people who justify their axioms by saying, "It's well known." That's
not a scientific basis!
Of course science will not progress via constant challenging of basic
principles, either. There has to be an intermediate approach.
To me the canonical example of prejudice against new ideas came with
Peter Hagelstein's persecution over his theory of cold fusion. So the
cold fusion experiments were a crock, that doesn't mean that someone
who concocts a self-consistent physically reasonable theory should be
ridiculed! Likewise an experiment that tests a flawed theory need not
be a bad experiment. An experiment or a theory can be judged on its
own merits.
Note that I do not advocate FTL theories or cold fusion!
--
Alison Chaiken ali...@wsrcc.com
(510) 422-7129 [daytime] or cha...@cmsgee.llnl.gov
Look if you like, but you will have to leap.
Terry Bollinger
In article <1992Oct22.1...@galois.mit.edu>
jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
> Let me simply note that my crackpot index" posts and my reported "sinking
> feeling" upon encountering the title "EXORCIZING THE BAEZ DEMON" were
> intended to amuse, more than edify. It's called comedy, folks - comedy.
Glad you said so, since I really must point out that truly dedicated
punsters would never write something as dull as "EXORCIZING THE BAEZ DEMON."
It really should have been "EXORCISING BAEZ-ULBUB," don't you think? }=-)>
(first one who says "I don't get it" gets the prize for lack of familiarity
with any literature over 1000 years old...)
Cheers,
Terry Bollinger
Ric Peregrino
Chris Metzler
|> In article <BwIn9...@well.sf.ca.us> sarf...@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
|> >
|> >The obsession with the "crack pot index" dominating so many postings in
|> >this conference is a kind of creeping censorship- an intolerance for
|> >deviant ideas - form of Mc Carthyism. Many of you use "crackpot" the way
|> >Mc Carthy used "Communist" - and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
|>
|> It was a joke, son, a joke. Is our persecution complex showing?
|>
|> By the way, there is *always* a certain intolerance for deviant ideas.
|> It is not 'McCarthyism', but simply a natural and sensible conservatism
|> about switching conceptual bases willy-nilly.
|>
|> Your job, should you choose to assume it, is to show why deviant
|> ideas should be adopted by all of us rather stodgy and conservative
|> human types. Insofar as you have failed to make a compelling
|> case, it is your failure, not ours.
|>
|> dale bass
|>
Indeed. In rhetoric and in science, I was always taught that the burden
of proof (or at least presentation of supporting evidence) rests on those
who make the new assertion.
-- Chris