|Subject: Science hopes for light at end of £2.5bn
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:12:43 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <email@example.com>
To: Ian Halliday <Ian.Halliday@pparc.ac.uk>,
Martin Ward <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Chris Sachrajda <email@example.com>,
John Inkson <J.C.Inkson@exeter.ac.uk>,
Brian Foster <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
George Efstathiou <email@example.com>
CC: Susan.Hedges@pparc.ac.uk, ANDREW.LEMASURIER@pparc.ac.uk,
RE: Science hopes for light at end of £2.5bn tunnel, by Pravin Char, Metro, Monday, November 24, 2003, p. 23:
"Britain's top particle physicists are expected to announce details of the Next Generation Linear Collider tomorrow. It is likely to cost £2.5 billion to build and £3 billion to run.
"Britain cannot afford it alone but will be one of the
biggest contributors to the multinational project."
Please bear in mind that this £5.5 billion monster may be totally redundant. The theory can be developed on a plain sheet of paper,
All you need is math and open mind. You could save a lot of cash, too.
May I suggest a real project that can make a huge difference,
Dear Dr. Weinstein,
In the abstract of your recent "Quantized Cosmology", hep-th/0311189 v2, you wrote:
"Finally, we suggest interesting ways in which these techniques can be generalized to cast light on the question of chaotic or eternal inflation. In particular, we suggest one can put an experimental lower bound on the distance to a universe with a scale factor very different from our own, by looking at its effects on our CMB radiation."
I'm wondering, are you applying the format 'either ... or' in addressing the question of the volume of 3-D space, "either finite or infinite"?
It seems to me that we should accept both options as complementary aspects of the "size" of the universe,
Hence the universe could have a dual age as well, and the whole story about the so-called big bang and Higgs boson(s), if any, should be totally rewritten, starting from the nature of gravity,
A penny for your thoughts! It may be worth of £5.5 billion,
I will highly appreciate the critical comments from your colleagues as well.
Note: Way back in the last century, in 1983, I was working in the Institute of Physiology of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, section 'Psychophysics of Visual Perception'. We were not allowed to question the Marxist-Leninist dogma on the mind-brain relations, according to which the brain is some 'hardware' while the mind is some 'software'. All we could do is to make some jokes on this subject, indicating that the Marxist-Leninist garbage is equally stupid and ridiculous.
I remember one of these jokes: How do you separate the brain from its mind? Very easy. All you need is one brain and a very, I mean, very fast Beckman centrifuge. Drop the brain there and spin it for a week, and at the end you'll will see that the mind is totally separated from the brain, being very, I mean, very light.
Of course, this was just a stupid joke, not like the story about the Higgs boson(s) above. There are some similarities and differences, however.
We all know that the standard model is essentially incomplete, since nobody has managed to "attach" gravity to quantum fields. The standard model is manifestly silent about the "mass" of the so-called God particle. It is more than obvious that it could be an artifact of the aging standard model. Moreover, the number of possible vacua seems to be in the range of googles (a google, G, is defined to be ten to the power one hundred, G = 10100), which annihilates the "predictive power" of the standard model. Sad but true. See Lenny Susskind's hep-th/0302219.
Therefore we should make a better model. This is what theoretical physicists got paid for: Do your job on a plain sheet of paper. First things first. Your current theory is not good. Not at all. Just like the theory about the separation of the mind from its brain. Both stories are equally ridiculous.
Now the differences. The first difference is in the price to pay for a Beckman centrifuge compared to the Next Linear Collider. The latter will be in the range of billions, just like the "modest" Large Hadron Collider, LHC. The second difference is that nobody can publish the stupid joke above in some peer-reviewed scientific journal, while many physicists can easily publish a "research paper", provided they say at the end that it is very exciting to build these extremely expensive toys and run the experiments, since we have no idea what might happen, and hence whatever happens will be extremely exciting and elucidating. Paul D. Grannis, from Stony Brook High Energy Group at State University of New York, acknowledged that above 130 GeV "it is most likely not supersymmetry, and then we're on a fishing expedition to figure out what the hell is going on" (Higgs Won't Fly, Scientific American, February 2001). Fishing in murky waters, with taxpayers' money.
Oooops, I almost forgot one essential similarity in the two stupid stories above: nobody is interested in separating the mind from its brain by the method proposed above, and nobody is interested in new ideas about the nature of mass either.
Can you beat Fibonacci? Wait for my CD ROM, it will be available on the Internet soon, I mean, very soon. John Cramer mentioned an eleven-year boy who wanted to know what the Big Bang sounded like for a school project. With such smart kids, the future is bright. The fun part is just around the corner!