Many thanks to Dennis for linking, from the NYT site, an article I wrote one year ago to comment a crackpotty paper by an otherwise esteemed scientist.
The essay just appeared on the New York Times site is excellent, as always with Overbye, but it is also way more balanced than my rather vitriolic attack on the theory of backward causation and, in particular, the idea that one should use the Large Hadron Collider to test it by deciding to run or not to run based on the turn of a card.
I do not have much to say one year after the fact, but since I honestly believe my early piece is worth a read, I invite you there directly (or you may reach the piece from the NYT one). Happy reading.
Update: Peter Woit discusses the issue here, and he criticizes (not without reason, in hindsight) the possibilistic stand that Overbye has taken on the matter.
Comments
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/12/09 | 17:52 PM
- Reply to This »
- Link
Chris Long (not verified) | 10/12/09 | 18:54 PM
I had not seen such a pile of unmitigated BS in the ArXiV since I don’t know when.
Science in general, and physics in specific, needs more plain speaking like that.
Hank Campbell | 10/12/09 | 20:55 PM
well, in a sense, yes. But dealing with controversies requires you to keep your cool, because nobody wants to make enemies in the Academia unless it's strictly necessary -it is counterproductive and wasteful. But there's a limit. In Italy (and more specifically, in Rome and surroundings) they say "quanno cce vvo', cce vo'!" -> "quando ci vuole, ci vuole" -> "when it's called for, it's called for".
Cheers,
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 10/13/09 | 01:31 AM
Easily the most absurd paper that I have ever read and an embarrasment to the proffession.
Haelfix (not verified) | 10/13/09 | 11:38 AM
Luboš Motl | 10/14/09 | 08:18 AM
Kipchuk (not verified) | 10/18/09 | 12:19 PM
their conclusions relate to the idea that "acausal connections" exist in the space-time continuum.
Jung called these connections a, "synchronicity principle.:
The letters between them were published under title, "atom and archetype" 1932-1958....
My blog shown offers an example, with appropriate comments from senior researchers at
Princeton University, School of Applied Science....
Todd Laurence (not verified) | 10/18/09 | 15:30 PM
since you are a respected member of the hep community, why don't you do the experiment? You can set up a team with some of your colleagues and declare that you won't partecipate to LHC if a predetermined very low probability event will occur, maybe a specific result in an online random number generator like http://www.random.org/.
It will show to the public how real science works , how real scientists deal with statistics (betting your career against very low probability events), NN will be falsified and we'll have a lot of fun :)
anonymous (not verified) | 10/19/09 | 05:11 AM
Cheers,
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 10/19/09 | 05:58 AM
unit (not verified) | 10/19/09 | 08:17 AM
Cheers,
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 10/19/09 | 10:20 AM
