Are Physicists losing their grip on reality?

I'm sure that physicists are gradually loosing their grip on reality. What's really loosened the grip is this dimension thing. In the past I could go along with the idea that there may be many additional dimensions that we just can't see because they bend in upon themselves in a space somewhere around the Plank length (smaller than very, very small).  Various numbers of these diminutive dimensions have been bandied about. People like Lisa Randall, apparently a leading US physicist in the dimension game talk of various numbers of these , from a dozen or so to "many".

Giving grudging acceptance to these enigmatic dimensions was easy, however, when no one was ever likely to prove or disprove them, and if they did, it wouldn't have an impact on my Saturday afternoon beer, or anything else for that matter.

Now, however they're going too far. Now they're saying that the early universe actually had FEWER dimensions, and that at higher energy levels  (like maybe in the heart of the Large Hadron Collider) there also may be fewer, ( there really are only 3 aren't there?, 4 if you count time). This characterizes a universe in which the most fundamental characteristic (including my most fundamental characteristic) may be a bit footloose. Evanescent, if you prefer. How, in a 2 dimensional universe, could you ever get beer into a can? Or, assuming the beer was already in there, how would you get it out?  And furthermore, if time were to be the unfortunate dimension to be booted into the void, what would keep everything from happening all at once? Or having happened all at once? ("Once" and "happened" being  rather nebulous concepts in that event).

Nevertheless, if you want the physicists' spin on it, check out this article:   http://focus.aps.org/story/v27/st10

 

My comment on the news

I just have to comment on some things that have been in the Canadian news lately:

HOCKEY:
Far be it from me to cast doubt on the mental capacity of Gary Bettman and other hockey movers and shakers, but doesn't it seem that their defence of  Zdeno Chara's hit on Max Pacioretty last Tuesday as "just part of the game" is a serious indictment of the game?  If broken heads are "normal & expected", then what does that say about the game?  After all Max didn't even have the puck, so what was the justification for hitting him? Maybe the average hockey player just isn't smart enough to play the game any other way, and maybe the average fan isn't sophisticated enough to prefer watching skill over brutality.  But then, I'm not a fan of the game, so I probably don't understand..

LYBIA:
Now, I'm no fan of American foreign policy.  To start with they are far more concerned with their own economic health than with any one else's well being.  In fact I firmly think they are socially and emotionally unfit to pretend to be the world's "policeman".  I certainly wouldn't want a mentally challenged, immature teenager, policing my community. However, for various reasons, the US seems to have accepted that role, and, surprisingly, the rest of the world has been content to sit back and let them do it. Which, in the case of Lybia is the real problem.

The US is faced with a dilemma. After propping up dictators throughout the world, (and in fact putting a lot of them into power), they now feel unable to intervene when they actually feel a moral obligation to do so.    So... where is the rest of the world?  Isn't there anyone else willing to take some initiative?  Doesn't any one else have an army?

FIGHTER PLANES:
It's interesting to hear Harper say that he doesn't want to get into an argument over numbers. But what big numbers they are.  The over-run for the new fighter planes will apparently be something like 12 billion dollars. When you say 12 billion fast, it really doesn't sound like much. After all it's only 12 of them. But say it as it really is: TWELVE THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS, it has a little more impact. Or you could say that it is $400 for EVERY PERSON in Canada.  Actually, the total bill, THIRTY THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS, is $1000 for every person.  Don't get me wrong, these may be the right planes to buy, and we may really need them, and if so, then tell us what the justification is and stop treating the critics as nit-pickers.

A bump in the Night

There was excitement at the community hall last night.

A goodly number of the town worthies had gathered at the Town Hall for the annual pancake supper, hosted by the local church in honour of Sh rove Tuesday.  Suddenly, midst all the babble and munching, there was a very loud thump and everyone felt the floor move.. Most people stopped talking (notable in itself) and looked around wondering who had fallen off their chair. Speculation was rife, and fruitless.

Ultimately, two intrepid young chaps ventured into the catacombs under the hall to investigate. They discovered that one of the teleposts holding up a floor beam had disintegrated under the increased load of all those pancakes.  Apparently it had been weakened by years of dampness, and broke apart, letting the beam, and consequently the floor, drop a couple of inches.

The town fix-it man was called, much joking ensued, and all was well.

--
http://leepaulson42.blogspot.com/

Interesting ruling on Monday in a case in England:

"There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong. "

The complete article is at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

It does seem to be a bit of a reach to tell people that they can't be foster parents because they think homosexuality is wrong.  I wonder if it makes any difference whether you are opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds or just on a mistaken understanding of human sexuality??

Not that I'm opposed to this ruling.... although they don't mention this angle in the article, I think that if you don't want Muslim beliefs to influence our lawmaking, you must also ensure that Christian beliefs don't either (although in this case they probably both believe the same thing).

The real problem is that you really cannot separate Church and State.  The Muslims understand this, and want to go all the way in using their faith to regulate their lives. Christians seem to want it both ways.

I think that it is a real test of your religion, in a way.  If it can't be used it to run every facet of life, then there is either something wrong with the religion or the lifestyle.  To say that separation of church and state is a workable arrangement is bunk.  Either change your religion, or change your state, one or the other....it is untenable to attempt to live by two sets of contrary rules.

Of course that's a bit simplistic... it assumes that everyone believes the same thing.... which they don't....You can't therefore, make everyone happy, so the only solution is to make everyone unhappy, which is exactly what most governments manage to do, and do very well.