Sign Guestbook Back to The Complete Idiot's Guide to String Theory
| Date | 2018-12-12 |
| Location |  |
| Message | I came across your interesting article "The Quantum Mechanics of Fate" in Nautilus, Feb 19, 2015, which caught my eye because it connects with aspects of Time as set out in my recently-published book "Time To Tell: a look at how we tick". The notion that the future can affect the past is suggested within my (philosophical) theory of time in which there is no temporal "now", but rather an instantly backward moving "now" into the past. If this now-driven retrocausal model has any bearing on quantum physics, it would be an interesting parallel between philosophy and science. You mention, as I do, John Wheeler, Richard Feynman, Dennis Sciama, Yakir Aharonov and Huw Price, who speculate that causality could run backwards. The difference in approach of the moving 'now' theory of time is the claim that the future emanates from the past: there is no future already set, a destiny in place. The past and the future affect each other without an intermediary present. Time is constantly moving, so memory isn’t certain but a range of possibilities within the past, projecting a range of possibilities for the future. With the future seen as a range of possible events, we again see an interesting overlap between philosophy and science. Best wishes, Dr Ronald Green "Time To Tell: a look at how we tick" (iff Books, 2018) "Nothing Matters: a book about nothing (iff Books, 2011) |
| Date | 2015-12-16 |
| Location |  |
| Message | With all due etc the idea that entanglement and relativity are not compatible is nonsense. The fact that the entanglement is broken is discovered after the fact. The distant observers do their experiments if you like at the same time but with no knowledge of what the other had observed. It is only later when they compare data do they conclude that entanglement must have been broken. My late friend John Bell liked the example of the identical twins who meet only late in life and compare. To explain the coincidences genes are invoked. Einstein would have liked this sort of explanation for this photon non-locality but quantum mechanics offers none and we have learned to live with it. It has nothing to do with relativity. |
| Date | 2015-12-16 |
| Location | |
| Message | I read an excerpt of your Nonlocality book and was wondering if the Electrical Universe folks have any sort of explanation for it. I suppose I could ask them. |
| Date | 2015-12-14 |
| Location | |
| Message | Hi George, If you’re entertaining story ideas for your next article in Scientific American, please consider writing about the incredible advances taking place in the field of longevity science and the brilliant computer geeks who plan to extend our lives by 30, 40, 50 years or more. Please check your email for more of the story. I hope it interests you and I hear back from you. Gary Gabriel Phone: (888) 586-2874 FREE, ext. 704 |
| Date | 2015-12-10 |
| Location | |
| Message | Dear Mr.Musser, I know little about theoretical physics aside from what I read in Hawking's book and now yours (Spooky...). I like yours much better, because I learned about the work of many. My impression is that nothing worthwhile has been accomplished after the development of quantum mechanics; and perhaps nothing will ever be, unless a radically new approach is taken. You might as well put the present work and that of philosophers in the same basket. (As a side remark, a paper that lists an army of co-authors can't be significant). Could you take the time for a comment? Thank you. Regards August Rihaczek |
| Date | 2015-12-09 |
| Location | |
| Message | Hello Mr. Musser, My name is Steven Preston and I am a science & tech writer for the Daily Wildcat at the University of Arizona. I have been reading your book Spooky Action at a Distance, and was wondering if it was possible for me to interview you on non-locality for an article. Let me know if you have any interest. Thanks! |
| Date | 2015-12-09 |
| Location | |
| Message | Dear George, USC Dornsife recently produced a video about stars that explores the concept from a multidisciplinary angle--looking at celestial bodies through the lens of archaeology, physics, history, literature and more. Plus there’s a holiday tie-in, which makes it timely. I was wondering if you would be interested in posting it on your blog or somewhere on Scientific American. Our previous videos have been posted on the PsiVid blog--which appears to have been discontinued. Here’s the link to “The Art and Science of Stars” https://youtu.be/wCUlvBrLoYk I hope you and you followers find some interesting tidbits in this video. (I know I did!) Best, Lizzie Hedrick |
| Date | 2015-12-09 |
| Location | |
| Message | Hi George, My name is Eric Hazlett and I am an assistant professor of physics at Carleton College in Northfield MN. During my Atomic and Nuclear course I assign posters on topics that we couldn't get to in class. The student who looked into entanglement saw your homebuilt entanglement project with the Geiger Counters from a Feb 14 2013 blog post. I am helping this student investigate this more and am actually quite interested in turning this into a lab for my course. I wanted to drop a line and see if you had any knowledge of other people trying this. Lab development ideas aren't as easy to find as publishable results. In addition I would like to extend an invitation to be involved as actively or passively as you want with the project. Feel free to drop me a line if any of this sounds interesting to you. I think the students will get a lot out of this and wanted to give you some feedback from the vacuum. Best, Eric Hazlett Assistant Professor Physics and Astronomy Carleton College |
Private Message added 2015-12-04 |
| Date | 2015-11-30 |
| Location | |
| Message | Dear Dr. Musser: I’m reading your excellent “Spooky Action at a Distance” and I have a couple of what I think are errors and which you may want to correct in a future edition. On page 143 you write that Heinrich Hertz vowed to murder the A potential, when it was, I believe, Oliver Heaviside who suggested the murder, and the Maxwellians who carried out the murder. On page 145 you write that the Aharonov-Bohm effect (1959) involved a “cage”, when it involved an interferometer in the center of which was a solenoid. Apart from these matters, I’m enjoying your book although relating Aharonov-Bohm to nonlocality is a stretch for me. Sincerely, Terence W. Barrett |
Page 1 of 23 1 2 3 4 > Last >>