4 ms·
It is known that some of her positions are "somewhat controversial". But how controversial is this one?
by SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
It is known that some of her positions are "somewhat controversial".
But how controversial is this one?
- mr_mitm 3y agoWhich position? In the video she simply embedded an interesting anecdote into textbook knowledge. Don't know what the flagged comment said though.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoThe one that she articulates at 7:10 onwards in the video. Starting with "What does this all means? it means that Quantum gravity just might..."
- mr_mitm 3y agoThe position is: quantum gravity might not be that big of a mysterious problem as most physicist make it out to be so they would rather ignore that prediction by Wetterich. That's it, that's the entire position. I don't know, that's not a lot of substance to work with. I don't think it's a particular controversial stance. It does fit very well into her "I'm not like the other physicists" shtick, though.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago> That's it, that's the entire position ... that's not a lot of substance With reference to 2 specific papers, one by Weinberg, the other by Shaposhnikov and Wetterich; which she claims are overlooked; and the correct prediction in the second paper. Is that not a little more substance?
- mr_mitm 3y agoI don't think so. She's making a meta comment about those papers. Also, it feels like you're trying to get me to say something, but I don't know what. I already said that I don't think this position is particularly controversial. She thinks QG is less mysterious than other physicists believe, big deal.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoI'm not trying to get you to say any particular thing; rather to engage with her claims (tell us how they're wrong if you like). I think we're now approaching that, so thank you for the commentary.