4 ms·
Which position? In the video she simply embedded an interesting anecdote into textbook knowledge. Don't know what the flagged comment said though.
by mr_mitm 3y ago
Which 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.