2 ms·
> 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 W
by 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.