58 ms·

Medieval bishop's theory resembles modern concept of multiple universes

14 points by mjudge260 12y ago

frozenport 12y ago
Nope. Unless this guy shows me a density matrix, the only resemblance are the most lofty of conclusions.
- 14113 12y ago
  Yes - but drawn by the physics department at the best university in Europe for astronomy.
gjm11 12y ago
Taken directly (with permission, but it's still basically blogspam like everything on phys.org) from http://theconversation.com/medieval-bishops-theory-resembles-modern-concept-of-multiple-universes-25460 http://theconversation.com/medieval-bishops-theory-resembles.... This, although it looks like it ought to be blogspam :-), does appear to be the original location of that article, which was written by people actually involved in the research. The recent paper they reference ("A medieval multiverse?: Mathematical modelling of the 13th century universe of Robert Grosseteste") is at http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/470/2167/20140025.full http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/470/2167/2014... but isn't openly accessible. But at http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0769 http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0769 you can find pretty much exactly the same paper.
- 14113 12y ago
  There's also more information at http://ordered-universe.com/ http://ordered-universe.com/ - the original site for the project.
tokenadult 12y ago
Yes, I have read the submission kindly made here. Alas, it is an even worse example than usual of Phys.org press release spam. (Here it appears to be blogspam, from another source, not professionally edited, and not directly linked.) Ladies and gentlemen, the idea that a medieval bishop could have come up with a theory that will be useful guidance for physicists now working on multiverse theory is an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary evidence (not provided in this submission) to be taken seriously. Meanwhile, this link from Phys.org, like most links from Phys.org I have ever seen either here on Hacker News or among my Facebook friends, reminds me of why several participants here on Hacker News over the years have suggested declining to make submissions directly from Phys.org, but rather always to look for a more professionally edited source. Comments about PhysOrg: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869 "Yes Physorg definitely has some of the worst articles on the internet." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824 "I viscerally distrust anything from physorg.com. Anyone have a better option?" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249 "Straight from the European Space Agency, cutting out the physorg blogspam: http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ (press release), http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ (video), http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1116.pdf http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/scien... (paper). "PhysOrg: just say no." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888 "The physorg article summary is wrong, I think." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857 "Phys.org is vacuous and often flat wrong." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900 "And note that the gravity lamp was announced on physorg.com, famous for how wrong it is about science topics." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145 "I try and debunk/explain [shady] biological science news wherever possible here. In fact, it's typically my only contribution, but one I feel is highly important. "Your perpetual (and totally correct) crusade against PhysOrg reminds me there are others doing the same, and for that I thank you." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327 "Physorg? Ugh. "Didn't even bother click, came here to read comments instead. "Can HN please ban Physorg like everyone else?" Comments about both PhysOrg and ScienceDaily: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3689185 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3689185 "Why hasn't sciencedaily.com or physorg been banned from HN yet?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867348 "A useful rule of thumb is that whenever you see anything on sciencedaily.com or physorg.com, unless it's absolute nonsense there's another more direct (and often more informative) source you should link to instead." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3875529 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3875529 "Original source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hinode/news/pole-asymmetry.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hinode/news/pole-asymmetry... "What ScienceDaily has added to this: (1) They've removed one of the figures. (2) They've removed links to the Hinode and SOHO websites. (3) They've added lots of largely irrelevant links of their own, all of course to their own site(s). "Please, everyone: stop linking to ScienceDaily and PhysOrg." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867361 "Those sources don't have RSS feeds, and ScienceDaily and PhysOrg have a bad habit of not linking to such things." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4083766 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4083766 "Added value in PhysOrg article: zero. "Please, everyone, stop submitting links from PhysOrg and ScienceDaily. I have never ever ever seen anything on those sites that isn't either (1) bullshit or (2) a recycled press release with zero (or often negative) added value. (Sometimes it's both at once.) It only takes ten seconds' googling to find the original source."
- frozenport 12y ago
  Yes, we need to make a block list.

14 points by mjudge260 12y ago

frozenport 12y ago

Nope. Unless this guy shows me a density matrix, the only resemblance are the most lofty of conclusions.

14113 12y ago
Yes - but drawn by the physics department at the best university in Europe for astronomy.

gjm11 12y ago

Taken directly (with permission, but it's still basically blogspam like everything on phys.org) from http://theconversation.com/medieval-bishops-theory-resembles-modern-concept-of-multiple-universes-25460 http://theconversation.com/medieval-bishops-theory-resembles.... This, although it looks like it ought to be blogspam :-), does appear to be the original location of that article, which was written by people actually involved in the research. The recent paper they reference ("A medieval multiverse?: Mathematical modelling of the 13th century universe of Robert Grosseteste") is at http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/470/2167/20140025.full http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/470/2167/2014... but isn't openly accessible. But at http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0769 http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0769 you can find pretty much exactly the same paper.

14113 12y ago
There's also more information at http://ordered-universe.com/ http://ordered-universe.com/ - the original site for the project.

tokenadult 12y ago

Yes, I have read the submission kindly made here. Alas, it is an even worse example than usual of Phys.org press release spam. (Here it appears to be blogspam, from another source, not professionally edited, and not directly linked.) Ladies and gentlemen, the idea that a medieval bishop could have come up with a theory that will be useful guidance for physicists now working on multiverse theory is an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary evidence (not provided in this submission) to be taken seriously. Meanwhile, this link from Phys.org, like most links from Phys.org I have ever seen either here on Hacker News or among my Facebook friends, reminds me of why several participants here on Hacker News over the years have suggested declining to make submissions directly from Phys.org, but rather always to look for a more professionally edited source. Comments about PhysOrg: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869 "Yes Physorg definitely has some of the worst articles on the internet." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824 "I viscerally distrust anything from physorg.com. Anyone have a better option?" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249 "Straight from the European Space Agency, cutting out the physorg blogspam: http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/ (press release), http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/ (video), http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1116.pdf http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/scien... (paper). "PhysOrg: just say no." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888 "The physorg article summary is wrong, I think." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857 "Phys.org is vacuous and often flat wrong." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900 "And note that the gravity lamp was announced on physorg.com, famous for how wrong it is about science topics." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145 "I try and debunk/explain [shady] biological science news wherever possible here. In fact, it's typically my only contribution, but one I feel is highly important. "Your perpetual (and totally correct) crusade against PhysOrg reminds me there are others doing the same, and for that I thank you." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327 "Physorg? Ugh. "Didn't even bother click, came here to read comments instead. "Can HN please ban Physorg like everyone else?" Comments about both PhysOrg and ScienceDaily: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3689185 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3689185 "Why hasn't sciencedaily.com or physorg been banned from HN yet?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867348 "A useful rule of thumb is that whenever you see anything on sciencedaily.com or physorg.com, unless it's absolute nonsense there's another more direct (and often more informative) source you should link to instead." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3875529 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3875529 "Original source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hinode/news/pole-asymmetry.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hinode/news/pole-asymmetry... "What ScienceDaily has added to this: (1) They've removed one of the figures. (2) They've removed links to the Hinode and SOHO websites. (3) They've added lots of largely irrelevant links of their own, all of course to their own site(s). "Please, everyone: stop linking to ScienceDaily and PhysOrg." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3867361 "Those sources don't have RSS feeds, and ScienceDaily and PhysOrg have a bad habit of not linking to such things." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4083766 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4083766 "Added value in PhysOrg article: zero. "Please, everyone, stop submitting links from PhysOrg and ScienceDaily. I have never ever ever seen anything on those sites that isn't either (1) bullshit or (2) a recycled press release with zero (or often negative) added value. (Sometimes it's both at once.) It only takes ten seconds' googling to find the original source."

frozenport 12y ago
Yes, we need to make a block list.