Re^3: Using the Large Hadron Collider is likely to produce ...

Nah! They're not physicists, they're mathematicians!

One of them wrote the proof of the theorem, which ran to twenty pages, and the rest all agreed that it was a "marvelous proof", rather than admit they didn't understand it.

They then wrote a simulation of that theorem in distributed Concurrent Haskell and ran it at 1000 times real-time speed on a massively parallel computing cloud, to show how it would work. They simulated everything. Markets; bears; bulls; oil-prices; OJ & pork-belly futures; war-zones & disasters; government changes; local and global economy heath; employment trends; factory gate prices; the macro and micro economic decisions taken by the major central banks around the world; and a zillion other influences.

Unfortunately, rather than risk the purity of their model with potentially corrupted data from the outside world, they simulated the market with a sophisticated Maybe Monad wrapped around a PRNG. But being a greedy algorithm running over a lazy list on an ethereal system, the result was inevitable :)

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

Comment on Re^3: Using the Large Hadron Collider is likely to produce ...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Using the Large Hadron Collider is likely to produce ... by shmem (Chancellor) on Oct 06, 2008 at 23:55 UTC
If they really were mathematicians, they would prove or disprove Heim's theory properly, rather than giving a glance to derived work and commenting on that "completely crackpot, afaics" (Lawrence M. Krauss in a mail cited on msnbc.com). Rather, they look like maoists to me clinging to a world view which is as common (amongst them) as it is (or at least may very well be) wrong. Be that as it may, if there's a theory which manages to unify GRT, SRT and quantum theory, which furthermore serves not only to deduce spin and calculate mass and lifetime of elementary particles, but also deduces the fine-structure constant and the gravitational constant: as a physicist and/or mathematician, I would give it some serious consideration - i.e. try to strip methodical or formal/representational errors from it, and try to get at its point(s) of view. I'm not aware of any published effort...	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Using the Large Hadron Collider is likely to produce ...
by shmem (Chancellor) on Oct 06, 2008 at 23:55 UTC

If they really were mathematicians, they would prove or disprove Heim's theory properly, rather than giving a glance to derived work and commenting on that "completely crackpot, afaics" (Lawrence M. Krauss in a mail cited on msnbc.com). Rather, they look like maoists to me clinging to a world view which is as common (amongst them) as it is (or at least may very well be) wrong.

Be that as it may, if there's a theory which manages to unify GRT, SRT and quantum theory, which furthermore serves not only to deduce spin and calculate mass and lifetime of elementary particles, but also deduces the fine-structure constant and the gravitational constant: as a physicist and/or mathematician, I would give it some serious consideration - i.e. try to strip methodical or formal/representational errors from it, and try to get at its point(s) of view. I'm not aware of any published effort...

[reply]