No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
backreaction.blogspot.com
No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
1–10 of 86 posts
Re: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
#2This is a critical response to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18609375 ; in the comments is a response by Jamie Farnes, the author of the paper, and a rebuttal by the blog's author.
Re: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
#3This is a critical response to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18609375 ; in the comments is a response by Jamie Farnes, the author of the paper, and a rebuttal by the blog's author.
[deleted]
Re: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
#4It is fun to read these things, and of course discussion is a good thing, but I do hope that blogs and comment sections do not end up serving any formal role in the scientific literature.
There are several reasons for this: a blog's visibility is low compared to a preprint server (in the scientific community at least), the contents of the blog probably won't be as well-preserved, and there is a tendency to be more casual with the arguments.
Re: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
#5It is fun to read these things, and of course discussion is a good thing, but I do hope that blogs and comment sections do not end up serving any formal role in the scientific literature. There are several reasons for this: a blog's visibility is low compared to a preprint server (in the scientific community at least), the contents of the blog probably won't be as well-preserved, and there is a tendency to be more ca…
Why is that even a concern for you here? This is clearly written for laypeople.
Re: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
#6Negative matter is created spontaneously everywhere, according the article in theconversation.com. Why then can't we collect it, isolate it, and poke and prod it? Because the particles are too small and interact too weakly?
Re: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
#7It is fun to read these things, and of course discussion is a good thing, but I do hope that blogs and comment sections do not end up serving any formal role in the scientific literature. There are several reasons for this: a blog's visibility is low compared to a preprint server (in the scientific community at least), the contents of the blog probably won't be as well-preserved, and there is a tendency to be more ca…
Why is that even a concern for you here? This is clearly written for laypeople.
It may be just text, but the points being made are technical, and the blog's author is an expert.
The author of the paper is now in a position where they feel like they have to defend themselves publicly, and I don't think this is the forum for a scientific defense (for the three reasons I listed above).
Re: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
#8Negative matter is created spontaneously everywhere, according the article in theconversation.com. Why then can't we collect it, isolate it, and poke and prod it? Because the particles are too small and interact too weakly?
> the particles are too small
That's not a good way to talk about these things. Usually it's the really small stuff that is very strongly interacting - see quarks.
> and interact too weakly
That's better.
Re: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
#9It is fun to read these things, and of course discussion is a good thing, but I do hope that blogs and comment sections do not end up serving any formal role in the scientific literature. There are several reasons for this: a blog's visibility is low compared to a preprint server (in the scientific community at least), the contents of the blog probably won't be as well-preserved, and there is a tendency to be more ca…
Not every piece of discussion in science is formal and rigorous. Einstein didn't communicate his ideas exclusively through peer-reviewed papers. There is a time and place for informal talk, and this is it.
Re: No, negative masses have not revolutionized cosmology
#10It is fun to read these things, and of course discussion is a good thing, but I do hope that blogs and comment sections do not end up serving any formal role in the scientific literature. There are several reasons for this: a blog's visibility is low compared to a preprint server (in the scientific community at least), the contents of the blog probably won't be as well-preserved, and there is a tendency to be more ca…
> I do hope that blogs and comment sections do not end up serving any formal role in the scientific literature.
Why not? It all depends on the qualification of the people writing blog posts and comments. Remember that some 300 years ago a lot of scientific results existed in epistolary form only, and that first journals that looked like today's thing (like the Bulletin of the Royal Society) were basically compilations of letters sent by astronomers, naturalists etc and reactions of their peers sent as follow-up letters.
Naturally, this doesn't mean that anybody and their dog should have a voice in discussing matters like cosmology if they actually have no clue about it.