Aaron Bergman
|
Registered User
|
|
|
1d |
comment |
And old hat with a new plume The answer to this question is in the comment thread to Tao's post anyways. |
|
Jun 10 |
comment |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory This is not the place to have these discussions, which are not about math, yet again. |
|
Jun 10 |
comment |
Explanations for mathematicians, about the falsifiability (or not) of string theory Voted down because this isn't a math question. Nonetheless, string theory could be falsified if we could figure out how to accelerate elementary particles up to the Planck scale. Since that seems to be slightly out of the realm of experimental possibility, the answer is no at the moment. Someone could come up with something clever, though. |
|
May 28 |
comment |
Fixed point theorems Now there's a name from Usenet past. |
|
May 26 |
awarded | ● Nice Answer |
|
Apr 2 |
comment |
Would a closed universe with special relativity violate causality? Does the universe have to be simply connected? Was a little too quick there -- there are closed spacelike curves; just not the first things that come to mind. |
|
Apr 2 |
comment |
Would a closed universe with special relativity violate causality? Does the universe have to be simply connected? This should probably be closed because it's pretty standard. First of all, you don't really mean closed geodesics (which would be examples of closed timelike curves, ie, time travel). You want a universe with some foliation of spacelike compact surfaces. The easiest example is a cylinder: S^1 x R. For the twin paradox to hold, you would need the Lorentz group to act isometrically on this space for a given flat metric. But, it's easy to see that the full Lorentz group won't act here. In fact, the choice of a metric defines for you a distinguished frame, solving the 'paradox'. |
|
Mar 4 |
awarded | ● Nice Answer |
|
Dec 27 |
answered | Motivation of Virasoro algebra |
