Asymptotic safety: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|cosmology|}}{{quote|A third option, asymptotically safe gravity, goes back still further, to 1976. It was suggested by {{author|Steven Weinberg}}, one of the Standard Mode...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|cosmology|}}{{quote|A third option, asymptotically safe gravity, goes back still further, to 1976. It was suggested by {{author|Steven Weinberg}}, one of the Standard Model’s chief architects. A natural way to develop a theory of quantum gravity is to add gravitons to the model. Unfortunately, this approach got nowhere, because when the interactions of the putative particles were calculated at higher energies, the maths seemed to become nonsensical. However, Weinberg, who died in July, argued that this apparent breakdown would go away (in maths speak, the calculations would be “asymptotically safe”) if sufficiently powerful machines were used to do the calculating. | {{a|cosmology|}}{{quote|A third option, asymptotically safe gravity, goes back still further, to 1976. It was suggested by {{author|Steven Weinberg}}, one of the Standard Model’s chief architects. A natural way to develop a theory of quantum gravity is to add gravitons to the model. Unfortunately, this approach got nowhere, because when the interactions of the putative particles were calculated at higher energies, the maths seemed to become nonsensical. However, Weinberg, who died in July, argued that this apparent breakdown would go away (in maths speak, the calculations would be “asymptotically safe”) if sufficiently powerful machines were used to do the calculating. | ||
:—''The Economist'', 28 August 2021}} | :—''The Economist'', 28 August 2021}} | ||
The Biggs hoson is the threshold in legal markup theory of ''[[lexophysics]]'' beyond which any proposed amendment is syntactically safe: it cannot make any legal or commercial difference to the arrangements, but has enough formal significance so as not to be completely humiliating to ask for it. So, checking [[football team]]s for punctuation, inserting [[counterparts clause]]s, preparing closing agendas and bible tables of contents and so on. | |||
Even beyond ''totally'' pointless amendments, there are certain mark-up techniques that approach “asymptotic safety” as Weinberg envisaged it — they are not 'logically'' safe, but are ''practically'' safe. So, elaborating on [[force majeure]] clauses; avoiding doubt where none in fact existed. | |||
Revision as of 12:28, 6 February 2022
|
|
A third option, asymptotically safe gravity, goes back still further, to 1976. It was suggested by Steven Weinberg, one of the Standard Model’s chief architects. A natural way to develop a theory of quantum gravity is to add gravitons to the model. Unfortunately, this approach got nowhere, because when the interactions of the putative particles were calculated at higher energies, the maths seemed to become nonsensical. However, Weinberg, who died in July, argued that this apparent breakdown would go away (in maths speak, the calculations would be “asymptotically safe”) if sufficiently powerful machines were used to do the calculating.
- —The Economist, 28 August 2021
The Biggs hoson is the threshold in legal markup theory of lexophysics beyond which any proposed amendment is syntactically safe: it cannot make any legal or commercial difference to the arrangements, but has enough formal significance so as not to be completely humiliating to ask for it. So, checking football teams for punctuation, inserting counterparts clauses, preparing closing agendas and bible tables of contents and so on.
Even beyond totally pointless amendments, there are certain mark-up techniques that approach “asymptotic safety” as Weinberg envisaged it — they are not 'logically safe, but are practically safe. So, elaborating on force majeure clauses; avoiding doubt where none in fact existed.