• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

198 submissions , 156 unreviewed
4,910 questions , 2,085 unanswered
5,318 answers , 22,540 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
808 active unimported users
More ...

Wall for Ron Maimon

Ron, I agree that re-jiggering variables does not change physics. So I propose to change (advance new) equations rather than just to make a variable change within the same theory.
Jul 30, 2014 by
... of course I import unanswered theoretical physics questions from MO, from the string theory tag at present ...
Jul 30, 2014 by Dilaton
Hi Ron,

I am from time to time importing high-level unanswered questions from MO for the following reasons:

a) They are very much on topic and make PO look more professional, in particular when the site is once again dominated by Vladimir's activities etc ...

b) Gread community members, such as Suresh1, 40227, etc like to answer this kind of questions, even if they are old and imported. So

c) These questions are capable of inspire new content that originates on PO too, and linking back to the PO answers on the source site is a good means of making people aware of the existance of PO

So please to not remove my bumping comments from high-level unanswered imported questions ... :-/
Jul 30, 2014 by Dilaton
Hi Ron, about your post on my wall - sorry for the late reply, I wasn't notified about your previous post.

I have no idea what you are referring to. I have never encountered this bug. You said you have already reported it, but I can't see where.
Jul 29, 2014 by dimension10
Never mind, I meant the struggle with Lubos.
Jul 25, 2014 by WolfInSheepSkin
What struggle?
Jul 21, 2014 by Ron Maimon
Ron, I see the struggle here. Just start your freaking own website.
Jul 18, 2014 by WolfInSheepSkin
Hi Ron,

I don't think I understand your comment regarding your changing IP. I don't remember having ever asked you about your changing IP, or even observed it in the first place (I haven't been looking at people's IPs, except that of spammers, afer you told me it could hurt people's anonimity)...

Did you misread the username of the person who asked you about your IP (which you've done before)?
Jul 12, 2014 by dimension10
Yes, that's when it was noticed again, thanks to DeWitt and Wheeler, and the interpretation of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Everett's goal was to give an interpretation to the cosmological wavefunction. But the paper was resisted politically throughout the 1980s, and there were a string of rip-offs of Everett, mostly unintentional, by this infinite loop:

Everett -> Misinterpretation of Everett -> Rediscovery of Everett -> Misinterpretation of the rediscovery.

For example, there was "many-minds", "consistent histories", Coleman's "Quantum Mechanics in your face", and lots of other variations. Not all of these referenced Everett, and there was no consensus that Everett did the whole thing.

In the early 1990s, on usenet, one of the first thing you noticed is that there was a community of "splitters", people shouting hard about Everett, and trying to get his paper recognized as a classic. The explanations on Wikipedia in 2002 or so finished the process, there will be no more misinterpretations of Everett, his ideas are now presented fairly and appropriately in a publically available place that points to the original reference. Done.

From this point on, Everett's thesis gained stature, and now it is considered the definitive go-to for realistic quantum interpretations. It is still "far-out", but any realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics will look identical to Everett modulo philosophy, because Everett is just realistic quantum mechanics, and that's it. There's nothing much to say beyond.

There's also the issue of plagiarism of Everett in the case of the information theoretic uncertainty principle. He was ripped off left and right, because he was in the wilderness, and people felt free to poach. It's the same with David John Candlin.
Jul 12, 2014 by Ron Maimon
@ron I thought the theory was resurrected in 1977 at a conference he attended, at least that's what's claimed in this BBC documentary:


Definitely worth watching.
Jul 9, 2014 by physicsnewbie

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights