Jump to content

Talk:Klaus Hasselmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Soliton solution of the EFE?

[edit]

There are such things, and I happen to be interested in them, so this caught my eye. Do you (author of this article) have a citation?

I searched the arXiv and found hep-th/9810086; the abstract includes this sentence

It is postulated that the equations support soliton-type solutions (metrons) which reproduce all the basic field equations of quantum field theory, including not only the Maxwell-Dirac-Einstein system, but also all fields and symmetries of the Standard Model.

I haven't read the preprint yet, but not everything posted there makes a whole lotta sense, and the reference to Heim theory is not encouraging.---CH (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird!

[edit]

Klaus Hasselmann is a respected climate scientist. Wots going on ere...? William M. Connolley 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I'm going to make him into one! Starting now... William M. Connolley 22:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Right, thats what he is now. The metrons stuff has, relatively, too much space; but thats best fixed by increasing the climate stuff. William M. Connolley 22:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm... after checking that they are indeed the same person (they are), I agree that it makes sense to stress his less controversial contribs.

One point: did you not take my point about gravitational solitons? Did you study the book by Belinsky and Verdaguer I mentioned? It is not clear to me from the abstract that Hasselmann's metrons are in fact solutions of the EFE. From his background, I can readily believe he might be familiar with inverse scattering and thus perhaps might have read about the Belinsky and Zakharov adaptation of this method to gtr. However, in absence of a good article on gravitational solitons, which I hope to write myself when I get a chance, we should avoid agreeing uncritically to a characterization I find suspicious. B&V themselves are careful to state that the term gravitational soliton is open to misunderstanding, since most of the solutions found this way have nothing in common with the soliton solutions of the KdV.

I have corrected the problem I just mentioned and improved the organization. You might be unhappy with the gloss on solitons, but since editor after editor (you among others) seem to overlook two important points, please leave. The two important points are these:

  • in the abstract of the paper I keep trying to point you at, Hasselmann doesn't claim to have exhibited any metron solutions, just suggested they might exist,
  • even if his metrons exist, they might not count as gravitational solitons after all, and even if they count as gravitational solitons, they might not count as true solitons; see the book by Belinsky and Verdaguer for a discussion of this distinction. ---CH 07:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost on the grav solitons stuff - I leave the *content* there entirely to you. From what I can understand, I think you've done a good job of explaining H's theory. My only complaint is that its a bit long for balance in this article, but that can be fixed by expanding the rest sometime.


I've added some information and referenced a very interesting and lengthy interview. The interview covers Hasselmann's career in great detail, and also clarifies the connection between his oceanographic/climatology work and his interest in fundamental physics.--Kbk (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signal or noise?

[edit]

I think I can guess what red noise might mean, but a general reader is likely to be confused, so you should explain or link to articles on red versus white noise. ---CH 07:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students beware

[edit]

I extensively edited an earlier version of this article and had been monitoring it, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. Given the personal involvement of Hdeasy (talk · contribs) in some controversial proposals by Hasselmann, I feel I have good reasons to believe that at least some future versions of this article are likely to contain slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation. Beware also of external links to other websites. Any of these sources may attempt to misleadingly describe some fringe science notions as being respectable among mainstream scientists than is really the case.

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 01:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metron

[edit]
Physicists and other readers suffering from a lack of sound knowledge of the greek and latin language might appreciate an explanation of the term Metron - as far as my not so sound knowledge tells me, Metron just translates to "measured/measurable thing/piece", without any reference to what exactly is measured.
As far as i understand Heim, a Metron in Heim's theory is the 2-dimensional smallest unit of spacetime and lots of non flat Heim Metrons might form Protosimplexes who resemble elementary particles.
As far as i understand Hasselmann, a Metron in Hasselmann's theory is both a particle and a wave, thereby trying to solve the particle-wave dualism problem (which is a problem of our mental models - im sure mother nature has no problem at all with that).
If my understanding is correct, the concept of a Hasselmann Metron corresponds to the concept of a Heim Protosimplex.
Since Hdeasy (talk · contribs) has a degree in theoretical physics and knows quite a lot about the concepts of Heim's theory, im pretty sure that he is aware of that difference in the meaning of the term Metron.
Instead of "fringe science", I prefer the terms "idea" and "concept" for theories that are not (yet) complete and/or accepted as mainstream. If all brains had stayed away from the dangerous fringes of knowledge to avoid errors, we would still be sitting on the trees beleiving in creationism and the sun circling around earth .. ;-P
MillKa 04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably unfair to load Hasselman with the baggage associated with Heim theory. I've attempted to clean up and expand a bit on the interesting Metron theory (including references), which seems to have made some good progress, and IMO deserves a balanced review. Hasselmann is a serious physicist, and has put many years into this effort. I think it deserves a Wikipedia section here (since it's not ready for a separate article), and to not be diminished because some prefer to view him as a climate scientist. If you think it's overbalanced, please expand the climate science section, rather than chopping the Metron section.--Kbk (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Klaus Hasselmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasselmann was the first to demonstrate human influence on the climate?

[edit]

I've removed

Hasselmann was the first to demonstrate human influence on the climate.[1]

because I don't think it is true. The ref isn't good for this kind of science. The claim itself is really far too vague to be actually true or false or indeed meaningful. It is, I think, referring to pattern stuff, but doesn't say so. Compare https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf which is a WP:RS William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Nobelpreis für Klimaforscher Hasselmann: "Nutzen für die Weltgemeinschaft"". Inforadio (in German). Retrieved 5 October 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Klaus_Hasselmann&oldid=1219226814"