<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 194. Another quantum flapdoodle video: BBC on bubble universe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nonequilibrium.net/video-day-bbc-bubble-universe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nonequilibrium.net/video-day-bbc-bubble-universe/#utm_source=feed&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=feed</link>
	<description>For physicts by physicists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:24:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Keith C</title>
		<link>http://www.nonequilibrium.net/video-day-bbc-bubble-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-5624</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 04:10:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonequilibrium.net/?p=1089#comment-5624</guid>
		<description>I think the video is a little bit misleading. It talks about a lot of exciting ideas. But they are not yet proved. Ordinary people may believe this is the paradigm in physics. I think most working physicists think that these ideas are highly speculative. We will be happy to see they turn out to be right. But it is important to differentiate the theories that have been well tested and widely accepted with those still in their infancy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the video is a little bit misleading. It talks about a lot of exciting ideas. But they are not yet proved. Ordinary people may believe this is the paradigm in physics. I think most working physicists think that these ideas are highly speculative. We will be happy to see they turn out to be right. But it is important to differentiate the theories that have been well tested and widely accepted with those still in their infancy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arjen Dijksman</title>
		<link>http://www.nonequilibrium.net/video-day-bbc-bubble-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-5617</link>
		<dc:creator>Arjen Dijksman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:13:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonequilibrium.net/?p=1089#comment-5617</guid>
		<description>Physicists are artists:-) I guess the only why to catch the attention for cutting edge physics is presenting it flapdoodlely.
Some excerpts: M-theory where M stays for mysterious, magical, majestic, madness, mother of all theories... where all the normal rules of common sense have been abandoned... it would mean that Einstein&#039;s missing theory has finally been found.
I guess Albert would immediately recognize M-theory as the theory that he was looking for:-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Physicists are artists:-) I guess the only why to catch the attention for cutting edge physics is presenting it flapdoodlely.<br />
Some excerpts: M-theory where M stays for mysterious, magical, majestic, madness, mother of all theories&#8230; where all the normal rules of common sense have been abandoned&#8230; it would mean that Einstein&#8217;s missing theory has finally been found.<br />
I guess Albert would immediately recognize M-theory as the theory that he was looking for:-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

