The Fabric of the Cosmos 344
| The Fabric of the Cosmos | |
| author | Brian Greene |
| pages | 576 |
| publisher | Knopf |
| rating | 7 |
| reviewer | Genady |
| ISBN | 0375412883 |
| summary | A capsule review of current conceptions of the world of space and time, and enough background for laymen to understand how they came to be. |
Now, when I say "easy," this is, like so much of Greene's book, relative. It's taken me three weeks to wade through the concepts and often humorous prose that goes along with them. Being something of a physics geek, I have a basic concept of relativity and quantum mechanics. Greene takes his time laying out classical physics, from Newton to Einstein, exploring the version of the universe presented by the laws of the very large. He then dedicates just as much room enumerating the precepts of the standard model as well as those of quantum mechanics. With these two pillars of modern physics established, we are next whisked on a journey through cosmology, delving further and further back into the history of the universe until both quantum mechanics and relativity break down and we are introduced to strings.
Greene's attention to strings does not overwhelm the book, as in The Elegant Universe, and he doesn't delve deeply into the concepts and math behind any of the theories of physics as in the latter half of his earlier text. What he does present is a very good conceptual overview of modern physics, all the while using the frameworks provided to drive at the central question: What are space and time? (Or "spacetime" as relativity puts it).
This sophomore effort is actually better, I believe, than The Elegant Universe. Greene has a way of explaining things in terms that non-physicists can grasp. His use of pop-culture icons to drive his points home are as masterful as they are funny. It would be my bet that should this book be made into its own television special (and it should) it will have to be a joint work by PBS and Fox. After seeing Greene present his Elegant Universe on PBS, and reading this book, I'm beginning to see him as a new Carl Sagan, or perhaps the illegitimate love child of Sagan and Matt Groening, if such a thing were possible.
In the end, though, the book has left me with more questions than answers. To be sure, Greene and the theories that he covers provide answers, but to conceptualize and understand them is my current difficulty. I'm sure that some of my own problems arise from learning through allegory. Not having the mathematical background to understand these concepts on a more fundamental level is, I'm sure, leading to my own habit of taking an allegory too far. Would the book benefit from a deeper analysis of physics? I don't think so. To take things much deeper would lose those of us without a deep rooting in mathematics. If anything, Greene's work should inspire us to learn more, to grasp the concepts at a deeper level, to understand them in a more fundamental way, if this is indeed possible with the strange world of quantum mechanics.
Greene does delve into what the future of physics could hold. This is, in my opinion, the weakest part of the book. While it is interesting to be exposed to what the 'next big thing' could be, without the grounding that Greene enjoyed in the previous four sections of the book the final chapters prove less fulfilling than the ones that worked towards them. It's not that Greene doesn't explain the concepts expertly, but knowing that we're reading about a theory that hasn't even been fully formed, that is only a step away from speculation, means they don't stand as tall as the previous chapters. People may say this about string theory as well, because it is still very much an evolving theory.
Still, this accounts for no more than the denouement of an otherwise thrilling, work. Having traveled once again with Greene on a journey through physics I can say that I understand what Feynman meant when he spoke of The Pleasure of Finding Things Out; thankfully Greene is a good bit easier to follow than Feynman.
You can purchase The Fabric of the Cosmos from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
The Elegant Universe (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:5, Informative)
As I mentioned, you can download "The Elegant Universe" from the PBS website here [pbs.org].
It's divided up into 24 chapters -- 8 chapters for each hour of the three-hour series.
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:2)
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:2)
I'm sure you could read a book on the bus
A quick cURL: (Score:5, Informative)
curl -f "http://a768.g.akamai.net/5/768/142/3f9e\
9589/1
5ea187bea5786
6fdf0e7ceb61c22186f
08]_mp4_300.mov" -O
Re:A quick cURL: (Score:2)
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:5, Interesting)
Several times I found myself saying "okay, I get the point already, move ON." But, no, they hadn't gotten around to re-playing a bunch of (probably important and brilliant) physicists saying the same thing as every other physicist.
It plays VERY much like the typical Sunday sports show... lots of "what you just missed" and "coming up next".
If this is 'science for the masses', then the masses are very, very stupid.
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:2)
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:2)
You haven't spent much time with the masses, have you?
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:4, Insightful)
Several times I found myself saying "okay, I get the point already, move ON."
This is a very self-centered statement. When I saw that show on PBS, my first thought was "This is great for a high-school physics class."
People who understand education know that some repitition is important. Watch Blues Clues or Teletubbies for good evidence of this. Even adult education shows have summary segments after each topic.
Re: The Elegant Universe (Score:2)
I can perfectly understand a short summary after (and maybe before) each main section. (In fact, I remember that being given as advice for public speaking: "First, tell them what you're about to tell them. Then, tell them. And finally, tell them what you just told them.")
But to spend just as much time again going over stuff without adding to it would seem a real waste. Is that the sort of repetition in the programme?
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:2)
You didn't know? You should do some tech support for a while, that'll learn you
Re:The Elegant Universe (Score:2)
I think the issue is it was made into several episodes, and so they spend the first half hour going over things you learned in the previous episode, which made for a lot of repeating and telling things over, because they had to make sure you could start watching in the middle, which is where telling things repeatidly came in handy, so you don't get lost if you start in the middle, or a week passes between viewings, which is good to catch up, but makes for lots of stuf
Fabric of the Universe? (Score:5, Funny)
It's kind of an ugly plaid corduroy, with elbow patches.
Re:Fabric of the Universe? (Score:3, Funny)
Barf: What was that?!
Lonestar: Spaceball 1.
Barf: They've gone plaid!
Classic Mel Brooks [imdb.com]
Time, Black Holes, Energy and Matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Recently I joined the local astronomy club [santa-cruz.ca.us] in Santa Cruz, CA. The night I joined the feature was a lecture, "The Mystery of the Ultimate Fate of Small Black Holes" presented by Donald Coyne [ucsc.edu]. The scope of matter, energy and time necessary for various things to take place is baffling, at least to me. Black Holes take a lot of time to be created. The Universe is estimated to be 13 billion years old. The theories put forth were such that black holes have formed and are dissipating (something about reaching a critical mass then collapsing in upon themselves, and kicking out staggering amounts of energy in radiation.) It seemed to me that for some of these things to have taken place the Universe would have to be older (as some of the processes would take longer than the universe has been in existence for.)
It's fascinating stuff, but a little goes a long way.
Oo! My widdo bwain, it bwoo my widdo bwain! Oo! Oo!
Re:Time, Black Holes, Energy and Matter (Score:2)
Would they fall into the gravity of the Earth and eat away at the Earth's core, dooming mankind forever? Will they?
Re:Time, Black Holes, Energy and Matter (Score:2, Interesting)
As near as I can recall, from what Donald Coyne was explaining, black holes have a life span (albeit a very long one) which go something like this:
A large mass forms, could be from a sun or suns.
It continues to attact matter until it reaches a certain critical size (like 1500 lyr diameter!)
Due to the extreme amount of matter accumulated it begins to collapse,
What, didn't you hear? (Score:4, Interesting)
According to this daring young thinker [peterlynds.net.nz], our whole silly idea of time being a continuum from past thru present onto the future may be bunk. With the abolition of the time interval and precise measurements of place at a certain time, it solves some of the great mathematical paradoxes. You can read a better layman's summary and explanation here [eurekalert.org].
The concept of time is so passe...
Re:What, didn't you hear? (Score:2, Insightful)
The concept of the limit is explained with more rigor in high-school calculus.
Grade: D- See me after class
Re:What, didn't you hear? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're going to cop a know-it-all attitude about it, I'm going to have to point out that you're about a hundred years off on this so-called "discovery":
This Lynds fellow was born in 1975. But a metaphysician named J.M.E. McTaggert was writing on this subject from the early 1900s onwards. McTaggert is considered to be the modern originator of the whole debate, and anything Lynds contributed probably owes a great deal to him.
Obligatory joke about how "nobody beat any
Re:What, didn't you hear? (Score:2, Informative)
Those really interested in the possibility of non-physical concepts of time should read Husserl (The Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness) and, most importantly, Heidegger (Being and Time).
But onl
Rebels in Science (Score:2, Interesting)
"According to this daring young thinker, our whole silly idea of time being a continuum from past thru present onto the future may be bunk."
Great theory! And it also goes to show why sometimes a relative outsider or unknown can be best at uncovering truly novel solutions.
Those too well-versed in a certain field have often, by definition, already "drank the Kool-Aid" and bought into the belief system prevalent in said field at the time. As such their views and investigations are already prejudiced and
Re:Rebels in Science (Score:2)
Re:What, didn't you hear? (Score:3, Funny)
Once they'be abolished the time interval I can finally get my business plan to work:
1. Profit!
2. Abolish the time interval.
3 ???
Re:What, didn't you hear? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What, didn't you hear? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just read this paper. As a physics major in college, I say, "Bullshit!" I mean, what an absolute load of crap. So, his great insight is "there's no such thing as any distinct point in space or time because if there were, then everything would be frozen." I understand he has no mathematics to back this up, and that's not why I'm condemning it. I'm condemning his work simply because his reasoning is completely circular. He claims there cannot be both discrete events and continuity because if there were discrete events then there cannot be continuity. Ummm...how about some evidence? How about something, anything to back up this idea? No, nothing. This is horrible garbage, and should be shat upon.
Re:What, didn't you hear? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What, didn't you hear? (Score:2)
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but even according to respected physicists like Dr. Greene the idea of time as an arrow pointing in one direction is false.
I saw him lecture a few weeks ago and he was excellent, so I ordered both of his books. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but I am hoping one of them covers a concept from the lecture that really stuck out in
But does it have pictures? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But does it have pictures? (Score:3, Funny)
Time for time (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought The Elegant Universe a few years ago, and I loved it. I think this is definitely going to be worth checking out at the library.
Re:Time for time (Score:2)
Re:Time for time (Score:2)
That's why light goes though a "straight" line (but can't be bent from the outside. Yeah, I know, I make no sense, but this IS slashdot.
Re:Time for time (Score:4, Interesting)
Philosophers had long since refuted earlier definitions involving inherent coordinate systems and what not. The axiomatic definition is the only thing that has held up to scrutiny. But of course its axiomatic so it doesn't have much in the way of understanding.
Re:Time for time (Score:2)
Maybe each particle is only allowed to consume a limited set of resources, so that every universe can be computed (yeah, makes no sense), so whoever invented this systems had no better idea to limited how fast things move or how fast things happen. Time probably is discrete, just as space.
Anyway, time is what gives space it's definition, without it, things could not be pictured, as
What is time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Time isn't working (Score:2)
It's not working, and hasn't been for some time now.
Re:What is time? (Score:2)
Worth reading if you've read Elegant Universe? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it worth reading this if you already read and enjoyed Elegant Universe, or is it just a watered down version without explaining the math?
I would hope a reviewer would give a little more insight into whether to read it or not.
Re:Worth reading if you've read Elegant Universe? (Score:2, Informative)
It's a better overview than TEU was, Green's prose is more refined, but the level of the target audience is lower as well.
Re:Worth reading if you've read Elegant Universe? (Score:2)
One thing that I found interesting was the discussion of how inflationary expansion affected the structure of the universe, and in particular how it put the early universe into a very low-entropy state.
I
His Explanation of Time seems a Non-Explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
I briefly read one of this book's chapters on time, and it doesn't seem to explain much. Greene argues that time doesn't flow by pointing out how, due to special relativity, events in my future may be in someone else's past.
Therefore, Greene concludes, all events, past, present, and future, must already exist and must always exist. And our sense that time flows is an illusion.
Interestingly, Greene explicitly REJECTS the notion of a "projector" illuminating one cross-section of this frozen river of time one piece at a time. He rightly sees the problem with this analogy: when does the projector operate? It would have to operate at no time at all, so the concept is incoherent.
How does Greene account for flow? He says that the feelings, thoughts, and perceptions one has at any particular point in time contain sufficient context that one senses their relationship to the past and to the future. This we call flow.
My problem with this explanation is that I don't think you can have thought without change. I don't think there is reason to believe that there is a fundamental unit of time, within which some kind of fundamental unit of thought would exist.
Thought is inherently based on movement or change in our mental landscape, and this movement must happen in time. There is no possibility for thinking without flow. Thinking cannot account for flow, but rather assumes it.
Also, if we take the frozen river hypothesis, how do we find ourselves at one point in time and then at another point in time... how does this movement ever occur? And to whom? Wouldn't we be locked helplessly at our one "point" in time?
Finally, even if special relativity does show that events in one person's future may subjectively be perceived in another person's past, the very fact that we can correlate these two pieces of information: does that not show that there is some master set of times that relates everything to everything else?
is thought scale-less? (Score:2, Interesting)
The way I would resolve that kind of issue would be to think of thought as basically a chemical process which doesn't arise until time scales so large that the difference between time being a flip-book and time being continuos are irrelevent. (I.e. for thoughts that take significant fractions of a second, time being cut into sub-femto-second slices or being truly continuos doesn't make much of a differen
Why is there time? (Score:5, Interesting)
On this subject, I always liked Max Tegmark's [upenn.edu] speculations on the topic, which includes some assessment of why we have only one, and not zero or two or more temporal dimensions.
There's lots of other cool stuff on Max Tegmark's site [upenn.edu] too if you want to procrastinate on whatever else you're doing. (He's a physics (astrophysics?) professor at U.Penn.)
--LP
Bah ! It's so easy to explain... (Score:5, Funny)
Space is what you lost when you started downloading things.
Just common knowledge...no need fo a book to grasp that.
Wait ! I got it !
Money is what you lost when you bought the book when you could have just read my post.
=P
Re:Bah ! It's so easy to explain... (Score:2)
Great, now I can't get the song
Does anybody really know what time it is? [hot-lyrics-center.com] out of my head...
Other important questions (Score:5, Funny)
... not to mention other important questions, such as "When is the universe?", "Who is matter?", and "Where the hell is the remote?"
Re:Other important questions (Score:2, Redundant)
...damn gnomes...
Easy explanation of time (Score:2)
Simple as that.
NPR interview (Score:5, Informative)
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=da
time is change (Score:2)
I never thought time was a terribly complicated topic. It boils down to change. If nothing, and I mean nothing at all, ever changed, then time hasn't passed.
How can you say it has? If nothing has changed, you have no way of judging, measuring, or scaling 'time'. Time is the difference between one moment and another.
Think about dimensions. I've often heard the '4th' dimension referred to as time. Well take an object in the 3rd dimension and 'graph' its c
I already know all about the nature of time... (Score:2)
Another on the same subject (Score:2)
Very interesting read which explains things in a manner that I could understand (sysadmin, not astrophysicist, though I'm surrounded by them daily). Maybe I should send in a Slashdot book review too
Very Intriguing But... (Score:3, Funny)
Another good book, although less scientific... (Score:2, Interesting)
As the man said ... (Score:2)
Akamai links to Elegant Universe (Score:2, Informative)
- sm
Brain Greene On Tonight (Score:2)
I have to say (Score:2)
if you can't explant it, you don't understand it.
Big Stuff... (Score:2)
The first is, that I love it when somebody who has a full grasp of a profoundly exciting and difficult to understand field, like advanced physics, breaks down the critical concepts and presents them for general consumption. It's important to understand the way our universe is put together. It gives you a better idea of your place in the universe, how one actually relates to all things... the great and the infinitesimal. It also demands that you build up
Time is. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
We are all really, really broken in the head. Time, as we experience it, is a total illusion. --But it is an illusion which allows for the perception of physicality; --if you were aware of all possibilities existing at the same time, you would perceive of yourself as being something rather like an ever-evolving smear.
Every choice you make in your current brain-damaged, "single-frame advance" form is what takes you from one step to the next. In the fully aware version, physicality becomes variable, because you can focus on a reality and pull it into being by exercising choices across an entire 'life-time'. Existing in that form, I suspect, probably comes with it's own version of 'time', because that level is probably just a brain-damaged version of the next one above it.
Don't bend your mind trying to picture this stuff. You are mentally impaired and you can't do it. Things are changing though. All those little introns are wiggling around and beginning to come active in those who are struggling to wake up! Lots of perceptive abilities which haven't been expressed yet. .
Some of you will have already started experiencing brief bleed-throughs as the paradigm shift rushes ever-nearer. --Here are a three of the multiple reality 'encounters' I know of, (the last two of which I've directly experienced).
Stuff like that. Yes, quite terrifying, but they only last a few hair-raising moments, and you can snap out of them at will, (for the time being anyway.) Watch for them and learn from them; you'll need to be able to stay calm if you make the transit. And yes, all of this while not on drugs. Drugs are for idiots; they'll just weaken your ability to deal when the shit hits! Gettin' closer real fast, kids!
When? Well, the shit is supposed to hit at the same time as the big cloud of comets wipes out everything on this planet. Be a nice time to be able to morph your reality, eh? Otherwise, it's apocalyptic fire storms for you! (But don't sweat it. You'll just reincarnate where you need to. It'd be cool to actually make the transition without dying, though! And certainly into a reality where there isn't an ice age in full swing and nothing left but smoking rubble and black glass.)
Final note: I don't care what you believe, no collection plate will be passed, there is no book to buy and no representative will come to your door. Deal with it. (And no, I have no relation to 'Time Cube' guy. He's just insane. Whereas I'm the guy who is going to haunt your thoughts every time you trip over something which jars your reality. --Unless, of course, you're already way ahead of me, in which case, 'Cheers!')
-FL
Re:Time is. . . (Score:2)
> a total illusion.
C.S. Lewis talks about this - he asks (paraphrasing): Why are we always surprised by the passage of time? Why do we say 'oh my goodness, little Billy has grown so fast'? It's as if a part of us is eternal, and is unable to completely come to grips with a life that's contained by a linear, finite span of time.
Another Lewis quote, this time verbatim - "The difference [God's] timelessness makes is that this now (which slips away from you even as you s
Re:Time is. . . (Score:3, Informative)
You speak of brain damage with convincing authority.
Believing that you are one of "the last generation" is surely one of the most common fallacies of the credulous.
Also, you mean "Timewave", not "Time Cube".
In any case, you should probably read this article [pthbb.org] on the Copernican principle of events. The overwhelming likelihood is that you're not special, friend. Sorry.
Oh, and of course "drugs are for idiots". Like Carl Sagan, you mean? Got it.
grib
Some more interesting physics (Score:3, Interesting)
Jhon Baez site [ucr.edu]
especially interesting
Open Questions in Physics [ucr.edu]
Alternative approach - quantum gravity without strings Building Spacetime from Spin [ucr.edu] - this theory have some troubles - they arn't able to get a flat space-time as a classical limit of their theory, but now they are tryng apply the same approch to strings - a lot of math which I don't understand, but little part which I understand fascinating...
We are still far from "the end of physics" (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet there is something about all current approaches that smacks of epicycles. Great scientific theories have an elegance which appears to be missing from current attempts to bridge the gap between the micro and macro domains. Theory needs that kind of elegance and the wider comprehensibility which comes with it to be accessible to real critique.
If those who have not shared a lifetime of indoctrination are unable to play in the sand pit, the "experts" can get away with ever more circular cases of theoretical blinkers and instrumental blindness which only ever return the answers they are looking for, as well as all the funding advantages that come from having sidelined the nay sayers.
One side of me wants to suggest that our current infatuation with anything to do with information really might produce A New Kind of Science which breaks down a few barriers, but the only honest position is that the jury is still out on that one too.
Some of my own work hints that computer models of seemingly irreversible systems readily generate local time reversibility and that starting inflation may be a lot easier than stopping it, but leaves some other fundamental phenomena needing to be explained within the same frrame of reference. I mainly try such experiments to get a better feel for the state of play and right now my best estimate is that the next real revolution in physics might still be a generation away, but that one is coming.
Yet another popularisation (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the fundamental understanding of time and space - there is literally nobody, I'd claim, who understands this, which is why we see such concepts launched as eg. 'quantisation of space and time', which is profoundly nonsensical. (the reason, if you must know, is that since we live 'inside' space, we have some considerable difficulty seeing space from 'outside', which is where this discontinuity would be apparent).
The truth is - physics is stuck in a rut, and we need a fundamental change in viewpoint before we can progress any further. String theory and quantum mechanics are all very well, but they all build on ideas that are now about a century old, and which have been stretched to their limits. The Copenhagen interpretation hasn't really helped either - this massive block of philosophy stating that 'there is nothing smaller than whichever quantum limit' has been a religion that has done a lot to block our progress towards a better understanding of things on a small scale. In case you'd care to know - all quantum mechanics really says (in this respect) is that because of the dual wave-particle nature of matter, it is impossible to measure things on an arbitrarily small scale using only particle interactions; this clearly doesn't mean that there is nothing going on there.
To compare: imagine that we try to observe ships in the ocean by standing on the beach and making waves - we wouldn't be able to 'see' ships smaller than the length of the waves. So to se better, we create shorter waves, but since they contain more energy, they push the smallest ships around, so we can't locate them precisely. Does this means that there's nothing smaller than what we can observe? Of course not - we just need to find another way to observe them. The limitations in quantum mechanics are more about limitations in the observation methods than about reality.
Re:when will you TEABAGGERS understand? (Score:2)
Miss you, Jon. Hugs and Kisses.
Re:If only I could find time to read it. (Score:2)
- A Breif History of Time
is actually quite good, but certainly a bit less approachable than parts of either this or Greene's previous book. Granted, the string-theory sections are the most difficult of all three books, but I highly recomend picking up any or all of them.Re:I *hate* popularisations! (Score:2)
Sort of, which is why I treated this article somewhat flippantly. I hate popularizations of science that are misleading and get it wrong. To be fair though, whenever you summarize something innevitably you will leave out some important details. But even "real" scientific papers have summaries and abstracts, so popular articles and books have their place as long as they document their sources. The beauty of science is that ultimately anyone can verify t
Re:I *hate* popularisations! (Score:2)
Re:I *hate* popularisations! (Score:2)
Very few people have the time or inclination to understand enough of the fundamental "tools of the trade" to actually understand what scientists are talking about, but they are still curious. It would be nice if everyone
Re:I *hate* popularisations! (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, this stuff is hard. No, really hard. You need to focus down and study this stuff for years before you can really get up to speed and read the preprint server with any understanding. Oh, and did I mention those years need to be spent hanging around people who already understand it?
Secondly, overviews are hard -- and hard to write well. The value of a good overview is respected by everyone in the field. You need maps with different grades of detail.
Thirdly, first hand experience: at least one of the string theory people I know read the first Greene book when she was starting out and loved it. Plenty of other physicists and astronomers I work with have read it just to get a sense for what is going on in this rather abstracted part of physics they don't have the time to catch up on.
Oh, and fourthly, this kind of book does wonders for scientific literacy and interest in the general public. Selfishly, it helps build the case for continued public funding of this kind of thing. Better put, it is a sort of 'return' to the public that repays them for their support by working hard to generate a story both intellectually respectable and comprehensible to the educated and motivated layman.
Re:I *hate* popularisations! (Score:3, Interesting)
You're on.
Killing vectors: take a clock with you on your spaceship. Fly from star A to star B, and time it. Now, you get a new mission: fly from star A to star B along a slightly altered path, displaced at each point by a small amount determined by a particular vector field. (Yeah, in my million do
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I *hate* popularisations! (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, with a few extra words (like including subsets of the path), what I wrote is a workable definition of Killing vectors as they are used in General Relativity. A few more words, and I'd cover even pathological cases.
Weinberg's book eschews the whole talk of manifolds and makes it rather hard to see the issues in a cartoony way. I prefer MTW. Ironically, I think your point would be better made for particle physics, which is a lot less tractable in cartoons. I like those books a lot less, and have not seen a satisfactory one, because it takes a mind the order of Feynman's to really get at the heart of the issues without a huge amount of notation.
Furthermore, had you bothered to address the part of my post that came after "Popularizations, sadly, do have a place in our world," you'd have to admit that I wasn't being condescending at all. Rather, it was a roundabout way of lamenting the continuing fall in the numbers of students deciding to pursue careers in the sciences.
I object to the attitude of your posts on this subject. Scientists have had enough trouble in the past for their arrogance, and I think these popularizations are the best possible news. Essential aspects of high-level science can be conveyed with a minimum of mathematics by those with the skill, and that should be praised to the skies, not damned.
By the way, I know many people around here who loved Greene's book but were less keen on the PBS version. I haven't seen it, but I suggest you give Greene a chance, and try to distinguish between gosh-whiz BS and serious efforts at popularization. Look at the regulars on sci.physics.research, and the amount you can accomplish with a minimum of required background.
Re:time is cause and effect (Score:2)
That would be a rather unpleasant example of cause and effect.
law and order of magnitude (Score:2)
I've definitely noticed that ideas tend to propagate into literature pretty quickly these days. "Chaos theory" is, well, you can't spit in a bookstore without hitting fiction that mentions it. Unfortunately, chaos theory is a bit of niche (potentially rich, don
Re:Whatever this fabric is... (Score:2, Funny)
no big crunch (Score:2)
However, current evidence indicates that, instead of slowing down as predicted by "Big Crunch" models, the expansion of the universe is speeding up. So no end o
Re:no big crunch (Score:2)
No Big Crunch != No End of Time.
If the universe started, it started with infinite mass-energy and infinitesimal space--or two other similar opposites.
The time since then is a succession of reactions wherein mass-energy distributes itself throughout "space." Enthropy is the universe's energy being spent. (Law of Conservation of
Free Will an Illusion? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know exactly what to think about free will. It seems impossible to me on the one hand, and indispensable on the other. In the end, I think my beliefe comes down to, "We should believe in free will and act as if it is real, even though it isn't." See, free will has to come from some place. Where do the individual impulses to will origi
Free willy (Score:2)
First of all, the basics: There is the One, of which we are all a part.
My 'feeling' is that the One is probably a very lonely
Re:Time is (Score:2)
Re:String theory is "religion" for scientists (Score:2, Informative)
Re:String theory is "religion" for scientists (Score:2)
That's the problem. Strings are unobservable, and string theory describes nor predicts nothing that is not explained by another larger theory.
Re:String theory is "religion" for scientists (Score:2)
Strings ARE the larger theory, considering it encompasses solutions to both QM and relativity. I think you mean, it predicts nothing that cannot be explained by a more specific theory. And the reason for this is simply because strings are SO abstract that they provide too many solutions. Are they a fruitful pursuit? time will tell...
Re:String theory is "religion" for scientists (Score:5, Interesting)
What's a zero? What's the very concept of nothing? Have you ever seen nothing? Then how do you know it exists?
I'm sure the scientists both in favor of and against String theory would have a few choice bits of evidence to offer up in support of their theory.
Instead of reciting the scientific method like a third-grade science teacher to a class, why not offer something more substantial, and, dare I say, SCIENTIFIC to support your hypothesis?
Re:String theory is "religion" for scientists (Score:2)
Peano's axioms tell us how to add, and numbers don't exist in the real world - they are abstractions. Are you saying that String theory is an axiomatic theory and that strings are nonexistant abstractions?
Or are you saying that we must take certain things on faith? In that case I would say that Peano's axioms give us utility, and that utility fosters faith.
I'm sure the scientists both in favor of and against String theory would ha
Re:String theory is "religion" for scientists (Score:2)
Time is a bit harder. You "gadawahoo" (whatever it is) at some limited constant arbitrary number God choose. Now you are entitled to choose the mix of your gadawahoo, as either "speed of events" or "speed as movement". The trick is, you are always adding up the same amount of gadawahoo whether you like it or not.
Re:String theory is "religion" for scientists (Score:2)
Also, to be pedantic, what you describe is a "null" set, not "zero".
not that simple :( (Score:3, Interesting)
The second question though is much harder. Basically, how can you be sure your theory really "explains" things sufficiently (whatever that means). Even though Kepler's Laws are observationally sound, still somehow they dont really explain w
The real scientific method (Score:2, Funny)
2. Google the subject matter
3. Prove the material right or wrong by linking [google.com] to what you found
4. Offer your unsolicited political or philosophical view
5. Wait for the same story to appear six months from now
6. Lather, rinse, repeat
Re:String theory is "religion" for scientists (Score:3, Informative)
String theory is not a religion for scientists or for anyone else. It is an attempt to fix some of the many technical problems with the Standard Model, SM, (ie the current description of EM, Strong, and Weak forces). We know that the SM is incomplete (besides the fact it's a model and not a theory so it describes but doesn't explain) and there are various ideas of ways to complete (ie find the high energy theory for which the SM is the low en
Re:String theory is "religion" for scientists (Score:2)
So, if the scientific method is not correct anymore, does that mean all science up to this point in time is incorrect? Gee, I'd take that as the first sign things are going to pot.
So what is correct?? Pulling ideas out of the air and saying "hmmm, this looks like a pretty idea, it must be true. Until we test it (whenever that may be), it is true."
The major difference then between String Theory and religion is, we
Re:If you liked it so much why did you gice it a 7 (Score:2)
--Jay Sherman
Re:If you liked it so much why did you gice it a 7 (Score:2)
Re:Is this book a "The Elegant Universe for Dummie (Score:2, Informative)
The End of Time [barnesandnoble.com] is also available in paperback. I never managed to get though more than 4 chapters, but Barbour has some very intriguing ideas about time, and I've seen him mentioned along with Loop Quantum Gravity, which is a good sign.
Hyperspace [barnesandnoble.com] was written before TEU, and suffers from age a bit. It was written before Witten unleashed M-Theory on everyone (or just after) I read it immediately aft
Re:So how many bits does it take do describe it al (Score:2)