Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

String Theory in Two Minutes 328

Posted by samzenpus from the the-meaning-of-life-in-1000-words-or-less dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Most of us have heard of string theory, many of us know what it is and some of us may even be experts in the field. But could you explain it in two minutes? Discover Magazine recently had a contest to do precisely that: create a two minute or less video of everything you need to know about string theory. You can view some of the best entries (video) as well as the winning video: String Ducky!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

String Theory in Two Minutes More

String Theory in Two Minutes

Comments Filter:

  • Err. (Score:3, Informative)

    by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:13AM (#21110001)
    The winning video is "The Problem with Math.", according to the site. "Ducky" placed fourth.

  • awwww yeaahhhh (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:14AM (#21110003) Homepage
    Most of us have heard of string theory, many of us know what it is and some of us may even be experts in the field. But could you explain it in two minutes?

    I can't, but MC Hawking can. [mchawking.com] And he can get the bitches at the same time.

  • String theory in haiku (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:17AM (#21110017)
    Stretched analogy
    of beauteous harmony,
    thou art String Theory.

  • Quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by cashman73 ( 855518 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:24AM (#21110047) Journal
    "It is said that papers in string theory are published at a rate greater than the speed of light. This, however, is not problematic since no information is being transmitted." - H. Kleinert.

  • I think this sums it up pretty well (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chlorus ( 1146335 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:25AM (#21110053)
    http://xkcd.com/171/ [xkcd.com] So true!

  • I could... (Score:5, Funny)

    by monkeySauce ( 562927 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:29AM (#21110069) Journal
    I could explain it in two minutes, but I would need A LOT of silly string...

  • Here it is in less time: (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Something that should belong in Philosophy or Religion but is in Science as that's where all the grant money is.

  • sure why not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:39AM (#21110127) Journal
    string theory in less than a paragraph. strings "vibrate" in higher dimensional space. [specifically M-theory suggests 11 dimensions] energy states are quantised, including mass at some level. String theory's ultimate goal is to eliminate infinities and non-sensical probabilities that result from the current standard model. Also, at some level the forces merge into a single force, this force splits at lower energies which may cause some very interesting phenomenae [spatial expansion for one] one of the major hurdles to string theory is gravity. why is it as weak as it is? what are the consequences of higher dimensions to its relative strength etc. [even some theoretical work suggests gravitons leak between dimensions] very little of it is testable at the moment, one major prediction that could in principle be tested is that of varying velocities of photons according to energy/wavelength. the models suggest that a lag of around a minute or less over a distance of several billion light years while this isn't unique to string theory.

    • Re:sure why not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iluvcapra ( 782887 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:58AM (#21110233)
      If it needs 11 dimensions in which to vibrate, how is it still a "string," or how is the model of a string still descriptive?

      • Re:sure why not (Score:5, Informative)

        by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @02:27AM (#21110343) Journal
        that is correct, it seems to be more of a formality. in fact, it really can't be pinned down to a finite position or even a real "shape", its wavefunction is smeared across space. there is a finite proability of it being in a certain position at any given time just like electrons "going around" an atom. these strings can even "tunnel" bridging gaps that mathematically have exactly zero probability of the particle being there. an example of this is the electron cloud in p-orbitals in a Benzene ring. there is exactly zero electron density between the top p-orbital overlap ring and the lower one and yet electrons constantly interchange between the two in less than a trillionth of a second. blackholes exhibit peculiar behavior that can more easily be described by equations more fit in higher dimensional space in regard to spin and charge. higher dimensions have very interesting theoretical consequences [altered gravitational constants, mini blackholes accessible to high energy particle accelerators etc.] although theoretically these dimensions fold back on themselves so these "strings" are wrapped as well because their geoetry must also follow the space in which they inhabit.

      • Re:sure why not (Score:5, Informative)

        by YttriumOxide ( 837412 ) <yttriumox@COUGARgmail.com minus cat> on Thursday October 25, 2007 @04:20AM (#21110787) Homepage Journal

        The sibling post to this one may be correct and I may be flat out wrong, but my understanding was that a "string" can be described as a one dimensional object that has the ability to move through (probably) 11 dimensions.
        Similar to how a "2 dimensional" object such as a piece of paper can happily be folded in 3 dimensions while still itself being 2 dimensional.

    • Um, there are gamma-ray bursts going off billions of LY away that we observe every day.

      All the various frequencies seem to arrive together, as I recall. If string theory does indeed predict that the vacuum has some dispersion, then wouldn't GRB's be a good way to test it?

      Or would we only see the dispersion by observing a region of spectrum many orders of magnitude wider?
      • yes, it is a way to test string theory although most of the GRB events I've heard of didn't have enough data to say either way.

    • Please note: Everything below is just how I understand it with my very rudimentary understanding of the subject. I am likely to be extremely wrong, and if so, I'd appreciate being enlightened rather than modded down!

      one of the major hurdles to string theory is gravity.

      As I understand it, while gravity is a problem for string theory, it's more of a problem for pretty much every other theory. String theory seems to handle gravity MUCH more cleanly than other theories.

      why is it as weak as it is?

      The strings that form "gravitons" (elementary particles of gravity) are, due to their s

    • strings "vibrate" in higher dimensional space.
      What are the strings made of?

      one of the major hurdles to string theory is gravity. why is it as weak as it is?
      Hey, I'm trying to lose weight as it is. The last thing I want is for gravity to be any stronger!

  • I watched the video. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lordsid ( 629982 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:41AM (#21110139)
    I'm a string theory expert now. not really, but I found the video informative.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BRSloth ( 578824 ) *
      Good for you. I didn't get a thing about it.

      (Yes, I know you were being sarcastic, but it seems the mods didn't get it and I'm just following them.)

  • Since this is slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)

    by efence ( 927813 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:41AM (#21110143)
    ...we need someone to explain string theory in TFS. Or, better yet, in the title.

  • I can explain it in two minutes.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by HeadlessNotAHorseman ( 823040 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:58AM (#21110237) Homepage
    I can easily explain string theory in less than two minutes, but the explanation can only be heard in 6 tiny dimensions that nothing larger than a small flea can fit into. And the fleas didn't seem all that interested.

  • first explain it to physicists... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by presarioD ( 771260 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @01:59AM (#21110241)
    ...I'm a physicist and frankly I don't see the reason why should somebody waste time explaining a theory to the vast public that hasn't been proved right for over than 30 years now. It's quite beautiful (from the seminars I have attended) but... not verified by experiement...so... let's create some hype for the masses to consume and maybe publish a book or two and some opeds with the NYT!

    Scientific value vs. politics = 0 - 1 this morning...

    • I agree with you on that point, the theory(s) isn't very well proven for or against yet although the logic that goes into its construction is very much worth mentioning. string theory its self in all likliness is incorrect to some degree although it could very well inspire something better.
    • I gathered this much from dabbling in string theory, that it presents a bunch of formulae linking the fundamental forces that requires 9 (or 10 or 11 or 13 etc.) variables to work. These variables are then each given a dimension so they can be used in a handy matrix form. It seems this mathematical notion of dimension has little to do with spatial or temporal dimensions, its more just a convenient way to represent the maths. As such, the concept of 'tiny dimensions' only makes sense in an allegorical way. I
    • Got a better idea?

      Its a little difficult to prove stuff that small. Especially since there is (in theory) nothing smaller.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by SEMW ( 967629 )

        Got a better idea?
        Science has so far sucessfully avoided using God of the Gaps [wikipedia.org] as justification for a hypothesis; I'd rather it didn't start now...
    • I believe 30 years was exactly the amount of time that elapsed before Einstein's theory of relativity was proved.
    • Lots of scientists have been working on the theory for 30 years, as you say. It might be useful to explain to the scientifically inclined nonexperts just what all those eggheads are doing. The duck video gives a clear and intriguing introduction to the theory. It might be the trigger to get some young student to realize how much there is still to be discovered about physics, and maybe encourage him/her to become a scientist.

  • IT IS NOT A THEORY!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @02:07AM (#21110259)
    String "theory" is not a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis. It will not become a "theory" unless and until it can be tested by experiment! Come on, people! I am not nitpicking: the scientific among you know the difference. Do not accept the name "string theory" at face value. That is just String Propaganda.

    And if that were not bad enough, there are other hypotheses, such as MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) that explains most if not all what is explained by the string hypothesis, without having to imagine all those other dimensions. In fact, it is so much simpler than the string hypothesis that Occam's Razor is practically screaming, "No! Over here, you idiots!"

    Yes, there are problems with MoND, but there are very big problems with strings as well. The fact that an idea is popular in the media or has been around longer is not evidence that it is true, any more than the others.

    • Re:IT IS NOT A THEORY!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @02:15AM (#21110289)
      String theory is a theory. A theory is a big old (mathematical, preferably) framework for explaining how something works.

      The hypotheses of which you speak are little, testable, predictions that you make based on a theory which tend to test it. You can also make hypotheses based on gut instinct, or something fuzzier than a formal theory, in which case they help guide your theory-making.

      String theory is still in the fuzzier stages when compared to things like relativity, the standard model and quantum mechanics, but there are some testable hypotheses coming out of it. One is the different speeds of photons mentioned in an earlier post. Another is the multiple dimensions. According to some string theories these dimensions are small, but large enough that some current or near future experiments should start seeing them.

      Competing theories are GOOD. I'm not sure MOND is really a direct competitor to string theory, but the more ideas the better.
      • String "theory" is not a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis. It will not become a "theory" unless and until it can be tested by experiment! Come on, people! I am not nitpicking: the scientific among you know the difference. Do not accept the name "string theory" at face value. That is just String Propaganda.

        String theory is a theory. A theory is a big old (mathematical, preferably) framework for explaining how something works.

        I know a label that unifies both of these disparate ideas into one coh
      • In science a theory is a falsifiable claim. Hawking put it pretty well in that a theory "must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." So until the string concept can make testable statements, or future predictions, or however you want to talk about it, it's not a theory.

        Don't confuse math with science. They are related, but not the same. Math is, as it has been said "rules without a game." It is simply discovering relationships in numbers. That's great, and it is a wonderful pur

        • Re:No... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @11:19AM (#21115131)
          I agree with most of what you said, but with a couple of modifications.

          A scientific theory is falsifiable, yes, but not necessarily easily falsifiable with current technology. If we need a bigger particle accelerator to falsify it then it's still a theory. Things like ID are non-falsifiable under any circumstances because no matter what you observe there's always an escape hatch -- God is screwing with you.

          It's pretty hard to think up an experiment to test the "macro"-evolution that creationists are always harping about, and most of more general evolution is pretty hard to test as well. That doesn't mean evolution isn't a theory.

          I'm not going to address whether string theory is over hyped or over funded. That's a political question. It is a theory, actually a collection of theories. Falsifiable predictions are also starting to be made using it. Some members of the string theory family have been pretty much discarded because they don't hold up, and other members of the family are being tested by experimentalists as we speak. They predict photons of different wavelengths will travel at slightly different speeds, and some versions predict that the extra dimensions are big enough to be observed by recent attempts to measure the gravitational constant for very small objects.

      • Evolution is a theory--string isn't (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rgoldste ( 213339 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @07:17AM (#21111619)
        We're having enough trouble convincing the public that when we say "evolution is a theory," we really mean "evolution is a set of statements that have each been experimentally verified multiple times." Let's not make it easier for ID nuts to confuse the public about what scientific theories are. A theory must be something that has overwhelming empirical support. Under this definition, string "theory" isn't a theory--it's a set of hypotheses.

        • Re:Evolution is a theory--string isn't (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @11:24AM (#21115195)
          You're suggesting we should change the scientific method because of a bunch of religious nuts? Or is it we should just lie to the public because of a bunch of religious nuts?

          Correct me if I'm wrong, but the next step is recantation and house arrest, isn't it? Followed by burning at the stake if that doesn't work?

          The solution to attempts to pervert science like ID is for scientists to be open and honest about what they do, and educate the public, NOT to obscure what actually goes on and only present finished, polished, masterpieces at the base of the ivory tower. The key difference between science and religion is that science IS provisional. Everything is our best interpretation, subject to change whenever some new evidence contradicts it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jim_deane ( 63059 )
      I think the problem is mainly that people who study the "string hypothesis" are theoreticians and applied mathematicians. They generally refer to themselves (and are referred to by others) as "theorists", so naturally when they focused on strings they acquired the moniker "string theorists".

      Well, "obviously" a string theorist must study "string theory", right? And then that looked sexier on grant and job applications, and yet another bastardization of the word "theory" was born.

      I suppose it's one example

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bazouel ( 105242 )
      Since the OP was lazy ...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rca66 ( 818002 )

      And if that were not bad enough, there are other hypotheses, such as MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) that explains most if not all what is explained by the string hypothesis,

      MoND explains why there are quarks, electrons etc.? It can explain why the proton has exactly the opposite charge of an electron? I must admit, I wasn't aware of the far reaching possiblities of MoND.

      (OK, I know - "explaining" is a bit too much when talking about String theory, as not much of concrete information could be drawn

    • MOND predicts Galactic Rotation curves very well. That is all there is to it. It is a law not unlike Kepler's laws and must be explained by any gravitational theory, just like Newtonian theory did for Kepler's Laws. It doesn't work very well on larger than galactic scales and the real underlying theory may behave differently at larger scales. There are known problems at Cluster scales.

      String theory on the other hand is just a mathematical framework which tries to build reality from a single basic structure

  • The Elegant Universe (Score:4, Informative)

    by crf00 ( 1048098 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @02:26AM (#21110335) Homepage
    The 3 hours video of The Elegant Universe [pbs.org] by Brian Greene also explains String Theory pretty well. Although the video is quite old, it was the first video that made me feel so interested and excited about String Theory.
    • I don't know what you're talking about. When I watched it, I was actually quite embarrassed for Greene for producing String Theory's Infomercial. I mean, just about all the Physics that he was trying to explain I was looking at my wife (Ph.D. Theoretical Physics) saying something along the lines of, "That's wrong, it's x right?" The answer was always yes. And that's taking into consideration the inaccuracies that are generated when talking to a general audience!

      It is quite telling how "good" this movie
  • I feel the need to shamelessly plug my school, since it's small, in the middle of no where, and no one knows about us. :'(

    In addition to quirky physics videos (seventh one down on the list) we do thrown and pirate flag relocation [youtube.com], have the blow shit up [nmt.edu], cheapest tuition / worst food [wikipedia.org], and wicked rock climbing routes.

    We also have girls^H^H^H^H^H a girl.

    (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE come to our school if you are a girl. Naked Sam (per video) is usually kept indoors.)

  • Screw explanations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0xC2 ( 896799 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @02:50AM (#21110433) Homepage
    In my experience, a major obstacle to a proper "relationship" to fundamental physics is the idea that somehow it can be understood in a visual or sensory way. Mathematics can model things that just don't make any sense. Our sensory organs are not equipped to experience fundamental reality. Possibly after studying mathematics long enough, the brain grows a sensitivity to the math. But trying to visualize this stuff is ultimately an exercise in frustration. What happens is that you risk taking that flawed visual model seriously, and trying to extrapolate. Which gets in the way of learning the math necessary to solve the problems.
    • I think you're oversimplifying. Mathematics does NOT model things which don't make any sense.

      If we ignore for a moment the technical aspects of model theory and consistency questions (as I don't believe that's what you were talking about), the usually understood idea of a mathematical model in applied mathematics or physics is an abstraction of something that DOES make sense. There would be no practical value in modelling nonsense.

      There are of course always difficulties with visualisation, but it's oft

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by raddan ( 519638 )
        Actually, I think you're not taking the parent's post literally enough. Mathematics *does* model things that "don't make sense". Think about that word, "sense", for a moment-- it has a clear etymological connection to "sensation", the "perception or awareness of stimuli through the senses [reference.com]". I believe that language actually shapes our understanding of the things that we try to describe (this is a typical characteristic of analytic philosophy [wikipedia.org]). Since we perceive the world through our senses, I find it uns
  • Bullshit.

    Or I could do it in three words: Religion for Physicists.

    But if they really want a little more, I guess I could say the following:

    A idea which cannot be tested in any known scientific manner at the moment and has yet to demonstrate anything new and relevant. It is an interpolation of existing data into an exceedingly and overly complicated mess of mathematics. The only good that has come out of string theory thus far is that it has generated some interesting maths. Peter Woit's description (quot
    • "A idea which cannot be tested in any known scientific manner at the moment "
      Einsteins theories couldn't be tested 'at the moment' either.
      That fact in no was discredits the theory.
      In fact a predictions from string theory has come true. Yes it's only 1 data point.
      Test for string theory have be proposed, but those kinds of tests take a lot of time to set up. Many years.

      As for Peter Woit:
      "First, string theory predicts that the world has 10 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with all the evidence of

  • wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by logixoul ( 1046000 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @03:31AM (#21110591)
    Until now hearing "string theory" made me think of infinitely long, parallel strings that run through the entire cosmos. Then, since that seemed to reduce our 3 dimensions to 2, I thought every string had an infinite "resolution" as well, holding different particles/energies at different parts of it. I *think* A Brief History of Time used a similar explanation, but more probably I'm remembering it wrong.
    What the videos told me:
    "Protons are made up of something smaller, which doesn't look like a ball, but like a vibrating loop of string. This may mean the world is 11-dimensional."
    I was quite off the beat, then :)

  • Great Idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by totallygeek ( 263191 ) <sellis@totallygeek.com> on Thursday October 25, 2007 @03:32AM (#21110597) Homepage
    I really enjoyed the entries and think that many topics can be discussed/taught in such a way. Topics can be offered to people whom otherwise would not read up on that subject. Imagine a combo of How Stuff Works [howstuffworks.com] and Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. A video information site would be one step closer to Vox of the future (from the movie The Time Machine).

  • No (Score:2)

    by Joe Tie. ( 567096 )
    This is the kind of thing which makes the audience of talk shows think their psychic knows more about physics than physicists. It's a dumbed down abstraction, nothing more, nothing less. It's cool on that level, but saying that one understand string theory after watching it is like a kid thinking they understand gravity because they saw something fall to the ground.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DerWulf ( 782458 )
      Well you can't blame the kid seeing that not single human in the whole world "understands" gravity. Anyway, human understanding is based on abstraction. You don't explain the concept of a car to someone by starting with the chemical processes in a combustion engine. Instead complexity is increased after the fundamental abstractions are well understood.

  • Why Heim Theory is better then Strings (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zdzicho00 ( 912806 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @04:22AM (#21110801)
    Achievements of Heim theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory [wikipedia.org]
    1. EHT (Extended Heim Theory) allows to easily calculate particle masses using only some physical constants. You can check this Heim Mass Calculator: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/HeimCalculator [daimi.au.dk]
    2. Succesful prediction of masses of neutrinos.
    3. Prediction of Heim-Lorentz force which most likely is being observed in ESA experiments performed by Dr. Martin Tajmar. During these experiments artificial gravity is being created.
    4. Reasonable explanation why CMB Cold Spot [space.com] appears to be cold without mumbling about Dark Matter/Dark Energy, thanks to Heim's corrected gravitional law [engon.de].
    5. EHT explains why it appears that there is not enough mass observable in the Universe without using Dark Matter [wikipedia.org] concept.
    6. EHT most likely explains weird effects measured during Gravity Probe B [wikipedia.org] experiment, see: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/FieldPropulsion.pdf [hpcc-space.de].
      These effects are in agreement with Martin Tajmar findings, see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806 [arxiv.org]
    7. Droscher&Hausner paper about space propulsion based on Heim theory http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf [hpcc-space.de] was awarded by AIAA in 2004.
    Now, I would like to ask a question.
    Are there any similar achievemets of Strings Theory?
    If you want to know more about EHT please refer to wiki page [wikipedia.org] and this huge discussion thread [physorg.com].
    /Z
  • string theory, [...] could you explain it in two minutes?

    No.

  • In November 1986, a young 9th grade Junior High student read Discover Magazine's cover article about String Theory, in the school library, and his horizons were expanded by the possibilities and such an impression was made on him that he never forgot it and has since been curious about science. But he did not understand it.

    Twenty years later, remembering String Theory from his youth, he read Brian Greene's book on String Theory, thinking that now, after having been college educated and taking science class

  • Wrong approach (Score:5, Informative)

    by styryx ( 952942 ) on Thursday October 25, 2007 @07:14AM (#21111585)
    Perhaps explaining String Theory (or Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or QCD, or etc..) in any amount of time is pointless. It takes longer to explain relativity and quantum mechanics; so explaining any of the theories which try to tie them together will be out of context and not many people learn things when out of context, even if they understand.

    My approach would be to explain (as Brian Greene does in T.E.U.) what the fundamental problems are with current theories: primarily is the glaring difference between gravity and the 'other' fundamental force -- the strong/weak-nuclear-electromagnetic force; however you want to call it, electroweak etc... but the other fundamental forces have been united and this leaves gravity by its lonesome. (Inject public interest with the mention that Einstein was trying to do unite gravity and electromagnetism before he died, if you so wish.)

    That covers motivation uno and I think most of the public would be able to understand what gravity and EM are; you may be able to get away with saying the strong nuclear force is 'what holds atoms together', but I don't think you would have any way of explaining the weak nuclear force as it isn't relevant to Joe Public's day-to-day activities.

    Then you would need to teach them the teeniest bit of science: namely, the point-particle approach. If you could get them to understand this then you may be able to impart that as you get smaller and smaller, the point particle is still infinitely small, and that there is a very clear problem with anything being infinitely small when you get to as small as you can get. String theory thus, instead of treating everything as infinitely minute 'points' _with no dimensions_ (a previously pointed out LIMIT - not flaw - to current models/approximations), takes the next obvious step and says okay, so instead of no dimensions we will have one dimension: a 'string'. Then you can cut to the XKCD comic, which someone linked to above :)

    This is of course a heuristic explanation for the general public and in no way to be used as actual science, which most will not be able to understand due to missing four + years of solidly studying physics. It would be seemingly too hard to explain the Gamma function, super-symmetry, and crazy amounts of dimensions, all of which are academic. Note, I didn't need to explain quantum mechanics or relativity in the two minutes.

    I don't want to start any flame wars; my belief is that there are _too many_ fundamental gaps in knowledge required to understand string theory, even on a qualitative level, for an average person. I argue that to teach one of these gaps would take more than the two minutes allowed.
  • Sounds like a job for Yahtzee (see Zero Punctuation reviews on The Escapist [escapistmagazine.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close