Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Symmetry (or lack thereof)
The well-known physicist and popularizer of mathematics, Dr. Mario Livio, just gave a lecture at RPI about the ideas in his latest book: The Equation that Couldn't Be Solved. I was quite surprised by how many people showed up, considering he isn't quite as famous as many of the other annual lecturers at RPI. His book isn't really about an equation at all, but about symmetry itself.
Of course, a lecture on symmetry could present a lot of intuitive and obvious ideas, and this one was no exception. But what isn't obvious (to many non-scientists) is how important symmetry BREAKING is. There are many forms of symmetry breaking in nature, but he didn't delve into those, because this was a lecture intended for general audiences.
The latest post on "Not Even Wrong" mentions a physics opera. What could be more amazing than a physics opera, with a cast of Nobel Prize-winners? (Many people believe that science should not be integrated into the arts, but such people are extroardinarily mistaken. In high school, I wrote a mathematical opera called "Angle of Innocence", which had characters named after various mathematical ideas. I wrote the libretto and about half of the actual score, but I never finished it.)
The concepts of science can greatly benefit and enrich the arts. Symmetry is a classic example of a concept with mathematical, scientific, and artistic appeal. I predict that in a few years, someone will write an opera or an epic poem based on string theory, the anthropic principle, or some other contemporary scientific idea.
That is what I hope for, anyway. It's quite difficult, though, to teach advanced scientific concepts to many liberal arts students. "Physics for Poets" courses come to mind. Villanova has a course (actually two courses, with labs) called "Great Ideas in Physics" that doesn't use math beyond ALGEBRA. And (make sure you don't fall off your chair) there is even a course at Berkeley called "Physics for Future Presidents": http://lsdiscovery.berkeley.edu/2006spring/c70v.html
The description of PfFP includes the somewhat disturbing sentence, "The beauty of physics may lie in the math, but future presidents don't have time for that." Why shouldn't they have time for that? Of course, they don't need to know tensor calculus, although that certainly helps :) But why shouldn't they really get a sense of what they're doing, which can only be achieved through a certain degree of mathematical sophistication? Wouldn't everyone benefit enormously if future presidents knew something about physics, anyway?
I hope someone can answer those questions seriously. ¶ 8:05 PM
Of course, a lecture on symmetry could present a lot of intuitive and obvious ideas, and this one was no exception. But what isn't obvious (to many non-scientists) is how important symmetry BREAKING is. There are many forms of symmetry breaking in nature, but he didn't delve into those, because this was a lecture intended for general audiences.
The latest post on "Not Even Wrong" mentions a physics opera. What could be more amazing than a physics opera, with a cast of Nobel Prize-winners? (Many people believe that science should not be integrated into the arts, but such people are extroardinarily mistaken. In high school, I wrote a mathematical opera called "Angle of Innocence", which had characters named after various mathematical ideas. I wrote the libretto and about half of the actual score, but I never finished it.)
The concepts of science can greatly benefit and enrich the arts. Symmetry is a classic example of a concept with mathematical, scientific, and artistic appeal. I predict that in a few years, someone will write an opera or an epic poem based on string theory, the anthropic principle, or some other contemporary scientific idea.
That is what I hope for, anyway. It's quite difficult, though, to teach advanced scientific concepts to many liberal arts students. "Physics for Poets" courses come to mind. Villanova has a course (actually two courses, with labs) called "Great Ideas in Physics" that doesn't use math beyond ALGEBRA. And (make sure you don't fall off your chair) there is even a course at Berkeley called "Physics for Future Presidents": http://lsdiscovery.berkeley.edu/2006spring/c70v.html
The description of PfFP includes the somewhat disturbing sentence, "The beauty of physics may lie in the math, but future presidents don't have time for that." Why shouldn't they have time for that? Of course, they don't need to know tensor calculus, although that certainly helps :) But why shouldn't they really get a sense of what they're doing, which can only be achieved through a certain degree of mathematical sophistication? Wouldn't everyone benefit enormously if future presidents knew something about physics, anyway?
I hope someone can answer those questions seriously. ¶ 8:05 PM
Comments:
<< Home
They've already got an intelligent design band, and song... OHHHHHH... you said, contemporary scientific idea... ;)
but future presidents don't have time for that...
Probably a general shot at right-wingers, which follows with the gloom-n-doom tactics of equally clueless liberals who love to whine about how the political right is destroying science in america.
Maybe I could buy that if it weren't for that part that you wrote in your last post about... so do a lot of evolution supporters.
The morons will remain right at the top of my crackpot index as long as creationists are the only ones who support purpose in nature...
but future presidents don't have time for that...
Probably a general shot at right-wingers, which follows with the gloom-n-doom tactics of equally clueless liberals who love to whine about how the political right is destroying science in america.
Maybe I could buy that if it weren't for that part that you wrote in your last post about... so do a lot of evolution supporters.
The morons will remain right at the top of my crackpot index as long as creationists are the only ones who support purpose in nature...
There's an intelligent design band? Is that just the band's title, or do they actually sing about intelligent design?
I agree that the "mission statement" of the "Physics for Future Presidents" course is politically biased, but I'm sure that "Physics for Future Presidents" was just an inventive title to get science-phobic people to actually take a physics course.
And I've noticed that in just about every issue of Scientific American, there's an editorial about how the right wing is undermining science. It's a complete overgeneralization. In fact, I'm cynical enough to suggest that the real reason why many of the scientists write those editorials is so they can assert how much smarter they are than the people in power. It's a combination of elitism and paranoia, but mostly paranoia.
Biologists are afraid that the government will continue to restrict stem cell research. Climatologists are afraid that the government will hold to its opinion on global warming that's "unscientific", among other things. Particle physicists have been afraid that the government won't allow them to build more large accelerators in America ever since the SSC construction was (rather unfairly) halted. I think that scientists as a whole are more afraid of non-scientists than vice versa, which is pretty sad.
I agree that the "mission statement" of the "Physics for Future Presidents" course is politically biased, but I'm sure that "Physics for Future Presidents" was just an inventive title to get science-phobic people to actually take a physics course.
And I've noticed that in just about every issue of Scientific American, there's an editorial about how the right wing is undermining science. It's a complete overgeneralization. In fact, I'm cynical enough to suggest that the real reason why many of the scientists write those editorials is so they can assert how much smarter they are than the people in power. It's a combination of elitism and paranoia, but mostly paranoia.
Biologists are afraid that the government will continue to restrict stem cell research. Climatologists are afraid that the government will hold to its opinion on global warming that's "unscientific", among other things. Particle physicists have been afraid that the government won't allow them to build more large accelerators in America ever since the SSC construction was (rather unfairly) halted. I think that scientists as a whole are more afraid of non-scientists than vice versa, which is pretty sad.
Don't quote me on that, since I can't find a reference, but I thought that I saw a band by that name out of Oregon, or somewhere in that region.
I did find this anti-id song though... ;)
And I've noticed that in just about every issue of Scientific American, there's an editorial about how the right wing is undermining science.
Yep... and I hate to tell you, but a guy could very quickly lose respect for the majority the people in the field that he's pursuing, due to rightous ideological bias that runs rampant throughout. It could even kill a career if you aren't careful.
P.S. If they write a song about the anthropic principle, then it shouldn't include symmetry, except as a romantic, but unattainable goal.
Post a Comment
I did find this anti-id song though... ;)
And I've noticed that in just about every issue of Scientific American, there's an editorial about how the right wing is undermining science.
Yep... and I hate to tell you, but a guy could very quickly lose respect for the majority the people in the field that he's pursuing, due to rightous ideological bias that runs rampant throughout. It could even kill a career if you aren't careful.
P.S. If they write a song about the anthropic principle, then it shouldn't include symmetry, except as a romantic, but unattainable goal.
<< Home
