Tuesday, October 10, 2006
more about the colloquium
I will backtrack now.
Right after I checked in at the Albany Marriott, and then at the colloquium registration area, I looked around for famous physicists, Nobel Prize-winners, science journalists (good or bad), etc. I saw no one. I couldn't believe that there were only a handful of scientists at this event. From all the conversations I heard, most people were Mensans who were (somewhat) interested in physics; I heard a lot of statements like:
"Well, I read The Elegant Universe and thought that was cool."
"I still can't get over that idea of extra dimensions, anyway."
"Aren't dark matter and dark energy the same thing?"
Needless to say, I was quite worried. Were these people going to ask stupid questions that the proverbial "average person on the street" could answer? Some did. So as to avoid libeling anyone, I will not reprint the questions here.
I have to admit that some people's disdain for the anthropic principle was irksome. At least two of the speakers referred to the anthropic principle as "giving up." All of the speakers mentioned the principle, but they didn't say anything about the entropic interpretation or other more advanced versions of the principle. I don't think the anthropic principle is a deference to metaphysics at all. It is a serious scientific argument, and should be treated as such.
If it weren't for those two factors, the colloquium certainly would have lived up to its title. I almost thought it would be a "revolution in cosmology", considering the hot debate that occurred after Brian Greene's talk.
Dr. Greene's lecture was by far the longest. I'd heard rumors that some people were trying to crash the lecture; those people had not registered for the colloquium but had intended just to hear that lecture. At the beginning, he asked, "Are there any Yankees fans here?" A few brave people raised their hands. He continued, "Drink more wine; it's over." This resulted in cries of anguish from Yankee fans and applause from Red Sox fans like myself. :)
Then he said, "This lecture's called 'The State of String Theory.' It sounds a lot like the State of the Union address, but there are three big differences:
1. I'm not the President.
2. I will describe the developments in string theory.
3. I will tell you the truth."
I'd never heard an audience applaud so enthusiastically before.
His lecture was quite technical; he described how extra dimensions were curled up in a Kahler manifold, how one must solve a system of differential equations to find string energies, etc. He also showed most of the animations from the series The Elegant Universe and tried to describe those, but most people were already too confused to understand even the animations.
After the lecture (and after he answered questions from the audience), there was a panel discussion. Surprisingly, Dr. Smolin was in the panel; I knew right away that this would be a heated discussion. Greene asserted that Smolin's statement about string theory "falling away from the scientific method" was very wrong, and that The Trouble with Physics was very damaging. Smolin went through a long, long explanation of his statements, in order to provide a counterexample. He tried, but all he actually did was dodge the question. I saw Dr. Greene roll his eyes once.
To add more energy to this thermodynamic system, Dr. Jeremiah Ostriker (who gave a lecture about dark matter on Saturday) said his wife claimed that string theory was a "thinking person's version of intelligent design." The audience made a few interesting noises, but Dr. Greene told the panel something like, "Unless we can corroborate string theory, we cannot claim that it is right." More discussions followed, but they came to an end just before Marc Millis was going to say something.
I got Dr. Greene's autograph afterwards, and I praised the technical nature of his lecture. Other people told him that as well, and he thanked us. ¶ 10:16 PM
Right after I checked in at the Albany Marriott, and then at the colloquium registration area, I looked around for famous physicists, Nobel Prize-winners, science journalists (good or bad), etc. I saw no one. I couldn't believe that there were only a handful of scientists at this event. From all the conversations I heard, most people were Mensans who were (somewhat) interested in physics; I heard a lot of statements like:
"Well, I read The Elegant Universe and thought that was cool."
"I still can't get over that idea of extra dimensions, anyway."
"Aren't dark matter and dark energy the same thing?"
Needless to say, I was quite worried. Were these people going to ask stupid questions that the proverbial "average person on the street" could answer? Some did. So as to avoid libeling anyone, I will not reprint the questions here.
I have to admit that some people's disdain for the anthropic principle was irksome. At least two of the speakers referred to the anthropic principle as "giving up." All of the speakers mentioned the principle, but they didn't say anything about the entropic interpretation or other more advanced versions of the principle. I don't think the anthropic principle is a deference to metaphysics at all. It is a serious scientific argument, and should be treated as such.
If it weren't for those two factors, the colloquium certainly would have lived up to its title. I almost thought it would be a "revolution in cosmology", considering the hot debate that occurred after Brian Greene's talk.
Dr. Greene's lecture was by far the longest. I'd heard rumors that some people were trying to crash the lecture; those people had not registered for the colloquium but had intended just to hear that lecture. At the beginning, he asked, "Are there any Yankees fans here?" A few brave people raised their hands. He continued, "Drink more wine; it's over." This resulted in cries of anguish from Yankee fans and applause from Red Sox fans like myself. :)
Then he said, "This lecture's called 'The State of String Theory.' It sounds a lot like the State of the Union address, but there are three big differences:
1. I'm not the President.
2. I will describe the developments in string theory.
3. I will tell you the truth."
I'd never heard an audience applaud so enthusiastically before.
His lecture was quite technical; he described how extra dimensions were curled up in a Kahler manifold, how one must solve a system of differential equations to find string energies, etc. He also showed most of the animations from the series The Elegant Universe and tried to describe those, but most people were already too confused to understand even the animations.
After the lecture (and after he answered questions from the audience), there was a panel discussion. Surprisingly, Dr. Smolin was in the panel; I knew right away that this would be a heated discussion. Greene asserted that Smolin's statement about string theory "falling away from the scientific method" was very wrong, and that The Trouble with Physics was very damaging. Smolin went through a long, long explanation of his statements, in order to provide a counterexample. He tried, but all he actually did was dodge the question. I saw Dr. Greene roll his eyes once.
To add more energy to this thermodynamic system, Dr. Jeremiah Ostriker (who gave a lecture about dark matter on Saturday) said his wife claimed that string theory was a "thinking person's version of intelligent design." The audience made a few interesting noises, but Dr. Greene told the panel something like, "Unless we can corroborate string theory, we cannot claim that it is right." More discussions followed, but they came to an end just before Marc Millis was going to say something.
I got Dr. Greene's autograph afterwards, and I praised the technical nature of his lecture. Other people told him that as well, and he thanked us. ¶ 10:16 PM
Comments:
<< Home
It sounds like a great time.
I have to admit that some people's disdain for the anthropic principle was irksome.
Keep holding onto the idea that an entropic anthrpic principle has a place in science, and you will be a lot more than "irked" before it's over.
If you think that my observations about these guys are in any way overblown, then you have not even scratched the surface of the vast amount of ignorance and scientific arrogance that surrounds this issue.
People make a lot of accusations about my attidude toward what has become quite stereotypical behavior, but what they don't know is that I used to be just like you, until they earned my disrespect by failing to even give it a chance.
I have to admit that some people's disdain for the anthropic principle was irksome.
Keep holding onto the idea that an entropic anthrpic principle has a place in science, and you will be a lot more than "irked" before it's over.
If you think that my observations about these guys are in any way overblown, then you have not even scratched the surface of the vast amount of ignorance and scientific arrogance that surrounds this issue.
People make a lot of accusations about my attidude toward what has become quite stereotypical behavior, but what they don't know is that I used to be just like you, until they earned my disrespect by failing to even give it a chance.
I got the impression that their attitudes toward the anthropic principle stemmed more from a misguided conception of it as "metaphysics", rather than arrogance. They knew a lot about the principle, but they were hesitant to give more than a superficial discussion of it. Of course, if they went into details about all the principle's interpretations, each lecture would've lasted much longer, so time constraints influenced them to discuss it less.
On the other hand, maybe they were just put off by "philosophy." I was kind of surprised that Dr. Smolin didn't discuss it more, considering he always writes about the connections between philosophy and physics. Of course, the anthropic principle is far more than philosophy! It's just as important a factor in the unified theory as anything else.
On the other hand, maybe they were just put off by "philosophy." I was kind of surprised that Dr. Smolin didn't discuss it more, considering he always writes about the connections between philosophy and physics. Of course, the anthropic principle is far more than philosophy! It's just as important a factor in the unified theory as anything else.
What a shame. They call it metaphysics because they refuse to look for a good physical reason why the implication for specialness might be true. In other words, the long sought first principle is burried in there with anthropic relevance, so how can you possibly ever expect it to appear as anything but metaphysics if you refuse to look for the good physical reason why it's true. They're just so sure that these are two separate issues, rather than one.
Did you see what I meant about Lee Smolin's passive/agressive tactics?
About Dr. Greene:
I'd never heard an audience applaud so enthusiastically before.
I wonder what the response would have been had a Democrat been in office. More to the point, I'll bet that Brian Greene wouldn't have even said what he said, and that is sad.
Post a Comment
Did you see what I meant about Lee Smolin's passive/agressive tactics?
About Dr. Greene:
I'd never heard an audience applaud so enthusiastically before.
I wonder what the response would have been had a Democrat been in office. More to the point, I'll bet that Brian Greene wouldn't have even said what he said, and that is sad.
<< Home
