RSS

Although I hate this song, a very creative Masters Thesis on String Theory

20 Sep

Advertisements
 
3 Comments

Posted by on September 20, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

3 responses to “Although I hate this song, a very creative Masters Thesis on String Theory

  1. mitchethekid

    September 20, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    I can’t believe no one responded. I am having a sad. 😦

     
  2. ricorun

    September 22, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Well, I think this guy’s attempt was the first ever to make Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” sound smart. I thought it was very well done. Getting all those concepts to follow such a well-known melody much have been a bitch! This guy must be one serious geek (not nerd, geek — nerds are jerks who celebrate their inadequacies, geeks either don’t notice them or don’t think they’re relevant). And he can sing too! The trouble is, I don’t understand the math enough to comment on the lyrics, lol!

    True story: A few years ago I went over to Kip Thorne’s house in Pasadena for Thanksgiving. His wife invited me. We knew each other from our time at UCLA, she became a client of my company when she moved to USC, and I dated one of her graduate students when my first marriage went supernova (small world, I guess). Of course the conversation eventually led to gravity waves and what they could tell us about quantum theory and what it might reveal about multi-dimensionality (i.e., more than four dimensions in the universe). Unfortunately, you get on that level and I’m pretty much a fucking idiot. Kip was understanding and tried to help me conceptualize the issue and put it in a rudimentary mathematical framework. But his graduate students seemed intent on making me realize something I already knew — that I was a fucking idiot compared to them. Needless to say, they weren’t much help.

    So anyway, M-theory (or variations on it) does appear to be the new thing that could save string theory from permanent irrelevance. Perhaps you know that string theory, though interesting and provocative, heretofore suffered from a major problem when it comes to evaluating scientific theories: it led to no testable hypotheses. Well, the fact that it wasn’t exactly parsimonious didn’t help either (come on, 10 dimensions??!!), but the real kiss of death is that no variation predicted any phenomenon beyond what was already known. But now, with the latest theoretical developments, along with the large hadron collider (the one that recently confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson — much to the chagrin of many particle physicists), the potential exists to test subtle differences in theory.

    So, contrast string theory with Intelligent Design theory… do you see any differences?

     
  3. mitchethekid

    September 23, 2013 at 9:27 am

    I do have Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos but I’m not familiar enough with the theory to comment other than I know it’s not very well accepted. But I thought this guys presentation was very creative, even though I hate that song! The problem I have with ID is that it’s premised on a creator conceptualized by a self-aware human brain. A creator that is the uber micro manager. ID is based on faith and science is based on evidence.
    Personally, I prefer the paradoxes of quantum physics. If god exists, perhaps it is because humans will it into being. That is, it is not a function of, or outside of, the universe. Physicists that I enjoy are Timothy Ferris, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking and Gary Zukav. The latter’s book, The Dancing Wu Li Masters is one I highly recommend.
    Two other books I recommend are Be Here Now and The Tao of Pooh. The reason being is that i find the mysticism of Eastern religions intuitive, insightful and the tenants they propose parallel the findings of quantum mechanics. For example, when the Buddhists say “Reality is an illusion” they are, literally, correct! For as we know now, if matter is broken down into it’s most fundamental parts, the parts have no mass and with no mass it doesn’t exist in a physical sense. Our senses limit our awareness and more often than not, that limitation leads to a false arrogance about how ineffable our absolutism on certain subjects can be. Religion for example. (And on this subject I recommend Joseph Campbell.) That’s why these creationist are so strident. They cannot nor will they accept any evidence that undermines the faith they need to rationalize living.
    I saw a photograph over the weekend that really stuck with me. It was of the back of two cars. One had one of those fish symbols the other had the same symbol but with the name Darwin contained within. Under the first it said “trust” under the latter it said “verify”.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: