Showing posts with label NOVA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NOVA. Show all posts

Thursday, April 5, 2012

"Hunting the Elements"...lots of flash and a glowing error


A two-hour special was aired yesterday on NOVA hosted by David Pogue.

Program Description

Where do nature’s building blocks, called the elements, come from? They’re the hidden ingredients of everything in our world, from the carbon in our bodies to the metals in our smartphones. To unlock their secrets, David Pogue, the lively host of NOVA’s popular "Making Stuff" series and technology correspondent of The New York Times, spins viewers through the world of weird, extreme chemistry: the strongest acids, the deadliest poisons, the universe’s most abundant elements, and the rarest of the rare—substances cooked up in atom smashers that flicker into existence for only fractions of a second.

Why are some elements like platinum or gold inert while others like phosphorus or potassium violently explosive? Why are some vital to every breath we take while others are lethal toxins that killed off their discoverers such as Marie Curie? As he digs for answers, Pogue reveals the story of the elements to be a rich stew simmering with passion, madness, and obsessive scientific rivalry. Punctuated by surprising and often alarming experiments, this program takes NOVA on a roller-coaster ride through nature’s hidden lab and the compelling stories of discovery that revealed its secrets.

Frankly, this program was all flash [literally] and worthless drama with an over abundance of one liner comedic[?] jokes. Lots of big trucks hauling dirt, industrial refining machinery, salted popcorn, and one glowing error. It was claimed that the noble elements are non-reactive. Not true for one. As far back as 1963 a chemical, xenon tetraflouride, was formed. [I also noticed that sodium metal was not stored properly. And there was a political slam towards China in regards to rare earth elements.]

See the website

Thursday, April 9, 2009

"PBS science programs" poll


Do you watch PBS science programs?

Yes...2
No...0
Sometimes...3

PBS is probably the most common source of science programs with free access. For the most part they are informative and thoughtful. Two recent good programs were "Absolute Zero" and "The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer". One of the worst was "Einstein's Big Idea" which was too heavy on dramatization and criticized over the role of Einstein's wife Mileva Maric. The BBC ran a docudrama on Albert Einstein and Sir Arthur Eddington [played by Doctor Who's David Tennant] and will probably be picked up by PBS in a year or two. NOVA Science Now and the Scientific American offerings have vanished. Even science programing for children has disappeared...Bill Nye the Science Guy is gone. Some programs like Ruff Ruffman do incorporate some science within an entertainment format of "spills and thrills and adventure".

"Einstein and Eddington"...BBC production


"400 Years of the Telescope" on PBS this Friday

Amber's encapsulated gems


Bill Nye "The Science Guy"..."Stargate Atlantis"


"Doctor Atomic"--Great Performances at the Met

"Einstein's Big Idea"...back again

Fractals via NOVA

Neil deGrasse Tyson...new representative


Neil deGrasse Tyson..."NOVA scienceNow"--2nd season


Newton and 2060

NOVA--"Hunting the Hidden Dimension"


NOVA's "Hunting the Hidden Dimension" transcript available


NOVA's "Absolute Zero"

NOVA's "Absolute Zero"--repeated

PBS Palomar documentary

PBS--Palomar Observatory


"Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives"...NOVA offering


"Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives"--YAWN


Percy Lavon Julian...chemist

"The Atom Smashers"--tonight on PBS


"The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer"


"The Trials of J. Robert Oppenheimer"--worthy

Yoky Matsuoka--robotics expert and inventor

[I should mention that PBS has very little to do with these programs. They are just the venue for airing the independent productions.]

Friday, November 14, 2008

Amber's encapsulated gems

I have been fascinated with insects permanently trapped in amber...I even had several when I had my rock and mineral collection. A wonderful sample of forest denizens trapped in tree sap and the stuff of some poetic and philosophical thoughts beyond the scientific information. I am reminded of the poetry of John Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn".

Ode on a Grecian Urn

by

John Keats

THOU still unravish'd bride of quietness,
Thou foster-child of Silence and slow Time,
Sylvan historian, who canst thus express
A flowery tale more sweetly than our rhyme:
What leaf-fringed legend haunts about thy shape
Of deities or mortals, or of both,
In Tempe or the dales of Arcady?
What men or gods are these? What maidens loth?
What mad pursuit? What struggle to escape?
What pipes and timbrels? What wild ecstasy?

Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endear'd,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone:
Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,
Though winning near the goal-yet, do not grieve;
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love, and she be fair!

Ah, happy, happy boughs! that cannot shed
Your leaves, nor ever bid the Spring adieu;
And, happy melodist, unwearièd,
For ever piping songs for ever new;
More happy love! more happy, happy love!
For ever warm and still to be enjoy'd,
For ever panting, and for ever young;
All breathing human passion far above,
That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy'd,
A burning forehead, and a parching tongue.

Who are these coming to the sacrifice?
To what green altar, O mysterious priest,
Lead'st thou that heifer lowing at the skies,
And all her silken flanks with garlands drest?
What little town by river or sea-shore,
Or mountain-built with peaceful citadel,
Is emptied of its folk, this pious morn?
And, little town, thy streets for evermore
Will silent be; and not a soul, to tell
Why thou art desolate, can e'er return.

O Attic shape! fair attitude! with brede
Of marble men and maidens overwrought,
With forest branches and the trodden weed;
Thou, silent form! dost tease us out of thought
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

Just imagine the spider preparing to dine on a captured insect but denyed the feast much as the "bold lover" attempting a kiss from the fair maiden..."...Bold Lover, never, never canst thou kiss,/Though winning near the goal...." Nevertheless, there is a recent article from PhysOrg.com..."Marine microorganisms have been found in amber dating from the middle of the Cretaceous period. The fossils were collected in Charente, in France. This completely unexpected discovery will deepen our understanding of these lost marine species as well as providing precious data about the coastal environment of Western France during the Cretaceous." Those are the marine plankton, including diatoms.


"Marine plankton found in amber"

November 13th, 2008

PhysOrg.com

This work was carried out by researchers at the Géosciences Rennes laboratory (CNRS/Université de Rennes 1), together with researchers from the Paléobiodiversité et Paléoenvironnement laboratory in Paris (CNRS/Muséum national d'histoire naturelle/Université Pierre et Marie Curie) and the Centre de Géochimie de la Surface in Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg 1). It was published in the 11 November 2008 issue of PNAS.

Amber is a fossil resin with a reputation for preserving even the most minute details of insects and other terrestrial arthropods (spiders, scorpions, mites) that lived in resiniferous trees. The forest-based provenance of amber in theory makes it impossible for marine animals to be trapped in the resin.

Nonetheless, researchers from the Géosciences Rennes laboratory have discovered various inclusions of marine plankton in amber from the Mid-Cretaceous (100 to 98 million years BP). These micro-organisms are found in just a few pieces of amber among the thousands that have been studied, but show a remarkable diversity: unicellular algae, mainly diatoms found in large numbers, traces of animal plankton, such as radiolaria and a foraminifer, spiny skeletons of sponges and of echinoderms.

Carried out together with researchers at the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, the study of diatoms pushed back by 10 to 30 million years the known date for the appearance of certain marine forms of this type of algae. This new information, taken together with recent data on molecular phylogeny, marks a huge advance in our understanding of the complex evolutionary history of diatoms.

The presence of these marine organisms in the amber is an ecological paradox. How did these marine species become stuck and then trapped in the conifers' resin? The most likely scenario is that the forest producing the amber was very close to the coast, potentially shrouded by plankton-bearing mist or flooded by sea water during storms.

The preservation of marine organisms in amber is an exceptional asset, allowing us to deepen our understanding of these lost species and to have a clear idea about the coastal environment of Western France during the Cretaceous.

Elzbieta Sontag

Not long ago NOVA offered a program hosted by David Attenborough entitled "Jewel of the Earth"...insects trapped in amber.

"Jewel of the Earth" [transcript]

"Jewel of the Earth"

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Monday, October 27, 2008

NOVA--"Hunting the Hidden Dimension"




Being aired this Tuesday evening, October 28th, on most PBS stations is a program on fractals where art and science meet..."Hunting the Hidden Dimension".

Hunting the Hidden Dimension

How ancient the relationship is. Such a relationship embraces epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, theology, mythology, and all the real sciences. It can be a codified or individual interpretation passed on by oral tradition, the written word, visual/auditory transmission, and all characteristics of science. Artistic representation of the cosmos can be primitive and crude or spirited in the latest aesthetic movement of sophistication. Aesthetics and the cosmos can be an intensely personal experience. It can be as simple as connecting the stars and recognizing the constellations or a pristine mathematical formula.

And we cannot strictly limit the aesthetic experience to mathematical or physical explanations/representations but to include the entire visual and auditory spectrum of experiences. Yes, it certainly appears the universe [neutral] to be a "mess", but it is a fine specimen of specific laws of physics--all interacting in the most minute manner. Historical mistakes as you mentioned are true, but day to day advances dispel old notions and revitalized by new notions of a broader sphere of concern. If man lasts long enough, the "mess" may not be so "messy". I really don't want to get into the technical theories and movements of aesthetics, but it is evident that the beauty of the universe is adequately manifested in the visual and auditory--outside Earth and on Earth.

Beyond the potential aesthetics of the mathematics and physics of the universe, there is the problem with visual representations. The question being, how true to reality are those photographs that we see. In the infancy of astronomy, the images were taken by long exposure on photographic glass plates whose emulsion of sensitivity was not necessarily panchromatic. Many of the prints were enhanced in density, contrast, and color. Sometimes for illustrative purposes, the print was at the mercy of many artists. Today we have computer enhanced images. So for those that do experience an aesthetic experience of the cosmos through visual representation, what are they really experiencing? Does it have an ultimate effect on the experiences? How intense is that "pink"? Is it too "dark" or too "light"? Humm...a matter of personal aesthetics I guess. I don't have a problem with what I see for it is pleasing to the eyes--soothing like chocolate ice cream.

"Out of the fire and ashes rise the phoenix". It does boil down to personal interpretations and preferences based on many undefinable things. Defining art is probably limited to movements within a period of history whereas aesthetics is a bit more elusive. The residue from presentation, discussion, and analysis of materials presented in an aesthetics course was that "art" was a matter of "taste". Debate and trends will continue which leads me to a short and true experience from my university days when I took a course on aesthetics. A good course for four months discussing all aspects of aesthetics until numbness set in the students. The professor's summation resulted in a statement that aesthetics was a matter of "taste". Someone from the room [perhaps yours truly] quipped: "Ya,...'good taste' and 'bad taste'". Needless to say the material came full circle and we were transported back to square one. The point...aesthetics is unique and personal.

Aesthetics does abound in the universe. Granted the following are abstract and highly geometric, but nevertheless for some provide an aesthetic experience. The photos are from the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) on the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. [Mars Global Surveyor was launched in November 1996 and has been in the Mars orbit since September 1997. It began its primary mapping mission on March 8th, 1999].

"Carbon Dioxide Landscape"

"Dark Mesas of Aram Chao"

"Dunes in Noachis"

"Exhumed Craters"

"Small Dunes in Hellas"

"South Polar Layers"

"Sulci Gordii"



"Aesthetics and Motivations in Arts and Science"

Bathsheba Grossman

"Chen Ning Yang on Aesthetics and Physics"

EXPLORING THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM

Fractal

"Fractal Geometry"

"gallery: bathsheba grossman"

"Whither Santayana's Aesthetics"

More websites and images on fractals can be found at "Google".

The Fractal Geometry of Nature

by

Benoit B. Mandelbrot

ISBN: 0716711869


A snowflake--something special


"I find the ideas in the fractals, both as a body of knowledge and as a metaphor, an incredibly important way of looking at the world."--Al Gore.


Wednesday, October 22, 2008

"Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives"--YAWN


Hugh Everett III
November 11th, 1930 to July 19th, 1982

Yawn. "Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives"...better than Sominex. Hugh Everett III's contribution to theoretical physics was minimally obligatory and I suppose the purpose was to discuss relationships [father/son] rather than discuss science.

Hugh Everett III

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH of HUGH EVERETT, III


"Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives"...NOVA offering

Monday, October 20, 2008

"Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives"...NOVA offering


New offering from NOVA on a father [Hugh Everett III] and son [Mark Oliver Everett] relationship. Hugh is a theoretical physicist and Mark is a musician. NOVA's past docudrama's have been mediocre [Einstein and Newton] with emphasis on the spectacular and mysterious. Anyway, it will air this Tuesday evening, October 21st.

"For this musician, pain has been the family business"

by

Joel Brown

October 19th, 2008

Boston Globe

According to his physicist father's famous "many worlds" theory, there should be a parallel universe in which Mark Oliver Everett's family is happy.

A world where his father talks to him. Where his sister doesn't get swept up in hard drugs and commit suicide. Where his mother doesn't get cancer. Where depression, mental illness, and early death aren't part of the story. But without all that pain, we wouldn't have the music Everett has made with his band, Eels. We wouldn't have his new family memoir to read or the "Nova" documentary he has made about his father, which airs this week.

Not that facing family history came easily for Everett, who is a contradiction in terms: an introverted rock star.

"It's just the way I've always dealt with my personal life; it has always been through whatever art form I happen to be embracing at the time," says Everett, better known simply as "E." "It's probably highly dysfunctional on one hand, but on the other hand, it's highly functional for me, and it's better than not dealing with it at all."

"Things the Grandchildren Should Know," his tragic yet surprisingly funny memoir, comes out on Tuesday from St. Martin's, the same day PBS' "Nova" airs "Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives," the documentary about his father. Everett grew up in suburban Virginia as the son of physicist Hugh Everett III, a then-obscure physicist whose work in quantum mechanics led him to the "many worlds" theory, which holds that every time we make a decision, a parallel universe branches off from our everyday reality.

The groundbreaking idea was embraced far more quickly by Hollywood than by the scientific establishment.

As a kid, "I was pretty unaware of it, except occasionally when it would come up on something like 'Twilight Zone' or 'Star Trek,' " Everett says. "I remember things like a neighbor would be reading some sci-fi book laying in his hammock one Saturday afternoon and come running over because my father was mentioned in it. But I didn't really understand it. I mean, it's hard for adults to understand the parallel universe theory, so it's really difficult for little kids to understand it."

Hugh Everett "ranks as one of the most important physicists of the 20th century," says MIT associate professor David Kaiser, a physicist who also writes on the history of science in the Cold War era. "He would certainly make the list of the top 20, which is saying a lot. He was no Einstein, no Heisenberg, but he's in that cohort. By now I think there's no question about that kind of importance of his work."

At home, Hugh Everett was an intensely remote figure, due to professional disappointment, depression, and alcohol. He hardly spoke to his children. He died suddenly of a heart attack in 1982, at age 51. Pulling his body from the bed to try CPR was the first time Mark, then 19, recalled touching his father on purpose. By the end of that decade, Mark's sister, Elizabeth, had committed suicide, and his mother, Nancy, had died of cancer after agonizing months during which her son was primary caregiver.

Has Everett come to understand the nature of his family legacy? "I think there are probably multiple things there, certainly some depression, certainly some madness and some genius, but I guess that stuff often goes hand in hand," Everett says. "In my sister's case, certainly she was unlucky enough to inherit some of the nature, but certain-ly the way we were nurtured had a lot to do with her problems too."

Everett dealt with it all by making music. With songs like "Novocaine for the Soul," he became a cult figure, but he was never a huge commercial force. The 1998 album "Electro-Shock Blues" in particular addressed the darker topics on Everett's mind, in songs like "Elizabeth on the Bathroom Floor."

A couple of years ago, after a grueling tour with a seven-piece band, Everett decided to submit to the urgings of his best friend since second grade, Anthony Cain, and put it all down on paper. "Naively I thought because it would only involve myself, it would be really easy. But it turned out to be the hardest thing I ever did," he says. "There were certain chapters that were just excruciating for me to write."

Soon the BBC proposed to film him on a quest to learn about his father and his work. "Initially it made me uncomfortable . . . but anytime when I feel uncomfortable about something, I think, mmmm, there must be something there I'd better explore," Everett says.

He found hanging with physicists to be strange fun. The most difficult part came when the producers managed to get sound from a series of tapes of his father that Everett had found in the family basement and thought were unplayable.

"I did feel kinda ambushed," he recalls. "The whole time I was shooting that was like just having a camera crew follow you around trying to make you cry. 'How does that make you feel, E?'"

"It turned out to be great," he adds. "It was little bit scary for me, but as soon as I heard my father's voice, I recognized it. It was a weird feeling, it's been 25 years and you can't remember your father's voice, and all of sudden you hear it. But it just immediately came back to me."

The film helps explain the esoteric science to the viewer and notes Hugh Everett's growing reputation. "You can read this as half-empty or half-full," says Kaiser. "The half-full side, the optimistic side, is to say that if even in one's own lifetime one doesn't see one's work turning heads or getting fame, these ideas can outlive us, these ideas have a fighting chance."

Ultimately, all this grappling with the past has led Mark Everett to a better place.

"Writing the book was so difficult, but when I finally finished and they sent me a copy and I was holding it in my hand, I could physically feel, like, this weight off my shoulders," he says. " 'Ah, there's all those years wrapped up in a nice little package and I can move on now.' "

Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives

Sunday, September 14, 2008

"Einstein's Big Idea"...back again


In case you missed it the first time around [October 11th, 2005], PBS will offer NOVA's "Einstein's Big Idea" this Tuesday, September 16th. Frankly, I was not impressed and displeased with Einstein's treatment and opinion of Mileva Maric.

From the love letters between Albert and Mileva Maric: The rules of a relationship...humm.

A. You will see to it (1) that my clothes and linen are kept in order, (2) that I am served three regular meals a day in my room, (3) that my bedroom and study are always kept in good order and my desk is not touched by anyone other than me.

B. You will renounce all personal relations with me, except when they are required to keep up social appearances. In particular, you will not request (1) that I sit with you at home, (2) that I go out with you or travel with you.

C. You will promise explicitly to observe the following points in contact with me: (1) you will expect no affection from me and you will not reproach me for this, (2) you must answer at once when I speak to you, (3) you must leave my bedroom or study at once without protesting when I ask you to go.

D. You will promise not to denigrate me in the eyes of the children either by word or deed.

I think by the time this was written the marriage was on a slippery slope to failure. Such was the end of ten years of companionship. It is interesting to note that the parcel of the letters that was offered at auction in the winter of 1996 fell far short of Christie's estimated worth of nearly $2,000,000. The whole lot went for about $800.00 while a book dealer in California paid nearly $400,00 for 1913 and 1914 musings as Einstein developed the general theory of relativity. Go figure. I would sell my love letters for 800k in a heart beat--all three of them.


Transcript...

"Einstein's Big Idea"

NOVA's website for "Einstein's Big Idea"

And the transcript from another Einstein offering.


"Einstein Revealed"

"Making Einstein's Big Idea"

by

Gary Johnstone

September 2005

Symmetry

I worked on the film Einstein's Big Idea for about eighteen months—from early research to completion of the edit. In all that time two questions recurred: How does a filmmaker write a film about science geniuses? How do you get actors to play physicists? As we Brits like to say, "Blimey!"

My short (and more truthful) answer to both those questions is that you follow your nose and hope for the best. My considered answer (and one which conveniently rewrites history with the benefit of hindsight) would be as follows:

My dad was an electrical engineer and a part-time artist. So my brain has receptors for both flavors of human endeavor. I studied physics and chemistry at high school. I studied psychology, philosophy of science, and artificial intelligence at university. I studied the nature of creativity at grad school. But of course I hung around with the art school lot and the theater group crowd. So I'm a filmmaker, but I'm also not an alien to the world of physics and I have a vague memory of T.S. Kuhn.

What struck me most about the book E=mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation by David Bodanis, on which the program is based, were the human stories behind the icons. I guess I wanted to be iconoclastic. In a vaguely jealous way, I wanted to see the flawed person behind the myth.

Einstein was a bit of a dude, a skirt-chaser. Faraday was driven by a fundamentalist religious faith. Lavoisier was a really uptight guy. Maxwell, a hero in my homeland of Scotland, was someone I knew nothing about (despite walking into a million buildings named after him). Émilie du Châtelet, just a wild, wonderful person, and Lise Meitner, an adventure story/opera all on her own. How can you not make a great film with such a cast?

So having established that scientists are not boring, I moved onto stage two. I read everything I could, right down to primary sources—diaries and letters. Then I visited esteemed professors across the great lands of America. Only one made me feel like a fool. He wasn't trying to, he just had that attitude: "I'll explain it once, if you don't get it, then I haven't got the time to explain it twice." Eventually, after about six months of study, I felt I just about "got it." Then I had to find a way of explaining it to the "myself" of six months previously. Luckily I had an advisory panel of professors and high-school physics teachers to guide me. To be honest, it was trial and error.

In making a 110-minute film about two hundred years of science, you have to be ever-so-slightly reductionist. I boiled the science down as much as I could. There is a fine line between too much and too little science in a program like NOVA. The viewers who understand the science want more science; those attracted to the human stories want less science. You can't win. We had a slogan on set when we were filming: "When the science gets boring, cut to the sex."

I think the thing that comes across most powerfully to me about all the geniuses in the program is that they were all hugely passionate for their subjects and totally unreconstructed workaholics. I've only given a taste of how bright, how addicted to their mission, how "other" these scientists were. We only scratched the surface of these remarkable people.

If anything, Einstein's Big Idea is more of a fairy tale than a definitive account. It's meta-reality. In fact, what I've done is the opposite of what I thought I was setting out to do: I've turned physicists into heroes. It's a very contentious thing to do in the world of history of science. Quite a lot of physicists who have seen the film seem to like it, however. Why should cops, firefighters, and soldiers get all the mythologizing?

And to finish, how do you explain physicists to actors? I repeat, "Blimey!" Well, I tried to tell them how keen you all are, how absorbed and intense. I went to great lengths to unpick your wonderfully complex, bizarre personalities. You should have seen the blank expressions. In the end, two words solved the problem. "Star Trek." Just say the gobbledegook and keep smiling! Of course, the actors got the passion, the obsession, and the drive, but the math and physics? Forget about it!

[Gary Johnstone is producer, director, and writer of Einstein's Big Idea, based on the book E=mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation by David Bodanis.]


E=mc2...Einstein's idea?


I wrote on October 12th, 2005:

For the most part the hype was not far off the mark for NOVA's "Einstein's Big Idea " was an entertaining section of physics and history of science. I was pleased in that Einstein was not the core of presentation and that antecedent events and personalities were introduced. Actually, as advertised, the star of the docudrama was "E=mc²". It was refreshing to note individuals such as Sir Humphry Davy, Michael Faraday, Robert Clerk Maxwell, Émilie du Châletet, Isaac Newton, Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn, Marie-Anne Pierette Paulze, Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier and interwove their contributions to the equation. [All pre-Einstein dramatizations smacked of the short lived Steve Allen PBS production "You Are There" many years ago.] Despite the showcase of Émilie du Châletet and Lise Meitner, it sidestepped the controversial issue of Maleva Maric and portrayed her as a domestic, mother, and "Do you want me to check your mathematics?" person. Her whole role was underplayed as compared to the cool performances and significance of Émilie du Châletet and Lise Meitner. For the most part, women got a "bum rap" and it says little of anything encouraging young women to pursue science and more of the social times of the eras. Einstein himself comes off as the typical personification of undergraduate males: Lazy, cafe [pub] patrons, over confident, and in Einstein's case arrogant and devoid of establishing meaningful relationships [with either his wife or most colleagues].

The production itself was elaborate and well done. There were lots of details especially in the laboratories of Sir Humphry Davy and Michael Faraday. The rotating wire around an iron core floating in a pool of mercury was spectacular. And, it was good that the special, computer generated effects were minimal. The balance between the historical production and input from contemporary scientists was informative and not overdone punctuating each element of E=mc² with relevant material or relevant comments on the personalities.

There appears to be a shift in the methodology of NOVA in the past decade or so for the hard hitting format has been replaced with dramatic representations. Maybe this is what it takes to get science to the public. The 112 minute two part production was better than expected and I am sure David Bodanis's book E=mc²: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation would offer detailed, quiet insight that just couldn't be covered in the film.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

NOVA's "Absolute Zero"

In a general consensus among colleagues it has become evident that PBS's NOVA has offered less good science programs than they used to do but every now and then a fine program is produced and such is the offering called "Absolute Zero" which is a blend of science and some drama [which appears to be a very popular venue for NOVA]. The transcript is available at the web site as well as the opportunity to view the two hour program. It is worth a view.

"Absolute Zero"

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Neil deGrasse Tyson...new representative



A few nights ago the local PBS station began to rebroadcast NOVA's four part series called Origins that attempted to explain the origins of the solar system with emphasis on Earth. Like the majority of these type of programs of popularization of science it provided all the "bells and whistles" that a computer could generate for illustration. I lost count...how many comets and asteroids were depicted hitting the Earth? Nevertheless, the host was a good choice. Neil deGrasse Tyson exhibits enthusiasm and skill in presentation. There were two interesting items: The formation of the moon and the possibility of Earth's water delivered by nearby icy comets. The former includes an interesting hypothesis by William K. Hartman; that the Earth was struck some 4.5 billion years ago by solar system forming debris where the debris was absorbed and a large chunk was displaced--the moon. And that the gravitational interactions of the two plus the initial collision force tilted the Earth's axis--thus the seasons. Hartman has deduced that the Moon was quite closer at one time and is slowly moving away. [Maybe this will be more of a concern than being hit by an asteroid or alien invasion.] The Earth's water origin hypothesis is interesting too; that local comets of ice struck Earth's surface, vaporized, and eventually condensed into areas of liquid water. Interesting to note is the emphasis on "local comets" for the water on Earth contains very little "heavy water" content which is not common in nearby comets and quite common in very distant comets. Overall, a series worth watching.


Since the death of Carl Sagan, a vacuum was left when it came to popularizing science, but there are new individuals on the horizon. There is Brian Greene and now Neil deGrasse Tyson [Astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium, New York City]. Like Greene, Tyson is quite qualified academically and has a fine smooth persona of presentation. His on camera presentations are flawless and professional and avoid the pedantic. The "voice overs" are clear and carry the pipes of a professional radio personality/announcer. Neither Greene nor Tyson, as of yet, has achieved the status of "charm" that Sagan had, but they nevertheless do a fine job in popularizing science. And he will be hosting the second season of NOVA Science Now in the Spring of 2008.

As Neil Tyson said about Origins:

Origins is the attempt to bring to the public, really for the very first time, a synthesis of all the branches of science that have relevance to answering the question, 'What is the origin of our place in the cosmos?'


Transcripts:


"Earth is Born"

"How Life Began"

"Where Are the Aliens?"

"Back to the Beginning"


Neil deGrasse Tyson's home page with biography and selected papers

NOVA's Origins

The Origin of the Moon


Popularization of science



Book:

The Origin of the Moon [Papers presented at the Conference on the Origin of the Moon, held in Kona, Hawaii, October 1984]

edited by

W.K. Hartmann, R.J. Phillips, G. J. Taylor

ISBN 0-942862-03-1


Sunday, April 6, 2008

Theoretical physics...philosophy/sci-fi?

I have expressed elsewhere my dissatisfaction with a "Theory of Everything" [TOE] and the extraordinary popular reverence of theoretical physics [and physicists] that wish to establish the efficacy of theories minus the empirical evidence. Those theories smack of science fiction and should reside in the realm of philosophy [metaphysics]. They are legitimate interpretations of the universe but should be placed where they belong in the realm of speculation. Catch phrases like "maybe", "could be", "perhaps", etc. are not the vocabulary of sound science. "Worm holes", "time travel", "multiple dimensions", "parallel universes", "string theory", etc. have no place in established empirical science. Below is an article by Jim Holt on "string theory".

"UNSTRUNG"

by


Jim Holt


October 2nd, 2006

New Yorker


In string theory, beauty is truth, truth beauty. Is that really all we need to know?

It is the best of times in physics. Physicists are on the verge of obtaining the long-sought Theory of Everything. In a few elegant equations, perhaps concise enough to be emblazoned on a T-shirt, this theory will reveal how the universe began and how it will end. The key insight is that the smallest constituents of the world are not particles, as had been supposed since ancient times, but “strings”—tiny strands of energy. By vibrating in different ways, these strings produce the essential phenomena of nature, the way violin strings produce musical notes. String theory isn’t just powerful; it’s also mathematically beautiful. All that remains to be done is to write down the actual equations. This is taking a little longer than expected. But, with almost the entire theoretical-physics community working on the problem—presided over by a sage in Princeton, New Jersey—the millennia-old dream of a final theory is sure to be realized before long.

It is the worst of times in physics. For more than a generation, physicists have been chasing a will-o’-the-wisp called string theory. The beginning of this chase marked the end of what had been three-quarters of a century of progress. Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet, for all this activity, not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far—just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing. Yet the physics establishment promotes string theory with irrational fervor, ruthlessly weeding dissenting physicists from the profession. Meanwhile, physics is stuck in a paradigm doomed to barrenness.

So which is it: the best of times or the worst of times? This is, after all, theoretical physics, not a Victorian novel. If you are a casual reader of science articles in the newspaper, you are probably more familiar with the optimistic view. But string theory has always had a few vocal skeptics. Almost two decades ago, Richard Feynman dismissed it as “crazy,” “nonsense,” and “the wrong direction” for physics. Sheldon Glashow, who won a Nobel Prize for making one of the last great advances in physics before the beginning of the string-theory era, has likened string theory to a “new version of medieval theology,” and campaigned to keep string theorists out of his own department at Harvard. (He failed.)

Now two members of the string-theory generation have come forward with exposés of what they deem to be the current mess. “The story I will tell could be read by some as a tragedy,” Lee Smolin writes in “The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next” (Houghton Mifflin; $26). Peter Woit, in “Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law” (Basic; $26.95), prefers the term “disaster.” Both Smolin and Woit were journeyman physicists when string theory became fashionable, in the early nineteen-eighties. Both are now outsiders: Smolin, a reformed string theorist (he wrote eighteen papers on the subject), has helped found a sort of Menshevik cell of physicists in Canada called the Perimeter Institute; Woit abandoned professional physics for mathematics (he is a lecturer in the mathematics department at Columbia), which gives him a cross-disciplinary perspective. Each author delivers a bill of indictment that is a mixture of science, philosophy, aesthetics, and, surprisingly, sociology. Physics, in their view, has been overtaken by a cutthroat culture that rewards technicians who work on officially sanctioned problems and discourages visionaries in the mold of Albert Einstein. Woit argues that string theory’s lack of rigor has left its practitioners unable to distinguish between a scientific hoax and a genuine contribution. Smolin adds a moral dimension to his plaint, linking string theory to the physics profession’s “blatant prejudice” against women and blacks. Pondering the cult of empty mathematical virtuosity, he asks, “How many leading theoretical physicists were once insecure, small, pimply boys who got their revenge besting the jocks (who got the girls) in the one place they could—math class?”

It is strange to think that such sordid motives might affect something as pure and objective as physics. But these are strange days in the discipline. For the first time in its history, theory has caught up with experiment. In the absence of new data, physicists must steer by something other than hard empirical evidence in their quest for a final theory. And that something they call “beauty.” But in physics, as in the rest of life, beauty can be a slippery thing.

The gold standard for beauty in physics is Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. What makes it beautiful? First, there is its simplicity. In a single equation, it explains the force of gravity as a curving in the geometry of space-time caused by the presence of mass: mass tells space-time how to curve, space-time tells mass how to move. Then, there is its surprise: who would have imagined that this whole theory would flow from the natural assumption that all frames of reference are equal, that the laws of physics should not change when you hop on a merry-go-round? Finally, there is its aura of inevitability. Nothing about it can be modified without destroying its logical structure. The physicist Steven Weinberg has compared it to Raphael’s “Holy Family,” in which every figure on the canvas is perfectly placed and there is nothing you would have wanted the artist to do differently.

Einstein’s general relativity was one of two revolutionary innovations in the early part of the twentieth century which inaugurated the modern era in physics. The other was quantum mechanics. Of the two, quantum mechanics was the more radical departure from the old Newtonian physics. Unlike general relativity, which dealt with well-defined objects existing in a smooth (albeit curved) space-time geometry, quantum mechanics described a random, choppy microworld where change happens in leaps, where particles act like waves (and vice versa), and where uncertainty reigns.

In the decades after this dual revolution, most of the action was on the quantum side. In addition to gravity, there are three basic forces that govern nature: electromagnetism, the “strong” force (which holds the nucleus of an atom together), and the “weak” force (which causes radioactive decay). Eventually, physicists managed to incorporate all three into the framework of quantum mechanics, creating the “standard model” of particle physics. The standard model is something of a stick-and-bubble-gum contraption: it clumsily joins very dissimilar kinds of interactions, and its equations contain about twenty arbitrary-seeming numbers—corresponding to the masses of the various particles, the ratios of the force strengths, and so on—that had to be experimentally measured and put in “by hand.” Still, the standard model has proved to be splendidly useful, predicting the result of every subsequent experiment in particle physics with exquisite accuracy, often down to the eleventh decimal place. As Feynman once observed, that’s like calculating the distance from Los Angeles to New York to within a hairbreadth.

The standard model was hammered out by the mid-nineteen-seventies, and has not had to be seriously revised since. It tells how nature behaves on the scale of molecules, atoms, electrons, and on down, where the force of gravity is weak enough to be overlooked. General relativity tells how nature behaves on the scale of apples, planets, galaxies, and on up, where quantum uncertainties average out and can be ignored. Between the two theories, all nature seems to be covered. But most physicists aren’t happy with this division of labor. Everything in nature, after all, interacts with everything else. Shouldn’t there be a single set of rules for describing it, rather than two inconsistent sets? And what happens when the domains of the two theories overlap—that is, when the very massive is also the very small? Just after the big bang, for example, the entire mass of what is now the observable universe was packed into a volume the size of an atom. At that tiny scale, quantum uncertainty causes the smooth geometry of general relativity to break up, and there is no telling how gravity will behave. To understand the birth of the universe, we need a theory that “unifies” general relativity and quantum mechanics. That is the theoretical physicist’s dream.

String theory came into existence by accident. In the late nineteen-sixties, a couple of young physicists thumbing through mathematics books came upon a centuries-old formula that, miraculously, seemed to fit the latest experimental data about elementary particles. At first, no one had a clue why this should be. Within a few years, however, the hidden meaning of the formula emerged: if elementary particles were thought of as tiny wriggling strings, it all made sense. What were these strings supposed to be made of? Nothing, really. As one physicist put it, they were to be thought of as “tiny one-dimensional rips in the smooth fabric of space.”

This wasn’t the only way in which the new theory broke with previous thinking. We seem to live in a world that has three spatial dimensions (along with one time dimension). But for string theory to make mathematical sense the world must have nine spatial dimensions. Why don’t we notice the six extra dimensions? Because, according to string theory, they are curled up into some microgeometry that makes them invisible. (Think of a garden hose: from a distance it looks one-dimensional, like a line; up close, however, it can be seen to have a second dimension, curled up into a little circle.) The assumption of hidden dimensions struck some physicists as extravagant. To others, though, it seemed a small price to pay. In Smolin’s words, “String theory promised what no other theory had before—a quantum theory of gravity that is also a genuine unification of forces and matter.”

But when would it make good on that promise? In the decades since its possibilities were first glimpsed, string theory has been through a couple of “revolutions.” The first took place in 1984, when some potentially fatal kinks in the theory were worked out. On the heels of this achievement, four physicists at Princeton, dubbed the Princeton String Quartet, showed that string theory could indeed encompass all the forces of nature. Within a few years, physicists around the world had written more than a thousand papers on string theory. The theory also attracted the interest of the leading figure in the world of theoretical physics, Edward Witten.

Witten, now at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, is held in awe by his fellow-physicists, who have been known to compare him to Einstein. As a teen-ager, he was more interested in politics than in physics. In 1968, at the age of seventeen, he published an article in The Nation arguing that the New Left had no political strategy. He majored in history at Brandeis, and worked on George McGovern’s 1972 Presidential campaign. (McGovern wrote him a letter of recommendation for graduate school.) When he decided to pursue a career in physics, he proved to be a quick study: Princeton Ph.D., Harvard postdoc, full professorship at Princeton at the age of twenty-nine, MacArthur “genius grant” two years later. Witten’s papers are models of depth and clarity. Other physicists attack problems by doing complicated calculations; he solves them by reasoning from first principles. Witten once said that “the greatest intellectual thrill of my life” was learning that string theory could encompass both gravity and quantum mechanics. His string-theoretic investigations have led to stunning advances in pure mathematics, especially in the abstract study of knots. In 1990, he became the first physicist to be awarded the Fields Medal, considered the Nobel Prize of mathematics.

It was Witten who ushered in the second string-theory revolution, which addressed a conundrum that had arisen, in part, from all those extra dimensions. They had to be curled up so that they were invisibly small, but it turned out that there were various ways of doing this, and physicists were continually finding new ones. If there was more than one version of string theory, how could we decide which version was correct? No experiment could resolve the matter, since string theory concerns energies far beyond those which can be attained by particle accelerators. By the early nineteen-nineties, no fewer than five versions of string theory had been devised. Discouragement was in the air. But the mood improved markedly when, in 1995, Witten announced to an audience of string theorists at a conference in Los Angeles that these five seemingly distinct theories were mere facets of something deeper, which he called “M-theory.” In addition to vibrating strings, M-theory allowed for vibrating membranes and blobs. As for the name of the new theory, Witten was noncommittal; he said that “M stands for magic, mystery, or membrane, according to taste.” Later, he mentioned “murky” as a possibility, since “our understanding of the theory is, in fact, so primitive.” Other physicists have suggested “matrix,” “mother” (as in “mother of all theories”), and “masturbation.” The skeptical Sheldon Glashow wondered whether the “M” wasn’t an upside-down “W,” for Witten.

Today, more than a decade after the second revolution, the theory formerly known as strings remains a seductive conjecture rather than an actual set of equations, and the non-uniqueness problem has grown to ridiculous proportions. At the latest count, the number of string theories is estimated to be something like one followed by five hundred zeros. “Why not just take this situation as a reductio ad absurdum?” Smolin asks. But some string theorists are unabashed: each member of this vast ensemble of alternative theories, they observe, describes a different possible universe, one with its own “local weather” and history. What if all these possible universes actually exist? Perhaps every one of them bubbled into being just as our universe did. (Physicists who believe in such a “multiverse” sometimes picture it as a cosmic champagne glass frothing with universe-bubbles.) Most of these universes will not be biofriendly, but a few will have precisely the right conditions for the emergence of intelligent life-forms like us. The fact that our universe appears to be fine-tuned to engender life is not a matter of luck. Rather, it is a consequence of the “anthropic principle”: if our universe weren’t the way it is, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. Partisans of the anthropic principle say that it can be used to weed out all the versions of string theory that are incompatible with our existence, and so rescue string theory from the problem of non-uniqueness.

Copernicus may have dislodged man from the center of the universe, but the anthropic principle seems to restore him to that privileged position. Many physicists despise it; one has depicted it as a “virus” infecting the minds of his fellow-theorists. Others, including Witten, accept the anthropic principle, but provisionally and in a spirit of gloom. Still others seem to take perverse pleasure in it. The controversy among these factions has been likened by one participant to “a high-school-cafeteria food fight.”

In their books against string theory, Smolin and Woit view the anthropic approach as a betrayal of science. Both agree with Karl Popper’s dictum that if a theory is to be scientific it must be open to falsification. But string theory, Woit points out, is like Alice’s Restaurant, where, as Arlo Guthrie’s song had it, “you can get anything you want.” It comes in so many versions that it predicts anything and everything. In that sense, string theory is, in the words of Woit’s title, “not even wrong.” Supporters of the anthropic principle, for their part, rail against the “Popperazzi” and insist that it would be silly for physicists to reject string theory because of what some philosopher said that science should be. Steven Weinberg, who has a good claim to be the father of the standard model of particle physics, has argued that anthropic reasoning may open a new epoch. “Most advances in the history of science have been marked by discoveries about nature,” he recently observed, “but at certain turning points we have made discoveries about science itself.”

Is physics, then, going postmodern? (At Harvard, as Smolin notes, the string-theory seminar was for a time actually called “Postmodern Physics.”) The modern era of particle physics was empirical; theory developed in concert with experiment. The standard model may be ugly, but it works, so presumably it is at least an approximation of the truth. In the postmodern era, we are told, aesthetics must take over where experiment leaves off. Since string theory does not deign to be tested directly, its beauty must be the warrant of its truth.

In the past century, physicists who have followed their aesthetic sense in the absence of experimental data seem to have done quite well. As Paul Dirac said, “Anyone who appreciates the fundamental harmony connecting the way Nature runs and general mathematical principles must feel that a theory with the beauty and elegance of Einstein’s theory has to be substantially correct.” The idea that “beauty is truth, truth beauty” may be a beautiful one, but is there any reason to think it is true? Truth, after all, is a relationship between a theory and the world, whereas beauty is a relationship between a theory and the mind. Perhaps, some have conjectured, a kind of cultural Darwinism has drilled it into us to take aesthetic pleasure in theories that are more likely to be true. Or perhaps physicists are somehow inclined to choose problems that have beautiful solutions rather than messy ones. Or perhaps nature itself, at its most fundamental level, possesses an abstract beauty that a true theory is bound to mirror. What makes all these explanations suspect is that standards of theoretical beauty tend to be ephemeral, routinely getting overthrown in scientific revolutions. “Every property that has at some date been seen as aesthetically attractive in theories has at other times been judged as displeasing or aesthetically neutral,” James W. McAllister, a philosopher of science, has observed.

The closest thing to an enduring mark of beauty is simplicity; Pythagoras and Euclid prized it, and contemporary physicists continue to pay lip service to it. All else being equal, the fewer the equations, the greater the elegance. And how does string theory do by this criterion? Pretty darn well, one of its partisans has facetiously observed, since the number of defining equations it has so far produced remains precisely zero. At first, string theory seemed the very Tao of simplicity, reducing all known particles and forces to the notes of a vibrating string. As one of its pioneers commented, “String theory was too beautiful a mathematical structure to be completely irrelevant to nature.” Over the years, though, it has repeatedly had to be jury-rigged in the face of new difficulties, so that it has become a Rube Goldberg machine—or, rather, a vast landscape of them. Its proponents now inveigh against what they call “the myth of uniqueness and elegance.” Nature is not simple, they maintain, nor should our ultimate theory of it be. “A good, honest look at the real world does not suggest a pattern of mathematical minimality,” says the Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind, who seems to have no regrets about string theory’s having “gone from being Beauty to the Beast.”

If neither predictive value nor beauty explains the persistence of string theory, then what does? Since the late eighteenth century, no major scientific theory has been around for more than a decade without getting a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Correct theories nearly always triumph quickly. But string theory, in one form or another, has been hanging on inconclusively for more than thirty-five years. Einstein’s own pursuit of a unified theory of physics in the last three decades of his life is often cited as a case study in futility. Have a thousand string theorists done any better?

The usual excuse offered for sticking with what increasingly looks like a failed program is that no one has come up with any better ideas for unifying physics. But Smolin and Woit have a different explanation, one that can be summed up in the word “sociology.” Both are worried that academic physics has become dangerously like what the social constructivists have long charged it with being: a community that is no more rational or objective than any other group of humans. String theorists dominate the country’s top physics departments. At the Institute for Advanced Study, the director and nearly all of the particle physicists with permanent positions are string theorists. Eight of the nine MacArthur fellowships awarded to particle physicists over the years have gone to string theorists. Since the fall-off in academic hiring in the nineteen-seventies, the average age of tenured physics professors has reached nearly sixty. Every year, around eighty people receive Ph.D.s in particle physics, but only around ten of them can expect to get permanent jobs in the field. In this hypercompetitive environment, the only hope for a young theoretical physicist is to curry favor by solving a set problem in string theory. “Nowadays,” one established figure in the field has said, “if you’re a hot-shot young string theorist you’ve got it made.”

Both authors also detect a cultlike aspect to the string-theory community, with Witten as the guru. Perhaps, it has been joked, physicists might have an easier time getting funding from the Bush Administration if they represented string theory as a “faith-based initiative.” Smolin deplores what he considers to be the shoddy scientific standards that prevail in the string-theory community, where long-standing but unproved conjectures are assumed to be true because “no sensible person”—that is, no member of the tribe—doubts them. The most hilarious recent symptom of string theory’s lack of rigor is the so-called Bogdanov Affair, in which French twin brothers, Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, managed to publish egregiously nonsensical articles on string theory in five peer-reviewed physics journals. Was it a reverse Sokal hoax? (In 1996, the physicist Alan Sokal fooled the editors of the postmodern journal Social Text into publishing an artful bit of drivel on the “hermeneutics of quantum gravity.”) The Bogdanov brothers have indignantly denied it, but even the Harvard string-theory group was said to be unsure, alternating between laughter at the obviousness of the fraud and hesitant concession that the authors might have been sincere.

These two books present the case against string theory with wit and conviction, though Smolin’s book is by far the more lucid and accessible. Woit has too many pages full of indigestible sentences like “The Hilbert space of the Wess-Zumino-Witten model is a representation not only of the Kac-Moody group, but of the group of conformal transformations as well.” (Distressingly, he goes on to confess that this is “a serious oversimplification.”) Let’s assume that the situation in theoretical physics is as bad as Smolin and Woit say it is. What are non-physicists supposed to do about it? Should we form a sort of children’s crusade to capture the holy land of physics from the string-theory usurpers? And whom should we install in their place?

Smolin furnishes the more definite answer. The current problem with physics, he thinks, is basically a problem of style. The initiators of the dual revolution a century ago—Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg—were deep thinkers, or “seers.” They confronted questions about space, time, and matter in a philosophical way. The new theories they created were essentially correct. But, Smolin writes, “the development of these theories required a lot of hard technical work, and so for several generations physics was ‘normal science’ and was dominated by master craftspeople.” Today, the challenge of unifying those theories will require another revolution, one that mere virtuoso calculators are ill-equipped to carry out. “The paradoxical situation of string theory—so much promise, so little fulfillment—is exactly what you get when a lot of highly trained master craftspeople try to do the work of seers,” Smolin writes.

The solution is to cultivate a new generation of seers. And what, really, is standing in the way of that? Einstein, after all, didn’t need to be nurtured by the physics establishment, and Smolin gives many examples of outsider physicists in the style of Einstein, including one who spent ten years in a rural farmhouse successfully reinterpreting general relativity. Neither Smolin nor Woit calls for the forcible suppression of string theory. They simply ask for a little more diversity. “We are talking about perhaps two dozen theorists,” Smolin says. This is an exceedingly modest request, for theoretical physics is the cheapest of endeavors. Its practitioners require no expensive equipment. All they need is legal pads and pencils and blackboards and chalk to ply their trade, plus room and board and health insurance and a place to park their bikes. Intellectually daunting as the crisis in physics may be, its practical solution would seem to demand little more than the annual interest on the rounding error of a Google founder’s fortune.

“How strange it would be if the final theory were to be discovered in our own lifetimes!” Steven Weinberg wrote some years ago, adding that such a discovery would mark the sharpest discontinuity in intellectual history since the beginning of modern science, in the seventeenth century. Of course, it is possible that a final theory will never be found, that neither string theory nor any of the alternatives mentioned by Smolin and Woit will come to anything. Perhaps the most fundamental truth about nature is simply beyond the human intellect, the way that quantum mechanics is beyond the intellect of a dog. Or perhaps, as Karl Popper believed, there will prove to be no end to the succession of deeper and deeper theories. And, even if a final theory is found, it will leave the questions about nature that most concern us—how the brain gives rise to consciousness, how we are constituted by our genes—untouched. Theoretical physics will be finished, but the rest of science will hardly notice.

c. New Yorker


If you like "string theory" and Brian Greene's theoretical physics, then you may enjoy the following:

PBS's program "The Elegant Universe", then watch the entire series in episodes.

Go to...

Here are the transcripts from NOVA.

Einstein's Dream

String's The Thing

Welcome To The 11th Dimension

"String Theory--Knot"