Posted on 01/21/2005 8:07:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Ping
Bump to read later...
stringy bump
|
Actually, the Bible first introduced string theory. Where do you think Heaven is? 8^>
When reading about string theory it is easy to become strung out and lose the thread of the discussion. :-)
He's as smart as they come at science and math, but politically he's a conventional liberal and he's a relatively poor chessplayer. (I live nearby and know this stuff....)
...politically he's a conventional liberal and he's a relatively poor chessplayer.
Not surprising. He's unwilling to spend his limited time thinking about politics or how to beat opponents in a board game. Fortunately for him (and for us, too), he lives in a society that allows him to do what he does better than almost everybody else—think about physics and mathematics.
There have been over 10,000 papers on string theory. Everyone is either writing on string theory or desperately trying to learn string theory. In less than 150 years there will not be a sane Westerner left.
When reading about string theory it is easy to become strung out and lose the thread of the discussion. :-)
Here's some advice with no strings attached: never give yourself enough rope to hang yourself.
(There's a million of 'em, eh?)
What would be really funny would be to find out that the energy levels at the LHC are not even close, that noting new happens, but there is no definitive disproof of anything. We shall know soon enough.
Sane? Sane, you say? Poor Tom's a-cold. Poor Tom's a-cold.
And all this time, I thought that because I was bad at chess, I didn't have a chance at theoretical physics. Maybe it's time to go back to grad school!
I would say that if he turns out to be right, or, as you say, it is stage on the way to something else, then Witten will go down in history has an equal of folks like Einstein and Newton. On the other hand, if he is totally wrong he will go down as one of the biggest smart-alexes (sp?) in history.
I worded my initial post pretty carefully. Note that I said nothing about his greatness as a physicist; I spoke only about his intelligence, which, by all accounts, is remarkable. It may well happen that he'll be remembered as much for his contributions to mathematics (which are substantial) as for his contributions to physics.
Good to hear from you again, BTW.
My point was that there is something about the way he presents this stuff that suggest that he really does not believe that all of this is really the case. He seem elusive about it. I am not criticizing him either.
He seems to be coming from a purely mathematical point of view. THe whole thing seems to richly amise him.
"Here's some advice with no strings attached: never give yourself enough rope to hang yourself."
"(There's a million of 'em, eh?)"
Oh my, never spin a yarn like that to rope me in. I always fall for them hook, line, and sinker?
How long can we keept this up? :-)
I think you're exactly right. Hard to prove, though.
>>Hard to prove, though.<<
;^>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.