Yeah, definately will do. I stopped being actively educated in '84 which is a very sad thing. I've been kinda lackadaisacal about it ever since. This was the one area that interested me the most years ago. Still does, but I lack the education to do anything other than read about it.tnf wrote:Yea, that picture shows the "filamentous "distribution of galaxies throughout the universe - but I that really isn't the defining characteristic of string theory. Get the book and jump on board to the discussion here. But be prepared to be doing some serious head scratching at times when reading, because they way you observe the universe will be forever changed...you have to almost forget the way you've looked at things...its crazy stuff.
An idea for science types (books involved...)
Dave wrote:One thing I really like about the book is that it's very visual. I know a tiny bit about what he's writing about already, but his descriptions play around visually in my head like some kind of Errol Morris documentary. Someone like Morris could take this book to an incredibly cinematic level.
like this:
http://www.errolmorris.com/content/abor ... s_ibm.html
Yea he has a gift for explaining some obscure concepts in a very visual fashion.
It gets a bit more difficult later on - you might have to re-read a section 2 or 3 times to really understand what is going on - but this is important because you don't want to push forward until you know where you are at. The notes in the back are a great reference too, if you want to see the details.
Nothing like a little Faure in the background to put your mind in spaceDave wrote:One thing I really like about the book is that it's very visual. I know a tiny bit about what he's writing about already, but his descriptions play around visually in my head like some kind of Errol Morris documentary. Someone like Morris could take this book to an incredibly cinematic level.
like this:
http://www.errolmorris.com/content/abor ... s_ibm.html
The incorporation of the Simpson's cast into the book is nice.
One of the interesting things is his description of the 'loaf' of spacetime - a loaf that would contain the whole of the history of the universe, but a loaf which is viewed in 'slices' by individual people - slices that are taken at angles and warped by the presence of matter and energy - slices that represent events happenening at different times, etc, meaning that there is no absolute 'now' or 'there' from one person to another. As special relativity says - the reality you perceive is based on your own position and velocity. So, it is accurate to say that people view different realities - events happen at different times to different people. Of course, the speeds at which we experience our daily life are slow enough that relativistic 'weirdness' doesn't register to our senses. But it is almost like you could say - in regards to realities - that there many in terms of the different observers, but only 1 absolute in terms of the total 'loaf' of spacetime. Two observers might actually differ on the timing of events - for example the duel he mentions. But there is still that absolute loaf, wherein the end result is not up for relativistic interpretation. Or something like that.
One of the interesting things is his description of the 'loaf' of spacetime - a loaf that would contain the whole of the history of the universe, but a loaf which is viewed in 'slices' by individual people - slices that are taken at angles and warped by the presence of matter and energy - slices that represent events happenening at different times, etc, meaning that there is no absolute 'now' or 'there' from one person to another. As special relativity says - the reality you perceive is based on your own position and velocity. So, it is accurate to say that people view different realities - events happen at different times to different people. Of course, the speeds at which we experience our daily life are slow enough that relativistic 'weirdness' doesn't register to our senses. But it is almost like you could say - in regards to realities - that there many in terms of the different observers, but only 1 absolute in terms of the total 'loaf' of spacetime. Two observers might actually differ on the timing of events - for example the duel he mentions. But there is still that absolute loaf, wherein the end result is not up for relativistic interpretation. Or something like that.
-
-Replicant-
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:00 am
I am usually reading more than 1 book at a time anyhow. I'm re-reading the Scarlett Pimpernel - a bit of historical fiction about an underground railroad getting aristocrats out of France during Robespierre's Reign of Terror. I am toying with the idea of going through "THe Brothers Karamazov" again too.
-
-Replicant-
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:00 am
-
-Replicant-
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 8:00 am
laff.. i see that. I purposely didnt read parts of those to avoid 'spoilers'tnf wrote:Yea, the quote I already pasted in here...fits just perfect, doesn't it?
Let me know when you get to the experiment that proves EPR wrong (the one he introduces with Mulder, Scully, and the boxes that each have 3 doors).
Well, its a simple idea once you get through it all, but I pored over it again and again, and took several notes, restating the entire Aspect experiment and the Mulder and Scully thought experiment - because I want to make sure I can effectively teach the idea next year to sophomores in high school. Need to make sure I can restate the idea in basic terms.
Yeah, this history class is an unreasonable bitch:
- 1 High school textbook. They claim it's college level, but there's no such thing as a college history textbook since any professor I've ever had use primary source collections, novels, short/specialized articles, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 09-6566512
- 16 Chapters in the book. Each chapter requires a 3 page response. 3x16 = 48 pages of busy work
- 1 7 page paper. I can do that in my sleep, no problems there
- 4 tests. 45 MC questions that test you over meaningless detail and rote ability. 4 essay questions of which you have to answer 3. Your answer has to be based on the aforementioned terrible textbook.
If it wasn't for the 3x16 chapter response, the class would be fine, but those papers really take the fun out of it. The most I had to write last semester with 4 history classes was 75 pages across all of them.. This is 48 with one community college class...
On the other extreme, I'm retaking business calc too... 5 homework assignments, 3 tests, all open book and on your own. I've missed 3 points so far. I'd feel cheap offering a class like that
(I should stop talking about it because I still have two tests and 2 HW assignments left 
)
- 1 High school textbook. They claim it's college level, but there's no such thing as a college history textbook since any professor I've ever had use primary source collections, novels, short/specialized articles, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 09-6566512
- 16 Chapters in the book. Each chapter requires a 3 page response. 3x16 = 48 pages of busy work
- 1 7 page paper. I can do that in my sleep, no problems there
- 4 tests. 45 MC questions that test you over meaningless detail and rote ability. 4 essay questions of which you have to answer 3. Your answer has to be based on the aforementioned terrible textbook.
If it wasn't for the 3x16 chapter response, the class would be fine, but those papers really take the fun out of it. The most I had to write last semester with 4 history classes was 75 pages across all of them.. This is 48 with one community college class...
On the other extreme, I'm retaking business calc too... 5 homework assignments, 3 tests, all open book and on your own. I've missed 3 points so far. I'd feel cheap offering a class like that
(I should stop talking about it because I still have two tests and 2 HW assignments left )