Remainders

The internets move faster than I do. Interesting stuff that has accumulated in the past couple of weeks while I have been balancing work with jet-setting.

  • Backreaction is the go-to blog these days for cool expository posts about physics. Bee, newly hitched, has great articles about extra dimensions and neutrinos.
  • Penrose tensor diagrams Not to be outdone, jao at physics musings has some musings about physics diagrams. Feynman’s, of course, but also these funny pictures invented by Penrose to represent tensor algebra (pictured right). (Not sure what to call them, as “Penrose diagrams” is already taken.) They are a cute way of keeping track of the index gymnastics of ordinary tensors. I’m not sure if they actually represent an advance over the indices (of which I’m quite fond), but if nothing else they provide an interesting insight into the mind of someone smarter than most of us.
  • An interesting multi-blog disscussion was prompted by a provocative post at Feministing about a study claiming that conditions in the womb can affect men’s sexual orientation. Jessica wondered out loud whether or not we should even be studying these issues; she has legitimate concerns that whatever results are obtained could be used to excuse yet more repression. As a scientist, the answer is obvious: of course we should be studying these issues. We should study everything! But we should not pretend that our investigations have no consequences, and constantly be on guard against those who would put scientific discoveries to bad uses. Chris at Mixing Memory has a typically insightful post, as does Dr. Free-Ride (who also links to all the rest of the discussion). Janet also segues elegantly into a related issue, “how should scientists talk to non-scientists?” In a later post she defends a counterintuitive part of her answer: non-scientists have a duty themselves to improve the professional/amateur discourse.
  • Speaking of which, Angela at Tech Space steps onto her soapbox to harangue a bit about the state of science journalism. She points to a recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review by friend-of-CV KC Cole. I’ll let you read, but the short answer is that we can blame the editors.
  • To end on a down note, George W. Bush has decided to put any doubts that he is the most anti-science President in our nation’s history completely to rest. Aided by a fawning Republican congress, he has managed to skate through six years of administration without vetoing a single piece of legislation — until now. Bush is expected to veto a bill just passed by Congress that would loosen restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. (As DarkSyde reminds us, the cells in question come from blastocysts that are already slated for destruction. They are going to be destroyed; the choice is between using them to fight disease — or not.) There are enough anti-Enlightenment Republicans in the Senate to prevent an override of the veto, so this particular avenue of scientific inquiry will continue to be stifled. In the United States, at least.

And one little update, to cleanse the palate and restore the jaunty mood.

  • It’s Yeats Day at Le Blog Bérubé.

    O sages standing in God’s holy fire
    As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
    Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
    And be the singing-masters of my soul.
    Consume my heart away; sick with desire
    And fastened to a dying animal
    It knows not what it is; and gather me
    Into the artifice of eternity.

    Now that’s some serious poeting.

28 Comments

28 thoughts on “Remainders”

  1. “There is a continuum between a blastocysts and a human being.”

    What is meant by a continuum? Does this mean that there is constant change between a blastocyst and a human being? A newborn baby is a human being, right? So when does that happen? Are you saying that the blastocyst gradually grows to become a human being? What exactly is it in the middle of this process? Is it anything at all?

    “Some rather ideological people tend to insist that this continuum cannot be. ”

    Ideological? I would say that many people have given this issue some serious thought, without appealing to any sort of ideology or religion. Are you being “ideological” when you assert that this continuum does exist?

    “A blastocsyst is no more a person than a four year old is an adult.”

    But you would agree that a four year old is a human being, right? So is an adult. But these are just labels we give to human beings to describe their level of physical and mental sophistication. An adult is more developed than a baby, no doubt. But both are considered human. Perhaps a blastocyst is to a baby as a baby is to an adult. Why can’t I say that and assert that they are all human. You’ve given me no argument for blastocysts not being human.

    “Those are the facts, and no amount of whining or arm chair amateur philosophy on your part will change them.”

    Gee thanks. I’m not whining. Nobody’s whining. Both sides of the debate have very clear, thought-out and logical arguments. There’s lots of good thinking going on. It all depends on which are the correct premises, if such exist.

  2. #14
    Turok et-al
    :http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0607164

    Have a fantastic new paper detailing some aspects that tie in with Penrose “new theory”.

    At the “heat-death” of our Universe (the major contributing factor would be accelerated expansion), the 2nd Law is forced to equilibriate over all Universe distances, and a Phase Transition is imminent, a big-crunch/contraction is the “last-instant” of a previous Universe, and thus is also the “first-instant” of the following Universe?

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top