Things I would blog about, if I weren’t on blogging vacation.
- A short piece I wrote for Seed about the arrow of time is now on the web. It’s basically a summary of the scenario that Jennie Chen and I are suggesting for spontaneous inflation. On a related note, Karmen at Chaotic Utopia has a series on complexity and time, starting here.
- Cocktail Party Physics advertises a call for proposals from Feminist Press.
Girls and Science: Call for Proposals
The Feminist Press, in collaboration with The National Science Foundation, is exploring new ways to get girls and young women interested in science. While there are many library resources featuring biographies of women scientists that are suitable for school reports, these are rarely the books that girls seek out themselves to read for pleasure. What would a book, or series of books, about science that girls really want to read look like? That is the question we want to answer.
I don’t know; seems to me, if we start encouraging girls to become scientists, pretty soon they’ll be replacing equations with hugs and instead of performing experiments we’ll just talk about our feelings or some such thing. That can’t be right.
- Janna Levin, author of the uniquely compelling How the Universe Got Its Spots and the brand-new A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, appeared on the Colbert Report! I can’t actually get the video to play, but maybe you can.
- Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science is now out in paperback. So all you poor liberals who couldn’t afford the hardcover edition now have no excuse.
- Speaking of books, Alex Vilenkin has come out with Many Worlds in One, about eternal inflation and the multiverse. Alex was the one who first realized that inflation could be eternal, and is a world-class cosmologist; whatever you may think of the issues, he’s worth listening to. (And don’t tell me that we cosmologists can’t have a little fun.)
- And Michael Bérubé also has a book out, What’s Liberal About the Liberal Arts?. So many books. Don’t these people know they’re wasting valuable time that could be spent blogging?
- George W. Bush has decided to close EPA regional libraries, to protect the public from information they don’t need.
What has been termed, “positively Orwellian”, by PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, is indeed frightening. It seems that the self-appointed “Decider”, George W. Bush, has decided to “end public access to research materials” at EPA Regional libraries without Congressional consent. In an all out effort to impede research and public access, Bush has implemented a loosely covert operation to close down 26 technical libraries under the guise of a budgetary constraint move. Scientists are protesting, but at least 15 of the libraries will be closed by Sept. 30, 2006.
- On the other hand, John Kerry draws support from unseemly quarters, at least according to Yousuf al-Qaradawi.
Kerry, who ran against Bush, was supported by homosexuals and nudists. But it was Bush who won [the elections], because he is Christian, right-wing, tenacious, and unyielding. In other words, the religious overcame the perverted. So we cannot blame all Americans and Westerners.
So we really shouldn’t complain about the President.
- Weak lensing, uploaded to flickr by darkmatter. Amazing photos.
Sean, in regards to your comment on girls becoming scientists; I saw that episode of The Simpsons too.
>I join Alejandro in mourning the sad inability of certain readers to appreciate >subtle sarcasm.
Imagine the reaction if Sean was the president of Harvard ….
Sarcastic or not, Sean is dead on. Emotions and hugs are far more intricate to be tackled by a set of equations. Hence the ineptitude and fear among male scientists to emerge on the subject. Hence the boredom one might experience in a physics department. Hence the plethora of beer bellies and farting. Indeed, I too would rather be watcing a tall blond stroll down the hallway in her 4-in heels but males scientists are not mature enough to handle that. Hence their state of despair and lock-out.
Plus, it is better for a woman’s intellect and natural beauty to shine elsewhere…There are bright enough objects in the skies for the male scientists to stare at, not realizing what on the world they are missing….I would never encourage a woman to kamikatse herself unless she really really wants just that…
For 30 years physicists have been trying to merge GR and QM with no success. Neither of these theories has an arrow of time. It’s easy enough to put an arrow of time into relativity. Simply add an assumption that a preferred reference frame exists (even if it cannot be detected) and use that. All your causality problems evaporate away.
Nor is adding an arrow of time to QM any more difficult. Recognize that the fundamental character of a given patch of space-time, for example, January 1, 2008, 12:01AM, Time’s Square, New York City, differs depending on whether it is in the past or the future. As I write this, that event is in the future and can be represented by a quantum state. Six months from now, the event will be in the past and can be represented by a measurment outcome. Wave function collapse then defines the arrow of time.
The reason these sorts of interpretations are not used is because they are not necessary. But things that are not necessary in the limited sphere of application of one theory, may become necessary when the theories are combined.
Carl
Fly-By Brains
Gosh! And I thought that most people on this blog were much smarter than me. If your brain and eyes work pretty close to normal, then you’ll see the following blog contributors:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/risa/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/joanne/
In my world both name and picture indicates gender female. Plain English tells you that they are professors etc; doing research on theoretical cosmology and astrophysics and theoretical particle physics, including the phenomenology of electroweak interactions within and beyond the Standard Model.
(WARNING: Sarcasm on the move!)
My highly speculative guess is that hugging and kissing their two beer-drinking and farting blog-colleagues is NOT the primary science activity for JoAnne and Risa.
(But, everything is relative and I might be terribly wrong – if so I do apologize to everyone offended!)
Time to reboot upper storey…
I join Alejandro in mourning the sad inability of certain readers to appreciate subtle sarcasm.
Subtle? It was subtle?
Hum.
-Rob
I thought the same, Rob.
On hugs and equations… Women have rituals but so do men… What does any of it have to do with physics? Probably nothing. But the question was how can we get girls interested in physics? I have always been puzzled by questions like that because you can’t change the presentation (and thus the methodology of) physics just because it doesn’t appeal to someone.
I think the deal isn’t changing the presentation of the Physics, per se, but all of the other associated folderol that isn’t essential to the Physics, even if we sometimes act as if it were.
Somewhere around 6th or 7th grade kids get the message that “Math is Hard” and “Math is Not Fun.” There is a societal message that it’s OK to be really bad at math. What’s more, there are societal messages that start (probably) around that age that tell girls that they’re supposed to be worse at math and science, and that it’s not right for them to like it.
I know just from looking at freshman physics majors’ classes at Vandy that much of the damage is already done. Those classes tend to be overwhelmingly male; there are few women left to drive out at that point. (And, sadly, some do still get driven out. And, of course, some leave for good reasons, just as some men leave for good reasons.)
I suspect that Physics as Physics will be very appealing to girls and boys alike– because Physics is just so cool. I think that the real question is how to avoid putting people off of it who otherwise might have done very well at it. Many people who are driven away from Physics are driven away not by the Physics, but by the culture of how science is done.
-Rob
Rob, I share many of your concerns. But when I read a Physics book I see no “folderol that isn’t essential to the Physics”. I am not completely happy with many introductory Physics books either as they don’t show the physical side. They need to be more like QM by Das & Melissinos.
Who knows, I watched a program about a genius (more or less savant) who could do extremely advanced calculations in his head, and even ‘feel’ if a number was prime or not. How did he do that? Well, every number (in his head) has a different 3-dimensional shape, size and color. When you for example want to add two numbers you put them together, and the shape between represent the new number, which is the correct sum! Smart and weird…
My point is can we be sure that the ‘male’ representation of equations, math and physics is the only one…? Is it maybe not even the best one? For sure – math is a fundamental part of nature, or vice versa, but is the strange and ‘mysterious doodles’ really the ultimate tools for understanding?
I have a slight feeling that (some) people who understand complex mathematics ‘protect’ the complexity from the ‘ordinary mob’.
Let me give you an example: Sean currently wrote the article Dark Matter Exists in this blog (as you all probably know), and in a brilliant way explained how the scientists came to the conclusion. And what’s the reaction from an ‘insider’:
“I was disappointed to find this article much more personal and informal than I am used to. It read more like a teenager’s diary than a scientific examination. Unfortunately in cosmology, pictures arent enough no matter how much they’ve been photoshopped.”
I do put my hope to smart women and smart computer programming (it’s only C and Perl who allow doodling around 🙂 ) to break the wall of advanced math and physics. Let’s face it – soon or later as the human knowledge grows there must be a limit for what one human brain can hold in form of data and knowledge. One solution is to have narrow specialist working in teams, but there must be a limit even for a narrow specialist when she/he go completely bananas. (maybe that’s the case today? 🙂 )
I think computers are the solution – let them do much much more of the dull work – so humans can spend all time on true creativity, which should appeal to both girls and boys. And I really hope it’s not necessary to become a ‘Cyborg’ to make this work.
Re Alejandro [comment 20]
“Then isn’t it more likely to conclude that the present universe just fluctuated into existing as it is now instead of having evolved from the past? I don’t think any proposal to account for the arrow of time starting with a fluctuation in a time-symmetric background can escape this unacceptable “last-thurday-ist” conclusion.”
First, it’s important to understand that, in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will. So out there somewhere, there *is* a precise copy of you which has just fluctuated into existence, complete with memories etc. It is also possible that the world around us has really existed for billions of years, but that what we call the “laws” of nature are just a series of coincidences which will come to an end tomorrow, thus belatedly confirming all of Hume’s suspicions about causation. Basically, an infinite universe allows you to get away with anything, as certain advocates of the wackier versions of Inflation have amply demonstrated. [“Yes, it may *seem* that I have been checkmated, but in an infinite universe…” — sometimes known as the Linde-Vilenkin gambit, after two famous grandmasters.]
Second, Sean’s point was that he has an alternative to the Humean nightmare — in the late stages of a deSitter expansion, the total entropy may be large, but its *density* is small, so when a baby universe nucleates, its small size means that it automatically has very low entropy. Assuming that the process of nucleation does not itself greatly increase the entropy I guess….anyway, it seems possible that this kind of thing *is* more likely than just having the whole universe fluctuate into existence. Or something like that — I have been arguing about this with my advisor, and have suffered brain damage as a result….
Dark Vader, I don’t think there is such a thing as a “‘male’ representation of equations”. I was trying to address the question of series of books that would give good understanding and keep interest alive and I think the answer is for them to be written by a collaboration between an active theorist (like Das) and an active experimentalist (like Melissinos) in their field of expertise. It would be interesting if a publisher does this, though they’ve probably thought of that…
Chinmaya Sheth, neither do I think it’s possible to put ‘gender’ on math and physics, but the question was – How can we get girls interested in physics? If current presentation and methodology appeals more to boys than girls, then I thought it would be ok to use the ‘male’ prefix to emphasize this fact. Maybe it was ill-advised…
The lives of the intellectual elite are insecure, and those in charge are TERRIFIED that a young woman will appear who accomplishes more than they have. Let us stamp out sexism, starting by deleting sexist comments on blogger!
Anyone wanting to know how any Cosmic Variance bloggers stand on the subject of women in science might do well to look here.
To get a better idea of Sean’s views in particular, I would especially recommend this post (and the posts linked therein), and this one.
I would recommend that Tammy and Adrian, in particular, read these posts before commenting further on Sean’s comments in the current post…
Alex,
so what are you saying? So as long as you have declared a position on women in science before, you can either get away with a sexist comment or expect people to understand you’re making an unfunny sexist joke?
Even feminists (male and female) who spend their lives dedicated to stamping out sexism have to be called out on their sexist behaviors and are expected to correct themsleves. I’m with the original comment that if it’s a joke, it’s not funny.
But it’s okay, I’m prepared to not laugh and move on.
wo this whole thing is dumb… it was a sarcastic remark, meant to mock sexism, it was no where near a sexist remark. it shames me that so many people today are looking for a reason to be offended.
todays society is so damned senitive… we need a good desensitivity move in this nation. if it bothers you don’t bother with it
its that simple if something seems offensive ignore it, don’t rake the muck…
Since this is a blog about science, let’s get methodical and penetrate the sexist comment/joke incident.
Sean earlier this summer wrote on the subject What I Would Do If I Could: “If I could propose one thing, it would be to do everything in our power to encourage young girls to get excited about science, math, and technology.”
Suddenly this week Sean has become a rude sexist, according to some alert observers. Spending time and energy to humiliate girls with a sexist comment, alternative bad sexist joke: “…seems to me, if we start encouraging girls to become scientists, pretty soon they’ll be replacing equations with hugs and instead of performing experiments we’ll just talk about our feelings or some such thing. That can’t be right.”
The explanation for this perplexity could be:
1) Sean has unexpectedly been stricken by mental illness and his personality has split in two.
2) Sean is living a double life. Most of the time he is pro women/girls, and then for a minute or two his real nature pop up in a sexist comment/joke.
3) Cosmic Variance has been attacked by a computer virus that alters the original text.
4) Stephen Hawking is right after all – information can be destroyed and lost forever. What happened yesterday has nothing to do with what we see today. The world has gone screwy.
5) The observers have misinterpreted the information, and they did not contact the source to get more data.
I’m not the man too propose the right answer at this moment. Maybe it could be smart to see what the accused has to say, and how he feels etc.
With fame I become more and more stupid, which of course is a very common phenomenon. — Albert Einstein
Dudes, the sarcasm and irony was bloody obvious. If you didn’t get it, smack yourself for not getting it and move on. If you got it but didn’t think it was funny, shrug and move on. But, for goodness sake, don’t continue on the “it was a sexist remark” bandwagon because you failed to recognize the sarcasm! Geez!
-Rob
It’s obvious that some are sensitive indeed. But it’s also obvious that some are missing on the sensitivity bit.
Rob Knop, I agree to 100% and not to make things worse – I should clarify that #44 was the final exam in sarcasm. Some obvious needs to practice… 🙂
I thought the sarcasm was obvious but in bad taste.
I’ll try lightening up the atmosphere a little bit with this really bad joke (which may be the worst in this blog):
Sean has spent some time investigating Dark Matter. Perhaps this last confusion is due to the fact that Sean can’t decide if he believes in WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) or MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects)…? :-}
More info on WIMPs and MACHOs:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html
My first time commenting. Really great blog. Thanks to bloggers and responders.
On Sean and girls in science. I attended an OECD conference in Amsterdam last fall on “Declining Youth Interest in Science Studies”. It reported on a study in which 22 countries looked at enrolment and graduation rates in science discplines. Physics, chemistry and math are in trouble – OECD-wide. In particular, girls shun these subjects increasingly. (Female participation in higher education is increasing faster than that of males, but in the science subjects, the rate of increase is slower. In physics, there’s a decline in many countries).
Another part of the study looked at ways in which different countries are tackling the problem. Many of the techniques involve working with younger girls in grade school to encourage them. At these age-levels, girls love science as much as boys, though often in different ways and for different reasons (vive la difference!). The drop-off starts to occur in junior high school. For boys and girls, partly to keep grade point averages up (i.e. science is hard). For girls, partly because of what some of the responders to this blog allude to – the way in which science is presented in school and in texts. One woman at the conference responded to a discussion of some very innovative promotional activities targeted to young females to encourage them to pursue science at university. She said: “You can do all the promotion you want and you’ll probably succeed in getting more girls to enrol in university science. But if the universities keep teaching science the way they do now, the girls will drop out!” We have to face facts, folks. We have a real problem – and its a cultural one.
If you’re interested I’ll tell you about a Dutch university that solved the problem… (I’m a Canadian so there’s no nationalistic promotion here.)