Internet

Primary season opens

First-round voting for the 2005 Koufax Awards has now begun over at Wampum. Here are the categories:

Best Blog (non-professional)

Best Blog — Sponsored or Professional

Best Blog Community

Best Writing

Best New Blog

Most Deserving of Wider Recognition

Best Single Issue Blog

Best Post

Best Series

Best Expert Blog

Best Group Blog

Most Humorous Blog

Most Humorous Post

Best State or Local Blog

Best Commenter

Cosmic Variance is nominated under Best Expert Blog, Best New Blog, and Best Group Blog. (Does the name “Harold Stassen” mean anything to you?) You are welcome to go vote for anyone you like, but keep in mind that it will go into your permanent record. Discover some new blogs and have fun.

Primary season opens Read More »

Crackpots, contrarians, and the free market of ideas

Some time back we learned that arxiv.org, the physics e-print server that has largely superseded the role of traditional print journals, had taken a major step towards integration with the blogosphere, by introducing trackbacks. This mechanism allows blogs to leave a little link associated with the abstract of a paper on arxiv to which the blog post is referring; you can check out recent trackbacks here. It’s a great idea, although not without some potential for abuse.

Now Peter Woit reports that he has been told that arxiv will not accept trackbacks from his blog. Peter, of course, is most well-known for being a critic of string theory. In this he is not alone; the set of “critics of string theory” includes, in their various ways, people like Roger Penrose, Richard Feynman, Daniel Friedan, Lee Smolin, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Robert Laughlin, Howard Georgi, and Sheldon Glashow. The difference is that these people were all famous for something else before they became critics of string theory; in substance, however, I’m not sure that their critiques are all that different.

Unfortunately, Peter has not been given an explicit reason why trackbacks from his blog have been banned, although his interactions with the arxiv have a long history. It’s not hard to guess, of course; the moderators presumably feel that his criticisms have no merit and shouldn’t be associated with individual paper abstracts.

I think it’s a serious mistake, for many reasons. On the one hand, I certainly don’t think that scientists have any obligation to treat the opinions of complete crackpots with the same respect that they treat those of their colleagues; on a blog, for example, I see nothing wrong with banning comments from people who have nothing but noise to contribute yet feel compelled to keep contributing it. But trackbacks are just about the least intrusive form of communication on the internet, and the most easily ignored; I have never contemplated preventing trackbacks from anyone, and it would be hard for anyone to rise to the level of obnoxiousness necessary for me to do so.

On the other hand, I don’t think there is any sense in which Peter is a crackpot, even if I completely disagree with his ideas about string theory. He is a contrarian, to be sure, not falling in line with the majority view, but that’s hardly the same thing. Admittedly, it can be difficult to articulate the difference between principled disagreement and complete nuttiness (the crackpot index is, despite being both funny and telling, not actually a very good guide), but we usually know it when we see it.

Since I’m not a card-carrying string theorist, I can draw analogies with skeptics in my own field of cosmology. I’ve certainly been hard on folks who push alternative cosmologies (see here and here, for example). But there is definitely a spectrum. Perfectly respectable scientists from Roger Penrose to yours truly have suggested alternatives to cherished ideas like inflation, dark matter, and dark energy; nobody would argue that such ideas are cranky in any sense. Respectable scientists have even questioned whether the universe is accelerating, which is harder to believe but still worth taking seriously. Further down the skepticism scale, we run into folks that disbelieve in the Big Bang model itself. From my own reading of the evidence, there is absolutely no reason to take these people seriously; however, some of them have good track records as scientists, and it doesn’t do much harm to let them state their opinions. In fact, you can sharpen your own understanding by demonstrating precisely why they are wrong, as Ned Wright has shown. Only at the very bottom of the scale do we find the true crackpots, who have come up with a model of the structure of spacetime that purportedly replaces relativity and looks suspiciously like it was put together with pipe cleaners and pieces of string. There is no reason to listen to them at all.

On such a scale, I would put string skepticism of the sort Peter practices somewhere around skepticism about the acceleration of the universe. Maybe not what I believe, but a legitimate opinion to hold. And the standard for actually preventing someone from joining part of the scientific discourse, for example by leaving trackbacks at arxiv, should typically err on the side of inclusiveness; better to have too many voices in there than to exclude someone without good reason. So I think it’s very unfortunate that trackbacks from Not Even Wrong have been excluded, and I hope the folks at arxiv will reconsider their decision.

Of course, there is a huge difference between string theory and the standard cosmological model; the latter has been tested against data in numerous ways. String theory, as rich and compelling as it may be, is still a speculative idea at this point; it might very well be wrong. Losing sight of that possibility doesn’t do us any good as scientists.

Update: Jacques Distler provides some insight into the thinking of the arxiv advisory board.

Crackpots, contrarians, and the free market of ideas Read More »

110 Comments

Sex and physics!

I just like using these titles, little excuse is necessary. But I do have one: this article in Seed about philandering physicists. The point being that famous physicists of yore were often secret Casanovas, scribbling equations in their downtime between romantic trysts. I’m not sure this thesis would hold up to further scrutiny; it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with numerous counterexamples. It’s true that Einstein was more the raconteur than you might think, but I just can’t imagine, say, Julian Schwinger seducing young women with his patter about source theory. (Sir Isaac Newton reputedly died a virgin.) But there was an interesting question raised at the end of the article, about whether the apparent lack of dashing Don Juans on the current scene was emblematic of some change in the culture of modern physics. Or maybe we just haven’t heard about it yet. Besides, these days physicists are too busy blogging.

The article quoted science writer Jennifer Ouellette, and the enlightened folks at Seed were clever enough to link to her web page. From there I found that Jennifer has recently started a blog, Cocktail Party Physics, which is definitely worth checking out — it’s good to have people talking about science who really know how to write. An excerpt:

Surely there’s room for everyone at the physics table, provided everyone adheres to the rules of engagement (the scientific method) and, like Newton, doesn’t let their personal faith (or adherence to dogma) interfere with the data/evidence. I was always impressed with Richard Feynman’s take on the quantum revolution. Many early physicists, including Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Schroedinger himself, were deeply troubled by the implications of quantum physics. It seemed to defy not just common sense, but everything known thus far about how Nature worked at the macroscale. And yet the evidence kept mounting until they were forced to accept that Nature does indeed seem to work in such an irrational way at the subatomic level. Feynman said we didn’t have to like it, but as scientists (or, in my case, as a science writer), we must accept what the evidence tells us. Dogma — whether it comes in the form of organized religion, political correctness, or overly-zealous apoplectic physicists — has no place at the table, because by its very nature, it interferes with the process of scientific advancement. Ancora imparo: we are still learning. That’s part of the excitement of physics.

Jennifer’s blog reminds me a bit of inkycircus — having fun with the ideas of science, relating them to the wider world in which we all live. Room for everyone at the table.

Sex and physics! Read More »

22 Comments

Elsewhere

Chad Orzel’s competition to choose the Greatest Physics Experiment — via the magic of the ballot box — is almost coming to close, so go vote soon. Nominees include Galileo, Roemer, Newton, Cavendish, Faraday, Michelson and Morley, Hertz, Rutherford, Hubble, Mössbauer, and Aspect. I totally think Galileo should win, for discovering the moons of Jupiter — it’s not every day you simultaneously demonstrate the value of perhaps the single most useful instrument in the physical sciences (the telescope), but also show that the Earth is not the center of the universe.

Meanwhile, coturnix of Science and Politics, guest-blogging at Majikthise, points to his growing list of science blogs. Who knew there were so many? Remember, if you have a physics- or astronomy-oriented blog that is not manifestly crazy, we’re happy to put it on the “Physics and Astronomy Blogs” list here at CV.

Elsewhere Read More »

4 Comments

Expertise

The nominee lists for the 2005 Koufax Awards continue to appear, although I don’t think voting has opened yet. The most recent category is Best Expert Blog. Sadly, our hopes for a respectable bronze medal in this category have been dashed, as we apparently did not make the short list (despite being, you know, nominated a couple of times). But that’s okay, since we did get a nomination for Best New Blog (where we will doubtless be crushed), and more importantly because there are a passel of great blogs that did get nominated. Go check them out, and be prepared to vote!

Update: Never mind. We were nominated after all, just a little computer glitch. So, that bit about a “passel of great blogs”? Rubbish. Those are terrible blogs. Uninspired hackwork. An embarassment to the very idea of blogging. Really, we should win by process of elimination, and it’s up to you to provide the honest votes needed to ensure that just is served.

(Actually, in this crowd CV will be lucky to finish in the top half. We are happy to be the George Clooney of the blogosphere.)

Expertise Read More »

7 Comments

Think like an economist

I learn a lot from reading Brad DeLong or the economically-inclined folks at Crooked Timber, but I get special enjoyment from Marginal Revolution. (I’m actually not being sarcastic for once, in case it’s unclear.) Much like training in physics affects they way you view the physical world, training in economics affects the way you view — well, almost everything. All of life becomes an exercise in maximizing returns and minimizing costs, subject to constraints. Consider for example the Tennis Ball Problem.

How many tennis balls should you play with?

Let’s say you had many, many balls and you could open the cans for free and never run out. Opening a new can every four points (four balls fit in a can) would lead to a massive clean-up and carry problem at the end. Furthermore how much help is it having more balls? Once they hit the net you still have to deal with getting another ball into play. In other words, the real trick is to manage your stock well (read: aim for good volleys), not to just to speed up the flow of balls into the court.

Just one ball is not efficient, because when it falls out of play it is probably far from you. The greater the number of balls, the more likely at least one will be close.

Many problems in life, including those of dating, the number of children you should have, and optimal inventory management, resemble the tennis ball problem.

I do not know how to solve the tennis ball problem, but I feel that twelve balls is too many.

Those last two sentences just about sum it up, don’t they?

Think like an economist Read More »

18 Comments

Get out the vote!

Sir Isaac Newton may have written the greatest physics work of all time, but he shouldn’t rest easy — he has heavy competition for being the greatest experimenter. Chad Orzel at Uncertain Principles aims to find out. He’s assembled an impressive list of nominees for the greatest physics experiment ever (and is drumming up interest in the greatest in other fields). Contenders include such household names as Galileo, Roemer, Faraday, Cavendish, Michelson and Morley, Hertz, Rutherford, Hubble, Mossbauer, and Aspect, not to mention Newton himself. Greedy bastard. Be sure to go vote.

On the opposite side of the practicality/speculation scale, Christine Dantas has the somewhat more modest goal of finding the Best Quantum Gravity Paper of 2005. Help out, she needs both nominees and votes. Of course what we think is the best paper now might not be what we remember a hundred years later.

A final way to have your own bit of vox populi be heard is to visit Wampum and vote for the Koufax awards (previously mentioned here). You’ll have to keep checking in, as posts where you can actually vote are gradually being assembled; so far we’ve seen

If I’m good I’ll keep a list here. We’ve been nominated in a few categories, including Best New Blog; I have high hopes for a respectable third-place showing in the Best Expert Blog category behind Pharyngula and Informed Comment.

Get out the vote! Read More »

2 Comments

Scientific blogtopia

No sooner does one empire crumble than another rises in its place; such is the way of the blogosphere.

The folks at Seed magazine (who have their own blog at Sciencegate) have launched ScienceBlogs, a project to bring together a bunch of different science-oriented blogs at a single site. Several of our favorite sites have picked up and moved over to the new digs, including Pharyngula, Chris Mooney’s The Intersection, Uncertain Principles, and Dispatches from the Culture Wars. The content of each site won’t be changing, but the various site owners have decided it would be nice for someone else to worry when the server crashes. To me, the great thing about the project is that it will bring more attention to some blogs I don’t already know about. (We here at CV enjoy nothing more than complaining to our host when the server crashes, so we’re going to stay a plucky little independent.)

Meanwhile, the bloggers at Quantum Diaries have shut off the lights and gone home. You can still read the archives, but no new posts or comments. Some of the QD bloggers have moved to their own little corners of cyberspace: Peter Steinberg is now at Entropy Bound, while Gordon Watts is now at Life as a Physicist. Anyone else? There have to be more diarists who have caught the bug and started their own blogs.

While we’re at it, let’s point to a couple of other physics-oriented blogs that recently were added to our blogroll: BioCurious by Andre Brown and Philip Johnson, and Thoughts on Science and Life by Kasper Olsen, who recently made the switch from Blogspot to WordPress. We heartily approve.

Scientific blogtopia Read More »

3 Comments

7×7

Robin at 3 Quarks Daily has tagged me with a meme. For the less blogocentric among our readers, it’s the internet hybrid of a chain letter and a personal ad — you’re supposed to answer a set of questions and then send it along to other people. This is a 7×7 meme, with seven answers to seven questions. (It seems to have become a little stuffier since its earlier days.)

  1. Seven things to do before I die: Learn French, become a passable bass player, learn to tango, spend at least six months living in Paris, publish a novel &/or play, fly an airplane, testify before Congress
  2. Seven things I cannot do: Speak any foreign languages at all (dammit), play any musical instruments decently (dammit), dance (sigh), cook a variety of dishes without recipes in front of me, surf, pay my bills on time, tell when people are bluffing
  3. Seven things that attract me to [Chicago]: Von Freeman, Patricia Barber, Webster’s Wine Bar, the Weiner’s Circle, Cloud Gate, the skyline view from the Adler Planetarium, Remy Bumppo
  4. Seven things I say most often: “Sadly”, “I don’t understand what that can possibly mean”, “I’ll get it done this weekend”, “Sure”, “Lagrangian”, “Raise”, “Dessert sounds good”
  5. Seven books I love: Pride & Prejudice (Austen), Mason & Dixon (Pynchon), The Book of Revelation (Thomson), The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Heinlein), Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius (Monk), Love in a Dead Language (Siegel), The Debt to Pleasure (Lanchester)
  6. Seven movies I could watch over and over again: Brazil, Dr. Strangelove, Bound, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Casablanca, Vanya on 42nd Street, Mullholand Drive
  7. Seven people I want to join in: Edward Witten, Jeanette Winterson, Tom Stoppard, Angelina Jolie, John Medeski, Jared Diamond, Barack Obama

By not taking the final question realistically, I will likely be held in contempt by the spirits of the blogosphere and my hard drive will crash or something equally awful. But readers are encouraged to answer themselves, either in comments or on their own blogs.

7×7 Read More »

16 Comments

The gift of blog

Count me among the staunchly pro-Christmas atheists. I may not be religious, but I’m all about the loot. If the price of getting presents is the ostentatious display of a few borrowed pagan images around Winter Solstice time, I can deal.

inkycircus So our gift from Cosmic Variance to you is — new blogs! New to us, anyway. First up is inkycircus, a very fun site from three British journalists who are in the process of starting their own science magazine (found at Element list). The twist is that Anne, Katie and Anna are all women, and seem to be having a great time with the whole operation. (Men would feel the pressure to be all ponderous and serious-sounding, if I may venture an unsupported generalization.) My favorite category of post is men whose babies we want to bear, even if it is somewhat unrepresentative of the larger project and despite the fact that Jon Stewart makes the list and I don’t.

light pollution map The other new site worth checking out is systemic by Greg Laughlin, discussing the search for extrasolar planets. (“systemic” is the name of a Java applet for analyzing data collected in the search for such planets.) In addition to cool science, it’s full of great images like the one at left. Unfortunately this is a map of light pollution in the vicinity of Lick Observatory (see the Bay Area coastline outlined in white?), but it’s still a great image.

Finally, I note that Cosmic Variance is currently ranked 374th in the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem traffic rankings, one slot above HorsesAss.Org. Draw your own conclusions.

Happy holidays, everyone.

The gift of blog Read More »

14 Comments
Scroll to Top