Nobody told me
that gray hairs could start appearing when one was merely in one’s very early 40’s, barely even starting one’s mature years.
That’s not change we can believe in, my friends.
that gray hairs could start appearing when one was merely in one’s very early 40’s, barely even starting one’s mature years.
That’s not change we can believe in, my friends.
Robert Novak, conservative pundit/journalist and TV personality, is retiring after being diagnosed with a brain tumor. Novak and I probably don’t agree on many things, and he isn’t called “The Prince of Darkness” for nothing (nor does he seem to especially mind). But brain tumors shouldn’t happen to anyone, so perhaps this is the place to share my Novak story.
Last September I gave a talk at a somewhat unusual venue: a conference at the University of Illinois on “Plato’s Timaeus Today.” Most of the speakers and attendees, as you might expect, were philosophers or classicists interested in this particular Platonic dialogue — which, apparently, used to be one of his most popular back in the Middle Ages, although it’s fallen a bit out of favor since then. But one of the central purposes of the Timaeus (full text here) was to explain Plato’s theory of the origin of the universe. (Briefly: the demiurge did it, not from scratch, but by imposing order on chaos.) (Also! This dialogue is the origin of the myth of Atlantis. It was not, as far as anyone can tell, a pre-existing story; Plato just made it up.) So the organizers thought it would be fun to invite a physicist or two, to talk about how we think about the universe these days. Sir Tony Leggett gave a keynote address, and I gave a talk during the regular sessions.
The point of my talk was: Plato was wrong. In particular, you don’t need an external agent to create the universe, nor to impose order on the chaos. These days we are reaching toward an understanding of the entire history of the universe in which there is nothing other than the laws of physics working themselves out — a self-contained, complete, purely materialist conception of the cosmos. Not to say that we have such a theory in its full glory, obviously, but we see no obstacles and are making interesting progress. See here and here for more physics background.
And there, during my talk, sitting in the audience, was none other than Robert Novak. This was a slight surprise, although not completely so; Novak was a UIUC alumnus, and was listed as a donor to the conference. But he hadn’t attended most of the other talks, as far as I could tell. In any event, he sat there quietly in his orange and navy blue rep tie, and I gave my talk. Which people seemed to like, although by dint of unfortunate scheduling it was at the very end of the conference and I had a plane to catch so had to run away.
And there, as I was waiting at the gate in the tiny local airport, up walks Robert Novak. He introduced himself, and mentioned that he had heard my talk, and had a question that he was reluctant to ask during the conference — he didn’t want to be a disruption among the assembled academics who were trying to have a scholarly conversation. And I think he meant that sincerely, for which I give him a lot of credit. And I give him even more credit for taking time on a weekend to zip down to Urbana (from Chicago, I presume) to listen to some talks on Plato. Overall, the world would be a better place if more people went to philosophy talks in their spare time.
Novak’s question was this: had I discussed the ideas I had talked about in my presentation with any Catholic theologians? The simple answer was “not very much”; I have talked to various theologians, many of them Catholic, about all sorts of things, but not usually specifically about the possibility of an eternally-existing law-abiding materialist universe. The connection is clear, of course; one traditional role of religion has been to help explain where the world came from, and one traditional justification for the necessity of God has been the need for a Creator. (Not the only one, in either case.) So if science can handle that task all by itself, it certainly has implications for a certain strand of natural theology.
Understanding that it was not an idle question (and that Novak is a Catholic), I added my standard admonition when asked about the theological implications of cosmology by people who don’t really want to be subjected to a full-blown argument for atheism: whether you want to believe in God or not, it’s a bad idea to base your belief in God on an urge to explain features of the natural world, including its creation and existence. Because eventually, science will get there and take care of that stuff, and then where are you?
And, once again to his credit, Novak seemed to appreciate my point, whether or not he actually agreed. He nodded in comprehension, thanked me again for the talk, and settled down to wait for his flight.
Chatting Theology with Robert Novak Read More »
I had just stepped out of the shower yesterday (getting a bit of a late start, yes) when the building began to shake. We’re on the ninth floor of a twelve-story building in downtown Los Angeles, so it was quite exciting there for a while — the ground shook for maybe twenty seconds, the cat scampered under the bed, and an item or two had to be rescued from imminent spillage off of bookshelves. (Our cat has her own blog, so it usually takes quite a shock to drag her away from the internets.)
But a minor earthquake overall, just 5.4 on the Richter scale. No significant damage, even closer to the center (we were about 30 miles away). The interesting thing is that within seconds after the event you could hop to the US Geological Survey page to find a map of all the world’s recent earthquakes, and then home in on this one. Obviously most of the information is computer generated, although the main page for the earthquake does reassure you that “This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.”
So you can check out the Shake Map, of course:
We’re right on top of the dot labeled “Los Angeles.” But you can also find Google maps, travel times for the shocks,
and of course — waveforms!
Earthquakes are so much better with science. The only downside is that I spent the immediate aftermath looking for the kitty rather than drying my hair, so I went through the rest of the day with the dreaded “earthquake hair.”
September 29, 2007 was the happiest day of my life.
But now my happiness is being undermined. Not by my lovely wife, but by all of these Californians who, starting today, are getting legally gay-married. How can we maintain our marital bliss when all around us other people are feeling blissful with partners of the same gender? It’s degrading, the Pope says, and who can argue?
Okay, it’s hard to be snarky about this issue, I’m too sentimental. Discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual identities is one of the last remaining officially-sanctioned forms of inequity in our culture, and it’s incredibly moving to see the joy on the faces of so many newly-married couples as the barriers come (belatedly, tentatively) tumbling down.
Today is a big day. If anyone is in need of some good last-minute wedding vows, you are welcome to borrow ours. The algorithm was simple: take the Form of the Solemnization of Matrimony from the Book of Common Prayer, remove all the references to God (there are a lot of them), and sprinkle with some quotes that express your own feelings. Also, substitute appropriate names for the numbers.
OFFICIANT: Dearly Beloved — We are gathered together here today to witness the joining of [1] and [2] in Matrimony.
Marriage is an honorable estate: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, and soberly.
Upon completion of the ceremony, we understand that one is not obliged to remain utterly sober, nor for that matter perfectly discreet.
The estate of matrimony attempts the impossible: to formalize the love between two people. In the words of W.H. Auden:
Rejoice, dear love, in Love’s peremptory word;
All chance, all love, all logic, you and I,
Exist by grace of the Absurd,
And without conscious artifice we die:So, lest we manufacture in our flesh
The lie of our divinity afresh,
Describe round our chaotic malice now,
The arbitrary circle of a vow.By our presence here tonight, we elevate conscious artifice to a heartfelt celebration of the uniting of two lives.
Then shall the Minster say unto [1],
O: 1, will you have 2 to be your partner in life? Will you love her, comfort her, honor, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keeping only to her, so long as you both shall live?
1: I will.
Then shall the Minster say unto [2],
O: 2, will you have 1 to be your partner in life? Will you love him, comfort him, honor, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keeping only to him, so long as you both shall live?
2: I will.
O, to 1: 1, will you take 2’s hand and repeat after me.
I, 1, take you, 2, to be my partner in life,
to have and to hold from this day forward,
for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish, till death us do part;
and thereto I plight my troth.O, to 2: 2, will you take 1 hand and repeat after me.
I, 2, take you, 1, to be my partner in life,
to have and to hold from this day forward,
for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish, till death us do part;
and thereto I plight my troth.Then shall they again loose their hands; and 1 shall give unto 2 a Ring in this wise: the Officiant taking the ring shall deliver it unto 1, speaking their name out loud, to put it upon the fourth finger of 2’s left hand. And 1 holding the Ring there, and taught by the Officiant, shall say,
1: I give you this ring as a symbol of my enduring love.
Then 2 shall give unto 1 a Ring in this wise: the Officiant taking the ring shall deliver it unto 2, speaking their name out loud, to put it upon the fourth finger of 1’s left hand. And 2 holding the Ring there, shall say,
2: I give you this ring as a symbol of my enduring love.
O: Together we have gathered to share our blessings with 2 and 1 as they begin their lives together. As Rainier Maria Rilke once advised a young poet:
“We must trust in what is difficult. It is good to be solitary,
for solitude is difficult. It is also good to love, because love is difficult.
For one human being to love another human being: that is perhaps
the most difficult task that has been entrusted to us, the ultimate task,
the final test and proof, the work for which all other work is mere preparation….
Love consists in this: that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other.”Then shall the Officiant speak unto the company.
O: Inasmuch as 1 and 2 have pledged their troth, I now pronounce them together for life. You may celebrate as you wish.
Congratulations to everyone getting married today! Go plight those troths!
Anyone watching this evening’s episode of Comedy Central’s new Lewis Black vehicle, The Root of All Evil (10:30, 9:30 Central), might just see some familiar scientists and/or bloggers. Maybe.
Elsewhere, stars of the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory (about which more anon) seem to have been reading up on their Spacetime and Geometry.
No appreciable bump in my Amazon ranking, though.
Today is my first true blogiversary — Preposterous Universe opened for business on Leap Day 2004, so I only get to celebrate once every four years.
Here is a random collection of some favorite posts, although this is off the top of my head so who knows what hidden gems were missed?
Here’s to the next four years!
Ten Percent of My Life Read More »
… unless you have a white board to doodle on.
Jennifer has the scoop. If you look closely, you’ll see not only bits about entropy and Einstein’s equation (twice), but some hurricanes, stem cells, allusion to a recent blog post, and a clever design for a lunar lander.
It’s Not Really a Party… Read More »
Andrew Olmsted was a U.S. soldier who occasionally posted at Obsidian Wings as G’Kar. He was killed yesterday in Iraq. Andrew (who I didn’t know personally) had written a piece with the specific intention of having it posted only in the event of his death. It was posted today by hilzoy.
I write this in part, admittedly, because I would like to think that there’s at least a little something out there to remember me by. Granted, this site will eventually vanish, being ephemeral in a very real sense of the word, but at least for a time it can serve as a tiny record of my contributions to the world. But on a larger scale, for those who knew me well enough to be saddened by my death, especially for those who haven’t known anyone else lost to this war, perhaps my death can serve as a small reminder of the costs of war. Regardless of the merits of this war, or of any war, I think that many of us in America have forgotten that war means death and suffering in wholesale lots. A decision that for most of us in America was academic, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, had very real consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. Yet I was as guilty as anyone of minimizing those very real consequences in lieu of a cold discussion of theoretical merits of war and peace. Now I’m facing some very real consequences of that decision; who says life doesn’t have a sense of humor?
I don’t think the war in Iraq was a good idea. But I have enormous respect and admiration for the people who volunteer and put their lives on the line to serve in the military; they’re not the ones who decide what wars to get into. My heart goes out to Andrew’s friends, colleagues, and family.
Very sad to report that Sidney Coleman passed away yesterday. Sidney, a professor at Harvard, was one of the greatest theoretical physicists of recent times. He doesn’t share the name recognition among the general public that some of his contemporaries have — he was always more interested in the deep underlying principles of quantum field theory than in any particular model of the universe — but no student of high-energy physics could help but be deeply influenced by his thinking, both through his research and his famous Erice lectures. He was an invaluable resource when I was a grad student at Harvard, both through his quantum field theory course and through many hours spent in his office pestering him with specific questions. At my wedding just a couple of months ago, some of the happy-memory-sharing involved trading our favorite Sidney quotes; “Modesty forbids me but honesty compels me” was my personal choice.
Sidney’s papers were not like anyone else’s. One of his classic quotes, from a paper with de Luccia on “Gravitational Effects on and of Vacuum Decay“:
The possibility that we are living in a false vacuum has never been a cheering one to contemplate. Vacuum decay is the ultimate ecological catastrophe; in the new vacuum there are new constants of nature; after vacuum decay, not only is life as we know it impossible, so is chemistry as we know it. However, one could always draw stoic comfort from the possibility that perhaps in the course of time the new vacuum would sustain, if not life as we know it, at least some structures capable of knowing joy. This possibility has now been eliminated.
Plenty of people aspire to be profound and playful at the same time; Sidney could pull it off, and had the technical chops to back it up.
Sidney had been sick for the last few years. In 2005 there was a conference in his honor, which arguably featured the greatest concentration of physics talent in recent memory; I wasn’t there, but Jacques Distler blogged a bit about it.
Physics will be a little bit duller without him.
We’re back! Jennifer and I, that is, having successfully gotten married and then immediately swanning off for the honeymoon. Nobody got hurt, as far as I know, and all in all I highly recommend the experience. No pics of the actual event yet, sorry about that.
The ceremony was beautiful. It was held at Marvimon, a reconstructed 1920’s auto showroom north of Downtown LA, now owned by artist couple Sherry Walsh and Miguel Nelson, who rent it out for private parties. Let me just say that Sherry and Miguel were enormously useful in pointing us to good people to help with all of the stuff that goes into throwing a smashing wedding. Most of all they introduced us to our caterers, Jon Shook and Vinny Dotolo, a/k/a the Food Dudes, who whipped up some of the best bacon-wrapped dates and corn chowder and mac-and-cheese you’re ever likely to find. We hired them just in time, too — next week they have a show debuting on the Food Network, Two Dudes Catering, and pretty soon we won’t be able to afford them.
Our ceremony was performed by Rev. Mark Trodden, newly ordained by the Progressive Universal Life Church just for the occasion. (Although apparently you get a parking sticker, so there are benefits.) We wrote our own vows, based on the following algorithm: start with the Form for the Solemnization of Matrimony from the Book of Common Prayer, then remove from it all the references to God and anything too clunkily archaic (we crossed out the bit about “carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding”). You’re left with not much text, but a nice outline. Then insert into that some nice secular meditations on the meaning of love and marriage; we used W.H. Auden,
Rejoice, dear love, in Love’s peremptory word;
All chance, all love, all logic, you and I,
Exist by grace of the Absurd,
And without conscious artifice we die:So, lest we manufacture in our flesh
The lie of our divinity afresh,
Describe round our chaotic malice now,
The arbitrary circle of a vow.
and Rainer Maria Rilke,
We must trust in what is difficult. It is good to be solitary, for solitude is difficult. It is also good to love, because love is difficult. For one human being to love another human being: that is perhaps the most difficult task that has been entrusted to us, the ultimate task, the final test and proof, the work for which all other work is mere preparation…. Love consists in this: that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other.
Season with some interpolating phrases featuring a bit of levity, and you’re done.
Not that I would know, but I suspect that getting married when you’re 40-ish is a substantially different experience than when your 25-ish. Not that either is intrinsically better or worse, but it’s helpful to have some experience with other parties and weddings, and a sufficiently matured sense of taste that you both know exactly what you want. And it’s extremely nice to bring together people who have meant so much to you over various different phases of your life, and collect them in one place to celebrate the beginning of the next phase with the person you love.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bloodless-academic-sciencey blogging.
Troths Have Been Plighted Read More »