Okay, more than one person has sent me this, and it’s even appeared on Daily Kos, so I suppose we must give it a hearing. The BBC is reporting that physics is the key to love. Well, who didn’t know that?
Successful couples are said to have chemistry, but a study by an Oxford graduate suggests that dating may actually have more to do with physics.
Richard Ecob adapted a system for modelling atoms in radioactive decay to investigate how we look for partners.
He found that “super daters”, people who have many short relationships, have a good effect on others’ lives.
This is because they break up weak couples, forcing their victims to find better relationships.
That’s right, folks: when some suave Cassanova or Cassanovette steals your honey from you, it’s all for the greater good, as you will be forced to find a better relationship. It must be true, physics says so.
To model the phenomenon, he wrote a computer program which placed “software singles”, people seeking partners, in an imaginary social network.
Each single had a set of interests, which they also looked for in potential partners.
The research suggested that multiple daters, those who form many relationships, were less effective at finding the right partner than those who remained in one place and let others come to them.
Something tells me that a lot of this research falls in the category of a “thought experiment.”
August 16th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Oh, I must be confused — I thought it was that “physicists were the key to love.” Well, how does that explain my unusual and occasional attraction to physicists? Hmm, another thought experiment. ; )
August 16th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Oh, they are the key to love. But it might be because they have the smell of physics on them from a hard day at work at the physics factory.
-cvj
August 16th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Sean said:
“This is because they break up weak couples, forcing their victims to find better relationships.”
It is still chemistry, not physics, Sean. The effect you described above is called catalyst. Read some chemistry book
Quantoken
August 16th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Aha! I see now, thanks, Clifford. And here I wrongly believed that delicious and mysteriously compelling aroma to be coming from the bottle of zinfandel. Or the basket of french fries. In any case, it seems that working longer at the physics factory would increase the saturation of these fragrances. Quite a lovely paradox, if so. : )
August 16th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
I think the physics connection there is that the “Super-daters” lead to the creation of “Super-partners”, and inevitably with enough invocations of the word “super” it will be claimed by Kaku as indirect evidence of supserstring theory.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Thought experiment? What about love coming from the heart not the head?!
August 16th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
What happends when the experimenter ventures out of the lab and into the singles scene?
August 16th, 2005 at 6:14 pm
citrine–
The experimenter meets that perfect theorist and together they reach that global minimum alluded to above…
August 16th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
I guess this is the love post. Oh, how I love physics.
August 16th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
The popular press never gets the details right. Without superdaters, the running coupling constants don’t meet at a point, and the true symmetry of love just can’t happen.
August 16th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
Actually, Quantoken, it’s chemistry if the couples are molecules, physics if they are subatomic particles, either one if they are atoms.
Either way it’s incredibly stupid.
August 17th, 2005 at 8:55 am
What about the quantum effects??!?!
August 17th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Did he take into account effects of any forces that are attractive at large distances but are repulsive when the separation range is short?
August 17th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
It’s game theory, which is the interaction of humans where the outcome depends on the strategies of two or more players in opposition. Game theory falls into the realm of mathematics, economics, and behavioral science.
Who knows maybe there is a mathematical correlation between human behavior and the radioactive decay of atoms. Love = Decay…sounds about right to me.
August 17th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
Dating illustrates the power of physics….for good and evil.
Brraaakkk! Does not compute! Does not compute!
August 19th, 2005 at 4:00 am
“Something tells me that a lot of this research falls in the category of a “thought experiment.”
Yup. Or so-called “mental masturbation,” as a professor at Caltech used to say. (I forgot his name.)
Seriously, though, if people are interested in finding out about the theory of love, I highly recommend “A general theory of love” by Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon. It is more about the neurobiology of emotions, and “love” also refers to non-romantic love, like that between parent and child. It’s written at a lay audience level.