Comments on: Building the Next Science Thingy

By: tyler

tyler — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:43:45 +0000

lol spyder…I got it…

science-writing-for-the-rest-of-us is often distorted to the point of outright inaccuracy, which I find very frustrating. I’d rather read something that’s accurate but I can’t grasp in totality than something comprehensible but wrong. “Popular” explanations of the gauge principle top my list of the worst offenders in this regard.

By: Christophe de Dinechin

Christophe de Dinechin — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:47:16 +0000

Very funny. I think the part I liked the most is, on the figure, bullet 5. “Science ends”. Enough said

But it’s not just talking to politicians. Science for the layman can sound pretty bizarre too. How frequently have you laughed at the “popular” version of an article you read?

By: spyder

spyder — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:40:31 +0000

So it is not true, that the faster you go the rounder you get??? Damn, you can’t learn anything from rock-n-roll.

By: Reginald Selkirk

Reginald Selkirk — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:56:47 +0000

That was a very interesting article. Best wishes to your colleague David Kaminski in his efforts.

By: meewok

meewok — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:36:01 +0000

to be quite honest, i thought it was a truthful article… but then i read the first sentance… science-maker? you can’t simply make science-its already there! and then, whaddya know! the Onion! it was amusing while my confusion lasted though!

By: Neil B.

Neil B. — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:00:29 +0000

BTW, isn’t it really a shame how much real physics is being held up by budget crunches, mostly because what’s left after all that war spending, pork, and special tax cuts for favored well-heeled constituents? A buddy of mine was just laid off from Jefferson Lab, and it will be hard for him to find real work.

By: Ian B Gibson

Ian B Gibson — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:45:04 +0000

Hey- if you want a real challenge, just try explaining neutrinos and how they are detected..

By: Blake Stacey

Blake Stacey — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:38:05 +0000

I think there's actually an interesting and moderately serious point in the way the Onion's Congresspeople respond to "math".

By: Manas Shaikh

Manas Shaikh — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 06:46:07 +0000

The questions arn’t that bad, really, if you take out all the advantage you have because you know so much! (smiley)

By: John

John — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:25:25 +0000

Neil: if you want to talk about it that way, atoms don’t spin, as such…the nucleus has its own spin, and the electrons have their own orbital angular momentum around the nucleus. You can sort of think of the outer electrons as moving more slowly than the inner ones. The whole atom has some overall angular momentum.

In a molecule, though, which is rotating, the outer atoms are moving faster on average than the inner ones, I think it’s fair to say. Perhaps there are physical chemists or physicists out there who have used this fact in laser spectroscopy? That is in an intereting thought… The idea would be to tune the laser just above or below some transition threshold and stimulate the outer but not inner atoms.