Comments on: 3tweets

By: Phillip Helbig

Phillip Helbig — Tue, 24 May 2011 21:06:20 +0000

What is the simplest thing which cannot be explained in three tweets?

By: Weisskid

Weisskid — Sat, 21 May 2011 17:45:04 +0000

The Hubbell telescope detects light that was emitted by galaxies ~10 billion years ago. Where were these galaxies relative to ours when they emitted that light and why has it taken that long to get here?

By: DPSinVenice

DPSinVenice — Wed, 18 May 2011 23:05:45 +0000

This post reminds me of twitterature: eg,
Pride and Prejudice: janeaustin: Woman meets man called Darcy who seems horrible. He turns out to be nice really. They get together.
http://www.blogherald.com/2009/05/12/great-works-of-literature-get-the-twitter-redux/

By: Bob Kirshner

Bob Kirshner — Wed, 18 May 2011 01:31:09 +0000

Sean–
Concision is not wisdom.

As ever,

Bob

By: Missy

Missy — Mon, 16 May 2011 20:22:19 +0000

LOL I think that was as much fun as seeing you speak at Griffith Observatory last year

By: James

James — Mon, 16 May 2011 10:58:39 +0000

@19:

I agree about disliking the “molasses” analogy, but then see http://xkcd.com/895/. I don’t actually mind the “warped sheet” analogy for warped space, but it’s when people use to demonstrate gravitational attraction that it bugs me.

By: Anders R

Anders R — Mon, 16 May 2011 09:12:07 +0000

They’re not going to find the Higgs so it’s alright.

By: Rhys

Rhys — Mon, 16 May 2011 08:52:54 +0000

‘Weap’ is right…

But more on topic: I *hate* the “moving through molasses” analogy. People aren’t going to understand the Higgs mechanism without studying some QFT, and the associated mathematics. Short of that, you might as well leave it at “the Higgs field gives mass to the W and Z bosons, and elementary fermions”.

By: Anders R

Anders R — Mon, 16 May 2011 07:33:35 +0000

Here you go Sean. read and weap:

http://motionmountain.net/research.html

By: Anders R

Anders R — Mon, 16 May 2011 07:31:57 +0000

And the problems with lack of posibility to experimentally falsify the hypothesis. Even if no Higgs boson and no supersymmetry is found there will still be string theories available to cover up for that situation. Through the work of people like Peter Woit among others there seem to be a gradual decline in respect for the subject however. One interesting example of this is the interview Brian Greene did on NPR in january. There was a distinct amount of scepticism in that interview that hasn’t really been part of the mainstream discussion on the subject until now. For a more interesting approach (that is immediately falsified if supersymmetry, extra dimension, a higgs boson or dark matter is foun) see for example Cristoph Schillers strand-theory.

By: Anders R

Anders R — Mon, 16 May 2011 07:26:00 +0000

I guess the caveat that “when the couplings are small” is what makes it possible to omitt the 10 times whatever number of other possible string vacuua.

By: John R Ramsden

John R Ramsden — Sun, 15 May 2011 23:57:31 +0000

@Massaro (#3)

Didn’t Prof John Wheeler summarize General Relativity in one tweet, before Twitter was even invented?

“”Space tells matter how to move; matter tells space how to curve.”

By: God

God — Sun, 15 May 2011 20:23:50 +0000

Because that’s how things have worked for thousands of years.

Why do we read from top to bottom?

By: James

James — Sun, 15 May 2011 18:08:18 +0000

Alright, I have a twitter account and have used it for almost nothing, but I thought this worth a challenge, so I tried the AdS/CFT Correspondence (holographic or gauge/gravity duality) in three tweets. I thought it might be impossible before I tried it and now, having done it, I think… yep, still impossible. Anyone else care to have a go?

http://twitter.com/#!/RealJamesFrench

By: Kai Teorn

Kai Teorn — Sun, 15 May 2011 16:40:36 +0000

Sean,

sorry if you already wrote about it and I missed it, but what is your opinion on the recent attempts to derive all of physics from entropy and information (Verlinde, Jae-Weon Lee and many others)? Do they have a point or is this just jugglery with symbols?

By: Gordon

Gordon — Sun, 15 May 2011 03:19:06 +0000

Of course you could just tweet “42′ and dispense with all other tweets.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 14 May 2011 19:10:08 +0000

QFT: What you’ve done there is describe classical field theory (which I understand), and the exclusion principle/spin statistics (which I sort of understand). And completely skipped the quantum part or the many particle part, neither of which anyone has ever even sketched adequately.

By: ChuckWhite

ChuckWhite — Sat, 14 May 2011 13:23:01 +0000

3tweets … what an interesting idea … also seems like a concept anyone can use to clarify their thinking when confused or distracted … hee, not that that is why YOU used it.

By: Tristram Brelstaff

Tristram Brelstaff — Sat, 14 May 2011 09:27:25 +0000

You’ve got the basis for a popular book there. (It could be even bigger than “Teach your Dog Quantum Physics”)

By: Serge

Serge — Sat, 14 May 2011 07:40:21 +0000

What I’s like to see:
1. symmetry breaking in 3 tweets
1. renormalization in 3 tweets