Via everywhere on the internet, here’s Jeremiah McDonald, who used a 20-year-old videotape of his younger self to carry on a conversation across time. (Seems legit at a casual glance, but I suppose it could be faked.)
Sadly we can’t actually transfer information into the past. If we could, I would have started writing this book a bit earlier.
I’m going to hop on a plane to Geneva. Have to see a man about a boson.
Here’s something to tide you over. A bit of friendly international-competition humor. [NSFW captions.]
“I should have gone into string theory!”
Accordingly, the alleged injury, destruction of the earth, is in no way attributable to the U.S. government’s failure to draft an environmental impact statement.
Of course, maybe we’re just lucky enough to live in the branch of the wave function where the disaster didn’t happen?
The next obvious step in the robots’ scheme to take over the world: develop an unbeatable strategy for Rock-Paper-Scissors. (The robots are patient, their plan has a lot of steps.)
It didn’t bother me when computers became better than us at chess, but this is outrageous.
Tony Piro, the artist behind the webcomic Calamities of Nature, explains the relationship between science and the supernatural better than I ever could.
Click for the rest of the exciting story. Via Evolving Thoughts.
Jorge Cham, creator of the celebrated PhD Comics, sits down to talk with Daniel Whiteson and Jonathan Feng about dark matter (and visible matter!). But rather than a dry and boring video of the encounter, he cleverly illustrates the whole conversation.
I think it’s an exaggeration to say we have “no idea” about dark energy — physicists like to say this to impress upon people how weird DE is, but it gives the wrong impression because we actually do know something about it. But not much!
Update: darn it, Phil beat me by minutes. Always check your RSS reader before posting something from elsewhere on the internets.
Backstory: Bill O’Reilly is very fond of using the tides as evidence that science doesn’t understand everything. Apparently some pinheads tried to point out that we actually do understand that.
At a slightly deeper level: this is a good example of a worldview that can only imagine ultimate explanations taking the form of reference to some person — a being, a kind of conscious agent, who does things for reasons. If you try to give explanations that simply refer to the laws of physics, they will never be satisfied.
In the real world, things happen, not always for (those kind of) reasons. The laws of physics might not have any deeper explanation.