Don’t worry, we’re not asking for money. Admittedly, that’s what usually happens when the word “charity” appears, i.e. at our Donors Choose challenges. But now I have a whopping $100 burning a hole in my pocket, due to my plucky third-place finish in the 3 Quarks Daily contest. Back when I was a struggling grad student or post doc, this would have gone straight to pay for Ramen noodles or whatever. But now that I am a faculty member who lives in a nice house and drives a fancy car, I can pay it forward a bit.

Thus, I’m going to take the $100 and match it myself, donating $200 to charity. (Yes I know, the big spender. Hey, it was only 3rd place.) There are plenty of charities I know about already, but I thought that since these ill-gotten gains were based on the blog, I should ask the blog for advice.

So in comments I’d like to get your pitches for a worthy cause I might not have heard of. The winner — in a contest judged only by me — will get the $200. It will be most effective if you leave both an explanation of why this charity is so great, and a link to an easy way to donate.

Of course there is a hidden agenda here — while I’m giving away this huge pile of money, anyone else who reads the list is welcome to be inspired to donate as well. No pressure, except that you would be a better person and feel good about yourself.

Pitch away.

Fabio Gironi recently interviewed me at length for an issue of Speculations, a “Journal of Speculative Realism.” The subject was science and philosophy, which I’ve been known to opine about at some length. But here we’re talking great length indeed. The interview isn’t available separately, but you can download the pdf of the whole issue here (or buy it as a bound copy). My bit starts on page 313. (The rest of the issue is also worth checking out.)

I’m a big believer that academic disciplines should engage in messy interactions, not keep demurely separate from each other. But it’s a tricky business. Just because I’m (purportedly) an expert in one thing doesn’t make me an expert in everything else; on the other hand, it is possible that one area has something to offer another one. So I am in favor of dabbling, but with humility. It’s good for people to have thoughts and opinions about issues outside their immediate expertise, and to offer them in good faith, but it’s bad if they become convinced that experts in other areas are all idiots. So when you find yourself disagreeing with the consensus of expertise in some well-established field, it might very well be because of your superior insight and training, or maybe you’re just missing something. Hopefully in an exchange like this I have something to offer without making too many blunders that would make real experts cringe.

Here’s a sample of the interview.

SC: I would be extremely suspicious of any attempts to judge that the world must ‘necessarily’ be some way rather than any other. I can imagine different worlds—or at least I think I can—so I don’t believe that this is the only possible world. That would also go for any particular feature of the laws this world follows, including their stability. Maybe the laws are constant through time, maybe they are not. (Maybe time is a fundamental concept, maybe it isn’t). We don’t yet know, but it seems clear to me that these are empirical questions, not a priori ones. Because we want to understand the world in terms that are as simple as possible, the idea that the underlying laws are stable is an obvious first guess, but one that must then be tested against the data. Said in a slightly different language: any metaphysical considerations concerning what qualities the world should properly have can be taken seriously and incorporated into Bayesian priors for evaluating theories, but ultimately those theories are judged against experiment. We should listen to the world, not decide ahead of time what it must be.

Very excited to learn that my talk from TEDxCaltech is featured on the TED home page today. They have their own comment thread, and in a couple of weeks we’ll have a live call-in “conversation with the speaker” deal. If the Twitters are to be believed, these TED talks are pretty darn popular.

The talk is a punchy, 15-minute version of my usual cosmology-and-the-arrow-of-time schtick. Glad to see the arrow of time get some more publicity; sophisticated Cosmic Variance readers know all about it, but not everyone is so lucky. When Brian Cox did an episode of Wonders of the Universe that discussed the arrow of time, the comments were all “Wow, what an amazing concept, never heard of that!” Obviously reading the wrong blogs.

But I can’t help but notice something about the presentation on the TED home page…

Each talk is advertised by an image from the video; in most cases it’s a picture of the speaker actually giving the talk. But for mine, they (wisely) went with the Hubble Deep Field.

Lesson: you can’t compete with the universe! It’s bigger, smarter, and prettier, too.

It’s hard to have a clear-eyed discussion about academic jobs and tenure, both because emotions and stakes are very high and because everyone (including me) tends to universalize their personal experience. So let me just jot down some closing thoughts in the interest of clarity.

As Julianne says, there is a worry that passionate young scientists who read about how hard it is to get jobs or tenure will be dissuaded from even trying. I certainly appreciate that, and wouldn’t want to be responsible for scaring anyone away from this job I love so much myself. On the other hand, there is a countervailing worry: that in our attempts to convey our own enthusiasm for this career, we will be insufficiently honest about the difficult challenges it entails. I want to be as clear and open as possible about both the joys and the hurdles, and leave it up to responsible individuals to make their own choices. Of course there are many people who happily violate various of the guidelines I suggested, and nevertheless have no trouble getting tenure. It’s the underlying of the guidelines, not any of the individual points, that I would rather have explicit than hidden.

I sometimes hear people complain that senior scientists paint a rosy picture to lure unsuspecting students into their labs, shielding them from the harsh realities of the job market, just to squeeze a few years of indentured servitude out of them before they are blindsided by the realities of the academic career path. Most such griping, I figure, has to be some kind of defense mechanism; I certainly know that when I was in grad school we were all completely aware of what the job market was really like, and talked about it all the time. I make sure to talk openly about it with prospective students, and with students who want to have me as their advisor. But my sense is that there is not as much open talk about the tenure process, so I thought I could add some perspective. My guidelines were quite purposefully stark, to balance some of the vagueness that often characterizes the topic. As long as the institution of tenure exists, some people will be denied it, which is inevitable; what is not fine is if people are legitimately surprised when it happens. That should never occur.

It shouldn’t come as news that getting tenure at a top place requires a certain amount of focus and dedication to the task at hand. It’s not nearly as bad as, say, a concert violinist or an olympic gymnast. Only a very few people get to have these highly sought-after jobs, and it will naturally be beneficial to try as hard as you can if you want to be one of them. My purpose in the blog post was to emphasize what form that trying should take if that is your goal, not to frighten people with how hard it is.

(more…)

You’ve already heard about TEDx from Sean here and here. The main TED conference for 2011 has been going on this week, in Long Beach, and rumors have it that it’s been great. Physicist Janna Levin gave a talk, which is not yet posted. A few of the talks are, though — check out this inspiringly optimistic view of the current situation in the Arab world from Wadah Khanfar. More TED talks here, the ones from this week are starting to appear.

In any case, one of the first very large TEDx Events was organized as a part of Universal Children’s Day in November, with a whole bunch of simultaneous organized events called TEDxYouth. I had the opportunity to give a talk at one of the events TEDxYouth Castellija, to about 400 middle and high school students, about how the Universe works.

Because of the younger audience, they cut the standard ted talk time of 18 minutes to 6 minutes, which made it even harder — at least for those of us used to having a whole hour to say something! Anyways, I managed to try to explain dark matter, galaxies, and the last 14 billion years in this short time. You can take a look here:

The rest of the speaker lineup was really great, and very diverse, including a graffiti artist, the founder of guitar hero, the google chef, and a super compelling biochemist.

My favorite talk was by Garang Akau, one of the lost boys of Sudan, who has subsequently graduated from Stanford and started his own NGO called New Scholars, focused on incubating youth-led enterprise in Africa. His fearlessness and optimism in the face of incredible hardship was seriously inspiring. Check it out:

The best part of the whole thing was meeting and talking with some of the kids, who were truly engaged and curious. Lots more awesome talks are available from TEDxYouth Castelleja and from the rest of the TEDxYouth events. Looks like the day was a smashing success all around, and will be happening again next November.

Bruce Winstein, an experimental physicist at the University of Chicago, passed away this morning. He had been fighting cancer.

Bruce was a fantastic physicist and person. He became well-known as a particle experimentalist, forgoing giant collaborations to work in small groups where he could do something unique. He was the leader of the KTeV experiment at Fermilab, which measured the very subtle “direct” CP violation effect. He won the Panofsky Prize from the American Physical Society for this work.

In an especially impressive move, he then decided that he wanted to switch fields, into cosmology. He took a sabbatical year and went to Princeton, where he basically worked as a grad student in Suzanne Staggs’ lab, learning the trade of cosmic microwave background observations from the ground up. Then he came back to Chicago, where he started and was the founding director of the Center for Cosmological Physics, later the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics. Once that was up and running, he moved back into research full-time, becoming a leader of the QUIET collaboration.

Bruce was a great friend, and a valued mentor while I was at Chicago. He was one of the few faculty members to reach out and invite me into his office when I arrived, and was always ready to talk about physics — or music. He was a true audiophile, and connoisseur of jazz in particular. It was Bruce who introduced me to the music of Von Freeman (who just won the prestigious Rosenberger Medal from the University of Chicago).

Bruce died far too young. We’ll miss him greatly.

Talks from the TEDxCaltech event are gradually coming online. You’ll definitely want to check out Scott Aaronson’s contribution, which was a clear highlight. (The biggest highlight was the closing jam session featuring keyboard wizard Lyle Mays and Tuvan throat-singer Ondar. You heard right.)

Bloggy narcissism demands that I feature my own talk. It was about the arrow of time, with some Feynman thrown in. As usual, the clip is frozen at at point that shows me to best advantage.

But just to show it’s not all about me, you should also see this talk by awesome undergrad Jordan Theriot. I would have been a puddle of nervous jelly in this venue at that age.

Have I mentioned that my lovely wife Jennifer writes a blog called Cocktail Party Physics? And that she’s written a wonderful book called The Calculus Diaries: How Math Can Help You Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, And Survive a Zombie Apocalypse?

Well it’s hardly any secret now. Last night she was on one of the best things on TV these days, the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Where she rocked, both literally and figuratively.

How much more proud could I be? None more proud.

For you L.A. locals, tonight I’m giving an informal talk at the Alhambra Library; all are welcome. Which reminds me of a few other public events coming up:

• Of course TEDxCaltech is this Friday.
• On Monday 24 January I’m giving a public lecture at my alma mater, Villanova University, on Philadelphia’s scenic Main Line.
• For any glamorous cinephiles who will be at the Sundance Film Festival, I’ll be on a panel on Friday the 28th to talk about science and movies.
• On January 30 I’m giving a talk for the Skeptic Society. No details yet, but it will be at Caltech. I’ll be busting out a brand new talk, on the laws of nature and the meaning of life.
• On February 21 I’m giving a colloquium at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh. No explicit public talk, but they usually allow interlopers.
• On March 1 I’m giving a public lecture at Reed College in Portland. Back to the arrow of time for this one.
• The last weekend in March, Jennifer and I are doing some sort of joint gig at the San Diego Science Festival. Details yet to coalesce.
• On April 5 I’m doing a fun event as part of the ALOUD series at the LA public library. It’s a joint appearance with poet Jane Hirshfield. We’ll be seeking common ground between our disciplines; failing that, fisticuffs.

There are also some special big-ticket events coming up this summer — more once they are whipped into shape.

Gabrielle Giffords, 40-year-old U.S. representative from Arizona, was shot in the head at a public event this morning. Several people were killed, including a nine-year-old girl. Police have a suspect in custody.

[Update: I originally wrote that Giffords had been killed; this was wrong, and I apologize for the misinformation. That's what NPR and CNN and other outlets were reporting, and I mistakenly assumed that they wouldn't do so without incontrovertible reason. She is in critical condition following surgery. A doctor at the hospital says he is "optimistic" about a recovery -- please please please let this be true.]

I met Gabby at a reception a year ago. She seemed, on our very brief acquaintance, to be a really wonderful person — energetic, smart, full of optimism about doing good things as a member of Congress. Her husband, Mark Kelly, is an astronaut. If I may step away from the ideal of journalistic objectivity for a moment, this is a stupid fucking tragedy.

When a politician is shot, people will draw political conclusions. In this case, Gabby had been “targeted” by her political opponents using explicitly violent language. Sarah Palin released a map with a target site pointing at her district; her opponent had a “shoot an M16” fundraiser. (Via @mattyglesias.) At the time, various people were horrified at the casual invocation of this kind of violent rhetoric. Is it now inappropriate to link that rhetoric to the actual violence? I have no idea whether her killer was politically motivated in any way — he might have just been an unstable person with no agenda at all. Regardless, it would be good to tone down the language of deadly force in political discussions. Maybe both Democrats and Republicans can agree on that.

My heart goes out to her family and friends, as well as those of the other victims. We need more public servants like Gabby Giffords.