Later today I hop in an airplane to fly to the antipodes, or at least to Australia. (The actual antipodes would be in the middle of an ocean.) Looking forward to it, as this will mean I’ve visited every non-Antarctic continent at least once.

But the reason I’m blogging about it is because I’ll be giving some public talks, and it would be great if any local CV readers dropped by to say hi. I’ll be hitting three different cities:

• Monday 16 November: Sydney
• Friday 20 November: Melbourne
• Monday 23 November: Adelaide

With all these public talks in a row, you would almost think I’m touring in support of some sort of book. That was part of the original idea, but now the book won’t be officially released until January 7. So instead I’ll just be talking in support of … Science! And trying to stay clear of dangerous creatures.

p.s. Wow, I almost did an incredibly boneheaded thing by showing up at the airport without a visa. Why in the world do you need a visa to go from the USA to Australia? I thought it was like a southern version of Canada. Fortunately, when you check in online you get “reminded” that a visa is required; even more fortunately, there is an online instant-visa service that seems to work. This is why I’m a theoretical physicist and not put in charge of anything important.

Lev Kofman passed away this morning. He was a great physicist, animated by passion and joy. I was last in his office, at CITA, two years ago. As usual, the conversation stretched across wide swaths of physics, governed only by Lev’s irrepressible enthusiasm and interest. He will be missed.

Lev Kofman: June 17, 1957 – November 12, 2009

We are deeply saddened to inform you that the fabulous Lev Kofman, husband of Anna, father of Sergei 13 and Maria 15, brother of Svetlana, and our great friend, died in the early morning of November 12 from cancer. Many of you were able to commune with Lev as the situation deteriorated over the past weeks, by visits, phone calls, and emails read to him. We are deeply grateful for that: and it provided some solace for Lev to know the tremendous impact he has had on the lives of so many of you.

He bravely kept the physics going strong throughout his illness, characteristic of Lev. His scientific outpourings and influence will transcend this passage. As you know, he made fundamental contributions to Lambda cosmology and dark energy, structure in the cosmic web, inflationary theory, its Gaussian and non-Gaussian aspects, and gravitational waves. He initiated and developed the theory of preheating, showing how all matter could arise from a coherent vacuum energy at the end of inflation, his cosmic baby. And much more besides. He was the quintessential leader, for CITA and CIFAR as a whole, and for the vibrant early universe group he established, providing inspirational guidance to a generation of young researchers.

He felt the physics to his very core. Beyond this, it is the indomitable, fun-loving, deeply philosophical spirit, a gourmand of life in all its manifestations, that we will miss so much.

With our best wishes in these sad times,

Anna Chandarina (Kofman)
Svetlana Kofman
Dick Bond
Andrei Linde
Renata Kallosh

I’ve been meaning to write about this for, well, some time: how do we visualize time? What is the mental picture we have in our heads of this basic dimension of our existence? This is bound to be one the the stranger posts of mine you’ve read, but, so be it.

Looking online I find basically no research or anything written on this subject, but I am quite certain that just about everyone has some picture of time in their heads. For me, it’s quite a visual one, and past events and for that matter future ones are all attached to my mental picture of the time continuum. My notion of all history, from my own to that of the universe is inextricably linked with my internal mental images of time.

The thing is, as I have reflected on how I actually internally visualize time, I have found it to be somewhat bizarre. Or maybe not – I don’t really know because I haven’t really explored this in one-on-one conversation with others and haven’t learned from anything written out there just how different my picture is from others’. So here goes…I hope those of you out there who are intrigued or inspired by this will share their own images.

The main thing is that my mental picture of time changes depending on the time scale involved, from a microsecond to a minute to an hour, day, week, month, year, or many years. Starting at the largest time scales, those of the cosmos, when I am looking back in time over billions of years I imagine the classical, boring sort of “time as a line” progressing from left to right, straight across my mental image. As we zoom in to more recent cosmological time, though, millions of years, the line becomes more of a curve, and curving toward me. But then, very oddly (and this pattern will repeat itself) when we get to the much more recent past, say the last few thousand years, the curve is revealed to be more of a strip of sorts and moving from down and to the right (that’s the best way I can express it) toward the upper left.

It’s really strange: if I think of a time, say, 20 000 years ago, in my mental field of view it’s definitely off to the right, and as I refer to more recent times, the ribbon is such that more recent times are to the left of earlier times.

But this is not absolute: as we get to the last 2000 or so years, the earlier part is sort of coming straight at me, eventually becoming (you got it) a ribbon coming from the lower left to the upper right again. If I am considering the period from the Renaissance to the present, for example, I see a more distant past as actually more distant, off to the left, coming closer in more recent times an moving left to right. The future, on this time scale, goes off to my right sort of behind me (where I can’t see – duh!)

Okay I have probably lost at least 2/3 of the people who started reading this. Huh? Either this is so alien to how they think of time they don’t really see what I am seeing, or don’t care, or think that this is so off that wall it’s not worth reading further.

So, for the rest of you, the next part is where it gets kind of interesting. My mental timeline/ribbon, which has been snaking from left to right and back across my mental field of view, does a few more twists. As I think of the time scale of my life which began in the early 1960′s (okay, 1959), those early 60′s years are sort of again coming straight at me, becoming a left-to-right ribbon in the 70′s and then definitely right-to-left by the mid 80′s. The years from then to now flow from far away and to the right to nearby toward the left. But they don’t cross the center of my mental picture – that’s the present.

If we zoom in further, say to the past several years, the ribbon is a string of months going back. As I view earlier and earlier months they recede, up and to the right, and merge with the ribbon of the decades. Events, major and minor, are recallable by zooming into my past picture of then-present time. They are all there (the ones I remember, anyway), and freakily often I can remember the exact dates and times they occurred.

Last week to a few months ago is definitely on that ribbon, stretching up and to the right as we go further into the past. But then we get to yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Here the ribbon, which is segmented by lines marking the days, does a weird thing. For a given day, the ribbon starts out straight in front of me, going up, as if I had to climb it, the hours marked off by lines. The ribbon climbs up, into the darkness, reaching a peak and then, after midnight, descending down into the next day, week, month, and year, away from me, off into the distance in the left part of my mental view of time.

The future, the near future anyway (years) is definitely to the left in my mind’s eye. (And no, this whole post is not some sort of allegory of my personal political evolution…) The long term future is unpopulated by memories or images of expectations or hopes, and snakes off to the right.

All this changes when we are talking about smaller time scales. As I zoom into the present hour, to finer and finer scales it becomes more and more a straight line extending from left to right. I can zoom in from here to any micro-time scale and it stays the same. Somehow the left-right snaking curve is attached to particular memories, including my memories of historical events about which I have learned. Micro-time is so non-specific that it doesn’t trigger the snaky ribbon time view.

Another oddity about me in particular is that I actually find it hard to use a standard calendar to keep track of appointments, important meetings etc. I don’t see time on that seven-day table! But with a few anchor dates in the future, gotten from standard calendars, I can quickly calculate intervening dates and their days of the week. If I know I have an appointment on December 4, and an exam to give on December 7, I can see in my head what days they are and I do rather well remembering them. But at this moment, for example, I cannot tell you what day of the week Christmas is (though I know next January 18 is a Monday…)

I know there will be plenty of eye-rolling at this possibly boring description of my mental view of time, but, as I say, I hope it will trigger lots of you out there to share your own. If you really think about it (and I bet you probably have not) you so have *some* sort of picture in your head. What is it?

It has been a remarkably busy few weeks for me, as I’ll report on in a post very soon. But I did want to immediately mention one important thing (at least for me personally) that happened recently. A couple of weeks ago I went through my interview (which I got through successfully) for US citizenship. I’ve lived in the US for over seventeen years now, and it’s high time I acquired and exercised my right to vote (and never again apply to renew my green card).

I started the process earlier this year and, apart from a small hiccup with mailing addresses due to my recent change in circumstances, it has, so far, gone incredibly smoothly. Most interestingly to me was that on the several occasions I’ve needed to speak directly with an immigration official by phone, they have been available, polite, and extremely helpful and efficient. Given the stories one often hears, I wasn’t expecting this, and it was a lovely surprise.

While the interview is relatively straightforward for someone like me (English speaking, with a long and continuous employment record, and married to a US citizen for well over a decade), one does have to go through the civics exam, in which one is asked ten questions chosen randomly from a list of one hundred, which one can study in advance from a booklet. The questions are not particularly difficult, and one only needs to get six correct to pass. However, being a good nerd, I studied dutifully, and made sure I could answer all one hundred correctly if necessary.

One particularly disappointing question from the possible choices was:

What is one thing Benjamin Franklin is famous for?

for which the allowed answers were given as

• U.S. diplomat
• oldest member of the Constitutional Convention
• first Postmaster General of the United States
• writer of “Poor Richard’s Almanac”
• started the first free libraries

Even though I’m now a member of the Penn community, I wasn’t offended that these didn’t include founding the University of Pennsylvania. However, although this is a civics test, as a physicist I would have loved to see some reference to Franklin’s scientific activities. Nevertheless, arguing this with my examiner did not seem to be a smart course of action, and so I stayed silent, and sold Franklin out.

The other problem for the geek taking the citizenship test is that if you get six correct before the examiner reaches ten questions, he just stops asking, and tells you you’ve passed. One must then avoid the temptation to say “No, come on, ask me the rest! I know the answers, honestly, just try me!” Pathetic, I know.

One thing about the Facebook era is: you can’t forget it’s your birthday. Facebook tells all your friends, and they send along cheerful greetings. And then you feel all happy until you find that Neil deGrasse Tyson has the same birthday as you, and many more Facebook friends. But he’s older, so there. I like to think my best years are still ahead of me.

I know what you’re thinking: “Gee, Sean, here it is your birthday, and me with no way to send you a present.” But that’s not true! Because I would consider it a wonderful present if you could send $10 to, for example:

Ms. V’s classroom in Louisiana, where junior-high students in a high-poverty area need some calculators to help in their science classes.

Ms. H’s classroom in Oklahoma, whose kindergarten students need some white boards to fit group lessons into their crowded room.

Ms. W’s classroom in New York City, where young children with autism need basic learning aids to help them tackle math.

Or any one of various other worthy classrooms. And don’t feel constrained by that $10 suggestion — there’s plenty more room for larger donations! It’s like you’re giving me a present, and you benefit yourself from the feeling that you are doing something awesome.

In return: actual bloggy content on its way this week.

Unfortunately, I won’t be appearing on Bloggingheads.tv any more. And it is unfortunate — I had some great times there, and there’s an enormous amount to like about the site. So I thought I should explain my reasons.

A few weeks ago we were a bit startled to find a “Science Saturday” episode of BH.tv featuring Paul Nelson, an honest-to-God young-Earth creationist. Not really what most of us like to think of as “science.” So there were emails back and forth trying to figure out what went on. David Killoren, who is the person in charge of the Science Saturday dialogues, is an extremely reasonable guy; we had slightly different perspectives on the matter, but in the end he appreciated the discomfort of the scientists, and we agreed to classify that dialogue as a “failed experiment,” not something that would be a regular feature.

So last week we were startled once again, this time by the sight of a dialogue between John McWhorter and Michael Behe. Behe, some of you undoubtedly know, is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, and chief promulgator of the idea of “irreducible complexity.” The idea is that you can just look at something and know it was “designed,” because changing any bit of it would render the thing useless — so it couldn’t have arisen via a series of incremental steps that were all individually beneficial to the purpose of the object. The classic example was a mousetrap — until someone shows how a mousetrap is, in fact, reducibly complex. Then you change your choice of classic example. Behe had his butt handed to him during his testimony at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial over teaching intelligent design in schools; but embarrassment is not an arrow in the ID quiver, and he hasn’t been keeping quiet since then.

John McWhorter is not a biologist — he’s apparently a linguist, who writes a lot about race. In any event, the dialogue was hardly a grilling — McWhorter’s opening words are:

Michael Behe, I am so glad to meet you, and thank you for agreeing to do this. This is one of the rare times that I have initiated a Bloggingheads pairing, and it’s because I just read your book The Edge of Evolution from 2007, and I found it absolutely shattering. I mean, this is a very important book, and yet I sense, from the reputation or the reception of your book from ten-plus years ago, Darwin’s Black Box, that it may be hard to get a lot of people to understand why the book is so important.

I couldn’t listen to too much after that. McWhorter goes on to explain that he doesn’t see how skunks could have evolved, and what more evidence do you need than that? (Another proof that belongs in the list, as Jeff Harvey points out: “A linguist doesn’t understand skunks. Therefore, God exists.”) Those of us who have participated in Bloggingheads dialogues before have come to expect a slightly more elevated brand of discourse than this.

Then, to make things more bizarre, the dialogue suddenly disappeared from the site. I still have very little understanding why that happened. The reason given was that it was removed at McWhorter’s behest, because he didn’t think it represented him, Behe, or BH.tv very well. I’m sure that is the reason it was removed, although I have no idea what McWhorter was thinking — either when he proposed the dialogue, or while he was doing it, or when he asked that it be taken down. Certainly none of we scientists who were disturbed that the dialogue existed in the first place ever asked that it be removed. That feeds right into the persecution complex of the creationists, who like nothing more than to complain about how they are oppressed by the system. And, on cue, Behe popped up to compare Bloggingheads to Stalinist Russia. But now the dialogue is back up again — so I suppose old comrades can be rehabilitated, after all.

But, while none of the scientists involved with BH.tv was calling for the dialogue to be removed, we were a little perturbed at the appearance of an ID proponent so quickly after we thought we understood that the previous example had been judged a failed experiment. So more emails went back and forth, and this morning we had a conference call with Bob Wright, founder of BH.tv. To be honest, I went in expecting to exchange a few formalities and clear the air and we could all get on with our lives; but by the time it was over we agreed that we were disagreeing, and personally I didn’t want to be associated with the site any more. I don’t want to speak for anyone else; I know that Carl Zimmer was also very bothered by the whole thing, hopefully he will chime in.

It’s important to understand exactly what the objections are. (Again, speaking only for myself; others may object on different grounds.) It’s too easy to guess at what someone else is thinking, then argue against that, rather than work to understand where they are coming from. I tried to lay out my own thinking in the Grid of Disputation post. Namely: if BH.tv has something unique and special going for it, it’s the idea that it’s not just a shouting match, or mindless entertainment. It’s a place we can go to hear people with very different perspectives talk about issues about which they may strongly disagree, but with a presumption that both people are worth listening to. If the issue at hand is one with which I’m sufficiently familiar, I can judge for myself whether I think the speakers are respectable; but if it’s not, I have to go by my experience with other dialogues on the site.

What I objected to about the creationists was that they were not worthy opponents with whom I disagree; they’re just crackpots. Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural “designer” is interfering at whim with the course of evolution. It’s not a serious idea. It may be out there in the public sphere as an idea that garners attention — but, as we all know, that holds true for all sorts of non-serious ideas. If I’m going to spend an hour of my life listening to two people have a discussion with each other, I want some confidence that they’re both serious people. Likewise, if I’m going to spend my own time and lend my own credibility to such an enterprise, I want to believe that serious discussions between respectable interlocutors are what the site is all about.

Here’s the distinction I want to draw, which might admittedly be a very fine line. If someone wants to talk about ID as a socio/religio/political phenomenon worth of study by anthropologists and sociologists, that’s fine. (Presumably the right people to have that discussion are anthropologists or sociologists or historians/philosophers of science, not biochemists who have wandered into looney land.) If someone wants to talk to someone who believes in ID about something that person has respectable thoughts about, that would also be fine with me. If you want to talk to a theologian about theology, or a politician about politics, or an artist about art, the fact that such a person has ID sympathies doesn’t bother me in the least.

But if you present a discussion about the scientific merits of ID, with someone who actually believes that such merits exist — then you are wasting my time and giving up on the goal of having a worthwhile intellectual discussion. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do. But it’s not an endeavor with which I want to be associated. At the end of our conversations, I understood that my opinions about these matters were very different from those of the powers that be at BH.tv.

I understand that there are considerations that go beyond high-falutin’ concerns of intellectual respectability. There is a business model to consider, and one wants to maintain the viability of the enterprise while also having some sort of standards, and that can be a very difficult compromise to negotiate. Bob suggested the analogy of a TV network — would you refuse to be interviewed by a certain network until they would guarantee to never interview a creationist? (No.) But to me, the case of BH.tv is much more analogous to a particular TV show than to an entire network — it’s NOVA, not PBS, and the different dialogues are like different episodes. There is a certain common identity to things that BH.tv does, in a way that simply isn’t comparable to the wide portfolio of a TV network. Appearing for an hour-long dialogue creates connection with a brand in a way that being interviewed for 30 seconds on a TV news spot simply does not. If there were a TV show that wanted me on, but I had doubts about their seriousness, I would certainly decline (and I have).

And heck, we all have a business model. I’d like to sell some books, and I was really looking forward to doing a BH.tv dialogue with George Johnson when my book came out — it would have been a lot of fun, and perhaps even educational. But at the end of the day, I’m in charge of defending my own integrity; life is short, and I have to focus on efforts I can get completely behind without feeling compromised.

Having said all that, I’m very happy to admit that there’s nothing cut-and-dried about any of these issues, and I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who feels differently and wants to continue contributing to BH.tv. The site provides a lot of high-quality intellectual food for thought, and I wish it well into the future. These decisions are necessarily personal. A few years ago I declined an invitation to a conference sponsored by the Templeton foundation, because I didn’t want to be seen as supporting (even indirectly) their attempts to blur the lines between science and religion. But even at the time I admitted that it wasn’t an easy choice, and couldn’t blame anyone who decided to go. Subsequently, I’ve participated in a number of things — the World Science Festival, the Foundational Questions Institute, and BH.tv itself — that receive money from Templeton. To me, there is a difference between taking the money directly, and having it “laundered” through an organization that I think is otherwise worthwhile. Not everyone agrees; Harry Kroto has expressed deep disappointment that I would sully myself in this manner. And that’s understandable, too; we all have to look at ourselves in the mirror each morning.

So, on we go, weaving our own uncertain ways through the briars of temptation and the unclear paths of right and wrong. Or something like that. I have no doubt that BH.tv will continue to put up a lot of good stuff, and that they’ll find plenty of good scientists to take my place; meanwhile, I’ll continue to argue for increasing the emphasis on good-faith discourse between respectable opponents, and mourn the prevalence of crackpots and food fights. Keep hope alive!

Update: Bob Wright has left a comment here. (See also a comment by David Killoren here.) And at some point soon, a more official BH.tv editorial policy will appear here.

Bob is unhappy that I left out some of the points he made in our conversation, which is somewhat reflective of the fact that we were talking past each other. I was not looking for a “pledge” of anything at all. Rather, I was hoping — and completely expecting — to hear a statement somewhat along these lines: “Of course we all agree that when someone listens to a dialogue on BH.tv, they have a reasonable expectation that both speakers are non-crackpots.” But I don’t think we do agree on that. I am personally not interested in interrogating crackpots to understand their motives; they get more than enough attention as it is, and I’m more interested in discussions between reasonable people. That’s why, unlike some of the commenters, I wouldn’t feel especially different if it had been an expert biologist interrogating a creationist. Different folks have different feelings about this, and that’s why it’s good that we have a big internet.

Another summer, another young scientist is elevated from the ranks of Humble Seeker to Wizened Oracle. Or, in more familiar terms, someone successfully gets their Ph.D. The latest elevatee is Lotty Ackerman, my first student here at Caltech. Lotty’s work is well-known to CV readers; she and I collaborated with Mark Wise on the question of a preferred direction in inflation, which was featured in the series of Anatomy of a Paper posts. She also worked with Matt Buckley, Marc Kamionkowski and me on the Dark Photon idea. And she worked with other people on other things, including cosmological density perturbations from reheating and the more experimentally-oriented question of asymmetric beams in the WMAP satellite.

Today Lotty successfully defended her thesis, and we’ll be sad to see her go. But California’s loss is Texas’s gain, as she’ll be taking up a postdoc at the new Texas Cosmology Center in Austin. Best of luck!

I live in the city. I understand and accept the compromises that my choice entails. I know that in exchange for being able to walk and bike everywhere, I also have to accept the impact of being in close proximity to many other people, not all of whom I may agree with.

But, am I asking too much to want people to stop peeing on my yard?

Today, it was two fine upstanding young men who pulled their car over just for the privilege of pissing on the side of my garden. At 10am.

Last fall it was the gentleman walking along at night, dropping trou to pee on the bushes outside my kitchen window. Where I was sitting. With the window open.

Last summer it was multiple incidents of my spotting pairs of sneakers confidently walking into my fenced-in driveway, stopping, and whizzing past the front of my car. You know, where no one could see you, except for the person on the other side of the fence, the bottom of which is at eye level.

Hey dudes. A little tip. Just because you can’t see me, doesn’t mean I can’t see you.

PS. Hope you didn’t catch anything in the zipper when you took off running. I hear that hurts.

Miscellaneous happenings, including a couple of talks I’ll be giving — one on another coast, one in another plane of existence.

• 3 Quarks Daily has announced a series of four annual prizes, for blog posts in Science, Arts & Literature, Politics, and Philosophy. Science is the first one up, and they’re asking for nominations — the deadline is soon (June 1) so head over there and make suggestions. The final winner will be chosen by a well-known person in the appropriate field; this year’s Science judge will be Stephen Pinker. You are of course welcome to suggest your favorite CV post, because we like the attention. But this would also be a great opportunity to give a boost to that lesser-known blog that you really like and think should get more attention. (There are a lot of good blogs out there.) And if you are someone with a blog, don’t feel shy about nominating a post of your own — most readers don’t keep a mental file of your best posts over the last year.
• The World Science Festival is happening in New York (the U.S.’s second most interesting city) from June 10 to 14. I’ll be there, speaking at two different events. On Friday June 12 there is the WSF Spotlight, which is an informal forum with short talks and a lot of discussion. Participants include Kristin Baldwin (cell biologist), Dominic Johnson (political scientist), Christopher McKay (solar system researcher), and Frank Wilczek (not sure what he does for a living). I believe alcoholic beverages will be available; it’s that kind of event. Then on Saturday June 13 I’ll be on a panel discussing Time Since Einstein, with David Albert, George Ellis, Michael Heller, John Hockenberry, Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, and Roger Penrose. (I predict already that insufficient time will be a popular complaint about the time panel.)
• In Second Life, I’m giving a talk tomorrow morning at 10 am Pacific, sponsored by the Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics. It will be a colloquium-level talk about “Dark Forces,” concentrating on building models of interacting dark matter and dark energy. Second Lifers can beam right there thanks to this elegant and finely-crafted link: http://slurl.com/secondlife/StellaNova/76/200/32.
• Max Brockman (son of John, doyen of Edge) has edited a new collection of essays: What’s Next? Dispatches from the Future of Science. There’s an essay by me in there on “Our Place in an Unnatural Universe.” You should buy it, because it would be like reading a set of interesting blog posts, but on paper. And most of these folks don’t have blogs!

Of course we hand out congratulations for newly minted Ph.D.’s; but there are other milestones worth congratulating as well. Yesterday our very own JoAnne got married, at a beautiful winery nestled in the Santa Cruz Mountains. It comes at the end of some trying times, so all the more worthy of celebration. Congrats to the happy couple! (Now back to blogging, okay?)