5 ms·
Wolfram's ego really is a parody of itself at this point. Here we can read a grand tour of particle physics over 35 years and the only specific figure Wolfram m
by gfodor 14y ago
Wolfram's ego really is a parody of itself at this point. Here we can read a grand tour of particle physics over 35 years and the only specific figure Wolfram manages to mention and give accolades to is Stephen Wolfram. His links to his own publications, his book, his his his, me me me, I I I. Unbelievable.
Edit: Higgs gets a mention, but just to highlight Wolfram's complaints to him about his theory, which turned out to be correct!
- ajross 14y agoTo be fair: (1) he actually worked in the field and knows the material, and (2) it's a blog post, not a corporate communication. Talking about stuff you've done in a blog post isn't really notable. Obviously there's more to the story, and I wouldn't point anyone to it for a general overview of 70's physics. But I read it and was interested.
- beambot 14y ago"At some level I'm actually a little disappointed." That same sentiment was shared by Stephen Hawking...
- hammock 14y agoI agree that the Higgs mechanism feels like a hack. Something in my intuition raises a flag. Even more so when I was learning about theoretical particles called "gravitons" back in grade school. It's always seemed forced (no pun intended) the way many scientists shoehorn gravity in with the other three forces (weak strong and EM), which share much more in common with each other than with gravity. One of these things is not like the other... Likewise, and related, dark matter/energy is a total hack. It's a shortcut contrived to sweep something we don't fully understand under the rug. The idea of gravity as an emergent force, related to inertia, has been more appealing: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?pag.. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?pag.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
- rpbertp13 14y agoWolfram and you both make the mistake of thinking that there is any value in saying that an established natural fact 'feels like a hack' or 'disagrees with your intuition'. One of the most important lessons of modern physics is that intuition is a terrible guide when it comes to understanding the physical world at its most fundamental level.
- Keyframe 14y agoHa! I remember reading somewhere that Einstein refused to acknowledge Big bang theory and accelerating universe, because eventual heat death of universe was too depressing or something. I'm sure we'd all like a subspace communication channel, a warp drive, etc. but things are the way they are, we can just observe them, for now.
- taliesinb 14y agoEinstein introduced the cosmological constant lambda Λ in an attempt to produce a steady state model of the universe -- in his view the most elegant solution to the problem of our existence was a universe infinite in age. Later on when the Big Bang was firmly established it came to be seen as an unnecessary mistake. In a twist of fate, when we discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe in the 90s -- also known as dark energy -- Einstein's cosmological constant Λ was the perfect place to 'absorb' it.
- gauravk92 14y agoCan you provide further reading on that? I'd love to find out more about how exactly dark energy "absorbed" Einstein's ideas, and I'm sure I'm not alone here.
- taliesinb 14y agoThe other way around; the cosmological constant "absorbs" dark energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_consta...
- _delirium 14y agoThat's how Wolfram usually is, but I do find him to be intelligent and have some interesting things to say, if you can get past the style. For example, I think there really are some interesting things in A New Kind of Science about philosophy of computation, if you read it as a Regular Book and pretend all the hype and Book To End All Books positioning isn't there.