Well, you’ve probably guessed that I’ve been somewhat distracted for several days. In fact, my main focus for the past week has really been on computer issues, frustratingly. I’ll give you the blow by blow later, I hope, but the last couple of days have been the most frustrating of all, and so I’ve not been dealing with much else, including blogging. Part of that is actual logistics – some of the things I wanted to post are on the afflicted computer – and some just the sheer annoyance of not having solved the issues driving me to do something totally non-computer related like going for a hike or seeing a movie.
So tonight i think I have a new theory – well, hypothesis- of what’s wrong, after a good deal of the day spent on detective work. It is a conjecture that is supported only by hearsay and circumstantial evidence, but is nonetheless for it. I shall have to see if I can test it properly tomorrow, as I’m certainly done with this for the day.
So I hope that tomorrow or Wednesday I’ll be back to normal(ish) and can do some posts that might be of interest. In the meantime, I’ll point you to a rather good article* on Dark Energy by Dennis Overbye, writing in the New York Times this Tuesday edition. The basic science is the perhaps familiar story you’ve heard about here (be sure to read it if the term or concept “Dark Energy” is not very familiar), in essence, but there are comments from a number of scientists that you might not have heard from on the topic before (such as Ed Witten), and a discussion (a very important one) of future experiments/observations that might be done/made and the constraints placed on budget to do some of these. Well worth a read.