Comments on: Will Explain Physics For Food…? http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/ Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:49:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: robert http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126081 robert Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:18:37 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126081 HSM Coxeter created a special helmet, fitted with periscopes, one for each eye, which allowed him to experience double paralax (up and down, as well as side to side) and so, in some sense, see in four dimensions. This and other ways in which he investigated higher dimensional spaces and yet developed a profound visual intuition are described in Siobhan Roberts' 'King of Infinite Space'. HSM Coxeter created a special helmet, fitted with periscopes, one for each eye, which allowed him to experience double paralax (up and down, as well as side to side) and so, in some sense, see in four dimensions. This and other ways in which he investigated higher dimensional spaces and yet developed a profound visual intuition are described in Siobhan Roberts’ ‘King of Infinite Space’.

]]> By: Quasar9 http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126078 Quasar9 Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:48:47 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126078 A Physics Blind Date Little bangs & Big Bangs Bubbles Galore. Will explain physics for food ... Sounds like a perfect evening! Gosh, feels like I've been missing all the fun of the fair A Physics Blind Date
Little bangs & Big Bangs
Bubbles Galore.
Will explain physics for food …

Sounds like a perfect evening!
Gosh, feels like I’ve been missing all the fun of the fair

]]> By: Tommy http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126060 Tommy Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:15:09 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126060 Clifford, True, true and I should have said as much myself. I think what I mean to say is that in my mind I can picture a 3D object, say a cube, and rotate it around and do all sorts of things to it. I can get snapshots of higher dimensional things in my head and use that to intuitively guess some physics (this brane squeezes this cycle here, etc.), but I can't really play around with something like a Calabi-Yau manifold in the same way that I can lower dimensional objects. To be fair, there are lower dimensional objects I can't really picture perfectly either. For the life of me I can't visualize a Klein bottle in any really good way. Clifford,

True, true and I should have said as much myself. I think what I mean to say is that in my mind I can picture a 3D object, say a cube, and rotate it around and do all sorts of things to it. I can get snapshots of higher dimensional things in my head and use that to intuitively guess some physics (this brane squeezes this cycle here, etc.), but I can’t really play around with something like a Calabi-Yau manifold in the same way that I can lower dimensional objects.

To be fair, there are lower dimensional objects I can’t really picture perfectly either. For the life of me I can’t visualize a Klein bottle in any really good way.

]]> By: Clifford http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126059 Clifford Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:53:57 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126059 Hey Tommy.... "we don’t know how to visualize in more than three dimensions! " Hey, speak for yourself! Ok... kidding. What you say is sort of true, but we can do a bit more than you say we can. I'd say. Actually, we can't visualize more than two dimensions, if the truth be told, but we have a very good intuition for three, don't we? With our eyes, we only see two-dimensional snaps of the three-dimensional spatial world at any time! We use various tricks to get used to the idea of the third...combining several two-dimensional snaps is how we do it. And it works pretty well. (It also helps that we can move as easily in the third as we do in the other two.) In the same way, by using snapshots of 2 and three dimensional slices of higher dimensional spaces, we can get on pretty well with visualizing higher dimensions. What I am saying is that we don't stop at just adding another coordinate mathematically... we can do a bit better on the visualization side. Never as good as for three, since we don't have the additional feature of being able to easily move in the extra ones and get a feel for them. Cheers, -cvj Hey Tommy….

“we don’t know how to visualize in more than three dimensions! ”

Hey, speak for yourself! Ok… kidding. What you say is sort of true, but we can do a bit more than you say we can. I’d say. Actually, we can’t visualize more than two dimensions, if the truth be told, but we have a very good intuition for three, don’t we? With our eyes, we only see two-dimensional snaps of the three-dimensional spatial world at any time! We use various tricks to get used to the idea of the third…combining several two-dimensional snaps is how we do it. And it works pretty well. (It also helps that we can move as easily in the third as we do in the other two.)

In the same way, by using snapshots of 2 and three dimensional slices of higher dimensional spaces, we can get on pretty well with visualizing higher dimensions. What I am saying is that we don’t stop at just adding another coordinate mathematically… we can do a bit better on the visualization side. Never as good as for three, since we don’t have the additional feature of being able to easily move in the extra ones and get a feel for them.

Cheers,

-cvj

]]> By: Tommy http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126058 Tommy Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:31:46 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126058 Faith, Quick note, we don't know how to visualize in more than three dimensions! That's why we use the mathematics. At that level its certainly doable, you start with x,y, and z and then you add another coordinate, say w, and voila there's another dimension. The human brain has evolved to be able to think and process in three dimensions (and time, but non-relativistically). If you meet someone who can do that, let us know since I've been working in higher dimensions for ages but can't see the pesky things. Faith,

Quick note, we don’t know how to visualize in more than three dimensions! That’s why we use the mathematics. At that level its certainly doable, you start with x,y, and z and then you add another coordinate, say w, and voila there’s another dimension.

The human brain has evolved to be able to think and process in three dimensions (and time, but non-relativistically). If you meet someone who can do that, let us know since I’ve been working in higher dimensions for ages but can’t see the pesky things.

]]> By: Faith http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126052 Faith Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:51:43 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126052 By coincidence I was at a Chinese restaurant this evening waiting for my partner, and the couple seated behind me were discussing physics. It was a bit rocky because neither were physicists (they might be some day--they looked about 20), and they could have used someone just like you, Clifford, to help them figure out what exactly went wrong with the LHC and how you visualize more than three dimensions. By coincidence I was at a Chinese restaurant this evening waiting for my partner, and the couple seated behind me were discussing physics. It was a bit rocky because neither were physicists (they might be some day–they looked about 20), and they could have used someone just like you, Clifford, to help them figure out what exactly went wrong with the LHC and how you visualize more than three dimensions.

]]> By: Jim http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126050 Jim Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:29:14 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126050 Hi, A question: when setting up special relativity from physical principles (as opposed to mathematical axioms), where do you get the linearity from (Of the Lorentz transformations - Wikipedia says the homogeneity of spacetime?) -Jim Hi,

A question: when setting up special relativity from physical principles (as opposed to mathematical axioms), where do you get the linearity from (Of the Lorentz transformations - Wikipedia says the homogeneity of spacetime?)

-Jim

]]> By: Clifford http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126049 Clifford Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:23:51 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126049 I really don't understand the point you're trying to make. I am a physicist. Mathematics is the language I use to describe nature and extract results and predictions about nature. But ultimately, I am not a mathematician. I mostly leave it to the mathematicians to publicize their work, and I stick to the physics. (Actually, that is not quite correct... I often talk a lot about specific mathematics to members of the public... usually in the contexts of patterns, interesting numbers, and so forth.) But when I am explaining a concept in physics to someone, I try to stick to the physical principles. I talk about Einstein's Special Relativity in terms of the consequences of the Principle of Relativity and the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial observers. I can derive all the effects of relativity as consequences of that. I need not invoke the mathematics of the Lorentz group and so forth. It is the language that describes the physics, not the other way around. Similarly for General Relativity. I talk about the physics of the Principle of Equivalence, and what that leads to - warped spacetime and so forth.... I don't focus on the Reimannian geometry. Sorry. This is the way I do it, and people seem to respond well to it. You are free to do it your way. -cvj I really don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. I am a physicist. Mathematics is the language I use to describe nature and extract results and predictions about nature. But ultimately, I am not a mathematician. I mostly leave it to the mathematicians to publicize their work, and I stick to the physics. (Actually, that is not quite correct… I often talk a lot about specific mathematics to members of the public… usually in the contexts of patterns, interesting numbers, and so forth.) But when I am explaining a concept in physics to someone, I try to stick to the physical principles. I talk about Einstein’s Special Relativity in terms of the consequences of the Principle of Relativity and the constancy of the speed of light for all inertial observers. I can derive all the effects of relativity as consequences of that. I need not invoke the mathematics of the Lorentz group and so forth. It is the language that describes the physics, not the other way around. Similarly for General Relativity. I talk about the physics of the Principle of Equivalence, and what that leads to - warped spacetime and so forth…. I don’t focus on the Reimannian geometry. Sorry. This is the way I do it, and people seem to respond well to it. You are free to do it your way.

-cvj

]]> By: kim http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126044 kim Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:05:16 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126044 But clifford, why should it be that much effort is made to explain very complicated physics such as string theory to the public, yet mathematics of the same complexity doesn't get the same attention? For example, you mentioned that on this occasion you enjoyed teaching some aspects of general relativity on a general basis without the math on your date, but when it comes to mathematics, one cannot teach (say) group theory, without actually doing it and one certainly could not leave out any of the technical details since much of math is about proof. I don't think it's fair to be frank. I think it's slightly hypocritical. But clifford, why should it be that much effort is made to explain very complicated physics such as string theory to the public, yet mathematics of the same complexity doesn’t get the same attention?

For example, you mentioned that on this occasion you enjoyed teaching some aspects of general relativity on a general basis without the math on your date, but when it comes to mathematics, one cannot teach (say) group theory, without actually doing it and one certainly could not leave out any of the technical details since much of math is about proof.

I don’t think it’s fair to be frank. I think it’s slightly hypocritical.

]]> By: Clifford http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126041 Clifford Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:32:56 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126041 Hi. Thanks all. Just one note: Spyder, this is not about salons. Those are great, and more power to them... but this is something else entirely: One on one unstructured conversations. Cheers, -cvj Hi. Thanks all. Just one note: Spyder, this is not about salons. Those are great, and more power to them… but this is something else entirely: One on one unstructured conversations.

Cheers,

-cvj

]]> By: Jasper Palfree http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126039 Jasper Palfree Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:57:43 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126039 As I was reading this post I suddenly thought, "Ooh! Great idea. Why hasn't anyone thought of this yet!", and then I remembered that <i>someone has</i>! Boingboing had a post a little while back (that luckily I've <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/382229808/school-of-everything.html" rel="nofollow">dug up</a>), about something called "<a href="http://schoolofeverything.com/" rel="nofollow">School of Everything</a>". It's a <i>free</i> online service where you can advertize things you would like to teach/learn, and it helps set up meetings between people to spread the knowledge of pretty much anything. I don't know how "formal" this is. I assume it can be as (in)formal as you like... (I like the idea of discussing physics over a coffee :D). The only thing I've found depressing is that in its tour, it showed a lot of categories of knowledge (music, language, food...) but no science category... hmm. It's also based mainly in the UK, but apparently there are plans to expand. I think I might just sign up now... As I was reading this post I suddenly thought, “Ooh! Great idea. Why hasn’t anyone thought of this yet!”, and then I remembered that someone has! Boingboing had a post a little while back (that luckily I’ve dug up), about something called “School of Everything“. It’s a free online service where you can advertize things you would like to teach/learn, and it helps set up meetings between people to spread the knowledge of pretty much anything.

I don’t know how “formal” this is. I assume it can be as (in)formal as you like… (I like the idea of discussing physics over a coffee :D). The only thing I’ve found depressing is that in its tour, it showed a lot of categories of knowledge (music, language, food…) but no science category… hmm.

It’s also based mainly in the UK, but apparently there are plans to expand. I think I might just sign up now…

]]> By: Jonathan http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126036 Jonathan Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:02:40 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126036 This is great to hear that somebody else is getting in on the act! I'm heavily involved with couchsurfing, which has bought many wonderful new dimensions to my life, but these days I regularly get e-mails from people saying things along the lines of: 'I already have somewhere to stay in your city, but I've never met a real physicist and have a bunch of question I'd love to ask you! Any chance of a coffee?' I've had this half a dozen times over the last few months and every time it has been a wonderful experience, with people who are genuinely interested in life, the universe and everything. Hope to hear whether you have more good experiences like this soon. This is great to hear that somebody else is getting in on the act! I’m heavily involved with couchsurfing, which has bought many wonderful new dimensions to my life, but these days I regularly get e-mails from people saying things along the lines of:

‘I already have somewhere to stay in your city, but I’ve never met a real physicist and have a bunch of question I’d love to ask you! Any chance of a coffee?’

I’ve had this half a dozen times over the last few months and every time it has been a wonderful experience, with people who are genuinely interested in life, the universe and everything.

Hope to hear whether you have more good experiences like this soon.

]]> By: spyder http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126035 spyder Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:23:07 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126035 More salons with better munchable morels, morsels, and other goodies; yes i am all for it. More salons with better munchable morels, morsels, and other goodies; yes i am all for it.

]]> By: Clifford http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126034 Clifford Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:08:55 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126034 No, I stuck to the physics. No mathematics. Re: the (only semi-serious) dating idea: The idea is that you arrange the topic beforehand. You let people know what topics you want to (or can) talk about and people get together to chat on that basis. (Or you can get together and compare notes on how much you both don't know about a topic! That can be fun too!) -cvj No, I stuck to the physics. No mathematics.

Re: the (only semi-serious) dating idea: The idea is that you arrange the topic beforehand. You let people know what topics you want to (or can) talk about and people get together to chat on that basis. (Or you can get together and compare notes on how much you both don’t know about a topic! That can be fun too!)

-cvj

]]> By: kim http://asymptotia.com/2008/09/24/will-explain-physics-for-food/comment-page-1/#comment-126033 kim Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:58:56 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/?p=2580#comment-126033 Did you actually explain the mathematics of relativity theory to them and if so did they understand the technical details? Regarding the new basis for a new idea for a dating plan, the trouble is I am no professor so my kmnowledge of anything does not go deep and I doubt I'd be able to keep it up for even an hour. Its a nice idea but what if I have very narrow interests or the other person has no interest in (say) quantum theory? Did you actually explain the mathematics of relativity theory to them and if so did they understand the technical details?

Regarding the new basis for a new idea for a dating plan, the trouble is I am no professor so my kmnowledge of anything does not go deep and I doubt I’d be able to keep it up for even an hour.
Its a nice idea but what if I have very narrow interests or the other person has no interest in (say) quantum theory?

]]>